Options

Anti-theist murders three Muslim students in North Carolina

1356712

Posts

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    So same question as AngelHedgie, is it ok to generalize about other groups like that and if not why?

  • Options
    wiltingwilting I had fun once and it was awful Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Oh its definitely because of education and socioeconomic factors and not because not believing in a god makes you a better person. Post-communist countries can serve as "good" examples of societies with high levels of atheism but horrible social problems.

    wilting on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Atheism correlates strongly with lower levels of criminality, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, you name it. Atheists are generally pretty much model citizens. The only social evil associated with atheism is suicide, and perhaps a lower level of charitable giving (although I would consider this more a plus of religious believers, and its a subjective one as more charitable can correlate with hostility to taxation/spending on public services). I wouldn't say these things are because of atheism though: it's because of higher education/wealth associated with atheism.

    Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.

    Just a brief note that charitable giving in the U.S. often does not distinguish between gifts to religious organizations - i.e. money to support your churches nonprofit foundation to build yourself a better church or promote anti-gay legislation. If you take out the religious giving to religious organizations, things equal out a lot more.

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    Re-read what I wrote.

    Atheism is literally the lack of belief in gods. That's it. No holy words. No tenants. Just that one idea. It literally can't have issues like those other things because it's a single concept. Atheists can have fucked up views. but atheism itself doesn't.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    ...
    I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
    Would you say there is an Empiricist community and an Idealist community? Does taking any publicly discussed philosophical position necessarily makes you belong to the community spontaneously formed around said position? Why or why not?

    This is not to say that there are no atheist communities, but that believing in a given line of reasoning does not make you part of one.

    Grey Paladin on
    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I mean, everyone on the planet is atheist to a degree, just some are more atheist then others.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Oh its definitely because of education and socioeconomic factors and not because not believing in a god makes you a better person. Post-communist countries can serve as "good" examples of societies with high levels of atheism but horrible social problems.

    Then it's a bad argument to make. Not only that, but it can then be extrapolated in problematic ways - as I said earlier, the fact that women tend to be in the underclass more often than not in our culture and as a result gravitate to organized faith for support has been expanded upon to claim that women are "less rational" than men.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    ...
    I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
    Would you say there is an Empiricist community and an Idealist community? Does taking any publicly discussed philosophical position necessarily makes you belong to the community spontaneously formed around said position? Why or why not?

    This is not to say that there are no atheist communities, but that believing in a given line of reasoning does not make you part of one.

    Yes, I would say that such communities can potentially exist (and in the case of empiricism, do - they call themselves skeptics.) And being in a community is not a black/white division - you don't magically become a part of the community by buying into just one position; but on the other hand, if you are regularly referencing the concepts and people of a given community, I would find it hard for you to argue that you are not at the least generally aligned with it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    Fair enough.

    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
  • Options
    laservisioncatlaservisioncat Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    Re-read what I wrote.

    Atheism is literally the lack of belief in gods. That's it. No holy words. No tenants. Just that one idea. It literally can't have issues like those other things because it's a single concept. Atheists can have fucked up views. but atheism itself doesn't.

    Either you didn't read my post, or you believe that brony culture is a natural consequence of my little pony and any problems with it are somehow related to the content of a children's TV show.

    laservisioncat on
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    Re-read what I wrote.

    Atheism is literally the lack of belief in gods. That's it. No holy words. No tenants. Just that one idea. It literally can't have issues like those other things because it's a single concept. Atheists can have fucked up views. but atheism itself doesn't.

    Either you didn't read my post, or you believe that brony culture is a natural consequence of my little pony and any problems with it are somehow related to the content of a children's TV show.

    What is your obsession with bronies?

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    wiltingwilting I had fun once and it was awful Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Oh its definitely because of education and socioeconomic factors and not because not believing in a god makes you a better person. Post-communist countries can serve as "good" examples of societies with high levels of atheism but horrible social problems.

    Then it's a bad argument to make. Not only that, but it can then be extrapolated in problematic ways - as I said earlier, the fact that women tend to be in the underclass more often than not in our culture and as a result gravitate to organized faith for support has been expanded upon to claim that women are "less rational" than men.

    I'm not sure why you are picking an argument here. All I'm saying is atheism correlates with education/wealth, which correlates with less social evils/pernicious attitudes. Doesn't mean there aren't atheists who say and do stupid things.



  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

  • Options
    DacDac Registered User regular
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    It's hardly unique in that regard.

    I mean, Christianity has almost no definition that fits all Christians. That's why it's easiest(and most fair, I think) to just talk about the actual problems themselves rather than trying to group people up.

    People understand that for religion but lack of religion.....

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    wilting wrote: »
    Oh its definitely because of education and socioeconomic factors and not because not believing in a god makes you a better person. Post-communist countries can serve as "good" examples of societies with high levels of atheism but horrible social problems.

    Then it's a bad argument to make. Not only that, but it can then be extrapolated in problematic ways - as I said earlier, the fact that women tend to be in the underclass more often than not in our culture and as a result gravitate to organized faith for support has been expanded upon to claim that women are "less rational" than men.

