Come out of the closet Americans

[BoSoxGal]

Have you never heard of secular humanism??

Atheists aren't amoral; religion isn't the source of morality. There is a ton of literature out there about this subject; you might want to read some of it.

Here's a good article to get you started:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... gion_n.htm

I think it was in this forum a few years back that somebody posted a link to a video showing a dog risking its life to try to save another dog who had faltered as they were crossing an 8-lane highway in Brazil (or someplace in South America). The animal world is abundant with evidence that altruism and morality are not specific to the human condition, but in fact, are evolutionarily based.

Atheists don't have to evangelize about their moral code because it's inherent - folks who think they 'learn' morality in church are only deluding themselves - we learn morality by interacting with other moral beings. Atheist children are no less moral than children who go to Sunday school - they just don't live in fear of hellfire, damnation, the wrath of a white-haired old man should they break rules or violate the golden rule. Atheists follow the golden rule simply because it's the right thing to do.

[Crackpot]

Secular humanist does not equal atheists I know Christians atheists agnostics wiccans etc... That subscribe to that label.

Once again you set up a straw man I never called them amoral but the simple fact is without something to believe in you lack any coherent unifing force and therefore there will be no "mass awakening" of atheists. That is the sole point I'm making set up al the assinie strawmen you want it won't change the fact of the central error of the OP.

The simple fact that after all this time you've failed to address the argument I'm making (and even made
Points supporting my position while beating your strawmen) tells me that you ego is getting in the way of understanding my point.

[Big RR]

without something to believe in you lack any coherent unifing force

Cannot that unifying force be a battle against the incursion of religion into the government and secular areas--like when prayer in school was banned? Certainly there are some among the religious who will join with them in that effort, but those lacking any belief in a deity bring an important prospective to those issues that Is not represented by those who count themselves among the believers (i.e. atheists will always oppose this incursion, while many religious adherents might not mind it if it were limited to their own brand of religion; so, e.g., the more liberal Christian denominations may well oppose efforts by some religious against birth control and abortion, but may employ those same tactics in the fight against capital punishment--the atheist will not).

[rubato]

Are you people completely missing the central question of this thread? Why aren't atheists "coming out of the closet?" The answer quite simply is because outside of creating conflict for the sake of conflict coming out atheist has nothing to offer. (At least in any society that allows for freedom of religion). It has no code no ethics no offer of an understanding of where you belong in the universe. All it provides as a declaration is an opposition to something else. Now let me be abundantly clear this has nothing to do with what an individual atheist feels or believes or thinks about their place in the universe it is just the bleak truth as to what's beyond the "closet door".

If you disagree with me fine but don't tell me I don't get it unless you can at least give me an example of what coming out atheist does for the individual outside of placing a direct opposition to religion.

Athiests are not "coming out of the closet" for the reason that we don't feel the need to constantly discuss the heliocentric view of the universe or the phlogiston theory. We have shed something of no value and found that once it was gone there was no reason to discuss it. A belief in god provides nothing of explanatory value about the world and nothing of predictive value and has zero heuristic benefits. It is not replacing a "something" with a "nothing" it is the discovery that it was nothing all along.


You don't get it and really do have to go read about Materialist and Hylozoist world views to understand better why you don't get it.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

... the simple fact is without something to believe in you lack any coherent unifing force and therefore there will be no "mass awakening" of atheists. That is the sole point I'm making set up al the assinie strawmen you want it won't change the fact of the central error of the OP.

... .

Materialism and hylozoism are both coherent intellectual centers with which to organise ones understanding of the world. But you will have to read about them to understand that.

The period of the past 200 years has been the 'mass awakening' of materialism which has done more to improve the quality of life than 1800 years of Christianity has done.



yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

rubato--for these to be a unifying force, they would have to be theories (one or the other) subscribed to by most self-professed atheists; I would be most atheists (or religious for that matter) would have much of an understanding of either concept unless they studies philosophy or religion at the university level or elsewhere. Most people (religious or atheist) don't delve into things at that level.

[Crackpot]

without something to believe in you lack any coherent unifing force

Cannot that unifying force be a battle against the incursion of religion into the government and secular areas--like when prayer in school was banned? Certainly there are some among the religious who will join with them in that effort, but those lacking any belief in a deity bring an important prospective to those issues that Is not represented by those who count themselves among the believers (i.e. atheists will always oppose this incursion, while many religious adherents might not mind it if it were limited to their own brand of religion; so, e.g., the more liberal Christian denominations may well oppose efforts by some religious against birth control and abortion, but may employ those same tactics in the fight against capital punishment--the atheist will not).

Are you asking my permission?

