Goodbye Atheism

equivariant

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't believe in the existence of michael nugent.
i am forming the amichaelnugent ireland society.

who's with me?

I'll only join if Michael Nugent says I should

iMyself

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't believe in the existence of michael nugent.
i am forming the amichaelnugent ireland society.

who's with me?

I'll need to read your manifesto first.

ShooterSF

iMyself wrote: »

Can you not see the contradiction here? Would you setup an a-homeapathy society and set out manifestos and debate what it is to b a-homeapathyist ? No of course not because that makes no sense.

Now switch a-homeapathy with atheist and homeapathy with religion. It makes perfect sense to speak out against religion as being atheist means you think it's baloney. The only way you can speak about a lack of belief is to talk about why you dont believe. How can you talk about your disbelief in any other way? Well AI have found a way, let's redefine it and give it substance rather than lack of substance.

Sure why stop there? Let's define the meaning of the universe and call it a god. That way were all theists. Problem solved.

But that's not whats happening. It would be like an a-homoeopathic society also promoting scepticism and then being told they are redefining what a-homoeopatism is. Is the issue that AI should be called the Atheist Secular Sceptical Humanist Society? Because that might cause stationary issues.

bluecode

It's arguments like this why I never describe myself as an atheist. I also won't say, 'I don't believe in God'. Because belief in itself implies acceptance of something or other.

I simply cannot understand organised atheism. Trying to convince people to give up their beliefs and getting into silly arguments with religious people.

The reality is that there is no God or Gods, demons or angels. It's all fantasy and an extremely well constructed story. Now the Harry Potter series of books is also well written and even has some plausibility. But no one seriously believes in wizards. (I hope).

Atheism is simply convenient tag to describe people like me who realise there are no Gods. Believe me, religious type people. It's very liberating when you realise the truth.

fitz0

bluecode wrote: »

It's arguments like this why I never describe myself as an atheist. I also won't say, 'I don't believe in God'. Because belief in itself implies acceptance of something or other.

...

Atheism is simply convenient tag to describe people like me who realise there are no Gods. Believe me, religious type people. It's very liberating when you realise the truth.

How very superior. This was the reason I didn't want to identify as an atheist for a long time, this arrogant stereotype.

iMyself

It seems we are not the only ones who object:

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=327874

"I'm an atheist, which entails <whole lotta things about me as a person>"

And

"I'm <whole lotta things about me as a person>, one of which is an atheist"

Nicely put.

gbee

fitz0 wrote: »

How very superior. This was the reason I didn't want to identify as an atheist for a long time, this arrogant stereotype.

TBH, if you have not found peace you're still a long way off actually from being an Atheist.

It's not arrogance to be honest, it's simply superiority, one tends to jump a level above the masses who are religious.

fitz0

gbee wrote: »

TBH, if you have not found peace you're still a long way off actually from being an Atheist.

It's not arrogance to be honest, it's simply superiority, one tends to jump a level above the masses who are religious.

So now to be an atheist you have to be at peace? That's quite the statement. Also, complete nonsense. What has finding peace got to do with not believing in gods? Whether I was reconciled with the term or not, I was atheist. Self-identification doesn't change that.

Putting yourself 'a level above the masses' is arrogance; it's self-important posturing.

gbee

fitz0 wrote: »

Putting yourself 'a level above the masses' is arrogance; it's self-important posturing.

Far too much anger in that statement, it's very like the tripe one may receive from the faithful when they are faced with reality.

nagirrac

iMyself wrote: »

Moral values come from the law. People do not obey the rules of the road because God tells them to. People do not respect the smoking ban because it says so in the bible. Go back far enough and we were a lot more savage. Did Jesus cone back and lay down a few more ground rules in the bible or is it just that laws git tougher?

On a more basic level morals come from simply wanting to be a nice person. I dont need the bible to tell me to friendly to my neighbour. I can do all that on my lonesome.

You have it backwards. Moral values do not come from the law. Moral values are personal. When a community or culture agree on a set of morals that is called ethics. The core ethics of Western Civilization come from the Greeks (Plato and Aristotle) who did not even have a word for the law. The law is essentially a written set of ethics that can be enforced by a government. The flow of change is from a subjective personal morality to ethics shared by a group to (perhaps) eventually a law. A good example is Martin Luther King who had a dream about the place of black people in American society which became an ethic shared by a community and eventually became law.

As for the rules of the road example that is a good way to distinguish morals from ethics / the law. If a speed limit is 65MPH a person may use personal morality to drive at 70MPH and feel justified to ignore the law. However most people would agree that driving at 85MPH is immoral and unethical in that it endangers other people and would also agree that this is worth having a law and enforcing the law.

"Go back far enough and we were more savage". There has been nothing in human history like the savagery of the 20th century and no amount of laws made any difference. The only thing that makes a difference at the end of the day when it comes to savagery is personal morals.

iMyself

nagirrac wrote: »

You have it backwards. Moral values do not come from the law. Moral values are personal. When a community or culture agree on a set of morals that is called ethics. The core ethics of Western Civilization come from the Greeks (Plato and Aristotle) who did not even have a word for the law. The law is essentially a written set of ethics that can be enforced by a government. The flow of change is from a subjective personal morality to ethics shared by a group to (perhaps) eventually a law. A good example is Martin Luther King who had a dream about the place of black people in American society which became an ethic shared by a community and eventually became law.

As for the rules of the road example that is a good way to distinguish morals from ethics / the law. If a speed limit is 65MPH a person may use personal morality to drive at 70MPH and feel justified to ignore the law. However most people would agree that driving at 85MPH is immoral and unethical in that it endangers other people and would also agree that this is worth having a law and enforcing the law.

"Go back far enough and we were more savage". There has been nothing in human history like the savagery of the 20th century and no amount of laws made any difference. The only thing that makes a difference at the end of the day when it comes to savagery is personal morals.

Ok fair enough. I still dont need a religious organization to sift through the bible and make spurious messages in order to be a good person. And I feel sorry for anyone who does.

nagirrac

ShooterSF wrote: »

It always amazes me that people that talk about a parents right to teach their children a religion then go on about a religion that sticks to nothing other than a few good morals, one I have yet to meet.

You don't mention a parents right to teach their children that hell is real and unless they follow christianity's rules they'll burn in it for eternity. Or teach their children that if they get a blood transfusion they'll end up angering their god or that one of the morals they are "[obliged] to teach their children" is that having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. Or that if they're female and raped then their rapist should pay 50 sheckels to their dad and then marry them without option of divorce. Or that the beatles are sending messages to kill others.

gbee proposed that it should be against the law for parents to teach religion to children under 12. I see that as the state infringing on people's rights to bring up their children as they see fit in terms of beliefs / morals / ethics / and respect for the law. The vast majority of children who reach the age of 13/14 will make their own minds up anyway on such matters, based on what they hear at home, at school (where there should be no religious instruction) and the media. The Western world is now almost completely secular, I don't think there's too much to fear from religion. However, when you start legislating to control a parents right to teach religion, atheism has become the state religion and we have seen how well that has worked out.

How many parents in Ireland today do you think teach the 4 examples you used to their children? Atheists love to point out all the daft examples of religious beliefs, most of which date from a variety of ancient cultures, and conveniently leave out all the positive aspects on how to live your life that come to us all the way from Aristotle and are a big part of every modern Western religion. An open mind is a wonderful thing but before banning religion perhaps people should learn something about the history of morals and ethics in modern human development. They did not just arrive spontaneously and if people think kids will turn out grand with no teaching in personal morals and ethics, that is an experiment that I imagine you can see the results of without having to wander too far.

ShooterSF

nagirrac wrote: »

gbee proposed that it should be against the law for parents to teach religion to children under 12. I see that as the state infringing on people's rights to bring up their children as they see fit in terms of beliefs / morals / ethics / and respect for the law. The vast majority of children who reach the age of 13/14 will make their own minds up anyway on such matters, based on what they hear at home, at school (where there should be no religious instruction) and the media. The Western world is now almost completely secular, I don't think there's too much to fear from religion. However, when you start legislating to control a parents right to teach religion, atheism has become the state religion and we have seen how well that has worked out.

How many parents in Ireland today do you think teach the 4 examples you used to their children? Atheists love to point out all the daft examples of religious beliefs, most of which date from a variety of ancient cultures, and conveniently leave out all the positive aspects on how to live your life that come to us all the way from Aristotle and are a big part of every modern Western religion. An open mind is a wonderful thing but before banning religion perhaps people should learn something about the history of morals and ethics in modern human development. They did not just arrive spontaneously and if people think kids will turn out grand with no teaching in personal morals and ethics, that is an experiment that I imagine you can see the results of without having to wander too far.

