Atheism a stepping stone

Gary L

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of a creator God, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

The Atheist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

I for one have long considered myself to be a Secular Humanist, in that I believe we humans are alone on this disaster of a planet and need to find our own solutions and long term strategies to live peacefully and fruitfully together.

"the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature". -Edward Osborne Wilson

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

Gordon

Gary L wrote: »

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of a creator God, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

Negative? Why is being an atheist being negative?

The Atheist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

Careful, atheists might even travel the world and go on some crusades even

Gary L

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

I would be if more than a tiny and crazy minority actually believed that.

Also replace the concept of God with the concept of ghosts in your post and you'll see how silly it is.

Gary L wrote: »

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of ghosts, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

The A-ghostist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

Wisco

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

I can only speak for myself, but just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can't be compassionate. Nor do I feel empty.

Mena

I don't accept the premise of the OP to be honest. There is no need to replace theism with anything. It's surplus to requirements as it is.

Besides, trying to get atheists to come up with some sort of group definition would be like herding cats... The only thing that "groups" them is the lack of a belief in a deity.

Stercus Accidit

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

What is that called, because I don't think that it is called atheism.

The fables of gods and magic do not make sense to a new educated critical thinking generation who have access to real answers through numerous media, who's natural urges and behaviour are vilified by the ignorant and afraid but explained by science and embraced and accepted by those who don't subscribe to obsolete religious laws.

Psychology and philosophy have their places in the modern world beside science and technology, fear, guilt and emotional blackmail do not, I am very positive about the future, only ten years ago my atheism was a thorny issue with practically anyone who stumbled upon it(small town), these days I am (un?:pac:)lucky if I meet a theist at all, and I socialise quite a lot.

Dades

Gary L wrote: »

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of a creator God, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

The Atheist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

What "movement"?

Atheist Ireland is a movement - but it does not speak for all atheists, many of who have no interest in moving against anything.

Atheism might cease to be a relevant term when religion ceases to be all pervading. A long time away.

Gary L

To clarify, A-thiesm is a negative in the sense that is represents the absence of an idea. It is a great first step but I feel in the long term a positivist view based on atheism will be adopted.

The abrahamic religions have formed the foundations of our ancestors worldview for a long time boys and girls. The more average minds cant simply walk away from this view without something meaningful to walk towards.

Goethe put it well;
He who wishes to exert a useful influence must be careful to insult nothing. Let him not be troubled by what seems absurd, but concentrate his energies to the creation of what is good. He must not demolish, but build. He must raise temples where mankind may come and partake of the purest pleasure.

Gary L

Gary L wrote: »

To clarify, A-thiesm is a negative in the sense that is represents the absence of an idea. It is a great first step but I feel in the long term a positivist view based on atheism will be adopted.

The abrahamic religions have formed the foundations of our ancestors worldview for a long time boys and girls. The more average minds cant simply walk away from this view without something meaningful to walk towards.

Goethe put it well;
He who wishes to exert a useful influence must be careful to insult nothing. Let him not be troubled by what seems absurd, but concentrate his energies to the creation of what is good. He must not demolish, but build. He must raise temples where mankind may come and partake of the purest pleasure.

Again switch out god for ghosts and you'll see why this is silly.

Mark Hamill

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

I'm a what now?

amacachi

Gary L wrote: »

To clarify, A-thiesm is a negative in the sense that is represents the absence of an idea. It is a great first step but I feel in the long term a positivist view based on atheism will be adopted.

The abrahamic religions have formed the foundations of our ancestors worldview for a long time boys and girls. The more average minds cant simply walk away from this view without something meaningful to walk towards.

Goethe put it well;
He who wishes to exert a useful influence must be careful to insult nothing. Let him not be troubled by what seems absurd, but concentrate his energies to the creation of what is good. He must not demolish, but build. He must raise temples where mankind may come and partake of the purest pleasure.

Why must we label everything? Why should or would everyone who has one thing in common try to extend that to everything else? I'll bet (assume :P) that there are vegetarians on here, I'm not one, I'd assume that most people here are a bit more to the left politically than I am etc. etc. The labelling with Religion is one of the biggest problems with it, I don't see why we would want to start it again outside of Religion.