    I'm not sure why you are picking an argument here. All I'm saying is atheism correlates with education/wealth, which correlates with less social evils/pernicious attitudes. Doesn't mean there aren't atheists who say and do stupid things.

    Because the fact that atheism correlates with higher SES really isn't interesting in of itself. Looking at why that is the case is the interesting part. And I would heavily contest that second correlation, as it's pretty easy to be in a high SES and hold some incredibly odious views.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    I think this is fair enough, except that you are not drawing a distinction between 'atheism' and 'New Atheist Culture' (which as far as I can tell basically amounts to r/atheism, and hey, welcome to reddit most of it is a fucking shithole anyway)

    it's the same ridiculous leap that people in the United States make when they criticize 'islam' on the basis of the beliefs of a tiny saudi wahabbist sect

    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    It's hardly unique in that regard.

    I mean, Christianity has almost no definition that fits all Christians. That's why it's easiest(and most fair, I think) to just talk about the actual problems themselves rather than trying to group people up.

    People understand that for religion but lack of religion.....

    But the Bible sets up the structure of belief. There are many interpretations, yes, but it still boils down to the same structure of beliefs. There are a lot of similarities between every Christian faith. If any of them reject the Bible entire, than it can hardly be called Christianity at that point.

  • Options
    DacDac Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?

    I literally just described the philosophy.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    It's hardly unique in that regard.

    I mean, Christianity has almost no definition that fits all Christians. That's why it's easiest(and most fair, I think) to just talk about the actual problems themselves rather than trying to group people up.

    People understand that for religion but lack of religion.....

    But the Bible sets up the structure of belief. There are many interpretations, yes, but it still boils down to the same structure of beliefs. There are a lot of similarities between every Christian faith. If any of them reject the Bible entire, than it can hardly be called Christianity at that point.

    Some of em.

    Gnosticism for example disregards the entire bible and almost all the other stuff and still call themselves Christians. Not to mention all of the Christians that disregard the parts of the bible which I don't see a fundamental difference between and me agreeing with Dawkins about some stuff and not other stuff.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    It's hardly unique in that regard.

    I mean, Christianity has almost no definition that fits all Christians. That's why it's easiest(and most fair, I think) to just talk about the actual problems themselves rather than trying to group people up.

    People understand that for religion but lack of religion.....

    But the Bible sets up the structure of belief. There are many interpretations, yes, but it still boils down to the same structure of beliefs. There are a lot of similarities between every Christian faith. If any of them reject the Bible entire, than it can hardly be called Christianity at that point.

    It would be hard to reject it entirely because it describes the fundamentals of a working society, like the constitution.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Just a really sad story. Touching to see so many people coming out in support.

    This is my alma mater and makes me glad to see. A show of force against this kind of thing is great and I think the guy who was killed had a dental charity and it will probably get a lot of money

    Sadly a similar gathering happened when our student body president was killed by some criminals

    A tragedy but something worthwhile came out of it at least

  • Options
    laservisioncatlaservisioncat Registered User regular
    The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.

    This doesn't follow.

    "The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."

    "The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."

    "The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".

    You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.

    Re-read what I wrote.

    Atheism is literally the lack of belief in gods. That's it. No holy words. No tenants. Just that one idea. It literally can't have issues like those other things because it's a single concept. Atheists can have fucked up views. but atheism itself doesn't.

    Either you didn't read my post, or you believe that brony culture is a natural consequence of my little pony and any problems with it are somehow related to the content of a children's TV show.

    What is your obsession with bronies?

    Substitute it for any other group of people who are in a community about a benign ideal but are problematic independant of whatever brings them together.

    What I said in the post you refuse to read is that if there is a problem with the culture surrounding atheism, you can criticize the culture without necessarily criticizing atheism itself. There is a culture surrounding atheism, even if there is no formal scripture or tenants.

    Feminism is a single, benign (or even objectively good) idea. The culture around feminism can be criticised, and often is by feminists, without there needing to be formal organization.

    Atheism is not a special snowflake in this regard, no matter how many times you repeat it. Lots of ideas have no rituals or barriers for entry.

    I've been asked my stance on generalization of groups, and I have a guess as to where that is going. I am fine with saying "this demographic historically has this problem with this, what are the reasons for that?". My issue is when people a) accuse a demographic of trait that isnt supported by data or b) conclude that what defines the demographic is what is causing the deviance from the norm.

    Atheism conferences have a pretty bad history with misogyny. You can investigate that without assuming atheism is at fault. No one in this thread has seriously suggested that three young adults are dead because a man didn't believe in God.

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    You seem to be arguing with someone who doesn't exist, because no where have I said that atheism shouldn't be criticized, or implied that anyone is blaming this man's atheism for those deaths.

    My point is that you cannot say atheism has a problem with something, when atheism in entirely just one idea. You can say that groups of atheists do, sure. But saying atheism has a mysogny problem is like saying non-brunettes have a mysogny problem. True, sure, but applicable to such a large amount of different people it kind of diffuses into something without meaning.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Like, you wouldn't say theism has a problem with terrorism.

