Athiest Evangelising?

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

Militant can also mean a strong position of active support for a given cause. The cause being lack of belief.

Militant usually infers aggressive or combative rather than just active support doesn't it? It's roots are from military or militare ie serve as a soldier but yeah, none make sense when used in conjunction with atheist.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

We generally don't. Atheist has always been a designation assigned to us, often in an attempt to combine us all together into some form of group or movement, just like you have been doing.


Being called an atheists is a bit like being called an a-football-fan instead of say a rugby fan.

Is it not like being called a sports fan instead of a rugby fan?

I dont want to get bogged down in semantics here.

If you believe in whatever you call god you are a theist (deist, animist, whatever)

If you dont you are an atheist.

Is that not right?

I dont mean anything bad by militant, just that you are active and vociferous in your belief(non-belief). There are militant Christians too (and communists and radiohead fans) it's just someone who prothelytizes.

King Mob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Militant usually infers aggressive or combative rather than just active support doesn't it? It's roots are from military or militare ie serve as a soldier but yeah, none make sense when used in conjunction with atheist.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

I'm all for full equality.

Good, we are in agreement then. Turning kids away from schools because their parents are not religious is not equality, segregating kids because their parents are not religious is not equality, making people in public office swear on the bible is not equality. In fact, if we had equality this forum would be pretty much redundant.

Glenster

King Mob wrote: »

Except that's only a small part of the bible.
There's alot in there about keeping and selling slaves, keeping women down and killing a lot of people for ridiculous reasons.

I was taught the bible quite extensively in school so i know a bit about it (You've been brainwashed!) and there is only a very small bit about slaves, and jesus says that the most important commandment of all is do unto others.

Maybe I'm coming across as a bit of a god-nut but i'm not i promise. I did history of relion in College in my broad curriculum year.

Ask any modern theologian and they will say that the central theme of any major religion espoused in the Axial age is the golden rule (do unto others).

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

If you believe in whatever you call god you are a theist (deist, animist, whatever)

If you dont you are an atheist.

Is that not right?

It is, but asking what the goal of atheism is is a bit like asking what is the goal of people who don't collect stamps is.

The idea that being an atheist means you subscribe to some shared philosophy or outlook on like is a fundamental misunderstanding what atheism actually means. Atheism means you reject the religious claims of theists as being wrong or simply unconvincing.

It is like someone gathered up all the people who find football boring and then assigned a name to them and started asking what their goals are as a group. What are the goals of the "football is boring" group ... ?

Glenster wrote: »

I dont mean anything bad by militant, just that you are active and vociferous in your belief(non-belief).

I assure you I've never been active in atheism.

I'm very active in rationality, science, the promotion of critical thinking,

I'm active in what I believe in, not what I don't believe in.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I was taught the bible quite extensively in school so i know a bit about it (You've been brainwashed!) and there is only a very small bit about slaves

no there are long, and often quite boring bits about slaves and slavery. Slavery is a common feature of the Old Testament. So is genocide and so is war.

Again, assuming God doesn't actually exist, do these people sound like the sort of people we should be taking moral advice from?

Glenster wrote: »

and jesus says that the most important commandment of all is do unto others.

No Jesus says the most important commandment is to love God.

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] This is the first and greatest commandment.

Again, do you think we should be taking moral advice from someone who thinks the most important thing in the world is to love something that doesn't exist?

Glenster wrote: »

Ask any modern theologian and they will say that the central theme of any major religion espoused in the Axial age is the golden rule (do unto others).

The golden rule is fine (it is found in both religious and non-religious text dating back to very early civilization)

It is the rest of the nonsense in Christianity that is the problem. And besides the version of the golden rule found in Christianity is a rather watered down version with the clause "unless God is ordering you to kill that baby"

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

Representative democracy has at it's core the idea that if you want something vote for it. I'm not sure lobbys are a very democratic idea, if enough people want religion not to be taught in schools (for example), they could vote for a law.

But if some people want religion taught in schools (for example) and some dont and most dont care, the solution doesn't seem to be to ban religion in schools.

See this recent thread, summed up here:

Irish Times wrote:

When asked about the issue, 61 per cent of people said the church should give up control of the school system, 28 per cent said it should maintain its position and 11 per cent had no opinion on the matter.

Also, since when could you just vote against something you dislike? The recent imposition of a 30kph speed limit in Dublin city centre is a prime example of how our "representative democracy" goes about it's business. Can't imagine too many people would have voted for that.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

It is, but asking what the goal of atheism is is a bit like asking what is the goal of people who don't collect stamps is.