I already addressed persecution as a possible unifying factor but I also don't think it's going to happen unless something major changes (at least as far as most "westernized" countries are concerned. At this point "the war on Atheists" is about as credible as "the war on Christmas" that is if you're looking for it you can find many examples of people being asshole but nothing that rises to actual threat.

[Crackpot]

Are you people completely missing the central question of this thread? Why aren't atheists "coming out of the closet?" The answer quite simply is because outside of creating conflict for the sake of conflict coming out atheist has nothing to offer. (At least in any society that allows for freedom of religion). It has no code no ethics no offer of an understanding of where you belong in the universe. All it provides as a declaration is an opposition to something else. Now let me be abundantly clear this has nothing to do with what an individual atheist feels or believes or thinks about their place in the universe it is just the bleak truth as to what's beyond the "closet door".

If you disagree with me fine but don't tell me I don't get it unless you can at least give me an example of what coming out atheist does for the individual outside of placing a direct opposition to religion.

Athiests are not "coming out of the closet" for the reason that we don't feel the need to constantly discuss the heliocentric view of the universe or the phlogiston theory. We have shed something of no value and found that once it was gone there was no reason to discuss it. A belief in god provides nothing of explanatory value about the world and nothing of predictive value and has zero heuristic benefits. It is not replacing a "something" with a "nothing" it is the discovery that it was nothing all along.


You don't get it and really do have to go read about Materialist and Hylozoist world views to understand better why you don't get it.


yrs,
rubato

Do you realize that you're arguing my point?

[Lord Jim]

Athiests are not "coming out of the closet" for the reason that we don't feel the need to constantly discuss the heliocentric view of the universe or the phlogiston theory. We have shed something of no value and found that once it was gone there was no reason to discuss it.

What utter drivel...

I have never seen Bible-thumping Baptist revivalists who proselytize and evangelize the way the promoters of Atheism do...

I've never seen such intolerant, mean-spirited, relentless, in-your-face drum beating...

"No reason to discuss it'?...These clowns never shut up about it....

Not wanting to be associated with these snotty, loud-mouthed, condescending, sneerers (rube's rhetoric frequently provides an excellent example of the type; he's hardly "in the closet") no doubt plays a big role in why (as I said earlier) a lot of folks who might experience doubts about religious faith would prefer not to broadcast it.

[Crackpot]

There's plenty of assholes on every side. Belief systems don't make people assholes. Assholes use belief systems to justify being assholes.

[Big RR]

without something to believe in you lack any coherent unifing force

Cannot that unifying force be a battle against the incursion of religion into the government and secular areas--like when prayer in school was banned? Certainly there are some among the religious who will join with them in that effort, but those lacking any belief in a deity bring an important prospective to those issues that Is not represented by those who count themselves among the believers (i.e. atheists will always oppose this incursion, while many religious adherents might not mind it if it were limited to their own brand of religion; so, e.g., the more liberal Christian denominations may well oppose efforts by some religious against birth control and abortion, but may employ those same tactics in the fight against capital punishment--the atheist will not).

Are you asking my permission?

I already addressed persecution as a possible unifying factor but I also don't think it's going to happen unless something major changes (at least as far as most "westernized" countries are concerned. At this point "the war on Atheists" is about as credible as "the war on Christmas" that is if you're looking for it you can find many examples of people being asshole but nothing that rises to actual threat.

Permission? No; perhaps I should have said "Shouldn't".

As for persecution, I would think the battle of some on the religious side to control school curricula and include intelligent design as part of science, to limit access to birth control and abortion, to outlaw homosexual marriage (and activities), etc. as showing there is a definite move to place religion into the government.

[Crackpot]

While there is some movement to put the religious into government nothing to put religion into government has made much of a scratch.

Still all this is beside the point as none of this has near hit the point of masking atheism itself a rallying cry which for those of you not paying attention is my whole freaking point.

[Joe Guy]

I agree to some extent but mostly I could go either way I think...

[Lord Jim]

I could go either way

That's what Steve thought...

[rubato]

rubato--for these to be a unifying force, they would have to be theories (one or the other) subscribed to by most self-professed atheists; I would be most atheists (or religious for that matter) would have much of an understanding of either concept unless they studies philosophy or religion at the university level or elsewhere. Most people (religious or atheist) don't delve into things at that level.

Proving the point. When religion is removed nothing of value is lost which requires replacement.

For that small few who care to have a coherent philosophy of life (and almost no religious people do, as you admit) it can be had in materialism &cc

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Are you people completely missing the central question of this thread? Why aren't atheists "coming out of the closet?" The answer quite simply is because outside of creating conflict for the sake of conflict coming out atheist has nothing to offer. (At least in any society that allows for freedom of religion). It has no code no ethics no offer of an understanding of where you belong in the universe. All it provides as a declaration is an opposition to something else. Now let me be abundantly clear this has nothing to do with what an individual atheist feels or believes or thinks about their place in the universe it is just the bleak truth as to what's beyond the "closet door".