Zombrex

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

Er, speak for yourself

Beruthiel

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

I am not an empty vessel. Nor do I lack compassion.
Science is great, but I don't 'worship' it.
I do worship the vineyard that can produce a good bottle of wine though.

I'm afraid it's just you that is the empty vessel.
I think you can get a cream for that.

Dades

Let's leave aside all this talk of "empty vessels". We as people are not defined by our atheism. We are defined by who we are - not what we are.

What I think you are getting at OP, is that until atheism can offer a substitute to what attracts people to religion, it will forever be a less desirable option.

Now most here would realise that desirability doesn't (or shouldn't) come into the equation when reaching a belief, but at the same time desirability is exactly what keeps religious belief alive.

So yes, I agree - especially in the Third World - that atheism does not offer that carrot of an afterlife or a magic friend. The only solution to this, imo, is relative prosperity and education. Until then, people for the most part will choose the most comfortable path.

Denerick

Why is there an atheist 'movement'? Why are there groups of atheists campaigning on public issues? For a group who scream a lack of belief, its just stupid to collectively identify on the basis of a lack of belief. Atheists do more than any other group to re-affirm the fundamental role of religion in politics, by aggresively self identifying as an anti clerical group.

I'm an agnostic but I find the whole idea of atheist activism to be annoying, self righteous and very irritating. Secularism is different as one can be religious and secular, but to be atheist and secular seems to imply a political agitation that is whollely misplaced and does more harm than good.

Dades

Denerick wrote: »

Why is there an atheist 'movement'? Why are there groups of atheists campaigning on public issues? For a group who scream a lack of belief, its just stupid to collectively identify on the basis of a lack of belief. Atheists do more than any other group to re-affirm the fundamental role of religion in politics, by aggresively self identifying as an anti clerical group.

I think your beef is with Atheist Ireland, then, and you wouldn't be alone. Plenty of people here were unhappy with the name chosen for exactly the reasons you mention.

Denerick wrote: »

I'm an agnostic but I find the whole idea of atheist activism to be annoying, self righteous and very irritating. Secularism is different as one can be religious and secular, but to be atheist and secular seems to imply a political agitation that is whollely misplaced and does more harm than good.

So active secularism is okay once you don't mention atheism?

Gary L

Denerick wrote: »

to be atheist and secular seems to imply a political agitation that is whollely misplaced and does more harm than good.

This is essentially the point I was leaning at, though I admit rather clumsily. Thats why I was trying to point to secular humanism as a positive but logical and deeply varied world view. In the long run we need a scientific outlook that is life affirming and poses a real alternative to the comforts of religious belief.

Gordon

Gary L wrote: »

To clarify, A-thiesm is a negative in the sense that is represents the absence of an idea.

Absence of an idea doesn't make the belief 'negative', just like inclusion of an idea doesn't make the belief 'positive'. Non existance of a certain parameter in a particular belief equilibrium just means that the belief is made up of certain other parameters, be it one, or many parameters. An atom living in space can't travel 'up'.

From the above point, one could argue that theism is negative because it represents the absence of an idea that God doesn't exist, surely.

Des Carter

Wisco wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can't be compassionate. Nor do I feel empty.

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

Gary L

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

That is a really really twisted perspective on society. Do you only behave well to dodge the wrath of the big policeman in the sky?

Gordon

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother?

Because it's great Are you saying that you would not think life is worth living if you suddenly realised that god didn't exist? Do you not think there's cool stuff in life?

(aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

Strange questions you're asking, it's as if you think that people that don't believe in god don't have any morals or ethics. One of the reasons I don't do such things because it causes great upset in other people, and I think people are fab, so I don't do bad stuff to them (unless they are on boards prison..). You can't possibly be saying that people that believe in god only don't do bad stuff because they think god will punish them after they die can you? I thought believers in god also like other people, think they're fab, and don't want them to be caused any hurt or upset.

Denerick

Dades wrote: »

So active secularism is okay once you don't mention atheism?

