What did Atheists do before Dawkins?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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

I don't need to. The terms "religions", "nazism" etc don't just mean the texts and artefacts of these beliefs, they mean the practice of them too. That's the "...and the activities that are connected with this belief" part of the definition I gave you. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don't need to. The terms "religions", "nazism" etc don't just mean the texts and artefacts of these beliefs, they mean the practice of them too. That's the "...and the activities that are connected with this belief" part of the definition I gave you.

And the practice of the is all because of what we are. They aren't external in any sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And the practice of the is all because of what we are. They aren't external in any sense.

I don't now what point you think you're making, but "on balance I think religions do more harm than good" is a legitimate position regardless of whether or not they're "external" to us.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don't now what point you think you're making, but "on balance I think religions do more harm than good" is a legitimate position regardless of whether or not they're "external" to us.

Demonstrate it.


ETA And how you would remove them from what it means to be human. You might as well claim politics dies more harm than good.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe this will help make my point clearer. It seems to me that the claim that religion is on balance bad equates to people who are not religious are on balance better than those who are. I don't see how to demonstrate that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Demonstrate it.

First, you’ve shifted ground from “religions don’t do anything” to “demonstrate that they do more harm than good”, which is a different category of critique.

Second, what I actually said was: “Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.” That was an opinion ("it seems to me"), not a claim to objective fact that requires demonstrating. I’m not sure how you’d go about demonstrating that objectively in any case given the sheer complexity of the task, but as religious faith seems to me to be indistinguishable from guessing and as axiomatically guessing is more likely to be wrong than right, I’d start there I think.

ETA And how you would remove them from what it means to be human. You might as well claim politics dies more harm than good.

Why would I need to? And yes, if there was a model for non-politics (anarchy perhaps?) and a measure for the good vs harm of each modality you could perhaps in principle least at make that claim in response to the outcomes each produced.   

Maybe this will help make my point clearer. It seems to me that the claim that religion is on balance bad equates to people who are not religious are on balance better than those who are. I don't see how to demonstrate that.

No, it’s not just “people” – it’s “people carrying out actions pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious faith(s)”, which is a different matter. 

[Outrider]

Because  religion is needed for those?

Who suggested that it was?

Do you honestly not see that all of those are part of humanity rather than something external?

And so is the religion that actively supports them, and so is the rights-based culture that is moving us beyond them.

Indeed, your post drips with the sort of tribalism that you seem to think your tribe above.

Where's the tribalism in a rights-based culture that says all people are, for instance, to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity? Or sexuality? Or gender? Where is the tribalism in a system that says rights are available to all?

O.

[SqueakyVoice]

Do you experience ecstasy?Do you forget about yourself?

You mean watching Jeremy  Guscott glide through a defence line?
 TBH, one of my best and oldest friends is a Christian and my SO spoke to him about 'his' Christianity, so far as I know he's  never mentioned any sense of ecstacy or forgotten about himself.   He's (I don't want to presume too much but.. ) his Christianity is part of his framework to think about morality and his local community. It's never been about forgetting or ecstasy. I suspect he'd think that, whatever your line was (/is) is on completely  the wrong side of the track.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

First, you’ve shifted ground from “religions don’t do anything” to “demonstrate that they do more harm than good”, which is a different category of critique.

Second, what I actually said was: “Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.” That was an opinion ("it seems to me"), not a claim to objective fact that requires demonstrating. I’m not sure how you’d go about demonstrating that objectively in any case given the sheer complexity of the task, but as religious faith seems to me to be indistinguishable from guessing and as axiomatically guessing is more likely to be wrong than right, I’d start there I think.

Why would I need to? And yes, if there was a model for non-politics (anarchy perhaps?) and a measure for the good vs harm of each modality you could perhaps in principle least at make that claim in response to the outcomes each produced.   


No, it’s not just “people” – it’s “people carrying out actions pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious faith(s)”, which is a different matter.

Which is people. It appears that your case is you dislike religious people, and you want to dress your prejudice in an empty assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

Who suggested that it was?

And so is the religion that actively supports them, and so is the rights-based culture that is moving us beyond them.

Where's the tribalism in a rights-based culture that says all people are, for instance, to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity? Or sexuality? Or gender? Where is the tribalism in a system that says rights are available to all?

O.

The tribalism is you are portraying these lacking religion as superior to those with religion, and also cherry picking a set of values that can be held whether you have a religion or not, and are not indicative of not holding religion.

[Nearly Sane]

I had forgotten how boring I found the tedious self regard of some atheists based around congratulating themselves for being so clever.  So I'll leave those who like to pat themselves on the back for not believing in something to indulge in their little tribalism.

[Outrider]

The tribalism is you are portraying these lacking religion as superior to those with religion, and also cherry picking a set of values that can be held whether you have a religion or not, and are not indicative of not holding religion.

That's not a use of 'tribalism' that I've ever come across before, I'm not really sure where you're getting it from. Those lacking religion are generally, superior to SOME of the religious. The worst of the religious are bad, in many instances BECAUSE of their stance on their religion, and they restrict and limit those who aren't BECAUSE of their religious stance.

That's not 'tribalism', that's 'having eyes'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which is people. It appears that your case is you dislike religious people, and you want to dress your prejudice in an empty assertion.