People who dont collect stamps dont form societies.

Perhaps you are not the person I'm trying to talk to.

I'm asking someone who is an active member of an atheist society, like the one in trinity, or who would send their kid to that atheist summer camp in Somerset.

I dont want the opinion of someone who isnt an active atheist (or whatever term you would prefer) a la richard dawkins. What use are they in my quest for understanding?

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Is it not like being called a sports fan instead of a rugby fan?

I dont want to get bogged down in semantics here.

If you believe in whatever you call god you are a theist (deist, animist, whatever)

If you dont you are an atheist.

Is that not right?

Atheism is not a belief, not a religion, it's not a faith. I know theists like to think atheism is just an opposing position to their own and signifies a refusal to accept the truth that there is actually a god, rather than accept what "atheist" actually means. Having a lack of belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a belief there is no god - it's a disbelief in gods.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

I was taught the bible quite extensively in school so i know a bit about it (You've been brainwashed!) and there is only a very small bit about slaves, and jesus says that the most important commandment of all is do unto others.

I'm afraid it's you who've been brainwashed. Whether it condones slavery once or ten times on every page it still condones slavery, by which I mean:

1. The owning of another human being as property against their will for their entire life
2. The practice of beating those slaves as long as certain limits are observed.
3. The racist practice of allowing Hebrew slaves to go free after 7 years but keeping non-Hebrew slaves for life. Female slaves also did not go free
4. Holding a Hebrew slave’s family to ransom by supplying him with a wife and then when his 7 years were up, holding onto his family and giving him the choice of leaving them behind or staying for life

Glenster wrote: »

Ask any modern theologian and they will say that the central theme of any major religion espoused in the Axial age is the golden rule (do unto others).

Yes any modern theologian tries to play down the bad bits of the bible or “interpret” them as they put it but they’re there nonetheless

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

People who dont collect stamps dont form societies.

They do, but they don't form societies around not collecting stamps. They form societies around collecting toy cars or sailing.

"Atheist societies" are using the term they are forced to use because religious people are too indoctrinated to understand anything else.

But if you look at atheist societies they can be very different in what they are actual believe. Some promote rationality, some spiritualism etc.

Two atheists can share absolutely no beliefs what so ever.

I don't think there is an atheist alive who wouldn't like the opportunity to go back in time and stop the term "atheist" being coined (by religious people), it is such a ridiculous term.

Glenster wrote: »

I dont want the opinion of someone who isnt an active atheist (or whatever term you would prefer) a la richard dawkins. What use are they in my quest for understanding?

You don't seem that interested in understanding. You seem more interested in trying to have your own stereotypes confirmed.

Glenster

Dades wrote: »

See this recent thread, summed up here:

Also, since when could you just vote against something you dislike? The recent imposition of a 30kph speed limit in Dublin city centre is a prime example of how our "representative democracy" goes about it's business. Can't imagine too many people would have voted for that.

Yes but if you have a problem with it inform your TD, I guarantee you if he get enough complaints he'll bring it up, and if enough TD's have a problem with it and think their seats are in danger they will force the government to either rescind it outright or put it forward to a vote.

and personally, as someone who commutes in every morning I'm all for it. Why would you have your car in the city centre anyway? Dont you have a job during the day? At busy times it rarely gets above 30KPH anyway. Force those sunday drivers off the road and maybe delivery vans and the like will be able to get where they need to go.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

People who dont collect stamps dont form societies.

Perhaps you are not the person I'm trying to talk to.

I'm asking someone who is an active member of an atheist society, like the one in trinity, or who would send their kid to that atheist summer camp in Somerset.

I dont want the opinion of someone who isnt an active atheist (or whatever term you would prefer) a la richard dawkins. What use are they in my quest for understanding?

I put my kids names down at birth so they could go to a secular school and I refused to allow their names to be used on a petition for a school that was pushing an RC ethos - if there was a non-religious summer camp here, I'd send them. Can I be of any help? :cool:

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Atheism isn't a belief there is no god - it's a disbelief in gods.

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

No they're not. One is a belief, the other is a rejection of someone else's belief

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

I'm asking someone who is an active member of an atheist society, like the one in trinity, or who would send their kid to that atheist summer camp in Somerset.

I don't get what you're asking that hasn't already been alluded to.

Off the top of my head atheist/humanist groups lobby to remove the discrimination in schools and to have the stupid blasphemy laws removed. That and the people who join up usually have shared interests in science, debate, etc. I'm not a member myself, but I have a young family and don't have time for joining interest groups.

