A disservice?

Ed
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-09
User is offlineOffline
A disservice?

Hello all,

 First time poster.  I was just thinking.  Feel free to add or critique as these ideas are not fully fleshed out.

Anyway, religon is a faith based idea.  In many ways, it is also the foundation for many people and how they live their life.  As such, it would seem improbable that someone would suddenly come to the conclusion that their life philosophy, and by extension their life, is completely wrong.

It seems far more likely that the exact opposite would be true.  Believers, having been pushed into a corner, would further solidify their belief.  Furthermore, it seems reasonable that they would lash out against this perceived threat to their life (id, ego or whatever).

It just seems to me that the harder non-believers push, the more resistance they will encounter.  Add to this, that believers far outnumber non-believers and there is the potential for a very real and harmful backlash against non-believers.

I'm not advocating that they be given free reign to do what they will.  I'm just thinking that it is counter productive to poke the bear (so to speak).

Also, it seems necessary to change some of the vocabulary.  The term atheism needs to be stricken.  Maybe Secular Humanist would be more appropriate? 

 Discuss


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Your right in that the name

Your right in that the name of any such "movement" would have to be something else than Atheism. Atheist doesn't really tell you anything about my values or beliefs, apart from the no god thing. 

Religion is a crutch for many, a comfort, or if you want an opiate of the people. Its extremely easy to keep your faith. Especially when one is sad or in need of help, when one has lost someone close to them or are facing death oneself. Had it been only this it would have been not so bad. But it can in many cases lead to arrogance and a sense of self righteousness, and bad moral values.

Now the comfort part of religion is the part that we probably will have the most problem with. It isn't easy for everyone to be an atheist, it would in many cases force them to face some of their "demons".

What is required to "win" is a philosophy or way of life, that is perceived as an ideal, better and more profound than religion. 

Being an atheist/secular humanist/"new name of movement" has to be a state of mind people see as a positive. It has to entail strength, wisdom and strong moral values. 

Any organisation or movement that wants to replace religion has to face these problems, and fighting them on the facts might be a loosing war. This is after all a "battle" that the religious has fought for a long time. The recent "creation museum" should be evident to that fact.

There should maybe be a shift towards moral and political issues. Atheism/secularism must become the ideal people want to have.

Separation of state and church isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal. Moral philosophy isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal.

This is the shift in opinion we must have to succeed. Atheism/secularism must be something people are willing to struggle to get, the straight and narrow road to follow.


"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Oh I'll definitely post here

Oh I'll definitely post here today. Let me get home and then we can talk.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Ed wrote: Anyway, religon

Ed wrote:

Anyway, religon is a faith based idea. In many ways, it is also the foundation for many people and how they live their life.

"For many" = Why is that? Did the preachers/rabbis/imams stay quiet and let people alone?

Quote:
As such, it would seem improbable that someone would suddenly come to the conclusion that their life philosophy, and by extension their life, is completely wrong.

Actually, this happens for many people thus the reason that this site and many other atheist sites have seen remarkable growth in the last decade. No 'improbabilty' there. That's FACT.

Quote:
It seems far more likely that the exact opposite would be true. Believers, having been pushed into a corner, would further solidify their belief. Furthermore, it seems reasonable that they would lash out against this perceived threat to their life (id, ego or whatever).

Particularly those that make their earnings from religion or those that have no idea how to function in a society devoid of churches/mosques/synagogues.

Quote:
It just seems to me that the harder non-believers push, the more resistance they will encounter. Add to this, that believers far outnumber non-believers and there is the potential for a very real and harmful backlash against non-believers.

Is this a threat? or a prediction for some ideological civil war in modern civilization? In either case, please come out of the woods with your 'doomsday' buddies.

Quote:
I'm not advocating that they be given free reign to do what they will. I'm just thinking that it is counter productive to poke the bear (so to speak).

Staying in the closet didn't accomplish anything except ENABLE the religious to do what they have so far.

Quote:
Also, it seems necessary to change some of the vocabulary. The term atheism needs to be stricken. Maybe Secular Humanist would be more appropriate?