I know what he proposed. I don't agree with it but I can see some of reasoning for it. You glossed over the reasoning by creating a religion no one is taught to exist. I do find it disgusting what some kids are taught to believe by their parents but I just have to hope as an adult they will overcome it.

As for morals and ethics I'd argue most people are born inherently good but that upbringing can have a great affect. What I would argue is that people taught ethics and morals from any of the major religious texts as opposed to one's by a normal balanced member of society with no mention of religion will have at best as good a morality as the later. So to suggest that parents should be allowed to teach their kids religion because of it's morality is crap. They should be allowed to teach it because of their position as parents.

iMyself

nagirrac wrote: »

gbee proposed that it should be against the law for parents to teach religion to children under 12. I see that as the state infringing on people's rights to bring up their children as they see fit in terms of beliefs / morals / ethics / and respect for the law. The vast majority of children who reach the age of 13/14 will make their own minds up anyway on such matters, based on what they hear at home, at school (where there should be no religious instruction) and the media. The Western world is now almost completely secular, I don't think there's too much to fear from religion. However, when you start legislating to control a parents right to teach religion, atheism has become the state religion and we have seen how well that has worked out.

How many parents in Ireland today do you think teach the 4 examples you used to their children? Atheists love to point out all the daft examples of religious beliefs, most of which date from a variety of ancient cultures, and conveniently leave out all the positive aspects on how to live your life that come to us all the way from Aristotle and are a big part of every modern Western religion. An open mind is a wonderful thing but before banning religion perhaps people should learn something about the history of morals and ethics in modern human development. They did not just arrive spontaneously and if people think kids will turn out grand with no teaching in personal morals and ethics, that is an experiment that I imagine you can see the results of without having to wander too far.

Empathy gives us a biological tendency to be good. Some people are physically impossible to feel empathy. Its been scientifically proven that serial killers lack activity in the area if the brain where empathy is found.

Teaching a child to be good is a matter of teaching them to understand their feelings. "how would you feel if you were the one being bullied". Theres more to it than that, but at no stage is there a necessity to bring the fear of God into the equation or seduce them with an after life of eternal pleasures. I consider that lazy and poor parenting.

Nodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't believe in the existence of michael nugent.
i am forming the amichaelnugent ireland society.

who's with me?

How dare you presume to speak for the Nugent-skeptic community.

MisterEpicurus

I think the Nugentists are on their last legs now. They have consistently failed to make the connection between

a) Lack of Belief in god
to...
b) Organized Body calling themselves 'Atheist Ireland' and trying to promote science and reason etc. Moreover, the addition of Ethical Atheism adds a whole new body of dogma to the mix.

I'm calling this new organized atheism in Ireland 'Nugentism' and if you support Mr. Nugent and his ethical atheism agenda (and more...) then you're a Nugentite moreso than an atheist [Atheism + Nugent Principle = Nugentite] ~ Nugent Principles are, of course, ethical atheism and trying to convert people to atheism.

Nugent's Principles have been set out in the Doctrine of Nugentism. [Also known as his manifesto, quite a scary word in itself!]

I think this will help both sides. It means we can distinguish between those who support the cult of Atheist Ireland and those atheists, like myself and others on this forum, who are pure atheists who don't need to band together with anyone else to reaffirm our non-belief in an imaginary friend.

If you want, you can become a member to the Church of the Secular Nugentites. They meet regularly to mock and jeer organized religion in select pubs and try to reaffirm their version of ethics over others.

Obliq

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think the Nugentists are on their last legs now. They have consistently failed to make the connection between

a) Lack of Belief in god
to...
b) Organized Body calling themselves 'Atheist Ireland' and trying to promote science and reason etc. Moreover, the addition of Ethical Atheism adds a whole new body of dogma to the mix.

I'm calling this new organized atheism in Ireland 'Nugentism' and if you support Mr. Nugent and his ethical atheism agenda (and more...) then you're a Nugentite moreso than an atheist [Atheism + Nugent Principle = Nugentite] ~ Nugent Principles are, of course, ethical atheism and trying to convert people to atheism.

Nugent's Principles have been set out in the Doctrine of Nugentism. [Also known as his manifesto, quite a scary word in itself!]

I think this will help both sides. It means we can distinguish between those who support the cult of Atheist Ireland and those atheists, like myself and others on this forum, who are pure atheists who don't need to band together with anyone else to reaffirm our non-belief in an imaginary friend.