Political atheism, is in my opinion, not all that far removed from political religion. Secularism on the other hand is the belief that church should be completely seperated from state, and one's religious beliefs should not bear on this in any way. In short far far too much is made by atheists of their lack of belief, its counterproductive. Atheists are not united by anything, you cannot be united by a lack of belief. For example, fascists and communists are not united by their opposition to liberal democracy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Denerick wrote: »

Why are there groups of atheists campaigning on public issues?

Why should there not be?

People have grouped together on more arbitrary attributes than this in the past and have then, as a unit, spoken out on issues that may or may not have anything to do with the original grouping attribute. For example this weekend Atheist Ireland attended a conference with EU presidents on the topic of Poverty, nothing to do with Atheism at all.

People grouping on a variety of common factors is a GOOD thing and it increases the diversity of the voices and types of voices we have in our society which is also a good thing. Free speech and expression of ideas is a good thing, but actually exploring the conversation space afforded to us by free speech in as diverse a variety of ways as possible is an even better thing.

I would therefore like to see more groupings of people, with unique individuals to each and overlapping individuals across each, coming together on as many arbitrary common points as is possible and creating as many diverse voices as possible within the conversation space. Whether those groups are of atheists, humanists, abuse victims, people who like fig rolls, people who mostly like U2 (like the "one" poverty action group) or even say a national society of victimised ginger headed people, I do not care. Bring them all in.

What unifies a group does not have to be what that group is about. You can be united on one thing and campaign on a completely different one. So why should people who commonly identify as "atheist" not come together and campaign united against poverty, or for secularism, or against woo-woo medical treatments?

In short, not one of my best skills clearly: Suggesting atheists not campaign on public issues makes as little sense to me as saying a group of united stamp collectors should not either. If they come together and have a voice, they should use it.

seamus

Des Carter wrote: »

why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

Because that's not fun and runs the very real risk of shortening your own life. We're a social animal. We prefer to interact with and assist our peers because that increases our acceptance within a social circle and means that we are more likely to benefit from their assistance in future and our children and our ideas will be given support in the community.

Lying, cheating, stealing and murdering will get you ostracised by your community and you will have no support if you break your ankle and your children are more likely to be unprotected in the event that you are absent. In evolutionary terms, we are pre-programmed to get along with other people because that increases our chances for our and our children's survival. But only in a relatively small context. That's why you average scumbag has no problem attacking random people and stealing from them, but they'll be rock solid and considered a "decent guy" within their own peer group.

If someone needs the threat of an all-powerful God to prevent them from murdering, steal and bombing, then they have more problems than their religious beliefs...

Dades

Denerick wrote: »

In short far far too much is made by atheists of their lack of belief, its counterproductive.

You mean some atheists, right?

Denerick wrote: »

Atheists are not united by anything, you cannot be united by a lack of belief. For example, fascists and communists are not united by their opposition to liberal democracy.

Well obviously lack of belief is enough to unite atheists, by virtue of the misc atheist groups around, but I do get your point.

Dades

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

This post right here is where the thread derails.

Can we please make an effort to avoid this rabbit hole?

strobe

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

Precisely because you are compassionate?

---

There's a practical reason too, of course. Say we get shipwrecked on a desert island. We don't know each other. So we salvage some dried meat and drinking water from the shipwreck, enough to last us both a few days and probably get rescued, and then we find a cave to sleep in.

Just as you are drifting off to sleep you say "Hey, wait a second, how do I know you aren't going to bash my brains in as soon as I fall asleep and keep all the drinking water and meat for yourself!?"

I turn around to you and say "Me!? How do I know you aren't going to bash my head in? I seen you eyeing up my beef jerky".

So then I say "listen neither of us are going to be able to sleep a wink like this, so here's the deal. I promise not to bash your head in or rob any of your supplies and you promise not to do the same to me, deal?" You see that's the best way forward for both of us and say "Yeah, makes perfect sense, deal".

Now apply that logic to a society (you don't try to steal my cupcake and I won't try to steal yours, deal?) and couple it with the aforementioned sense of compassion probably instilled by your parents for instance.

