Are atheists as important as they think they are

[Mole]

Free thinkers are important in the sciences, in the humanities, and in the arts, and not all free thinkers are atheists, but free thinking does lend itself to atheism.

So atheists are very important in a free society, atheists keep society fresh and new, and enable the criticism of the abuse of religion.

A case in point is our first female Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard, who was also an atheist. And our atheist PM Gillard called an Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. And we know it was only an atheist who would call such a Royal Commission to enquire into powerful, rich, international religious institutions.

So an elected Australian atheist was very important in furthering the interests of Australian liberal democracy, and looking after the interests of vulnerable children.

 

[Tengri]

What is meant by "but only hands"? Is that meant as opposed to "from God"?

The opposite, actually: hands instead of highly specified animal features - remember Kant predates Darwinism - like claws, beaks, giant teeth, huge musculature. This is a common theme of the human condition

This was the first I heard of Diderot's Encyclopedie. Interesting.

Check it out sometime! Never thought I would cite this silly stuff again lol. I'll try to make this as concise as I can

Well, what do you think? I suppose to me, whether it's good or bad depends on what comes after it.

Buried beneath all of the semantic description, symbolism, metaphor, ideals of religious thinking, etc... Nietzsche, (that darling troll) thinks that human culture “manifests an ardent desire to refashion the world,” and the truths constructed by the Enlightenment are fashioned as an “immense framework and planking of concepts” devoid of the depth and precedent of prelingual observation. Truth is an imposition on the senses—no longer a “masquerade of the gods” or a parallel to nature imitated, but control instituted. Sense-based thinking, according to Kant in Perpetual Peace describes this state, calling our reliance on unreliable physical senses a 'self-imposed immaturity.'

The inherent dysfunction of enforcing (sovereign, instituted) authority over the past and the present—the valorization of a singular perspective over all other plural points of view—disassociates history from those experiencing it, severing their role in it i.e.the dilemma of postmodernism, or the last straw of atheism. Lastly, the ideal of Enlightenment progress draws deep roots in past knowledge systems, in Classical myths, and culture-specific metaphors where “no difference is said to exist between the totemic animal, the dreams of the spirit-seer, and the absolute Idea”...Essentially, atheism is an offshoot of Christianity and the classical West - and the peace from this uniformity of thought neuters human heritage, the soul of culture

 

[EcK]

I need to understand if you are anti-organized religion or entire every claim to a God there is. I grew up with asshole teenage atheists, they were... well, assholes by definition.

Well I don't know if I'm 'anti' anything. ie: people can believe whatever they want.
I just don't understand why we have to 'respect' their belief past the point of what would be reasonable.

Like how it's considered a bad thing to 'discuss' the facts of their religion. If a religion's claims are true people should have no problem with it.

Jesus never claimed to be god for example, I mean isn't that significant ?
Christianity is considered a MONOTHEISTIC religion yet it has saints somehow reminiscent of minor deities and God is '3' (trinity). Why then claim it's a monotheistic religion. Isn't Induism also to a degree considering that all their gods are part of / aspects of a 'whole' yet they get to be polytheistic?
Mohammed was a pedophile and a warlord. Yet he is claimed to be 'the most perfect of man/an example for Muslims to follow for all times" Isn't that significant ?

etc.

These topics SHOULDN'T be seen as 'negative' if someone does indeed claim that these are the examples they follow. I mean if you meet a neo-nazi telling you naziism is the way to reach utopia you're not going to feel like 'mentioning how Hitler killed millions of Jews' would be 'impolite.

I just don't see why some types of ideologies and beliefs should have special protection from inquiry.

 

[that's not my name]

Well I don't know if I'm 'anti' anything. ie: people can believe whatever they want.
I just don't understand why we have to 'respect' their belief past the point of what would be reasonable.

Like how it's considered a bad thing to 'discuss' the facts of their religion. If a religion's claims are true people should have no problem with it.

Jesus never claimed to be god for example, I mean isn't that significant ?
Christianity is considered a MONOTHEISTIC religion yet it has saints somehow reminiscent of minor deities and God is '3' (trinity). Why then claim it's a monotheistic religion. Isn't Induism also to a degree considering that all their gods are part of / aspects of a 'whole' yet they get to be polytheistic?
Mohammed was a pedophile and a warlord. Yet he is claimed to be 'the most perfect of man/an example for Muslims to follow for all times" Isn't that significant ?

etc.

