Dawkins atheistic vision of society

Originally posted by agryson
Dawkins, His science is great, his God Delusion book was full of interesting points, good arguments and well written, but was far to aggressive and partisan. While both he and you have claimed that there is no representative of atheism, there is for a certain type of atheism. The over the top in your face atheism has Dawkins as its representative. It's happe ...[text shortened]... 7/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

Like I said, it's long, but very much worth the read...

Monotheist: Belief in one: 1
Polytheist: Belief in many: >1
Atheist: Belief in none: 0

I guess after reading much of that article you would disagree with what
I wrote above?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Monotheist: Belief in one: 1
Polytheist: Belief in many: >1
Atheist: Belief in none: 0

I guess after reading much of that article you would disagree with what
I wrote above?
Kelly

If the numbers represent the number of gods that one believes in, then no, of course I wouldn't disagree. Neither would the dictionary. What in the article would suggest otherwise?!

Originally posted by agryson
If the numbers represent the number of gods that one believes in, then no, of course I wouldn't disagree. Neither would the dictionary. What in the article would suggest otherwise?!

I took it as he didn't want to be defined by religion that he didn't want
the label atheist since it meant he was still defined by how he viewed
God or gods. Which I thought wasn't accurate since he does define others
by their views on God or gods. Maybe I read that into it, but it seemed
to be the point of the parts I did read.
Kelly

Originally posted by The Dude 84
[b]So many people have misinterpreted him and I agree with his vision so the basic conception of it at least should be made clear.

Let's imagine that a massive group of people believed we were put on this earth by benevolent aliens. This led some people to do charitable work and some people interpreted the aliens differently, and they started wars for i till good, but not because of aliens. And war is now POINTLESS instead of just being undesireable

If aliens were responsible for my existence or had a hand in my being here then I would feel a debt of gratitude. It is only natural....or at least, should be. What about your parents? For example, are you thankful that they brought you into the world?

Originally posted by The Dude 84
Given the greater understanding of the world science is providing us with everyday religiosity should be diminishing, however, given the rise of Militant Islamic Jihadists and Fundamentalist Christians mean it is no longer acceptable for atheists to just think there is no God in their "closets" so to speak. There must be a motion to dismantle the power religion has over what are supposed to be secular societies anyway!

Will science replace philosophy? Should it? What about ethics, should science replace the field of ethics? You see, science has its place, religion has its place, philosophy has its place etc. They all contribute to the study of the world around us. For me, my religion says that God is love, therefore, my pursuit of God stems around from my understanding of love. Such abstract concepts are not best studied by science because they are intangible yet they exist nonetheless. Therefore, leave the tangible to science and the rest to religion. 😉

As for the whole control issue, Christiandom has long ago abandon the idea of a theocracy. Therefore, I think Dawkins beef should be with Islam which I would totally agree with. If you bring up the "Christian right", however, I will only respond that Christians as well as everyone else should have a political voice. Who makes any ones beliefs and political views elevated above another? Don't we as a society decide these things for ourselves by voting on them? At least, assuming democracy plays a part.

Originally posted by whodey
Will science replace philosophy? Should it? What about ethics, should science replace the field of ethics? You see, science has its place, religion has its place, philosophy has its place etc. They all contribute to the study of the world around us. For me, my religion says that God is love, therefore, my pursuit of God stems around from my understanding ...[text shortened]... they exist nonetheless. Therefore, leave the tangible to science and the rest to religion. 😉

Well, Science tends not to work in the intangable, that's the rub, religion, with its insistence on having the inside story tends to try to meddle in the tangible when there is ample evidence and philosophical basis for the scientific view in place. Take evolution and creationism for example, though let's not get into it!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I took it as he didn't want to be defined by religion that he didn't want
the label atheist since it meant he was still defined by how he viewed
God or gods. Which I thought wasn't accurate since he does define others
by their views on God or gods. Maybe I read that into it, but it seemed
to be the point of the parts I did read.
Kelly

Well, yes and no, what he is saying is that when you have a religion, there are certain identifiable characteristics in common with others of the same denomination, by necessity, it says something about you, but that the term atheist is misleading, it suggests it is a label, but actually that it makes little sense to describe something as the absence of something else, other than the absence of something, atheists have absolutely nothing in common. His example was astrologer. There is no such thing as a "non-astrolger" the concept isn't necessary as is atheism.

Originally posted by agryson
Well, Science tends not to work in the intangable, that's the rub, religion, with its insistence on having the inside story tends to try to meddle in the tangible when there is ample evidence and philosophical basis for the scientific view in place. Take evolution and creationism for example, though let's not get into it!

I would agree in part. In Galileo's time the church insisted that his findings that the universe did not revolve around the sun were heretical according to scripture no matter how absurd this seems today because scripture makes no such claim. Similarly, I think the findings regarding evolution will one day be viewed much the same. Unfortunatly, it is religion that has drawn their line in the sand by saying either accept scientific findings or Biblical teachings, but not both. Why they persist on doing so stems from their ignorance of both scripture and science. I think pride is at the root of the problem. However, be it known that not all who embrace such religious texts as the Bible think that science and Biblical teachings are heretical. In fact, the Bible is not even a scientific text.