    I'm not even sure what's being argued at this point, so I'm going to take a nap.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    It's hardly unique in that regard.

    I mean, Christianity has almost no definition that fits all Christians. That's why it's easiest(and most fair, I think) to just talk about the actual problems themselves rather than trying to group people up.

    People understand that for religion but lack of religion.....

    But the Bible sets up the structure of belief. There are many interpretations, yes, but it still boils down to the same structure of beliefs. There are a lot of similarities between every Christian faith. If any of them reject the Bible entire, than it can hardly be called Christianity at that point.

    It would be hard to reject it entirely because it describes the fundamentals of a working society, like the constitution.

    Whuuait.

    The bible describes a working society in the part that totally overrides the old part of the bible?

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?

    I literally just described the philosophy.

    Absence of belief in a god is a philosphy now?

  • Options
    laservisioncatlaservisioncat Registered User regular
    no where have I said that atheism shouldn't be criticized

    My point is that you cannot say atheism has a problem with something, when atheism in entirely just one idea.

    I'm going to ignore you contradicting yourself in the span of two sentences, and focus on my original point, which was that you had posted about the inability to blame atheism for problems because it had no scripture and was just an idea. This was, I can reasonably assume, a response to earlier posters criticizing groups of atheists. No one was criticizing atheism. I was making the point that

    1) Your line of logic that atheism can't be a problem BECAUSE it has no scriptures/rituals and is a simple idea doesn't make any sense.

    2)The assumption behind your post that criticizing atheists was blaming atheism (which no one I could see was doing) is faulty.

    I'm not going to continue to discuss the accusations of misogyny in some atheist circles in this thread, because that's wildly off topic, but it's not a hypothetical I made up as your non-brunette example implies.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Atheism and theism are both very simple, with the latter merely having more complicated implications. Either can be the basis of complex philosophies, but one can also stop there and go no further. You can believe in gods that are just kind of there and don't do anything or mean anything.

  • Options
    DacDac Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?

    I literally just described the philosophy.

    Absence of belief in a god is a philosphy now?

    Yes.

    A philosophy doesn't need to be enshrined somewhere, or written in a holy book, or shouted from the mountaintops to be a philosophy. It's just a noun to describe the ways a person approaches some of the fundamental questions of existence. Whether that's atheism, agnosticism, or theism, they're still philosophies. Even if you don't care at all, that's still a philosophy.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • Options
    ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    So can you define the code of ethics that defines Athiesm? Or the philosphy?

    I literally just described the philosophy.

    Absence of belief in a god is a philosphy now?

    Yes.

    A philosophy doesn't need to be enshrined somewhere, or written in a holy book, or shouted from the mountaintops to be a philosophy. It's just a noun to describe the ways a person approaches some of the fundamental questions of existence. Whether that's atheism, agnosticism, or theism, they're still philosophies. Even if you don't care at all, that's still a philosophy.

    "Non-Christians have Jesus shaped holes in their hearts" is a thing I have heard.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Philosophy is one of those words that can be applied in very meaningful or very causal ways, like a "no sandwiches should have crusts" philosophy. Regardless, atheism isn't a system.

  • Options
    Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods and the stated belief that there is/are no God/s. That's pretty easy to define.

    I think "rejection" is a pretty strong term to use. I absolutely rejected the shit-stew religion my mother tried to force on us but she was crazy and anyone would have done that. You don't really have to be an atheist to reject a religion being rammed down your throat.

    It's more "Atheism is the lack of the belief in an intelligent, benevolent higher power" at least for me. And I've never been aware of a community for atheists and this Darwin/Hawkins whatever sounds like some shmoe just trying to make money off of a movement that at times can feel very minimalized. A community or structure just simply isn't necessary.

  • Options
    MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Atheism correlates strongly with lower levels of criminality, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, you name it. Atheists are generally pretty much model citizens. The only social evil associated with atheism is suicide, and perhaps a lower level of charitable giving (although I would consider this more a plus of religious believers, and its a subjective one as more charitable can correlate with hostility to taxation/spending on public services). I wouldn't say these things are because of atheism though: it's because of higher education/wealth associated with atheism.

    Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.

    I read something ages ago, that fundamentalist religous beliefs correlates with hardship. Pres. Obama mentioned that in one of his speeches as well, about people without opportunities clinging to their guns and religions.

    So wouldn't wealth correlate better with levels of criminality, divorce etc. then just religion?

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

  • Options
    DacDac Registered User regular
    To get back on track, though, no, Atheism isn't a causative of some of the things we see within the belief. More that those that have certain aspects to their character are more likely to believe in Atheism.

    So yeah, Atheism is not helpful for determining what kind of person someone is. But then neither is religion, especially. As has been pointed out, people can identify with the same sect and still have very different views from each other.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • Options
    Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    And my BF's is squarely, angrily rejecting Catholicism and nothing else, so big jelly bean package, many flavors as it were.

    Magic Pink on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

    Now you see, if atheism were an actual organized religion you could kick him out for heresy!

Sign In or Register to comment.