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.
This thread asks the question whether atheists want to end or stop religion. The basic answer is "no". And yet there seems to be some confusion about what "no" means, with some people telling us it means in some sense "yes", making irrelevant complaints that atheism makes no sense to them and therefore can't possibly make sense to anyone else, etc.
I have no idea what purpose this thread even serves anymore, if it is nothing but a meaningless "did so!" "did not!" back-and-forth. Does anyone actually want to discuss the thread topic, or are we going to permit some people to degrade every thread they don't like into some tone police discussion about what people should or should not think or say?
And let me spare them the effort, I'm sure the rejoinder will be the gaslighting / projection that I am now policing what they should think or say. I just want to stay a little more on topic than this. That is the purpose of forum structure and moderation. In my view these rabbit trails are just an effort to derail in any way possible from that.
If all that was needed was a "no", the OP probably could have answered. There is always a "no, but..." It is after the but that becomes an issue and probably should not be attributed to atheism.
You should know by now simple searches can yield almost anything you ask for. Some of it will even be true. Some con men can be preachers, even Presidents.
I suppose this is what "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" refers to.
... As adults, who can read and write and argue in this forum, why should one be bothered by what others believe? Agreed....but you seem to be bothered by what other folks don't believe. ...
The point that you see no value to atheism, is no different that those who see no value to religion... It boils down to personal choice.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-20-2022 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: Added closing quote
That doesn't answer the question. You stated that atheism is not logical. You need to explain that. If you can't you are essentially saying 'It's not logical cause I said so'.
This thread asks the question whether atheists want to end or stop religion. The basic answer is "no". And yet there seems to be some confusion about what "no" means, with some people telling us it means in some sense "yes", making irrelevant complaints that atheism makes no sense to them and therefore can't possibly make sense to anyone else, etc.
I have no idea what purpose this thread even serves anymore, if it is nothing but a meaningless "did so!" "did not!" back-and-forth. Does anyone actually want to discuss the thread topic, or are we going to permit some people to degrade every thread they don't like into some tone police discussion about what people should or should not think or say?
And let me spare them the effort, I'm sure the rejoinder will be the gaslighting / projection that I am now policing what they should think or say. I just want to stay a little more on topic than this. That is the purpose of forum structure and moderation. In my view these rabbit trails are just an effort to derail in any way possible from that.
Well, as the OP, the original purpose of the thread was to clarify that, at least for most of we atheists, we don't want to end religion. That couldn't happen anyways. What most of us want, I think, is to put religion in its place. If a person wants religion to control their own lives, that's fine. But they shouldn't want religion to control the lives of others. Freedom of religion means freedom of which religion a person partakes, or even no religion for an individual.
Unfortunately, the fearful religionists want to keep perpetuating the lie that atheists want a world without religion.
"...the desire to seek a kind of accommodation by mutual tolerance is understandable, even commendable. Nonetheless.... I believe this should not preclude others within the community from questioning the claims of Biblical, Koranic, or other absolute faiths, particularly since massive efforts are constantly undertaken by missionaries to recruit members to the fold... This posture is especially questionable given the constant effort by militant religionists to apply their doctrines in the political process, thus seeking to impose their views on others."-- Paul Kurtz
Most laws passed through political process have their origin in religious texts , mostly the Bible in the US.
In a Democracy where everyone participates there will be influences from all sides. Gay Rights was passed by the activism from the LGBTQ folks. Voting Rights by Black folks. Repealing marriage laws that barred interracial marriage because of 2 people who fell in love. Any number of laws have been passed because people wanted them. You think people of religion alone should be disallowed from participating in our political process? Why don't you try getting a law passed? You do realize Atheism is counted as religion.
If all that was needed was a "no", the OP probably could have answered. There is always a "no, but..." It is after the but that becomes an issue and probably should not be attributed to atheism.
Fair point.
The rest of the quote that this post addressed applies to any thread on the R&S forum equally.
Well, as the OP, the original purpose of the thread was to clarify that, at least for most of we atheists, we don't want to end religion. That couldn't happen anyways. What most of us want, I think, is to put religion in its place. If a person wants religion to control their own lives, that's fine. But they shouldn't want religion to control the lives of others. Freedom of religion means freedom of which religion a person partakes, or even no religion for an individual.
Unfortunately, the fearful religionists want to keep perpetuating the lie that atheists want a world without religion.
Yes, even the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) can be read by the unthinking as "Get Rid of Religion Foundation" when a cursory examination of their mission statement is to simply allow people to follow OR NOT FOLLOW religion as per their personal desires and judgments. Freedom FROM religion in this context means freedom from any form of religious coercion to conform to religious ideas and sensibilities when you are not even a member of that religion, as well as the freedom to leave religion if you wish to, without coercion and harassment.
For a belief-system that actually had a valid value proposition, this should be zero problem. Far more people would join and remain in the system than would not join or exit it. And the people actually in the system would be far more willingly and organically there, and not held there by fear of social sanction or pressure or cutoff of social support and the milk of human kindness.
That a lot of religious people can't see the difference is telling. They are so accustomed to unquestioned hegemony in our society through automatic capitulation that allowing some people to not be impressed with their truth claims is tantamount to existential annihilation, both at the group and individual levels.
That doesn't answer the question. You stated that atheism is not logical. You need to explain that. If you can't you are essentially saying 'It's not logical cause I said so'.
It has been explained. This stuff about asking for explanation for what was already explained more than adequately seems the lamest ploy employed 3 atheists when they are completely stumped.
This is your thread. Do a search of all my posts and look for my posts on why Atheism lacks logic.
Well, as the OP, the original purpose of the thread was to clarify that, at least for most of we atheists, we don't want to end religion. That couldn't happen anyways. What most of us want, I think, is to put religion in its place. If a person wants religion to control their own lives, that's fine. But they shouldn't want religion to control the lives of others. Freedom of religion means freedom of which religion a person partakes, or even no religion for an individual.
Unfortunately, the fearful religionists want to keep perpetuating the lie that atheists want a world without religion.
You cannot control what anyone wants. Especially when you want to control what believers should or should not want. This cannot be more comical.
Freedom of religion just means freedom to practice one'e religion and expression which may include teaching others what their religion says.
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.