However, one thing about the Bible is that it deals with how the intangible intermingles with the tangible. For example, the Biblical text is a great source of history and has become the basis for the scientific pursuit of Biblical archeaology. Likewise, the Bible may give us insight into how creation came about, however, it is not a how to book on how creation came about. Saying that a few chapters in Genesis covers billions upon billions of years is adequate in understanding scientifically what occured is absurd to say the least. It is a summary of a summary of a summary to the "n'th" degree at best as to what happened.

Originally posted by agryson
Well, yes and no, what he is saying is that when you have a religion, there are certain identifiable characteristics in common with others of the same denomination, by necessity, it says something about you, but that the term atheist is misleading, it suggests it is a label, but actually that it makes little sense to describe something as the absence of some ...[text shortened]... loger. There is no such thing as a "non-astrolger" the concept isn't necessary as is atheism.

I don't accept that either because atheist promote a godless universe
from beginning to end, the variable either is 0, 1, or >1 and that is
foundational to all other views on all things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't accept that either because atheist promote a godless universe
from beginning to end, the variable either is 0, 1, or >1 and that is
foundational to all other views on all things.
Kelly

I'm a teacher.
Assuming you're not, do you call yourself a non-teacher or an a-teacher?

Of course not. Why bother to use the negative as a label.
This is I think the point of rejecting the term atheism.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm a teacher.
Assuming you're not, do you call yourself a non-teacher or an a-teacher?

Of course not. Why bother to use the negative as a label.
This is I think the point of rejecting the term atheism.

You can call yourself whatever you want, my point was that we define
people and things due to actions taken, a description that fits, or any
number of other things that group or identify. I do not define myself
as a non-teacher yet at the same time I do define myself by my
profession, and I also define myself by some of my core beliefs as
you define others by their core beliefs too. The promotion of a view
about the universe and all that is in it to a particular set of beliefs
define atheist a certain way!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can call yourself whatever you want, my point was that we define
people and things due to actions taken, a description that fits, or any
number of other things that group or identify. I do not define myself
as a non-teacher yet at the same time I do define myself by my
profession, and I also define myself by some of my core beliefs as
you define ot ...[text shortened]... verse and all that is in it to a particular set of beliefs
define atheist a certain way!
Kelly

Well actually I don't define people by their core beliefs. In fact. I tend to avoid defining people at all other than by the obvious relationships.

My mum, for example, is a christian. But I don't think of her as 'christian' - she's just my mum.

Many of the people I work with are christians. But I don't define them as such. They're colleagues. Their christianity is irrelevant.

In fact, it's only here in these forums that the issue is raised all that much. I discuss my atheism with mum, and we have many interesting discussions, but to be honest, no one really cares all that much.
Maybe that's just Australia for you.

Originally posted by amannion
Well actually I don't define people by their core beliefs. In fact. I tend to avoid defining people at all other than by the obvious relationships.

My mum, for example, is a christian. But I don't think of her as 'christian' - she's just my mum.

Many of the people I work with are christians. But I don't define them as such. They're colleagues. Their c ...[text shortened]... to be honest, no one really cares all that much.
Maybe that's just Australia for you.

LOL
You just called your mum a Christian and some of your colleagues as
well, you just said you try not to think of them in those terms but you
did and do it seems. I'm a Christian and I know those that share my
faith that I count among my friends and those that are not, but my
feelings and actions toward them do not change beyond those things
I share with the Christians I do not share with the non-Christians. For
example I worship and pray with other Christians on a regular basis,
but typically not with those that do not share my faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL
You just called your mum a Christian and some of your colleagues as
well, you just said you try not to think of them in those terms but you
did and do it seems. I'm a Christian and I know those that share my
faith that I count among my friends and those that are not, but my
feelings and actions toward them do not change beyond those things
I share ...[text shortened]... Christians on a regular basis,
but typically not with those that do not share my faith.
Kelly

No, I called her a christian because she is. Her religion is not the first thing - or even the tenth - I think about when I think of her.

As for my colleagues.
Well I know some of them are christians - since I work at a christian school. But I have no idea who. I don't ask, and I don't care. It's irrelevant since that's not how I define them - they're teachers and colleagues.

Originally posted by amannion
No, I called her a christian because she is. Her religion is not the first thing - or even the tenth - I think about when I think of her.

As for my colleagues.
Well I know some of them are christians - since I work at a christian school. But I have no idea who. I don't ask, and I don't care. It's irrelevant since that's not how I define them - they're teachers and colleagues.

Okay, it does not matter why you called her that, you do label her
by her core beliefs, shs is a Christian. I like you think of people as
people, you can still treat her with the respect you should as you
do others too, not denying that, but you have now not only labeled
her a Christian, you defined her by saying she is one, because that
is what she is.
Kelly