Oh sweet leaping christ on a bike, this is enough to convert me to catholicism. You're getting pretty bleedin personal there. Where do you get off? Pure ignorant. Goodnight. :mad:

MisterEpicurus

Obliq wrote: »

Oh sweet leaping christ on a bike, this is enough to convert me to catholicism. You're getting pretty bleedin personal there. Where do you get off? Pure ignorant. Goodnight. :mad:

Sorry but it's not ignorant. I'm merely re-fashioning terms in the same way terms change over time.

I've been to one or two meetings of AI before and during the pub meetings I encountered quite a lot of mocking and jeering of organized religion from members who 'got off' (to use your term) on it.

Everything else I've said is factual and in no way can be assumed to be 'bleedin personal'. I've made no personal attack only re-fashioning how I view the current organization of Atheist Ireland.

And the re-affirmation of better ethics from AI is currently underway. So please refrain from making a personal attack on me when all I'm doing is re-fashioning the subject.

Don't forget - if you attack Nugentites or their Doctrine, then they become very abusive and personal. Remind you of anything? It reminds me of organized religion now, it's gotten that bad already.

What's next? The thread will be closed arising through further criticism of AI and Mr. Nugent? We have to avoid this and keep to free discussion that we always appreciate given that religious folk are trying to hack down normal discussions too.

iMyself

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Sorry but it's not ignorant. I'm merely re-fashioning terms in the same way terms change over time.

I've been to one or two meetings of AI before and during the pub meetings I encountered quite a lot of mocking and jeering of organized religion from members who 'got off' (to use your term) on it.

Everything else I've said is factual and in no way can be assumed to be 'bleedin personal'. I've made no personal attack only re-fashioning how I view the current organization of Atheist Ireland.

And the re-affirmation of better ethics from AI is currently underway. So please refrain from making a personal attack on me when all I'm doing is re-fashioning the subject.

Don't forget - if you attack Nugentites or their Doctrine, then they become very abusive and personal. Remind you of anything? It reminds me of organized religion now, it's gotten that bad already.

What's next? The thread will be closed arising through further criticism of AI and Mr. Nugent? We have to avoid this and keep to free discussion that we always appreciate given that religious folk are trying to hack down normal discussions too.

Dont forget to mention your god given right to redefine things to suit your cause. If they dont like your new definition of nugenism then they can just hump off.

I think nugenists need a uniform. How about Elvis suits?

nagirrac

iMyself wrote: »

Empathy gives us a biological tendency to be good. Some people are physically impossible to feel empathy. Its been scientifically proven that serial killers lack activity in the area if the brain where empathy is found.

Mental health specialists agree that serial killers are sociopaths, which is a disorder of personality and character. Lack of empathy is typically understood as not being aware of other people's feelings (as in Aspergers). The evidence seems to suggest that not alone are serial killers aware of other's feelings, they may have a heightened sense of empathy which is part of the thrill of killing for them. To a serial killer torturing and killing people is enjoyable, they care exclusively about satisfying their own pleasure. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy and everything to do with sadism which is mainly due to an individuals's upbringing.

Nodin

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

.............

I think this will help both sides. It means we can distinguish between those who support the cult of Atheist Ireland and those atheists, like myself and others on this forum, who are pure atheists who don't need to band together with anyone else to reaffirm our non-belief in an imaginary friend.

If you want, you can become a member to the Church of the Secular Nugentites. They meet regularly to mock and jeer organized religion in select pubs and try to reaffirm their version of ethics over others.

....sad.

Do please explain how you know of these meetings in select pubs and what transpires there. In addition, you might justify your use of the term "cult".

fitz0

gbee wrote: »

Far too much anger in that statement, it's very like the tripe one may receive from the faithful when they are faced with reality.

What a nicely dismissive post. No need to address the issue of assumed superiority.

robindch

Folks, this is getting too personal. Please tone down the rhetoric and take any disagreements about AI to the AI forum.

thanks.

nagirrac

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for morals and ethics I'd argue most people are born inherently good but that upbringing can have a great affect. What I would argue is that people taught ethics and morals from any of the major religious texts as opposed to one's by a normal balanced member of society with no mention of religion will have at best as good a morality as the later. So to suggest that parents should be allowed to teach their kids religion because of it's morality is crap. They should be allowed to teach it because of their position as parents.

I would argue that most people are not born "good" or "bad". A baby is born with almost a "clean slate" brain that is then sculpted during development. Modern brain research would suggest that the brain is extremely plastic, in particular at early development, but also to a lesser extent during our entire life. Personality and character comes from environment and upbringing.

