Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 20, 2024, 12:50:04 PM
-
Recent shenanigans in the celebrity and online atheist community.
Featuring Dr Richard Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/2luxt4xmdfM?si=DDx-_zBrsONSYHdf
-
Recent shenanigans in the celebrity and online atheist community.
Featuring Dr Richard Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/2luxt4xmdfM?si=DDx-_zBrsONSYHdf
Things atheists have in common: lack of belief in a god(s).
-
Recent shenanigans in the celebrity and online atheist community.
Featuring Dr Richard Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/2luxt4xmdfM?si=DDx-_zBrsONSYHdf
No such thing as an atheist community. Just atheists sharing a lack of belief in God or gods.
-
No such thing as an atheist community. Just atheists sharing a lack of belief in God or gods.
Well either these people are wrong....
https://atheist-community.org/
Or you are.
-
Well either these people are wrong....
https://atheist-community.org/
Or you are.
They are.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Definition of Community you get
1: a unified body of individuals: such as
a: the people with common interests living in a particular area broadly : the area itself the problems of a large community
b: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society a community of retired persons a monastic community
c: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society, the academic community, the scientific community
d: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests, the international community
e: a group linked by a common policy
f: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (such as species) in a common location
g: state, commonwealth
a: fails by atheists only sharing one common interest
b: fails by the living together aspect
c: fails due to the common interests
d: fails due to not having a common history
e: fails as there are no common policies
f: fail due to location
g: not a state
-
They are.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Definition of Community you get
1: a unified body of individuals: such as
a: the people with common interests living in a particular area broadly : the area itself the problems of a large community
b: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society a community of retired persons a monastic community
c: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society, the academic community, the scientific community
d: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests, the international community
e: a group linked by a common policy
f: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (such as species) in a common location
g: state, commonwealth
a: fails by atheists only sharing one common interest
b: fails by the living together aspect
c: fails due to the common interests
d: fails due to not having a common history
e: fails as there are no common policies
f: fail due to location
g: not a state
Hmm.. surely the Atheist Community of Austin are one by definition a?
Vlad's question is effectively a false dichotomy. It's possible for some atheists to band together as a community but that doesn't mean all atheists are part of an overall community.
-
Hmm.. surely the Atheist Community of Austin are one by definition a?
Vlad's question is effectively a false dichotomy. It's possible for some atheists to band together as a community but that doesn't mean all atheists are part of an overall community.
a: says common interests not one interest.
If the common interests are more than being an atheist then it isn't an atheist community.
That's how i see it anyway.
-
a: says common interests not one interest.
If the common interests are more than being an atheist then it isn't an atheist community.
That's how i see it anyway.
Perhaps you and I disagreeing is more shenanigans in the online atheist community to Vlad? ;)
-
Perhaps you and I disagreeing is more shenanigans in the online atheist community to Vlad? ;)
Yeah, probably :)
-
Hmm.. surely the Atheist Community of Austin are one by definition a?
Vlad's question is effectively a false dichotomy. It's possible for some atheists to band together as a community but that doesn't mean all atheists are part of an overall community.
Do you think then, that it would be better to talk about the atheist population?
I did say the celebrity and online communities though Not an overall atheist community., so you may like to revise your post.
-
Do you think then, that it would be better to talk about the atheist population?
I did say the celebrity and online communities though Not an overall atheist community., so you may like to revise this post.
Not really. The 'celebrity and online communitirs' are not a self defined group like the Austin one. So the issue with the overall idea applies to that grouping as well.
-
Perhaps you and I disagreeing is more shenanigans in the online atheist community to Vlad? ;)
with Maeght as Hemet Mehta and yourself as Dawkins?
-
with Maeght as Hemet Mehta and yourself as Dawkins?
Who is Hemet Mehta?
-
Who is Hemet Mehta?
No idea but then we're probably saying that as part of our cunning plan to deny we're part of the 'community'. I'm just worried Vlad has cast me as Dawkins, given Vlad's obsession with him.
-
No idea but then we're probably saying that as part of our cunning plan to deny we're part of the 'community'. I'm just worried Vlad has cast me as Dawkins, given Vlad's obsession with him.
Drat, rumbled .....
-
Of course there's an atheist community. It is represented by, inter alia, Humanists UK and the National Secular Society - and if they've got enough in common to form societies, they must be a community.
-
Of course there's an atheist community. It is represented by, inter alia, Humanists UK and the National Secular Society - and if they've got enough in common to form societies, they must be a community.
Those are communities, though neither the Humanists or the NSS require someone to be an atheist to be a member, nor do they represent me.
It also doesn't follow that because some atheists form communities that all atheists are part of a community
-
No idea but then we're probably saying that as part of our cunning plan to deny we're part of the 'community'. I'm just worried Vlad has cast me as Dawkins, given Vlad's obsession with him.
I follow what goes on in both the Christian and atheist communities in America and Dawkins has gone from being the toast of the atheist world to a bit of an embarrassment to the likes of leading public atheists like Dillahunty and Mehta.
-
Of course there's an atheist community. It is represented by, inter alia, Humanists UK and the National Secular Society - and if they've got enough in common to form societies, they must be a community.