BANG! BLAMO! KAZANG! Millions apon millions of people who don't believe in God but don't want to steal, cheat, murder or bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits.

---

It's just that easy.

Gary L

Dades wrote: »

Can we please make an effort to avoid this rabbit hole?

+1. Back on track slightly, can we get some commentary on the idea that secular humanism is a good view to counter the religious contention that it holds the moral highground. Attempt objectivity.

amacachi

Denerick wrote: »

I'm an agnostic but I find the whole idea of atheist activism to be annoying, self righteous and very irritating. Secularism is different as one can be religious and secular, but to be atheist and secular seems to imply a political agitation that is whollely misplaced and does more harm than good.

Mark Hamill

Gary L wrote: »

To clarify, A-thiesm is a negative in the sense that is represents the absence of an idea.

Negative is such a, er, negative word. You wouldn't say someone is being negative (or supporting a negative) if they are trying to abolish slavery. Seeing as atheism represents a lack of something, it would be neutral (ie, on a number scale it would be 0, not -1).

gbee

Gary L wrote: »

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of a creator God, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

I cannot accept you assertion that being an atheist is an association with a negative.

It's my choice, and I believe all the children of the earth need the freedom from all religion, at least until they can decide for themselves.

Choosing to believe in a religion and or a God or both, is not inherently a bad thing.

From a social point of view, the idea of a village church or meeting house is not a bad ides, the concept of giving thanks is not a bad thing.

What is bad is when innocent children are force feed religious bile from birth. I'd definitely put an Over 18 restriction on religion.

Mark Hamill

.

Daftendirekt

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother?

Precisely because everything comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die it's over. On the flip side, if there's an amazing suffering-free afterlife waiting for us, where we'll be reunited with all our dead friends and relatives, why not just end it now and skip the queue?

(aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

This carries the unusual assumption that most people want to go out and steal, cheat, murder and rape other countries of their natural resources for profit. I feel uneasy killing flies, to be honest.


Edit: Sorry Dades, only just saw your post. Leaving it there.

+1. Back on track slightly, can we get some commentary on the idea that secular humanism is a good view to counter the religious contention that it holds the moral highground. Attempt objectivity.

Sure. In the context of your original post, I think if there must be political groupings of atheists, then secular humanism is a much better banner to unite under. Simply because the only atheistic group that would potentially interest me would be one that promoted and campaigned for secularism and liberalism. Beyond that, I can't see much point. And if it was a secular group, then there'd be no reason to exclude secular theists, which would give it a much louder voice. Which kind of means it isn't really an atheist group after all and that now I'm just rambling. :pac:

Daftendirekt

gbee wrote: »

I cannot accept you assertion that being an atheist is an association with a negative.

It's my choice, and I believe all the children of the earth need the freedom from all religion, at least until they can decide for themselves.

Choosing to believe in a religion and or a God or both, is not inherently a bad thing.

From a social point of view, the idea of a village church or meeting house is not a bad ides, the concept of giving thanks is not a bad thing.

What is bad is when innocent children are force feed religious bile from birth. I'd definitely put an Over 18 restriction on religion.

I really don't think it's a point worth getting caught up on. It's pretty obvious he meant "negative" in the sense of lacking belief or not having a belief.

gbee

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I really don't think it's a point worth getting caught up on. It's pretty obvious he meant "negative" in the sense of lacking belief or not having a belief.

I'd not agree, he is absolutely pointing atheism towards the negative, and believes, that this exact negativism, will mean that atheism will die out, and by reference, God and Christian or Muslim religion arise "again"

To my mind, lacking belief in not a negative anyway, it's also obvious he loaded his revolver with the adjective, 'negative' ... like if I say a "fuc*in" something, anything, the supposition is introduced.

Or a troll, in plain English. Very appreciative of your reply. Thank you.

mr fog light

Gary L wrote: »

With so many young people now definitively abandoning the concept of a creator God, I want to pose the idea that this group cant last for long identifying with a negative.

The Atheist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

I for one have long considered myself to be a Secular Humanist, in that I believe we humans are alone on this disaster of a planet and need to find our own solutions and long term strategies to live peacefully and fruitfully together.