I wholeheartedly agree kids can be raised without religious instruction and taught good morals and ethics. That's how I have raised my kids. Unfortunately society is not made up of just "normal balanced members" so the worry is when kids get no teaching at home or in school where do their morals and ethics come from? From my avatar I suppose which is a bit scary . I enjoy South Park as much as my kids but would worry if that was their sole source of moral upbringing.

bluecode

fitz0 wrote: »

How very superior. This was the reason I didn't want to identify as an atheist for a long time, this arrogant stereotype.

I'm seriously confused, what arrogance? There is no God. That's all. Atheism is a label for people who like labels.

There is no God. That's all.

I'm not an atheist because that implies I believe something.

My only reality is that there is not such thing as God and people who believe otherwise are deluded.

MisterEpicurus

Nodin wrote: »

....sad.

Do please explain how you know of these meetings in select pubs and what transpires there. In addition, you might justify your use of the term "cult".

robindch wrote: »

Folks, this is getting too personal. Please tone down the rhetoric and take any disagreements about AI to the AI forum.

thanks.

I have to comply with Robindch rules so I think it's come to make concluding remarks.

As for Nodin, well I won't reply to the ad hominem but all I'll say if your only remarks are that I should expand more on 'cult' and 'pubs', then I think I've done well. I won't respond to the 'cult question' because that'll take the thread more off topic. I made it as a general remark and don't want the thread to become personal as Robindch rightly reminded us to be.

I think, on balance, that the pure atheists have won the argument. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side, including the red herrings and equivocation fallacies such as comparing AI to other legitimate organizations with actual central interests. We've highlighted that the name AI, on balance, makes no sense except for ego and pride and not one based on reason - the very tool AI recommends those to employ. We've seen a lot of 'AI represent us, and we'll back them to the death' type behaviour, which is quite disconcerting but is what I expected from Organized Atheism (or Nugentism as I highlighted above). Now that I've made my concluding remarks, I'm going to take the debate over to the AI forum to continue it in more detail as the moderator has recommended.

Obliq

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think, on balance, that the pure atheists have won the argument. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side, including the red herrings and equivocation fallacies such as comparing AI to other legitimate organizations with actual central interests. We've highlighted that the name AI, on balance, makes no sense except for ego and pride and not one based on reason - the very tool AI recommends those to employ. We've seen a lot of 'AI represent us, and we'll back them to the death' type behaviour, which is quite disconcerting but is what I expected from Organized Atheism (or Nugentism as I highlighted above). Now that I've made my concluding remarks, I'm going to take the debate over to the AI forum to continue it in more detail as the moderator has recommended.

So, just to be clear - we now have "Pure Atheists" and "Organised Atheists" and the name "Atheist Ireland" as the name of a group of atheists, that although does worthy work, have come by their name in an unreasonable fashion and are an illegitimate organisation with no central interests? Thanks for all your input. Most helpful. :pac:

nagirrac

I tried to warn about a schism some time ago but got slapped by the moderator. Beliefs are hard, you have to literally stand by them and defend them. Saying you don't believe in something is easy, defending something you believe in is more difficult.

Religious people have it hard right now as they are under attack from all sides, materialistic consumerism on one side and secular atheism on the other. I know they get little sympathy on A&A but they still represent the best solution for a big majority of society, they are truly an opium for the masses. I would much prefer a state with religion right now than one without.

Compare Russia and China now to what they were like when religion was outlawed. People complaining about the treatment of Pussy Raid, imagine what Stalin would have done to them. Lenin and Stalin killed 60M of their own people, Putin has been fairly bloodless, except for Chechnya. The trend back towards totalitarianism in Russia is real but it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a relatively new thing after being outlawed for two generations.

iMyself

nagirrac wrote: »

It has nothing to do with lack of empathy and everything to do with sadism which is mainly due to an individuals's upbringing.

Right, due to their lack of a religious upbringing. And what are your views on paedophiles? You'd have to say, right up there on a par with sociopaths. Yet how is it that paedophilia is so rampant in the catholic church? These are very religious people doing very evil things. How can that be?

TheChizler

nagirrac wrote: »

Compare Russia and China now to what they were like when religion was outlawed. People complaining about the treatment of Pussy Raid, imagine what Stalin would have done to them. Lenin and Stalin killed 60M of their own people, Putin has been fairly bloodless, except for Chechnya. The trend back towards totalitarianism in Russia is real but it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a relatively new thing after being outlawed for two generations.

I don't think Stalin would have been treating the church with any preference...