Not really - unsurprisingly HumanistsUK and the NSS represent ... err ... humanists and secularists respectively, who may, or may not be atheist. And while they may represent a humanist or secular community they are not the humanist or secular community as there will be plenty of people who consider themselves to be humanists and secularists who do not consider themselves to be represented by HumanistsUK or the NSS, anymore than all Christians would consider themselves to be part of and represented by the Catholic church.
-
I follow what goes on in both the Christian and atheist communities in America and Dawkins has gone from being the toast of the atheist world to a bit of an embarrassment to the likes of leading public atheists like Dillahunty and Mehta.
I have only one question, Vlad: why the fuck are you bothered about this?
-
I follow what goes on in both the Christian and atheist communities in America and Dawkins has gone from being the toast of the atheist world to a bit of an embarrassment to the likes of leading public atheists like Dillahunty and Mehta.
The vast majority of people who lack a belief in god(s) will have no clue who Dillahunty and Mehta are. Just as there isn't an atheist community, there isn't an atheist world. Indeed there's not a theist community or theist world either.
Having a belief in God or lacking such a belief tells you nothing about the person beyond that.
-
I have only one question, Vlad: why the fuck are you bothered about this?
Do you realise how funny that question sounds coming from a contributor to ReligionEthics?
-
The vast majority of people who lack a belief in god(s) will have no clue who Dillahunty and Mehta are.
But they do know who Dawkins is.
-
Do you realise how funny that question sounds coming from a contributor to ReligionEthics?
Is there a bit in the board membership where it lists not thinking what Matt Dillahunty thinks of Richard Dawkins.is a requirement?
-
But they do know who Dawkins is.
All atheists? No, but he's better known generally I think than Dillahunty and Mehta. Lots of theists have heard of Dawkins as well. In your approach, I suppose all of them are part of the knows of Dawkins community.
-
Do you realise how funny that question sounds coming from a contributor to ReligionEthics?
Then you are easily amused.
-
But they do know who Dawkins is.
Yup - and probably many of us knew him first as an evolutionary biology of some renown who wrote a number of popular books on the topic.
Vlad - you seem to be the one obsessed with his 'atheist' output - by contrast the only book of his I've ever read is the blind watchmaker many years ago.
-
The vast majority of people who lack a belief in god(s) will have no clue who Dillahunty and Mehta are.
Indeed - never heard of either of them before - who are they?
-
Indeed - never heard of either of them before - who are they?
I've watched a lot of Matt Dillahunty's stuff on YouTube I have to admit.
-
Is there a bit in the board membership where it lists not thinking what Matt Dillahunty thinks of Richard Dawkins.is a requirement?
They have expressed an opinion on the acts of Dawkins.
They have reported on "The Great Richard" His wonders to behold. As you might report tidings of the Pope and Priests so I occasionally report on what's happening to the high rollers in the atheist world.
-
Indeed - never heard of either of them before - who are they?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemant_Mehta
-
They have expressed an opinion on the acts of Dawkins.
They have reported on "The Great Richard" His wonders to behold. As you might report tidings of the Pope and Priests so I occasionally report on what's happening to the high rollers in the atheist world.
All of this just springs from your love of "Big Dick"
-
I've watched a lot of Matt Dillahunty's stuff on YouTube I have to admit.
'Don't tell him, Pike!'
-
Yup - and probably many of us knew him first as an evolutionary biology of some renown who wrote a number of popular books on the topic.
Yes and it is in his case, the journey of a renowned figure in science through New Atheism down to social media notoriety
-
All of this just springs from your love of "Big Dick"
Are you saying I have a craving?
-
'Don't tell him, Pike!'
Too late. Forrest Valkai too. Full disclosure .....
-
Yes and it is in his case, the journey of a renowned figure in science through New Atheism down to social media notoriety
Are you upset that atheists failed to deify Richard Dawkins. I'm very sorry, but we* don't do that sort of thing.
*"we" means some loose group of like minded atheists who do not put people on pedestals, not a community.
-
I'm also a member of the not believing in chocolate teapots circling Saturn community
-
I'm also a member of the not believing in chocolate teapots circling Saturn community
Which kind of puts you in the Brotherhood of the Horse laugh fallacy imo
-
Are you upset that atheists failed to deify Richard Dawkins. I'm very sorry, but we* don't do that sort of thing.
Not so much their failure to deify him, Jeremy, more their failure to defy him.
-
Which kind of puts you in the Brotherhood of the Horse laugh fallacy imo
Definitly that one too. Which chapter are you in?
-
Definitly that one too. Which chapter are you in?
It's a secret.
-
Is there a bit in the board membership where it lists not thinking what Matt Dillahunty thinks of Richard Dawkins.is a requirement?
Ah, but he's "a leading public atheist", it seems. Reminds me of old St. Malcolm Muggeridge, who used to talk about "leading European homosexuals" (he had in mind Somerset Maugham and Andre Gide, I think - did they lead Europe into homosexuality?).
-
Definitly that one too. Which chapter are you in?
Damn good book, in fact. Joyce Carey, wasn't it? Sorry, Horse's Mouth....