No true apatheist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?

Why do you want atheists to shut up?

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?

Atheism is about belief
Agnosticism is about knowledge
Apatheism is about importance

They are entirely separate things - you can be a combination of any three I guess, although frankly apatheism isn't really a well utilised, nor a particularly useful notion in my opinion. And note this is about the existence of god, not the impact or otherwise of religion, which is an entirely different matter.

[jeremyp]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?

Religionists never shut the fuck up. Why should atheists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you want atheists to shut up?

Given that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's there should be nothing more to say. That makes it therefore the right thing. That's logical is it not?

[Outrider]

Given that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's there should be nothing more to say.

Given that religion is personal, there shouldn't be any need to write it into laws that restrict other people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill

That's why atheists aren't quiet on religion; because religion isn't quiet about them, or anyone else.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that religion is personal, there shouldn't be any need to write it into laws that restrict other people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill

That's why atheists aren't quiet on religion; because religion isn't quiet about them, or anyone else.

O.

I always thought that when things got heated cowardly atheists would always slip back into Atheism is merely mode. Of course there is a bit more to it than that.

There are the atheist contracts with various philosophies on the nature of the universe and the nature of morality. There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively. But then you guys have let the belligerent othering and outing of atheists who weren't considered mighty and gung ho enough by the likes of Hitchins,Dawkins,Harris and Krauss dominate your public profession.

[Outrider]

I always thought that when things got heated cowardly atheists would always slip back into Atheism is merely mode. Of course there is a bit more to it than that.

Even less of a reason to expect that they should remain quiet in the public sphere, then.

There are the atheist contracts with various philosophies on the nature of the universe and the nature of morality.

People come to their atheism from a range of places and motivations, yes.

There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively.

A minute ago there was no need for atheists to be talking at all, but hey ho. I don't see that atheists are being evasive, they're just not letting theism dominate the conversations - they're looking for secular rationales, not rationales founded on (to them, at the very least) the flawed premise of gods wants.

But then you guys have let the belligerent othering and outing of atheists who weren't considered mighty and gung ho enough by the likes of Hitchins,Dawkins,Harris and Krauss dominate your public profession.

You think? Given the apparent differences between them - and Daniel Dennet, of course,  who is typically included in the list of prominent atheists, and PZ Meyers who also had a vocal following, I'd say there's a range of voices speaking out. None of which, of course, precludes anyone else from venturing forth with their opinion for themselves, regardless of how widely that's broadcast.

O.

[jeremyp]

There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively.

When are you going to start talking less evasively?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When are you going to start talking less evasively?

I do I’ve told everybody everything I know that they have the right to know what it is they have asked for.

[jeremyp]

I do I’ve told everybody everything I know that they have the right to know what it is they have asked for.

You haven't answered the question I posed at #3 yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't answered the question I posed at #3 yet.

Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.

[jeremyp]

Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.

More evasion.

You're more evasive than Trump filling in a tax return.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More evasion.

You're more evasive than Trump filling in a tax return.

Where’s the evasion, if atheism is just a what can it say about b and c?

[Gordon]

Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.

You are, as usual, missing the point: atheists might have nothing to say about 'God' but they are perfectly free to comment about how 'God' enthusiasts promote their cause in the public arena.

Moreover, their views on this latter aspect are clearly mutually exclusive from their atheism - since their concern here is what religious people get up to.

[Outrider]

Where’s the evasion, if atheism is just a what can it say about b and c?

That religionists shouldn't be pushing b and c on the rest of us? That religionists should get unfair tax breaks on b and c, just because they take a particular stance on a. That the national broadcasters shouldn't be compelled to preserve time for the insignificant proportion of adherents to a in the populace. That b and c should be equally available to everyone, regardless of what a-botherers are taught in their tax-exempt cult hideouts...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That religionists shouldn't be pushing b and c on the rest of us? That religionists should get unfair tax breaks on b and c, just because they take a particular stance on a. That the national broadcasters shouldn't be compelled to preserve time for the insignificant proportion of adherents to a in the populace. That b and c should be equally available to everyone, regardless of what a-botherers are taught in their tax-exempt cult hideouts...

O.

I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.

[Gordon]

I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.

What does "gospel ego" mean - or is it a typo?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does "gospel ego" mean - or is it a typo?

Typo.

[Gordon]

Typo.

OK - so what did you intend to say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 I think people find the implication of the gospel, ego troubling and uncomfortable.

[Gordon]

I think people find the implication of the gospel, ego troubling and uncomfortable.

Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?

For this non-Christian these gospels have no personal 'implications' whatsoever, and I've no idea what 'implications' you are envisaging they might have for an atheist, and they have no relevance whatsoever to any aspects of my lifestyle, or that of my family: you see, Vlad, for some of us, your precious Christianity really doesn't matter a jot.

That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.

[Outrider]

I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.

I'm sure some of them do. I'm pretty sure most atheists, however, find the fact that people believe the implications of the gospel have merit, and try to legislate other peoples lives on those implications, to be more of an issue, and it was those people we were talking about.

I'd imagine most atheists are troubled by the implications of the gospel itself to pretty much the same extent they are troubled by the implications of Ragnarok.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?

For this non-Christian these gospels have no personal 'implications' whatsoever, and I've no idea what 'implications' you are envisaging they might have for an atheist, and they have no relevance whatsoever to any aspects of my lifestyle, or that of my family: you see, Vlad, for some of us, your precious Christianity really doesn't matter a jot.

That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.

I agree.

Vlad you need to think of this from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that god exists. From that perspective all the stuff in the gospels about Jesus being the son of god, redemption, everlasting life at god's side etc etc is no more plausible nor relevant as the wrath of Thor or any other deity claim. So when you strip that out what are you left with. Well firstly a fairly 'vanilla' ethical 'love your neighbour narrative - so very humanist and so 'fine, what's the issue'.

What is also left, which probably exercises atheists most, is the impact that the gospels have on christians and how that also impacts on others. Now some of that impact is very beneficial - helping others etc, but there again this is no different to humanism in terms of actions and impact, despite a different motivation. But some is clearly negative - broad intolerance towards many groups justified on biblical grounds - most notably against homosexual people but also a systematic lack of equality for women and in some denominations the use of the bible to justify racist attitudes. Then there is the expectation of special privileges for christianity embedded within our system.

So no, as I do not believe in god the god-type gospel claims don't bother me. The negative impact of christianity, justified by biblical claims and demands to be treated more favourably than other groups and individuals does bother me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?

Most people Gordon and the avoidance modes used by most people are varied. Some never approach religion by choice. These are the true freedom from religionists, some choose a cacophany of anti God propoganda, some try forms of religion which demand no real commitment.

That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.

You feel a great deal of offence obviously a feeling you have not explored, I would imagine beyond those who you feel are offending you.

It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection). After all there were once no christians and that turned into millions.