Stricken??? So you're vocabulary is the ONE vocabulary??? Why not change the connotation that you associate with the word 'atheism'.

What the fuck exactly do you think 'atheism' means??? Are you trying to associate more with that one word than is neccessary?

There are NO political views associated with atheism.

 

 

 

Curiosity prompts me to ask where you stand with regard to the issue. Do you believe in god?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
thormos wrote: Your right

thormos wrote:

Your right in that the name of any such "movement" would have to be something else than Atheism. Atheist doesn't really tell you anything about my values or beliefs, apart from the no god thing.

Why capitalize it?

There is a reason for not including YOUR political views with the word 'atheism'. There are other labels for you to choose to stamp upon yourself if you desperately need them.

Quote:
Religion is a crutch for many, a comfort, or if you want an opiate of the people. Its extremely easy to keep your faith. Especially when one is sad or in need of help, when one has lost someone close to them or are facing death oneself. Had it been only this it would have been not so bad. But it can in many cases lead to arrogance and a sense of self righteousness, and bad moral values.

"bad moral values" to whom?

Also, your paragraph here outlines some of the reasons for causing people to examine their religions.

Quote:
Now the comfort part of religion is the part that we probably will have the most problem with. It isn't easy for everyone to be an atheist, it would in many cases force them to face some of their "demons".

Demons?

I disagree. The hardest thing to deal with is ignorance. Most of the people that I talk to have very bad reasons for maintaining their beliefs. 90 times out of 100, people keep going to church or simply believing because they are afraid of ostracization.

Quite often, theists ask the same questions over and over when they come to the boards. They are ignorant because the material has been examined. One reason that religion has gotten a stereotype of hypocrisy is because the accusations that we 'just haven't looked for god' could be switched around with telling them that they simply haven't looked for anything else.

Quote:
What is required to "win" is a philosophy or way of life, that is perceived as an ideal, better and more profound than religion.

Ummm. Yeah. However, it is different for everyone. The 'replacements' for religion are as varied as appearances. If you believe that ONE thing could replace ALL religion then you are more deluded than I can describe through analogy.

Quote:
Being an atheist/secular humanist/"new name of movement" has to be a state of mind people see as a positive. It has to entail strength, wisdom and strong moral values.

Here we go with that 'strong moral values' shit again. Has it ever occurred to you that the same things you value as 'morality' would not fit in other places of society?

This is starting to sound like Nazi-ism from you to me.

Quote:
Any organisation or movement that wants to replace religion has to face these problems, and fighting them on the facts might be a loosing war. This is after all a "battle" that the religious has fought for a long time. The recent "creation museum" should be evident to that fact.

Again. There you go. More often than not it is ignorance and fear of ostracization that keeps people in the 'fold'. Sheltered from facts, the human animal defaults to its environment.

This predilection for 'battle' and 'conflict' that the OP and you share is scary as an imagined hell. We're here to talk, not kill or subjugate. If you guys want to do that then strap on the tin-foil hats and buy AK's, and HAM radios.

Quote:
There should maybe be a shift towards moral and political issues. Atheism/secularism must become the ideal people want to have.

HELLO! They are not the same thing. atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Secularism is the separation of church and state. There are religious people that are secularists.

Thus another reason why your whole precept falls apart. In my opinion, you guys are the very rerason for the alleged negative connotation with atheism.

Quote:
Separation of state and church isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal. Moral philosophy isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal.

You guys have thrown the word 'moral' around as if you really understand the word. Here's a question: Is it 'moral' to cut the hand off of a thief? Not in the US, but it is in parts of the middle east and Asia. See the difference? Probably not.

Quote:
This is the shift in opinion we must have to succeed. Atheism/secularism must be something people are willing to struggle to get, the straight and narrow road to follow.

Hopefully, after this response, you will see how ridiculous it is to put those two words together with a /.

Please clarify your 'straight and narrow road' for us. You'll probably need reasoned arguments to support any precepts.


Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:

darth_josh wrote:
thormos wrote:

Your right in that the name of any such "movement" would have to be something else than Atheism. Atheist doesn't really tell you anything about my values or beliefs, apart from the no god thing.

Why capitalize it?

There is a reason for not including YOUR political views with the word 'atheism'. There are other labels for you to choose to stamp upon yourself if you desperately need them.

Think you missed my point here. Atheism can easily mean buddhism or anything without god, god isnt the only problem here is it, but a system based on faith and not reason. Its to easy saying your an atheist, when your realy against religions that hasnt any concept of god as its foundation.

Quote:

Quote:
Religion is a crutch for many, a comfort, or if you want an opiate of the people. Its extremely easy to keep your faith. Especially when one is sad or in need of help, when one has lost someone close to them or are facing death oneself. Had it been only this it would have been not so bad. But it can in many cases lead to arrogance and a sense of self righteousness, and bad moral values.

"bad moral values" to whom?

Also, your paragraph here outlines some of the reasons for causing people to examine their religions.

Bad for Me, you, society as a whole. Stuff thats harmfull. Anti gay, anti stemmcell etc.

Quote:

Quote:
Now the comfort part of religion is the part that we probably will have the most problem with. It isn't easy for everyone to be an atheist, it would in many cases force them to face some of their "demons".

Demons?

I disagree. The hardest thing to deal with is ignorance. Most of the people that I talk to have very bad reasons for maintaining their beliefs. 90 times out of 100, people keep going to church or simply believing because they are afraid of ostracization.

Quite often, theists ask the same questions over and over when they come to the boards. They are ignorant because the material has been examined. One reason that religion has gotten a stereotype of hypocrisy is because the accusations that we 'just haven't looked for god' could be switched around with telling them that they simply haven't looked for anything else.

By deamons i mean people that has to face the death of someone they love or their own deat. People with problems dealing with the grimm reality etc.

My point of view here can be different from yours. I'm from Norway and in my country ostracization isnt that much of a problem. 26%-75%(75% dont say yes when they are asked do you believe in God, 26% declares themselves atheist) of the population is atheist so its not much of a problem. Religious people in my country are true believers, or are of the cind I earlier commented on.

And apart from people in cults I dont think there are many that dont believe in Evolution or anything like that. 80% answer yes to the question do you believe in Evolution. so the facts arent that critical. In Norway that is Smiling

Quote:

Quote:
What is required to "win" is a philosophy or way of life, that is perceived as an ideal, better and more profound than religion.

Ummm. Yeah. However, it is different for everyone. The 'replacements' for religion are as varied as appearances. If you believe that ONE thing could replace ALL religion then you are more deluded than I can describe through analogy.

Ofcourse I dont think one thing kan replace all religion, but whatever those things are they will have to be seen as ideals.

Quote:

Quote:
Being an atheist/secular humanist/"new name of movement" has to be a state of mind people see as a positive. It has to entail strength, wisdom and strong moral values.

Here we go with that 'strong moral values' shit again. Has it ever occurred to you that the same things you value as 'morality' would not fit in other places of society?

This is starting to sound like Nazi-ism from you to me.

Not shure what you mean here, quite a few "moral values" are shared by the most part of society. I'm not saying that there has to be one moral standard that everyone has to follow, but there should be a sence of moral right or wrong in a society that doesnt conflict to much with peoples beliefs. If there are no rules people can agree on then it cant realy go around calling itself a society at all.

Anything that can be called a strong moral value, has to be something with broad acceptance.

Quote:

Quote:
Any organisation or movement that wants to replace religion has to face these problems, and fighting them on the facts might be a loosing war. This is after all a "battle" that the religious has fought for a long time. The recent "creation museum" should be evident to that fact.

Again. There you go. More often than not it is ignorance and fear of ostracization that keeps people in the 'fold'. Sheltered from facts, the human animal defaults to its environment.

This predilection for 'battle' and 'conflict' that the OP and you share is scary as an imagined hell. We're here to talk, not kill or subjugate. If you guys want to do that then strap on the tin-foil hats and buy AK's, and HAM radios.

