That would be an ecumenical matter!
"God Is Not Great"
What are you talking about? I encounter an atheist everytime I look in the mirror, but I also encounter someone who accepts that there is one race, the human race, and we're all slightly different, with differing beliefs, and that to be flatly against all religion is really just a different form of extremism.til661 wrote:I'm an atheist or an anti-theist if you like. The idea that people are followers of Professor Dawkins is the mind-set of religion. Nobody follows dawkins or believes he is a messiah. Atheism was around a long time before him and will be around after he has gone. Dawkins is merely a man whose theory of natural selection through genes is the most cogent argument so far to build on Darwin's original idea.
I find it bizarre that you haven't encountered an atheist before
I'm against all extremism, from the most trivial kind (Oasis fans hating Blur fans and vice versa during the tedious height of the Brit Pop movement) right up to the kind that gets people killed en masse (Islamic extremism and 9/11, and capitalist, pseudo-Christian extremism that continues to steal the lives of millions of Arabs and Africans).
And you don't need to be religious to "follow" someone. I follow the works of Nick Cave and Tom Waits. Infact, I "follow" the work of George Galloway and consider him a truly great man, but it has nothing to do with religion.
How is it extremism? What should i be in favour of in terms of religion?nekokate wrote:What are you talking about? I encounter an atheist everytime I look in the mirror, but I also encounter someone who accepts that there is one race, the human race, and we're all slightly different, with differing beliefs, and that to be flatly against all religion is really just a different form of extremism.til661 wrote:I'm an atheist or an anti-theist if you like. The idea that people are followers of Professor Dawkins is the mind-set of religion. Nobody follows dawkins or believes he is a messiah. Atheism was around a long time before him and will be around after he has gone. Dawkins is merely a man whose theory of natural selection through genes is the most cogent argument so far to build on Darwin's original idea.
I find it bizarre that you haven't encountered an atheist before
I'm against all extremism, from the most trivial kind (Oasis fans hating Blur fans and vice versa during the tedious height of the Brit Pop movement) right up to the kind that gets people killed en masse (Islamic extremism and 9/11, and capitalist, pseudo-Christian extremism that continues to steal the lives of millions of Arabs and Africans).
And you don't need to be religious to "follow" someone. I follow the works of Nick Cave and Tom Waits. Infact, I "follow" the work of George Galloway and consider him a truly great man, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Imagine there is a group of people who believe in everything you do (about morality, existence of god etc.)til661 wrote:How is it extremism? What should i be in favour of in terms of religion?
Why is this not a religion ?
unified doctrines of atheism could be (1) There is no god (2) People should have the freedom to believe in what they personally like.
Sounds great in theory if everyone is reasonable .. till you get the perverts, anti-social behaviour etc .. and find "your people" converting to other "religions" (even if some of these might be believe in royalty as if they are god).
Maybe you are relying on a rule of law to keep the people "civil" .. but effectively that becomes part of your "religion", i.e. to follow the rule of law and not the religious writings.
Does anyone recall George on air commenting over what he would decide if he had to follow either his religion or the rule of law ?
til661 wrote:Atheists don't have a unified set of moral principles. They don't all believe the same thing, hence it's not a religion. Lack of belief is not belief.
You've lost me with the last bit, what about 'perverts' and 'anti-social behaviour'?
Society needs a set of rules to make society civil, including to protect it from perverts and anti-social behaviour. Religion and the rule of law play a part in this. If you take away religion, then you are only left with the rule of law. As such, you are reducing the influence of the religion, but increasing the influence of the rule makers (e.g. Blair, Bush etc.)
Whether someone calls themselves religious, or atheist, it certainly helps to know that billions of people round the world follow religious teachings which emphasise "being good" as virtuous and to one's own ultimate benefit, even if detrimental to you in the short term (e.g. charitable giving).til661 wrote:Ah i see, thank you for clarifying
So is your argument that it is the fear of hell or the the societal pressure enforced by the church which is the prevantative from these things? or a combination of both?
Why shouldn't a group of people decide to teach their children a single set of "moral principles" ? It is the parent's freedom to choose what those moral principles are, and if they decide to follow a religion, then why not ?
So societal pressure then.
I don't see the evidence to support this assertion though. Morality existed a long time before Religion, it is inbuilt in our consciousness. Are you suggesting that the only reason you don't commit crime is that you are afraid of condemnation? This seems a very strange sense of morality to me.
When did i say that it should be banned, you can teach your children whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others.
I don't see the evidence to support this assertion though. Morality existed a long time before Religion, it is inbuilt in our consciousness. Are you suggesting that the only reason you don't commit crime is that you are afraid of condemnation? This seems a very strange sense of morality to me.
When did i say that it should be banned, you can teach your children whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others.
I actually agree with til661 here (what does that name mean, anyway?):
Atheism is a word used to describe a non-belief. The abscence of a faith. Yet the word it's self is rooted in religion. Theism is the belief in a God, and the "a" prefix denotes abscence of the subject. So, even if you'd lived your whole life without even becoming aware there was such a thing as religion, such a thing as faith, you'd still be classed as an A-theist - non-religious.
I often find that concept weird. I am white, my parents are white, and I've lived all my life in West Yorkshire, England. Does that mean I'm A-Chinese, or A-Indian?
And based on that fact, it should be obvious that indeed atheists do not have a unified set of moral principles, because rather than being an organisation, they are the lack of an organisation.
People should be defined by what they are, not by what they're not.
Having said that, I'm still uncomfortable with a stance against all religion.
Atheism is a word used to describe a non-belief. The abscence of a faith. Yet the word it's self is rooted in religion. Theism is the belief in a God, and the "a" prefix denotes abscence of the subject. So, even if you'd lived your whole life without even becoming aware there was such a thing as religion, such a thing as faith, you'd still be classed as an A-theist - non-religious.
I often find that concept weird. I am white, my parents are white, and I've lived all my life in West Yorkshire, England. Does that mean I'm A-Chinese, or A-Indian?
And based on that fact, it should be obvious that indeed atheists do not have a unified set of moral principles, because rather than being an organisation, they are the lack of an organisation.
People should be defined by what they are, not by what they're not.
Having said that, I'm still uncomfortable with a stance against all religion.
You mention "commit a crime" ... but who defines it as a crime ? Religion or the law of the land ?til661 wrote:So societal pressure then.
I don't see the evidence to support this assertion though. Morality existed a long time before Religion, it is inbuilt in our consciousness. Are you suggesting that the only reason you don't commit crime is that you are afraid of condemnation? This seems a very strange sense of molrality to me.
I certainly don't regard deviating from religion as a "crime", even if you are religious .. none of us are "perfect".
Life is complex. We have religion (with an implicit morality). We have our own morality. We have the law of the land, and also consideration to society around us.
crime is defined by the prevailing societal morality enforced by the rule of law. As with most things it is shifting and changes with time.
so why do you need the religion when you admit we have an inbuilt sense of morality?
Life is complex. We have religion (with an implicit morality). We have our own morality. We have the law of the land, and also consideration to society around us.
so why do you need the religion when you admit we have an inbuilt sense of morality?
in what sense? clearly as an atheist you disagree with the truth of its claimsHaving said that, I'm still uncomfortable with a stance against all religion.
til661 wrote:crime is defined by the prevailing societal morality enforced by the rule of law.
Isn't it the other way round ?
Crime is defined by the rule of law, sometimes despite the prevailing societal morality (e.g. the arrest of Chris Tarrant)
Because religion reinforces morality.til661 wrote:so why do you need the religion when you admit we have an inbuilt sense of morality?
Last edited by Mandy on Thu May 17, 2007 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.