BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?

Subject: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:14 PM

Does each one speak for all the rest or do they have denominations and schisms as spiritual and religious people do?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:17 PM

Give it a bloody rest FFS.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:21 PM

I've rested for more than a month. Where have you been?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:31 PM

Rested for a month and can't even spell the bloody word in the thread title!!

I'm athy

I'm athier

I'm athiest!

And don't lie, you've popped up recently. Next time you give it a rest, kindly make it permanent!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:56 PM

That really stings coming from an individual whose grasp of the definition of the word "rest" is on par with that of his idiosyncratic definition of the word "science"

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:01 PM

I'm glad you feel stung. Two things. You have not rested for a month. You've posted in the last few days. Please don't force me to dig up your contribution. And I have never obliged you or anyone else with my definition of the word science.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:12 PM

How many anti-atheist threads is it you've started now, Wacko? Is an anti-atheist thread the same as an anti-athiest thread? I must say, I'm absolutely amazed at the fundamental depth of your shallowness. But do continue to provide the entertainment. At least, if nothing else you're serving to give the lie to Joe's equal-but-opposite characterisation of atheists versus belief-crazies!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:31 PM

I suppose there might be an underlying anti-atheist intent in the opening post, but on the surface it seems like a reasonable question. In such situations perhaps it's sensible to treat it as such.

There are of course different styles/schools/traditions of atheism, and quite sharp disagreements between them. For example I've seen some articles written by atheists which have been very acerbic about Richard Dawkins, describing him as a kind of fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Elmore
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:47 PM

see facesofatheists tumblr.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: frogprince
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:07 PM

If all the atheists in the world were layed end to end...

Some of them would by lying in very uncomfortable places...

And you probably couldn't tell them from a bunch of Baptists laid out the same way if neither bunch was talking about their beliefs at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:35 PM

Am I morally bound to correct the spelling of the word "Atheist" in the thread title?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:40 PM

'Can all Atheists be lumped together?'

Sure, they're called 'unbelievers', silly!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:04 AM

Joe!! if you correct it shaws snotty comment will be wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:07 AM

The answer is "no". They can't. No more than all religious people can be lumped together. Or all Chimps, for that matter. You'll find all different kinda viewpoints in each supposedly identifiable group.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:49 AM

Thank you, Chongo. If you would only brush your teeth, your words would be a breath of fresh air....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 01:53 AM

Can all sailors be lumped together?

Hello Sailor!

I must say you do seem to have a masochist streak in you. I suspected you encouraged people to laugh at your absurd views but it took this utterly illogical thread to confirm it.

Of course all atheists can be lumped together. How do you want to lump them? Those who recognise the term atheist? Those who are irreligious? Those who prefer pilchards to sardines? Those who sigh at your ramblings?

Can believers be lumped together?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:15 AM

A mind incapable of discernment is perfectly capable of lumping all kinds of things together that should be differentiated. Just think how many people think Fascists and Socialists and Communists are all pretty much from the same camp. It is enough to make the thinkers reel in their nightshirts! That doesn't mean there is any empirical standard allowingt he lumping, or disallowing it. It's just that stupid is pretty endemic and takes liberties on its way to absolute mental sloth whenever it can.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM

Classifications of all kinds are there to meet a need. For some purposes it makes perfect sense and is completely accurate to simply combine much of the world as 'theist' and all the rest as 'atheist'. In other contexts it makes much more sense to separate the theists into Hindi, Sikh, Christian and so on. So it seems to be a legitimate question whether 'atheist' can also be divided like that. And I think they can, but the demarcations are fewer. Many, many atheists use science as the foundation of their world-view, but by no means all. And even those that do will differ dramatically in the extent of their scientific understanding, from so superficial that it cannot really be called understanding at all, through to a very through understanding of the method and one or more subjects. Then they will differ in attitude: some atheists have a passive approach and are content to let anyone else believe what they like, others can't resist trying to prove everyone who is a theist is wrong. So I get back to my original point: yes, you can split either of these groups up or combine them. You do so based on what you want to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:42 AM

Jack the sailor, have you ever started a thread that wasn't designed to start a fight ?

Dave H,[atheist]

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM

No, not really. There are various sorts of atheist. I always think an important differentiator is what made you an atheist in the first place.* In my case, it occurred to me when I was a teenager that if there was a God [or a god, any god], we wouldn't have to piss and shit, which are a bloody inconvenient anti-life nuisance even when they are working properly and absolutely intolerable when not, which no deity worthy of the name would ever have created us lumbered with. That seemed, & still seems, to me a simple and sufficient reason for disbelief in any deity, without having to look much further; tho of course one does read one's nice Dawkins and Hitchens &c just to keep up.

Anyone else share my motivation to be 'lumped together' with me? Or am I just a one-of-a-kind atheist in this particular?

~M~


*I thought of starting a separate thread about what first turned atheists from the religion they were born & brought up to or whatever; but then I thought how much we have suffered before from several different 'atheist' threads going on at the same time, so I make my point here.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 05:46 AM

You might as well call having to eat and drink "bloody inconvenient anti-life nuisances", M. I wouldn't prefer to be without any of the bodily requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM

Please yourself, K. Just wait till you're older and they become progressively more difficult - the ingestion as well as the excretion. The ageing process as a whole, together with such phenomena as childbirth, all militate for me against any concept of a divinity that shapes our ends. "Intelligent design", piffle! Couldn't conceive of more bloody unintelligent design...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 06:47 AM

O no not again!!!.Cant you lot find anything else more constructive to occupy your time?; like maybe voting or joining a Trade Union?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:11 AM

M. Nothing makes you an atheist in the first place.

You begin an atheist. Superstition isn't hard wired in a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:25 AM

'Can all Atheists be lumped together?'

Sure, they're called 'unbelievers', silly!

No we're not! You see, this is the whole problem with these bitter non-atheists: they simply have to define everyone on their terms! It's a sort of insecurity, I suppose. As Musket points out, belief is not the default position of the human race. Rather, it's a baleful bolt-on which does nothing save instil fear and stunt the intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:25 AM

You begin an atheist

I disagree. You begin as an agnostic, and at some stage most start to ask 'what does it all mean?' and begin to reach some views in one direction or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM

How can you be agnostic about something you've never heard of? I was blissfully unaware that agnostic meant the same thing as blissfully unaware...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Elmore
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

Question: What do you get when you cross an agnostic with a Jehovah's Witness? Answer: Someone who rings your doorbell for no apparent reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

Jack the sailor, have you ever started a thread that wasn't designed to start a fight ?

Dave H,[atheist]

Hundreds, probably thousands.

Also I don't see any fighting or even ill will on this one except among those who should not be lumped.

I am tempted to ask if certain people who should not be lumped can siply discuss a point without fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM

"You begin an atheist."

I don't think so. Going by memories of my own early childhood...and observation of many others...I'd say that people begin as very curious little beings, full of energy, and hungry to find out everything they can about the fascinating world all around them...NOT with any beliefs yet other than "I am" and "my parents are" "and so what's all this other stuff?"...and just wanting to investigate everything.

Thus they begin neither as atheists nor as "believers" (in something religious). They simply begin as curious people who want to find out about everthing, that's all. They neither believe nor disbelieve in a "God", because they haven't even been introduced to that idea yet or given it any thought.

Then their parents and everyone else around them set about teaching them whatever they think "reality" is....what's real and important and what isn't...which is strictly a question of opinion, of course, that opinion usually deriving from their familiar culture...and they gradually adopt a varied set of beliefs that are passed on to them by the older people around them...and generally agreed upon by most of their peers.

In my case, I acquired the general viewpoint of atheism early, since that was evidently what my parents believed....and like any other child at an early age, I assumed my parents had "the answers". (Ta-Da! Big drum roll...)

Later in adolescence one tends to assume quite the opposite about one's parents! ;-D But that's just part of growing up. Still later one usually finds out that they were probably right about some stuff they told you...and wrong about some stuff they told you....and one attempts to move on to the next thing.

In any case, atheism is the definite belief and assertion that there IS NO God, and I don't think that people start out even thinking about stuff like that. They begin to think about it once they start hearing a lot of opinions from other people about it...either pro or con. Whoever they trust and respect the most at that time is whoever they will be most inclined to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:54 PM

I neither don't believe in God nor assert there is no God. I've never said either of those things, yet I'm supposed to one of them there rampant militant truculent evangelistic certainty-ridden atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:26 PM

Enough of this fucking nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:29 PM

You begin an Atheist

Humanity began as atheists; it's very hard for individual humans to do that because of the accumulations of religious crap that's embedded into our culture. We're picking up on it almost from the off.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:43 PM

THe notion that categorization makes perfect sense is highly suspect. The minute you start placing individuals in a category, you intentionally deprive them of their unique differences, for the sake of uniform application of a label. In doing this you inevitably alter the context for most of them. This is why sociology is such a ridiculous subject. No generalizations about people--including this one--are any damn good. I think Bob Dylan said that...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:29 PM

The only truly rational position is that of the agnostic, who maintains that the existence—or non-existence—of a supreme being is not only unknown, but probably unknowable.

