Bill Maher - Atheism is Not a Religion

[Ronja]

But you could believe in ghosts, or psychics, or homeopathy, or... and not believe in God. You'd still be an atheist.

So what's the word for someone who doesn't believe in that crap either? Rationalist? Ratzylvanian?

A bright?


.

[amused]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU7TdZSR ... ature=plcp[/youtube]

[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".

[Ronja]

When apophenia claimed to simultaneously worship a goddess and be an atheist, nobody challenged it but me.

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.

When Tero started claiming that libertarians aren't real atheists, nobody challenged it but me.

I saw no such claim in any of Tero's three short posts in this thread. I think you are reading more into those posts than really is there.

When I claim that believing in a supernatural force and spirits qualifies as theism people start with the logical fallacy hunting and quoting dictionaries like that means something.

Er - I may be wrong, having been in the translation business for less than five years, but it is my impression that dictionaries are relevant when we are discussing the meaning of words. /irony

(sorry, could not resists )

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. It's just a different "axis" of assumed connectedness between aspects of human psychology, but the logic fails in exactly the same way, IMO.

Just stop and consider for one second that the issue might be that you're not understanding my point rather than the other way around.

I have. My impression is that you group several things that you value under the one term "atheist" (such as unflinchingly facing our own mortality) - but your doing so does not necessarily make such a grouping acceptable for others.

It may be that you are a predominately holistic (global) thinker, orienting your thinking primarily through connections and similarities between concepts (networks based on comparisons). This is one way to think and can be a very powerful learning tool (I'm an off-the-scale global learner myself) - but if used alone, it may not go down well on RatZ. It is my impression that the majority of the active posters here either are genuinely analytical (sequential) thinkers/learners or prefer to use the analytic stance when looking at concepts, i.e. pick them into small, distinct, hopefully single-meaning pieces rather than build more complex networks of related concepts - at least in the beginning of a more on-topic discussion, likely to establish what exactly it is that is being discussed.

IMO neither way of looking at words and concepts is inherently more wrong or more right, and being able to use both holistic/global and analytic/sequential reasoning about words and concepts is definitely an asset.

[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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I use it because it scares theists.

You really want to scare them? Tell them you're faithless. Because of the connotations that has regarding loyalty, it horrifies them.

The "I believe one less god than you" does that nicely, if they think about it. But "oh ye of little faith" doesn't scare them because they know they don't have any real faith to begin with.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But you could believe in ghosts, or psychics, or homeopathy, or... and not believe in God. You'd still be an atheist.

So what's the word for someone who doesn't believe in that crap either? Rationalist? Ratzylvanian?

A bright?


.

I was amused* by all that "bright" stuff. First, saying one person is bright doesn't automatically make everyone else stupid. Second, the loudest protests came from the accommodationists, and I really don't care what the appeasers find offensive.







*Actually, amused is still amused, and I'm still Gawdzilla.

[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, problem is that's absent when one is an atheist. If there is a movement identifying itself as "atheism" I'd like to know what the central tenets are at least. On the contrary, I think the term is being appropriated by specific socio/political groups who have a habit of jumping on any bandwagon and taking the reins by fair means or foul and steering it towards their own political faiths.

The thing is, atheism is a person stance, not an organized position. Attempts to make it an position have routinely failed because we're so diverse, having most that one thing in common.

I'm an atheist. Atheism means nothing to me as a posture let alone an ideal. Certainly I think it should be kept a politically neutral term, but there are many voices on both side of the political spectrum who seem to assume Atheism is some kind of left liberalism (at the very least). My politics cannot be judged based on my non-acceptance of the concept that their are Gods, I'm not sure anyone's can.

I see them as trying to force that position on atheism so they can lump atheists in with all those other bad things. Notice that our most strident atheist hater does this routinely.

Certainly that aspect is there. However I don't think its a forced position since it does seem to me that there are those who wish Atheists to be part of their specific political ideology. I've seen on other fora those who do not meet the social and political standards of that specific group maligned provoked and insulted seven ways to sunday, freely and without censure only to be suspended or banned for retaliating in kind. If that's atheism, I can see why anyone who does not fit into that "Atheist" cookie cutter might have questions about their lack of belief in a God being co-opted by political zealots and might have questions as to what they thought they were up to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

[maiforpeace]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Comedians put the boundaries, for shock value and to start a buzz.

[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?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

[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" ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.