If you disagree with me fine but don't tell me I don't get it unless you can at least give me an example of what coming out atheist does for the individual outside of placing a direct opposition to religion.

Athiests are not "coming out of the closet" for the reason that we don't feel the need to constantly discuss the heliocentric view of the universe or the phlogiston theory. We have shed something of no value and found that once it was gone there was no reason to discuss it. A belief in god provides nothing of explanatory value about the world and nothing of predictive value and has zero heuristic benefits. It is not replacing a "something" with a "nothing" it is the discovery that it was nothing all along.


You don't get it and really do have to go read about Materialist and Hylozoist world views to understand better why you don't get it.


yrs,
rubato

Do you realize that you're arguing my point?

What point is that?


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

For that small few who care to have a coherent philosophy of life (and almost no religious people do,

The person who could not possibly have a coherent philosophy of life would be one who claimed that they constructed their moral philosophy based on science...

The belief that science (since it should be obvious that those aren't the sorts of questions that science is designed to answer) could be used to construct a moral philosophy would be an example of a belief that could be correctly described as ignorant...

[BoSoxGal]

The person who could not possibly have a coherent philosophy of life would be one who claimed that they constructed their moral philosophy based on science...
- LJ

Have you ever studied or read philosophy? That's an entirely false statement, LJ.

There are other philosophies from Judeo-Christian-affiliated ones.

And those books are free at the public library. Lots of not-college-educated Atheists have a philosophy. But one thing not part of it is EVANGELISM. We don't go prosyletizing our philosophy or trying to win converts. If people ask, we share - but only as to what atheism means to us, and why we vehemently support the founding fathers' - in particular Thomas Jefferson's - adherence to the principle of the separation of church and state.

By the way, ever read the Jefferson Bible? He cuts out all the trinity and shows that Jesus was a philosopher like Socrates, telling us how to best live with out fellow men. Jesus didn't talk about the Kingdom of God except to say that is was our lives here on earth. The biggest thing I despise in Christianity and other religions is the idea that in life we should tolerate our suffering, because they'll be grace enough in Heaven when we're gone.

Atheists want grace here on earth, in this life. That is their most powerful unifying world view.

And I'd really like to see the figures on the very rare appearances in mainstream media of Hitchens, Dawkins and there ilk, v. Christian leaders. Hands down, Christians mold the message of our nation - often for a terribly painful worse. In particular, the Christian belief that this material earth isn't terribly important - global warming, if it exists, is part of prophesied end times necessary for Jesus's second coming, it terribly damaging to our environment and our foreign policy regarding the Middle East - and has been for many years.

[Lord Jim]

We don't go prosyletizing our philosophy or trying to win converts.

Wow...

You've got to be kidding...

Have you ever studied or read philosophy?

You betcha...Extensively...took numerous advanced level courses in it , and have been reading books on the topic ever since...

That's an entirely false statement, LJ.

No, it's an entirely correct one...

Science answers "what can be done" type questions, not "what should be done" type questions, which are the questions that inform a moral philosophy. They are entirely separate.

One can certainly construct a moral philosophy without religion, (I know many who have) but that's completely different from saying one has constructed a moral philosophy based on science.

A person who believes they have constructed a moral philosophy based on science either doesn't understand moral philosophy, or doesn't understand science, or both.

ETA:

It seems to me that you have a very idealized view of the behavior of Atheists, (which certainly doesn't conform with my experience or observation) and a very stereo-typical view of Christians....

BTW, if you want to see numerous examples of Atheist proselytizing, all you need to do is scroll down through this forum room and check out many of the threads.

[Lord Jim]

Atheists are unified by one single belief, (and it is a "belief" since obviously it is impossible to prove empirically, just as is the opposite; which is what makes Atheism a faith-based system) namely the non-existence of God.

Individual Atheists, or groups of Atheists can have moral codes they developed without religion, but Atheism at it's core really only inherently contains that one leap-of-faith belief. (And many adherents to the Atheist faith embrace it with the fanatical exuberance and absolutism one can find in other faiths. This is what leads them to feel the need to denigrate those who don't accept their faith.)

One cannot believe in the existence of God and be an Atheist. But so long as one embraces the non-existence of God, one can believe pretty much anything else and still be an Atheist; that belief is the one and only requirement. You can have a moral code and be an Atheist, but it's certainly not required. (Josef Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all Atheists; I'm not particularly impressed with their moral codes...)

I've talked about the way many Atheists proselytize, and also how many of them feel the need to demean and ridicule the faith systems of others, but BSG's post reminded me of another quality many Atheists have...

The tendency to confer some sort of "moral superiority" on themselves and their fellow Atheists.