Are you not reading what I'm actually saying, or not understanding it? Again: it's not "religious people", it's "the harmful actions and behaviours of religious people done pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious beliefs".

If a religious person happens to collect stamps I really don't care. If he also beats up gay men on a Friday night because he thinks his "holy" texts sanction it then I do. I don't know why you're finding this difficult to grasp just in principle.

Note too by the way that whether or not for every homophobic attack there are ten acts of religiously-inspired goodness is a different matter.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I had forgotten how boring I found the tedious self regard of some atheists based around congratulating themselves for being so clever.  So I'll leave those who like to pat themselves on the back for not believing in something to indulge in their little tribalism.

Are you having a bad day or something? I see no reason for you to post this given what people have actually said here. What self-congratulation and tribalism do you think you've identified, and why? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean watching Jeremy  Guscott glide through a defence line?
 TBH, one of my best and oldest friends is a Christian and my SO spoke to him about 'his' Christianity, so far as I know he's  never mentioned any sense of ecstacy or forgotten about himself.   He's (I don't want to presume too much but.. ) his Christianity is part of his framework to think about morality and his local community. It's never been about forgetting or ecstasy. I suspect he'd think that, whatever your line was (/is) is on completely  the wrong side of the track.

I don’t think ecstacy is necessary for a Christian just like I don’t think speaking in tongues or understanding Aquinus is. I won’t dismiss them though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

And now?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are you having a bad day or something? I see no reason for you to post this given what people have actually said here. What self-congratulation and tribalism do you think you've identified, and why?

Ah, of course, if I think you're being self congratulatory, or that the idea that atheism is more likely to make you good is tribalism then I must be having a 'bad day', thank you for proving my point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Ah, of course, if I think you're being self congratulatory, or that the idea that atheism is more likely to make you good is tribalism then I must be having a 'bad day', thank you for proving my point.

You seem to have lost the plot completely now. You effectively accuse me of ad hom tactics (“me/atheists good, you/theists bad”) when I’m talking about the arguments, not the person making them. Some arguments are sound (ie, good) and some are not (ie, bad), regardless of who’s making them. And when some people do rely on unsound arguments for their actions and behaviours ("beating up gay people is fine because the bible says they’re sinners" for example) they’re more likely to do harm than people who don’t in my experience.       

This doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me, but hey-ho.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You seem to have lost the plot completely now. You effectively accuse me of ad hom tactics (“me/atheists good, you/theists bad”) when I’m talking about the arguments, not the person making them. Some arguments are sound (ie, good) and some are not (ie, bad), regardless of who’s making them. And when some people do rely on unsound arguments for their actions and behaviours ("beating up gay people is fine because the bible says they’re sinners" for example) they’re more likely to do harm than people who don’t in my experience.       

This doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me, but hey-ho.

Keep digging. I like that when I make clear what your position is you complain that it's me accusing you of an ad hom. It's the whole basis of your logic. For theism to be bad then theists have to be worse to you than atheists on balance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And now?

I see no good reason to return to the ‘fold’ of agnostic atheism.

[SqueakyVoice]

I don’t think ecstacy is necessary for a Christian just like I don’t think speaking in tongues or understanding Aquinus is. I won’t dismiss them though.

the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples. ...
May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.

(Back to My Christian Friend...) I'm pretty sure he and I would agree with this sermon. Nothing at all to do with your tongues. Again, I can recall he's  an anti-evangelical type (particularly  the US type,'give all you money to me,because the Lord has ordered me to buy a ferrari'. type) Nothing to do with ecstasy, nothing with wobbling around and pretending you can speak gibberish,  just us walking together. In peace.
That's abut the only type of Christianity I have no objection to at all.
(P.S. Could you try and work out how to use positive terms, not double negatives? Some how they all read like a collection a mangled up buff.)
(P.P.S. quote in full available here; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(Back to My Christian Friend...) I'm pretty sure he and I would agree with this sermon. Nothing at all to do with your tongues. Again, I can recall he's  an anti-evangelical type (particularly  the US type,'give all you money to me,because the Lord has ordered me to buy a ferrari'. type) Nothing to do with ecstasy, nothing with wobbling around and pretending you can speak gibberish,  just us walking together. In peace.
That's abut the only type of Christianity I have no objection to at all.
(P.S. Could you try and work out how to use positive terms, not double negatives? Some how they all read like a collection a mangled up buff.)
(P.P.S. quote in full available here; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump )

Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy

Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.

[Nearly Sane]

Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy

Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.

I think the Internet has had effect on discussions on all subjects. I don't see why Dawkins is responsible for any change in tone, he's generally very gracious.  And it seems a bit rich to just ignore people flying airplanes into buildings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the Internet has had effect on discussions on all subjects. I don't see why Dawkins is responsible for any change in tone, he's generally very gracious.  And it seems a bit rich to just ignore people flying airplanes into buildings.

Ironically though Dawkins exhorted atheists to be less generous to and more vehement against religion.
I also don't think he's very generous toward some physicists except Smolin perhaps on account of his Darwinian cosmology.

[Nearly Sane]

Ironically though Dawkins exhorted atheists to be less generous to and more vehement against religion.
I also don't think he's very generous toward some physicists except Smolin perhaps on account of his Darwinian cosmology.

The idea that Dawkins has effected the tome of the discourse because of anything he's said about Smolin is ludicrous even for you. Your posts appear unhinged.