What did Atheists do before Dawkins?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...I never questioned that I might be wrong.

And nor it seems do you now, notwithstanding the crapness of the arguments you attempt to justify being right.

[Outrider]

When 9/11 occurred I had been a Christian for around 20 years. The process and pretexts for condensing the whole of Religion into that one act or one person strikes me as a form of bigotry.

Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.

I still chuckle over the tiny Westbrook baptist community held up as typically Christian.

I don't know that anyone's suggesting they're typical, the problem is that they're undoubtedly Christian. They're not just abhorrent, they're abhorrent because of their Christianity.

Or Trumpite churches held up by atheists as American Christianity while forgetting totally about episcopalian and black churches.

If they were that relevant, Trump wouldn't have been elected on so evidently a Christian Nationalist platform.

As I understand it, certainly in this country relations between modern celebrity atheists and media Christians are quite cordial with each willing to provide tea and platform for the other

And as I've said many, many times, if every religion and religious adherent had had their distasteful edges blunted by a rights-based cultural archetype like ours, no-one would give a shit about religion. They haven't, though - Afghanistan's treatment of women, America's treatment of the non-religious, of women, of the gender-diverse, of the gay community, places like Uganda's treatment of gay people, religious conflicts in Israel, between India and Pakistan... the list goes on.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.

I don't know that anyone's suggesting they're typical, the problem is that they're undoubtedly Christian. They're not just abhorrent, they're abhorrent because of their Christianity.

If they were that relevant, Trump wouldn't have been elected on so evidently a Christian Nationalist platform.

And as I've said many, many times, if every religion and religious adherent had had their distasteful edges blunted by a rights-based cultural archetype like ours, no-one would give a shit about religion. They haven't, though - Afghanistan's treatment of women, America's treatment of the non-religious, of women, of the gender-diverse, of the gay community, places like Uganda's treatment of gay people, religious conflicts in Israel, between India and Pakistan... the list goes on.

O.

Our 'rights based cultural archetyoe' arises from the influence of religion as well.

[Outrider]

Our 'rights based cultural archetype' arises from the influence of religion as well.

In part, but increasingly that influence is 'despite' rather than 'because'. Our moderate Anglican Christianity is the result of western secular rights making a more hardline religious stance even more untenable - we aren't where we are because we followed religion, we are where we are because we refused to let religion dictate the terms.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

In part, but increasingly that influence is 'despite' rather than 'because'. Our moderate Anglican Christianity is the result of western secular rights making a more hardline religious stance even more untenable - we aren't where we are because we followed religion, we are where we are because we refused to let religion dictate the terms.

O.

In a very large part. The exceptionalism you are touting is merely the Brights nonsense reheated.

[Aruntraveller]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this atheist is doing exactly what he has always done.

Only slower, and with more aches and pains.

[Nearly Sane]

Another Gem sending a thousand atheists to the bathroom with the kleenex

  Do you really think that sort of shite is doing anything other than making Christianity with you as its representative look anything other than a bundle of sab bitterness?

[Nearly Sane]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this atheist is doing exactly what he has always done.

Only slower, and with more aches and pains.

I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And nor it seems do you now, notwithstanding the crapness of the arguments you attempt to justify being right.

I seem to recall you consider yourself an Agnostic atheist. Do you consider yourself to be one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Do you really think that sort of shite is doing anything other than making Christianity with you as its representative look anything other than a bundle of sab bitterness?

I’ve withdrawn it, but not before it was subject to your powers of “catching out”

[Outrider]

In a very large part. The exceptionalism you are touting is merely the Brights nonsense reheated.

I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.

Christians have had a sense of mission and a tradition of apologetics in times of minority for a long time. I don’t think it can be argued that Dawkins didn’t or didn’t want to instil a sense of mission in atheists which he felt lacking.

Would atheists say they had the same sense of mission before Dawkins?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I seem to recall you consider yourself an Agnostic atheist. Do you consider yourself to be one?

Actually I’m an ignostic agnostic atheist antitheist.

Ignostic: I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you).

Agnostic: Absent any method to test your claims, their truth or otherwise is unknowable.

Atheist: I’m aware of no sound reasons to accept your theistic claims as true.

Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.

O.

More “Religion is everything bad” thinking?

[Nearly Sane]

I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.

O.

Because  religion is needed for those? Do you honestly not see that all of those are part of humanity rather than something external? Indeed, your post drips with the sort of tribalism that you seem to think your tribe above.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Actually I’m an ignostic agnostic atheist antitheist.

Ignostic: I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you).

Agnostic: Absent any method to test your claims, their truth or otherwise is unknowable.

Atheist: I’m aware of no sound reasons to accept your theistic claims as true.

Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.     

Religions don't do anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

On what days of the week are you each of these.

All of them every day – they're not mutually exclusive.

[Aruntraveller]

I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.

Indeed, it does. I suppose my point is that I do very little about my atheism. It's just there. I seldom discuss it beyond these four internet walls. So the initial question just seems a little bit silly.

Dawkins has had very little effect on me. My atheism (agnostic or otherwise) predates any awareness of him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Religions don't do anything.

That’s like me saying that guns do more harm than good and you telling me that guns don’t do anything.

“Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple.”

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion#:~:text=1.,as%20a%20church%20or%20temple.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed, it does. I suppose my point is that I do very little about my atheism. It's just there. I seldom discuss it beyond these four internet walls. So the initial question just seems a little bit silly.

Dawkins has had very little effect on me. My atheism (agnostic or otherwise) predates any awareness of him.

Yep, my atheism is not to me significant in what type of person I am. It's so old it's pretty arthritic.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s like me saying that guns do more harm than good and you telling me that guns don’t do anything.

“Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple.”

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion#:~:text=1.,as%20a%20church%20or%20temple.

Except religion arises and exists because of what we are as humans. It's integral in what we are. It has no externalities beyond us 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

All of them every day – they're not mutually exclusive.

Dare I suggest that for you and some of your fellows, the antitheism has become pathological and obsessive?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except religion arises and exists because of what we are as humans. It's integral in what we are. It has no externalities beyond us

So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dare I suggest that for you and some of your fellows, the antitheism has become pathological and obsessive?

You can suggest anything you like, but you'd be as wrong about that as you are about pretty much everything else you post here - ie, very.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?

And nazism doesn't do anything either. It's not external. How do you remove whar causes nazim, religion, or altruism from us?