Well as I said earlier my standpoint may be different from yours in this matter.

And I dont want a "battle" or "conflict", You have to take this figuratively. Perhaps I have been influenced By Ritchard Dawkins, as I have heard him talk of the "conflict" with these same words.

It isn't realy talk of battle or war, its more of a difference of opinnion.

Quote:

Quote:
There should maybe be a shift towards moral and political issues. Atheism/secularism must become the ideal people want to have.

HELLO! They are not the same thing. atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Secularism is the separation of church and state. There are religious people that are secularists.

Thus another reason why your whole precept falls apart. In my opinion, you guys are the very rerason for the alleged negative connotation with atheism.

Well, I'm not saying they are the same thing, guess I should have typed "Atheism and secularism", But these are ideals I would like to see in people. When I wrote this I was merely thinking of the values a "movement" would want to promote.

Quote:

Quote:
Separation of state and church isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal. Moral philosophy isn't a new idea, but it isn't necessarily the idea most people see as ideal.

You guys have thrown the word 'moral' around as if you really understand the word. Here's a question: Is it 'moral' to cut the hand off of a thief? Not in the US, but it is in parts of the middle east and Asia. See the difference? Probably not.

Ofcourse I see the difference. when I said moral philosophy I meant actual philosophy on morals, not whats dictated in a book.

Thats the problem isn't it, people getting their "morals" from a book. The Idea that morals are something else than whats in the Bible is the idea I'm talking off.

Quote:

Quote:
This is the shift in opinion we must have to succeed. Atheism/secularism must be something people are willing to struggle to get, the straight and narrow road to follow.

Hopefully, after this response, you will see how ridiculous it is to put those two words together with a /.

Please clarify your 'straight and narrow road' for us. You'll probably need reasoned arguments to support any precepts.

As I said the / probably was a bad thing to use Smiling,

Still I was hinting to the collective set of values a secular and atheist movement would want to promote.

We do not after all have a collective movement do we?

The people going as Atheists arent all that homogenus, I think this is the "problem" the OP wanted to adress. If religion is to be countered there has to be a more organiced effort.

The straight and narrow thing at the end was more of a jest to Christian views. Its merely ment to emphasise the need for any society to have an ideal that is including and that can make the society stable, Not dictated set of rules by ME!!!.

 

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Ed
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Thormos, thanks for the

Thormos, thanks for the comments. Love the quote. Just to add, I wonder how much of what we are seeing (the rise of the religous state) is just a natural progression. A progression that is being fueled, in part, by the exponential growth of science? Can the process of moving from a religous state to a secular state (if that inevitable) be rushed? Without a change in the rhetoric from both sides, I wouldn't be inclined to think so.

 

Josh, I didn't come here looking for a fight. As such, until you lose the aggression, I will refrain from commenting. Make of it what you will.

 

Last, I think sites like this are helpful in so far as they give people of a minority or unpopular view the ability to come together and share fellowship. The issue is one of overt antagonism.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Ed,  You didn't come

Ed, 

You didn't come looking for a fight yet your post was in almost direct contention with the idea of atheist activism as ONE thing.

The very idea that society would become MORE religious due to atheist activism is ridiculous and I outlined why in my post to you.

Also, one should expect questions with regard to motives when they seemingly profess 'moral objectivity' as something to load onto atheism.

There are 33,830+ denominations in the christian church because people are different. Should I not expect to see the same differences in atheists?

You'll find a split on any issues other than the lack of belief in a god(s). Why exacerbate those differences? 

Drug use, polyamory, smoking, veganism, eugenics... all of these are hot button issues for atheists because we're people first. My reasons for my stances on these issues can be easily argued for or against. Are you still going to maintain that there is one way of living 'morally'? I notice that you didn't specify your own stance on any other issues besides atheist activism. Are your other views controversial? I would imagine so. I'm sure that some of them have caused acquaintances to treat you poorly because of them.

How cordial should I be when it seems that someone who shares one piece of my ideology has an idea of exclusion based upon something irrelevant to the base ideology?

In my opinion, your initial post was antagonistic.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.