"the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature". -Edward Osborne Wilson

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

Im not atheist but lately I read posts and treads from the religion spirituality section, in an effort to gain an understanding of the beliefs or non beliefs of differant people.

You have a certain worldview and here it looks to me that you wanna discuss strategies that can be used to push your own personal view forward.

Catch um when ther young is it?? Are you suggesting that "this group" of young people can't think for theselves and need GARY L to show them the the light!!

Wouldn't it be better to teach young people to not only respect the views and beliefs of others, but also to try and gain an understanding of differant views and beliefs and let the chips fall where they may.

Beruthiel

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

You should read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" for the very basics on why humans wouldn't do that.
Basically, we are pack animals and would not survive without the community. Murdering and stealing would ensure ejection from said community.
Whither you are religious or not, that doesn't change.
You appear to think that atheists have no moral code. Is that something you actually believe?
As for why bother? I'm alive, why wouldn't I bother?
The fact that I know there is nothing after this means I'm going to make the most of now.

Dades

gbee wrote: »

I'd not agree, he is absolutely pointing atheism towards the negative, and believes, that this exact negativism, will mean that atheism will die out, and by reference, God and Christian or Muslim religion arise "again"

To my mind, lacking belief in not a negative anyway, it's also obvious he loaded his revolver with the adjective, 'negative' ... like if I say a "fuc*in" something, anything, the supposition is introduced.

Or a troll, in plain English. Very appreciative of your reply. Thank you.

As Daftendirekt suggested, I don't believe the use of the word negative was meant the way it might have come across. If the OP was religious, I'd probably agree with you, but the OP is a secular Humanist so I think this accusation is misguided.

mr fog light wrote: »

Im not atheist but lately I read posts and treads from the religion spirituality section, in an effort to gain an understanding of the beliefs or non beliefs of differant people.

You have a certain worldview and here it looks to me that you wanna discuss strategies that can be used to push your own personal view forward.

Catch um when ther young is it?? Are you suggesting that "this group" of young people can't think for theselves and need GARY L to show them the the light!!

Wouldn't it be better to teach young people to not only respect the views and beliefs of others, but also to try and gain an understanding of differant views and beliefs and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you reading a different thread? Because I don't see anything in this one that you have any excuse to act all oppressed about.

sensibleken

I think the OP is too hung up on word structure. A-thiest being an absense of a belief is a negetive word but not a negetive, ie bad, idea. Here are some other good things

anti- war
anti- fascist
anti- natal
anti- pasti

it doesnt make the slightest bit of difference if we called them pro-peace instead of anti-war.

lyverbird1

We seem to be talking a lot about atheism being an absence of a belief in 'god' - true enough, but could religion in itself be defined as something devised to fill in an absence of knowledge in the early stages of society? An absence of knowledge as to how we came to be here, the origins of the earth and universe and other philosophical questions that required answers so that we didn't feel so small and alone and incomplete. So, is atheism a name put on a way of thinking that would have originally existed had mankind had the facilities to find out the answers to more of these questions in the first place? And although I know we were trying to get away from the debate around atheism meaning "when we die we die, there's nothing else, so why bother being good" philosophy, I would like to just say that an absence of a belief in 'god' does not mean an absence of belief in death being the final call on your life. I'm an atheist but I'd like to believe that if I live a good life, then I leave behind a good legacy of memories and example to people who survive me. This is of course aside from an inherent morality not dependent on a belief in a spiritual deity.

lyverbird1

Apologies, by the way, for the lack of paragraphs above, they were included in the construction of the post but the dreadful computer here didn't send it as such. Grrrr is all I can say....

keppler

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok you can be compassionate but if everything in life comes down to your years spent on this planet and once you die its over then why bother? (aside from legal reasons) why not go out and steal, cheat, murder, bomb other countries to steal their oil so you can make profits etc etc?

