New Atheism+ calls for “middle-class white cis-man” Dawkins to move over.

by bohm 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    The only way I know this comment pertains to me is because it has my name in it

    You called atheists organizing into movements the same as making a religion. Movements are not religions. It would appear that if a group of like-minded atheists come together to work for a shared goal, you call that religion. Yet they are not coming together to worship a shared god, nor to embark on the same spiritual path. Atheists cannot form a religion, because the main element of religion is non-existent with them.

    Can they become dogmatic about their ideology? Well yes. Anyone can. It may even be a similar fervor as displayed by some believers. Yet it is still not a religion. Many ideologies invoke such fervor, and relgion is only one of them.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Atheism+a belief system?

    Say it ain't so!

    LOL!

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Belief not in gods, or the spiritual, but atheists do believe in principles etc. Sometimes the come together to work for those common goals---this is not relgious. Perhaps it is political, educational, or social, but never relgious. They can't be religious, and they can't build a religion. They don't believe in gods.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Schmemantics.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Can they become dogmatic about their ideology?

    Religion comes from religious devotion to a certain ideal. Einstein said he was "religious" because he knew the word didn't have to be applied to God, but could just mean fervent devotion to a personal idealogy. So, when people of like mind who share a religious zeal for a particular subject get together you call that a religion, but only IF done with religious ferver (which would include dying for the cause) otherwise you just call it a group. Religions that stick means that at some point in time that group of people could offer something to the world that no one else could and was worth dying for. It's just like when a new species springs forth because of natural selection. At first it's not a species it's just a mutation. But when change comes the mutation is suddenly an advantage which is what creates the new species. Eventually that species is tested by the same force that created it in the first place. Eventually it meets it's match and is forced to sink or swim.

    -Sab

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    W. T. F. Ever.

  • bohm
    bohm

    PZ Myers have tried to clarify his position at pharyngula at some length to put some of the critisism to rest, but even though i agree with most of what he says there are some quite disturbing parts.

    For instance, anyone else tried to have these long, pointless discussions with a theist who tell you that because you are an atheist, you must accept X,Y,Z which are unrelated to simply not accepting gods existence, and you tried to explain atheism is simply lack of belief in god? Well pz Myers has an oppinion about you. PZ myers quote a reader:

    Im in that awkward position where i do agree with most of the values and dislike the misogynist idiots but see no value or reason to mix atheism and the other values. For me atheism just is the simple disbelief and my political values stand apart? from it.

    And replies:

    Now you see, that’s just stupid. There are lots of atheists who take this blinkered stance that atheism is just one specific idea about rejecting god-belief, and it has absolutely no philosophical foundation and should have no political or social consequences. And that’s nonsense. This commenter is deluding himself as thoroughly as any god-walloper

    Not only are you wrong for not connecting disbelief in god with political values, you are delusional and stupid. Well thank you very much PZ.

    The article contain plenty of reasoning which quite frankly worries me. For instance PZ quote a reader:

    My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled asshole” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind. Sometimes that kind of? response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse.

    PZ replies:

    We get that a lot. In fact, I’d say it’s the source of most of the anti-atheist+ reaction: It’s a whole lot of cranky people saying that they aren’t sexist at all…they just think it’s fine to call women “cunts”, that Jim Jeffries is a hilarious comedian when he riffs on his contempt for women, that they just hate feminists, that we’re all just killjoys and cockblockers who want to interfere with their right to hit on women whenever they feel like it. But oh, no, they’re not misogynists . How dare we challenge their masculine privilege?

    I am not convinced at all you can have reasonable disagreement on issues Atheism Plus has a "sceptic" oppinion about without being put in the same category as cranky sexist people.

    In terms of the atheism/religion debate, i saw this tweet: "Atheism plus is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with pheezus." .

  • botchtowersociety
  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Dawkins calling his newest book the "magic of reality"

    I want that book...is it out yet?

    I find reality to be magic...magic of unimaginable possibilites. Yay for reality.

    [edit] just ordered it from the library...thanks for reminding me of that book sab...

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Hokay, some people are taking the concept of a branching evolutionary tree just a bit TOO far...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit