Bill Maher - Atheism is Not a Religion

[Audley Strange]

You mean like Ratzkep.

The politics of the thing just annoys me, there's very little political about my atheism, though there is something very atheistic about my politics.

Well not just there, but that's an example I guess. Is there anyone who genuinely thinks "atheism" does or should have a central socio-political doctrine or can we all agree that such a position is fucking bonkers and move on?

I can answer quite definitely yes ... and no. It's a matter of context to me. I'm an atheist in the political arena, and a giveafuckist the rest of the time.

Could you elaborate on "atheist in the political arena" ?

I'm against injecting religion into politics.

Right, got you.

Cheers.

[PsychoSerenity]

There are certainly good reasons for atheists to promote secularism, but they are the same reasons why many theists might also promote secularism - and there's certainly no requirement to do so, to be an atheist. If people are active in promoting secularism, even under a banner of atheism, it's a hobby or a job or a political position, not a religion. I suppose it would be possible to have a religion of atheism, - if the belief that there is definitely no god (as opposed to the lack of belief that there is a god) were promoted dogmatically in the face of logic and philosophy and even contrary evidence - then I would call that a religion. But I'm fairly sure that is not what the vast majority of atheism is.

Edit: word order "no certainly" makes no sense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"There are certainly good reasons for atheists to promote secularism, but they are the same reasons why many theists might also promote secularism - and there's no certainly requirement to do so, to be an atheist. "

If you explained this I missed it.

[PsychoSerenity]

Explain? I'm just rambling. Anyway what's to be explained? Have I said anything obviously wrong there?

Actually I've just seen one thing obviously wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Explain? I'm just rambling. Anyway what's to be explained? Have I said anything obviously wrong there?

Actually I've just seen one thing obviously wrong.

The "same thing" part baffles me. Sowwy.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...If such a thing exists as atheism, and I remain unconvinced about that, then I can't see how it would not take on aspects of a religion since even the suffix "ism" suggests a set of beliefs...

No

The "ism" part belongs to the thing atheism is "a" about.

It's "a-theism", not "athe-ism".

That makes even less sense.

"Atheism" means "lacking theism". The only reason the word "atheism" ends in the suffix "ism" is because the word "theism" does.


Therefore the presence of the suffix "ism" does not suggest atheism is a set of beliefs, it suggests theism is a set of beliefs, and atheism is it's absence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

aphilatelists of the world unite!!!!!!!!

[Audley Strange]

...If such a thing exists as atheism, and I remain unconvinced about that, then I can't see how it would not take on aspects of a religion since even the suffix "ism" suggests a set of beliefs...

No

The "ism" part belongs to the thing atheism is "a" about.

It's "a-theism", not "athe-ism".

That makes even less sense.

"Atheism" means "lacking theism". The only reason the word "atheism" ends in the suffix "ism" is because the word "theism" does.


Therefore the presence of the suffix "ism" does not suggest atheism is a set of beliefs, it suggests theism is a set of beliefs, and atheism is it's absence.

Ah yes, got you. Yes. It is an absence, it is not something that exists the way theism does. I should have put it "atheism" in quotes as I was meaning the idea of an atheist movement as either a political or religious "ism".

[FBM]

Back to the topic:

Granted, the meaning of a word evolves and mutates through the years depending on how that word is used (in a certain culture / by the group in question), but IME dictionary definitions do represent our best approximation of a consensus about a word's meaning(s) at any given time.

Also granted that certain theism-related beliefs and behaviors can be and have been repeatedly observed to "cluster" in individuals. But claiming that theism would (necessarily/always) include a belief in some type of afterlife and/or in spirits/souls/ghosts is exactly as illogical as claiming that atheists would necessarily be liberals...

Ah. Very well put.

The guy is a COMEDIAN.

That clip was funny. You don't have to agree with his politics to find it funny.
And if you don't find it funny, it's just a matter of taste...that's it.

Ah. Very well put.

[hadespussercats]

Well, I think there's nothing left to add.

sweep... sweep...

Ronja, is there a thread about learning styles? I was intrigued by your discussion of that.

[Ronja]

Well, I think there's nothing left to add.

sweep... sweep...

Ronja, is there a thread about learning styles? I was intrigued by your discussion of that.