Sure according to this logic ........then why bother wiping your arse if you're only going to ****e again tomorrow...:cool:

mikhail

sensibleken wrote: »

I think the OP is too hung up on word structure. A-thiest being an absense of a belief is a negetive word but not a negetive, ie bad, idea. Here are some other good things

anti- war
anti- fascist
anti- natal
anti- pasti

it doesnt make the slightest bit of difference if we called them pro-peace instead of anti-war.

That's why I self-identify as being pro-blasphemy.

pH

Gary L wrote: »

The Atheist 'movement' will go they way of anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation if it doesn't define itself on its own terms and find something positive that its 'for'.

Or indeed go the way of the anti-apartheid movement.

Nemi

Gary L wrote: »

Is anyone else distressed by the notion that we are empty vessels that lack compassion and worship science?

I wouldn't put it like that (at all, really), but I think I do recognise your underlying concern. It is an abiding problem, and it has exercised philosophers for generations as atheism was not invented by Richard Dawkins.

Gary L wrote: »

That is a really really twisted perspective on society. Do you only behave well to dodge the wrath of the big policeman in the sky?

I wouldn't dismiss that comment so quickly. He's essentially expressing the same concern as yourself.

The simple fact is that there is no particular reason why someone should not do whatever is necessary to secure their own comfort and safety in the world. The only question is whether that security is best achieved by ignoring the needs of others, or by trying to find a formula that reconciles your own interests with theirs.

That raises the issue of reciprocation, which depends on some shared sense of the rules of the game. Religion is certainly one way of creating that shared commitment to the same rules; Plato suggested another, which amounted to deluding people from an early age with myths that would achieve the same purpose.

So, yes, there certainly is an issue over identifying what our society is about, so that we can figure what our mutual obligations are meant to be.

rational

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

philosophy have their places in the modern world beside science and technology, .

As long as its not religious philosophy I take it.

Nevyn

I know that for some people Athiesim is a stepping stone, the rejection of christianty and all it's works and being angry at the control the RCC has had over them and contunies do to so is for some part of the process of shedding what they were spoon fed to going out and developing thier own spirituality.

There are some who stay at the angry phase and never bother learning baout other religons and are stalwart that all religions are wrong with out investigating any of the others esp those who are not Judaic. Which amuses the hell out of me when they make arguements which are sweeping statements based on the premise that there is only one god (cos that is what Judaism says) and that all relgions are bad because of X and X only holds true for christianity.

Still some of the most compastionate and spiritual people I have meet are athiests,
so you can be a good person and have a 'good' soul and connect with outers spiritualy with out beliving in/acknowledging/ or following any gods.

Gary L

Reading back over the OP i was kind of tripping over myself a bit. To make one final attempt;

Theism -> Atheism -> Secular Humanism

The comments i made about spiritual emptiness/ lack of compassion etc dont reflect my own views on what it means to be Atheist but rather the perception that an average Thiest might have looking over the fence.

As the term might be interpreted as simply the anti-thesis of everything the Theist believes, this could make the break from religion seem harder than it is.
Secular Humanism is explicitly Atheist but at the same time is a philosophy in its own right, with a particular focus on ethics and human happiness.

I guess the main thing here is that I'd love to see the growing Atheist community present itself in such a way that it would be very hard to reliously indocrinate a child who has had contact with it.

mikhail

I get what you're saying, Gary, but I don't see the point of conflating my philosophy and ethics with my position on the existence of gods. Yes, organised religion often tries to position itself as the only valid source of morality, but that doesn't mean I have to take the same approach.

Rented Mule

King Mob wrote: »

Again switch out god for ghosts and you'll see why this is silly.

It's a lot more fun when you alternate your favourite superhero(s).

Batman
Superman
Aquaman
Mary Harney-man

Gary L

mikhail wrote: »

I get what you're saying, Gary, but I don't see the point of conflating my philosophy and ethics with my position on the existence of gods. Yes, organised religion often tries to position itself as the only valid source of morality, but that doesn't mean I have to take the same approach.

The point is essentially to leave the door open for religious types to more easily understand that Atheists have an advanced and dynamic worldview, in the hopes of convincing them away from their dogma's. Honestly I think its of the upmost importance that Atheism spreads.