For what it's worth, I think most people here would think sending your kid to an atheist summer camp would be ridiculous.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid it's you who've been brainwashed.

That was a joke. I was saying that as soon as I say that someone will accuse me of being brainwashed.

Attacking what religion was in the past is as reductive as attacking what science was in the past.

Aristotle said that maggots are born without parents UHHHHHHH! science is sooo stupid!!!

Sam Vimes

Or to give an example that might be more clear, murder is immoral because someone has made a conscious decision to harm someone but you would never say that an earthquake is immoral. An earthquake is amoral. Immoral is the opposite of moral but amoral means lacking morality. In the same way atheism is not the opposite of theism, it's the lack of it

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No they're not. One is a belief, the other is a rejection of someone else's belief

disbelief and not belief are the same thing, to reject something you must have an active opinion of it.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

That was a joke. I was saying that as soon as I say that someone will accuse me of being brainwashed.

Attacking what religion was in the past is as reductive as attacking what science was in the past.

Aristotle said that maggots are born without parents UHHHHHHH! science is sooo stupid!!!

Your religion teaches that morality is imparted on us by a perfect and unchanging being. If something was considered moral when the old testament was written thousands of years ago it should still be moral today. If you want me to look at the bible as the work of men where we can pick the bits we like and ignore the bits we don't I'm more than happy to do that but that's not a religion, that's declaring the bits you like to be the word of god and ignoring the bits you don't like

Glenster

Dades wrote: »

Off the top of my head atheist/humanist groups lobby to remove the discrimination in schools and to have the stupid blasphemy laws removed.

If that is it then great.

But whats with the poster campaigns?

Why do people that i know who dont believe in god want me not to believe in god in the same way people who believe in god want me to believe in god (thats just from personal experience I have no evidence to back it up)

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

Most atheists, including myself, when asked "Is there a god(s)" would reply "I've no clue", rather than no "No there isn't"

What atheism is is a rejection of theists claiming "There is a god"

To which we say "You have no idea if there is or isn't"

Think of it this way. Two people are standing behind a solid door.

The first person says "I know there is a chicken behind that door"

The second person says "Nonsense, you couldn't possibly know that, you are just making that"

Note that the second person is not saying that there is no chicken behind the door. What he is doing is rejecting the claim from the first person that there is.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

disbelief and not belief are the same thing, to reject something you must have an active opinion of it.

Yes disbelief and not belief are the same thing but neither of them are the same as the belief that something doesn't exist. There might well be some form of deity in existence but until evidence is presented I remain unconvinced. And being unconvinced of one proposition is not the same as being convinced of the opposite proposition

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And being unconvinced of one proposition is not the same as being convinced of the opposite proposition

Good way of putting it.

Malari

Maybe the stamp collecting analogy wasn't the best because, well no-one is disputing that stamps exist.

But what about Flying Saucers or little green men (LGM), or something like that. I don't believe in them. There are many who do. But not so many that it is almost assumed that everyone does, and that politics, schools, etc enforce policies that teach people about LGM and how to avoid upsetting them. If we did have a society like that, maybe you would find more "anti-LGM" societies - enough that they are actually given a name.

Think of atheists like that. Usually nothing more binds them except that they lack belief in the LGM. Perhaps you find more of them in scientific backgrounds, but it's not exclusive.

Does that make sense?

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

Of all the issues I come up against as an atheist just getting theists to understand the basic terminology has to be one of the biggest.

A belief that there is no god is a denial - a rejection of one assertion in favour of it's contradictory proposition; lack of belief or disbelief is a complete absence of one assertion so as to make any other position impossible - whether that be that be faith that there is a god or faith that there definitely is not.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your religion teaches

that's not a religion

Who made you the king of my religion? If indeed I have one? And if I wanted only to take little bits of christianity and little bits of judaism and little bits of islam and call it a religion? Who is going to stop me? the religion police?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Who made you the king of my religion? If indeed I have one? And if I wanted only to take little bits of christianity and little bits of judaism and little bits of islam and call it a religion? Who is going to stop me? the religion police?

Well Christians probably. They tend to burn people a lot.

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of all the issues I come up against as an atheist just getting theists to understand the basic terminology has to be one of the biggest.

A belief that there is no god is a denial - a rejection of one assertion in favour of it's contradictory proposition; lack of belief or disbelief is a complete absence of one assertion so as to make any other position impossible - whether that be that be faith that there is a god or faith that there definitely is not.

Lack of belief is different. I lack a belief in purple bananas, I've never really thought about it. I do not disbelieve in purple bananas. Disbelieving in purple bananas would be a waste of my time. They might exist.