I know I have mentioned them a few times over the years, also here though more often on Facebook, but I don't think there is a thread (scurries to put Advanced Search hard to work...)

[Drewish]

Holy thread explosion!

Xamonas Chegwé,

When i pointed out that UFOs and and 911 conspiracy theories were different beasts from believing in fairies and didn't relate to this conversation, it was not a straw man argument. I was simple pointing out that that wasn't the topic being discussed. The majority of your post is the same "fallacy hunting." What constituted a 'god' is very important if atheism is the rejection of gods. If however atheism is the rejection of theism, it stands to reason that the definition of theism. So if pantheism is considered part of theism, then a pantheist would be... that's right, not an atheist.

Xamonas Chegwé, Ronja, and others,
The attempt to define 'god' as only meaning the monotheistic 'God' is a perversion of the term. It's simple see, putting an 'a' in front of 'theist' means you're an a-theist, or not a theist. Then I go to the definition of theism, and see that, wow religious spiritualism of a nature worship variety fits the bill! It's really simply to just go to the language, make a semantic argument, and declare myself the winner (just quote the dictionary for example). Of course that would just make one a condescending dismissive asshole.

Keep in mind that I didn't assert that my definition of 'atheist' was the correct one. I told apophenia that our disagreement seemed to stem from having different definitions for the term atheist (recognizing that it was fine for us to have different definitions). Then apophenia asked me to share my definition here:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1114126

So this:

Personally, what someone calls her/himself does not usually concern me enough that I would post, even though I would happen to disagree (which I do in this case, but it's her business, not mine). What people call my friends and assume about them or me - now that can be a whole other kettle of fish.

Is to put it bluntly, bullshit. That others are allowed to share their definitions of atheism without recourse, and that I (when prompted to share mine) am then the target of simultaneously dismissive and poorly constructed arguments to prove mine as accurate is a double standard. Even more so when I am then accused of attempting to impose my belief on others via the passive aggressive BS that is the quote above. I suggest many of you check your biases because the ideological tribalism on display here is disappointing.

[FBM]

Andrew, I wasn't aware that you'd identified your definition of atheism as your own. I mistakenly got the impression that you were stating that it was the only correct definition and everyone else should follow it. I apologize for my failure to read all the related posts that might have clued me in. I misunderstood that you were being a tad arrogant in asserting that there is only one correct definition of atheism: yours. Mea culpa.

[Ronja]

Well, I think there's nothing left to add.

sweep... sweep...

Ronja, is there a thread about learning styles? I was intrigued by your discussion of that.

I know I have mentioned them a few times over the years, also here though more often on Facebook, but I don't think there is a thread (scurries to put Advanced Search hard to work...)

I only found this post that really is about different styles of learning (with examples etc.), but it is about a very specific topic to learn, the computer program MatLab: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 17#p760817

This is maybe the most important part of that post:

AFAIK, the test/model that that page is based on, the Felder-Soloman "Index of Learning Styles", is the only well validated learning style test ever, and it irks me to no end that the Wikipedia article on learning styles pretty much dismisses all learning style models and tests, because most of them are unvalidated or poorly validated - there is at least one exception to that rule!

And this man is the reason why I am finally ready to graduate - I would not have made it without prof. Felder - and he does not even know that I exist: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/user ... c/RMF.html

College teaching may be the only skilled profession for which no preparation or training is provided or required. You get a Ph.D., join a faculty, they show you your office, and then tell you "By the way, you're teaching 205 next semester. See you later." The result is the consistent use of teaching techniques that have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective at promoting learning. Many professors are surprised to learn that...

• There are well-defined instructional techniques that make teaching more effective.
  These techniques can be introduced slowly and methodically, without compromising coverage of the syllabus. They do not require large expenditures of money, time, and effort.
  Most importantly, the techniques have been validated by careful, documented, repeatable research. Their effectiveness is not simply a matter of opinion. They work!

RA-men!

[Drewish]

Andrew, I wasn't aware that you'd identified your definition of atheism as your own. I mistakenly got the impression that you were stating that it was the only correct definition and everyone else should follow it. I apologize for my failure to read all the related posts that might have clued me in. I misunderstood that you were being a tad arrogant in asserting that there is only one correct definition of atheism: yours. Mea culpa.

Hey no problem. If you weren't aware that I had been prompted to share my own definition I can see that misunderstanding happening easily.