And no, all atheists cannot be lumped together, any more that all Christians (over 150 different denominations, some strictly fundamentalist, some very liberal and secular in their outlook), Muslims (Shiite, Sunni, Taliban, etc.), Judaism (Chasidic, Orthodox, Reform, Conservative), nor the other religions of the world.

To follow "All atheists," "All Christians," "All Muslims," "All Jews," with some blanket statement that implies all members of that group merely takes one's own ignorance and prejudice and puts it on parade for all to see.

"All Indians walk in single file. At least the one that I saw did!"

Some atheists are militant and argumentative and take fierce delight in going after the issue hammer and tongs. Some are quiet and you don't know what they believe, if anything. They simply don't talk about it with others. I know a lot of Christians who are this way as well. Quiet about their beliefs. If the Seventh Day Adventists come to the door, the quiet atheist merely smiles, says, "No, thank you," and softly closes the door.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:35 PM

"We're picking up on it (religion) almost from the off."

Not if our parents were atheists, Blandiver. What we are picking up on "from the off" in that case is that religion is silly and without basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 05:51 PM

There do seem pretty good reasons for thinking that human beings are in fact hard-wired for belief in some kind of God, as evidenced by the virtual universality of this in human cultures at all historical times.

That doesn't in itself mean that it's a correct belief, but it does mean it is a natural beliief. In general people need to believe in God. Whether our bellief is justified is another question.

And of course there are people of whom this general condition is not true. Whether they are the sighted excption in the Kingdom of the Blind, or the other wat round is open to argument. But either way, they are the exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:10 PM

What we are picking up on "from the off" in that case is that religion is silly and without basis.

I don't think we automatically follow what our parents think - I know I certainly didn't, and my kids have found their own way which doesn't echo my feelings at all. Doubts, options, opinions, possibilities, impossibilities are all part of our wider cultural socialisation which comes from outside the home. For me it mostly came from Sun Ra. Space is the Place!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:47 PM

Gods among primitive humanity, were simply expressions of the need to identify those forces of nature which they could neither control nor understand.

There would be one God who walked on legs of fire (lightning), another whose voice could be heard complaining about the fireworks.

One whose breath blew down strong trees and destroyed crops, etc. etc.

A way for simple unscientific minds to explain their observations of wind and weather, volcanoes and earthquakes.

Nowadays, most of humanity is aware of the science behind natural phenomena (creationists excepted), but some people still need to believe in those atavistic concepts.

So they have whittled it down to one God, and invented religion to justify that idea.

If there were no religions and no believers in God, they wouldn't have needed to invent atheists to have somebody to rail against for supplying "evil" to balance their "goodness".

It's having somebody to whom one can feel superior!
_____________________________________________________________________

""*I thought of starting a separate thread about what first turned atheists from the religion they were born & brought up to or whatever;""

Mike, Mike Mike! When will you learn the difference between faith and religion?

If Atheists show no belief, it is "God" in whose existence they do not believe. Religion is a totally different kettle of fish which is, absent the Deity, simply irrelevant.

My point of view is somewhat different, in that I have faith without religion.

I believe in something (call it God, if you wish! I don't anthropomorphise it), but it doesn't require any input from wise men in frocks or turbans, with their agendas to tell me what to think.

Insofar as I have declined to join their clubs, I am more in tune with what the religious call "Atheists".

Insofar as I have faith, in that aspect I am aligned only with that in which I have faith, a club of two equal members.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:51 PM

I agree with Q

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 09:25 PM

The word "Atheist" effectively lumps all people that believe there is no god.It doesn't mean that they have anything else in common.English is a nice language. It should be used more often than it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 10:23 PM

Does no one else read it as "Can all Athiests be HUMPED together?" Or is it that I am just weird?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:07 PM

Refer back to my earlier post of 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM, Blandiver, and you'll see that I already took that into account.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:12 PM

Anyway, it's pretty much useless talking about this stuff in a crowd of people on a forum. Too many cooks confuse the soup. If any two people here could sit down and quietly talk about it at length just to each other, without other people jumping in, they might actually reach the point of achieving some useful understanding of each other's point of view...but as it is...given the sniping and oneupmanship that occurs in the presence of an internet crowd...it's hopeless. That's why I seldom get involved in serious discussions here any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:49 PM

Don't patronise me please, Don. I am perfectly well aware of the distinction you make between faith and religion, and when I wrote 'religion', that was the one I meant -- i.e the formal usages and organisation into which the faith of the family into which my subject was born had been organised. My point holds -- that formalisation, as well as the faith itself, was what I had found unnecessary. I think even your 'faith' a bit otiose, in fact, not myself feeling the need for even that much of an anagogic approach to my environment.

So they had better not lump you & me together too readily for a start had they?

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:05 AM

Little Hawk makes some interesting points. Children have to be taught the formalities of atheism or religion. However I think they are almost natural mystics and are highly superstitious little creatures - some more than others of course and it usually fades with age, as outside influences inform beliefs about such things. All kinds of taboos and magical ideas permeate kids minds, and they mostly arise from within not without, that's why they generally don't share them with adults who categorise them either as childish imaginings (atheist parents) or evil ones (religious parents). Be they the very real friend that no-one else can see or hear, or the knowledge that they used to have another family, or that the old tree houses a malevolent spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM

""So they had better not lump you & me together too readily for a start had they?""

I'm sorry that you felt patronised Mike. That was not my intent.

However, my point also stands!

Absent the belief in a deity, those formalities are simply irrelevant.

What is wrong, in your opinion, with that statement which, as far as I can see, has the cart and horse in the correct relationship.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:43 AM

Refer back to my earlier post of 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM, Blandiver, and you'll see that I already took that into account.

I didn't see that one, LH. I agree. I'd say religion and music are similar beasts & carry the same sort of passion & ubiquity the immediate manifestation of which is much diversity underpinned by conviction & devotion. Thus, to the religious I say : a) It's all a matter of personal taste, and b) They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Otherwise I'm naturally irked by those who have chosen carry around in their hearts the notion that humanity is damned / sinful by default just because they're not getting any.

Folkies look at me askance when I say I don't like Bob Dylan (though I loved his Theme Time Radio Hour) but I adore Michael Hurley. I spend much time immersed in the Max Hunter Folk Song Collection & the Harry Smith Anthology and I dare say the dreamy mystic awe I feel whilst listen to Hoyt Ming's Indian War Whoop is on account of its numninosity (or numinousness / numinescence). Similarly when I listen to Mrs Pearl Brewer of Pocahantas, Arkensas singing The Cruel Mother I'm in a space which no revival singer can take me to. I derive as much joy & serenity from these manifestations of a truly idiosyncratic vernacular craft as I do from tipping medieval misericords in out-of-the-way medieval churches in the English countryside and exploring the delights thereunder. Otherwise - I can go along with the trickster Sun Ra's Cosmic Philosophy, likewise in listening to Bitches Brew I can well believe that Miles Davis was truly a dark magus. I am regularly emotionally & spiritually wasted by Henry Purcell's sacred & secular writing, and (even though I despise the UK class-caste system) lament that I wasn't born a little higher up the social / cultural ladder (!) so might at least be able to play it.

The truly great thing is that it's different for all of us; the bad thing is when people arrive at a majority consensus and insist that it must be right for everyone else. Collectivity in terms of commonality is born from an appreciation of that uniqueness; it nurtures it, cherishes it, celebrates the fact that true unity must always exist in diversity. It begins when we're born, and it ends when die, hopefully smiling, thankful as we return back into the cosmic scheme from which we came.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:13 AM

Ah, no, Don. The formalities are all part of it. My late father had no belief, didn't keep the dietary laws or the Sabbath, cut his hair & shaved, didn't really think there was a deity, but wouldn't have anything to do with Liberal or Reform Synagogues or any such; but only, as he put it, the real one ~~ not that he was a member or ever went, but if he had that was where he would have gone. "I am a non-practising, non-believing Orthodox Jew," he would say.

See where I am coming from?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:59 AM

The only truly rational position is that of the agnostic, who maintains that the existence—or non-existence—of a supreme being is not only unknown, but probably unknowable.

I think this needs qualifying. There are three distinct kinds of "agnostic", two of which are entirely honourable and the other which is highly disreputable and cowardly. First, you've heard of religion, you were taught it, you don't bother with it except for weddings and you don't really give a damn. Entirely sensible and honourable. Second, you have given the matter much thought, taking all the evidence into account, and are highly critical of the concept of a God who breaks every known law of nature and who is infinitely more inexplicable than all the things he's supposed to be there to explain. You conclude that the chances of his existence are so small that you might as well get on with your life as if he isn't there, even though you can't (and don't want to) actually prove it. Highly honourable and sensible. Third, you assert that you don't know either way, he could exist but he might not and you're happy with that (after all, it chucks in a bit of insurance to boot). You haven't been anything like critical enough of the supposed evidence and, frankly, all that religious background of yours has made you feel a bit scared of saying he doesn't exist. You're a fence-sitter. Unnecessary and disreputable. Get off your knees!

Of course, the second category comprises those we call atheists. Far from "not believing in God", or stating with certainty that he doesn't exist, we are simply waiting for the evidence that we are pretty confident will not come along (a blazing chariot of fire from the heavens would do it for me, though your mileage may vary). We merely shrug in believers' general direction.