These topics SHOULDN'T be seen as 'negative' if someone does indeed claim that these are the examples they follow. I mean if you meet a neo-nazi telling you naziism is the way to reach utopia you're not going to feel like 'mentioning how Hitler killed millions of Jews' would be 'impolite.

I just don't see why some types of ideologies and beliefs should have special protection from inquiry.

The problem comes when people are not talking about their beliefs and don't want to but people try to pressure them into having a discussion especially by saying things they think would offend them in order to illicit a reaction. If someone brings it up that's one thing, if not then they probably don't want to discuss it, and that is something you should probably respect.

 

[EcK]

The problem comes when people are not talking about their beliefs and don't want to but people try to pressure them into having a discussion especially by saying things they think would offend them in order to illicit a reaction. If someone brings it up that's one thing, if not then they probably don't want to discuss it, and that is something you should probably respect.

Oh no. I don t actually engage unless someone partakes in a debate. Then all bets are off.
But in every day life - live and let live. So as long as someone s favorite delusion doesn t negatively impact my life no problem

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I think it's good to have both athiests and theists in the world, so they can balance each other out.

 

[Kanra Jest]

I think it's good to have both athiests and theists in the world, so they can balance each other out.

This.^

Diversity makes life interesting. Keep things too similar and it becomes boring and meaningless.

 

[Mole]

Atheism, and Atheism, and Atheism

There are Christian atheists, there are Judaic atheists, there are Hindu atheists, there are Islamic atheists, there are Sikh atheists, there are even New Age atheists, in fact every religion has its own atheists.

Each atheism is conditioned by its religion of origin.

And as we let our mind play over the many and various atheisms, we start to lose any perspective, our mind starts to reel, we long for a simple atheism which we can easily understand, but there is none, and we are left with a homeless mind.

 

[Abendrot]

This.^

Diversity makes life interesting. Keep things too similar and it becomes boring and meaningless.

I get real tired of hearing "Diversity is our strength", but I strongly support the aspect of diversity that is so often forgotten: The diversity of ideas and opinions.

 

[Kanra Jest]

I get real tired of hearing "Diversity is our strength", but I strongly support the aspect of diversity that is so often forgotten: The diversity of ideas and opinions.

We need a balance of unity while retaining diversity.
A scattered diversity going every which way isn't so good. Nor is a total hive mind.

 

[Abendrot]

We need a balance of unity while retaining diversity.
A scattered diversity going every which way isn't so good. Nor is a total hive mind.

Agreed. A balance is required. And even a diversity of ideas is pointless unless those people with diverse opinions speak to each other and try to understand one another, instead of demonizing each other.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Are atheists as important as they think they are

No one is as important as they think they are.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Atheism vs. theism ties into a lot of controversial issues, such as gender roles, reproductive rights, and LGBT rights. Are there more important things to care about? Probably. But these things, imo, should not even be issues. We should be loooong past telling people how to live. That's why we need atheists, even the militant ones, to get us caught up to where we should be.

 

[Riva]

The title is put in a way that can easily attract hatred to the address group. So weldone if that was your intention. However, perhaps it wasn't since you identify as one.

What do you think? Is atheism today an important cultural battle?

Yes it is. There is an ongoing extremely visible battle between two groups: one group, who is trying to govern the laws of the land according to the religion of the majority vs the other who is trying best to separate religion and state. Most often the latter consists of atheist and agnostics.

So yes, they are important. Are they annoying? Of course they are, because they do come across as extremely arrogant. However, they don't run around beheading non-believers and blasphemers.

So I'll gladly have their arrogance over any day than live under the rules (blasphemy rules to be more specific) of religion on any given day.

 

[Lark]

I dont think a lot of people are as important as they think they are, I tend to think that there's a lot of narcissism out there, either as a compensation or coping strategy/personality trait, the world would be a better place if that were not so.

Overcoming narcissism is the big goal next to changing up the mode of existence from having to being.

 

[EcK]

We need a balance of unity while retaining diversity.
A scattered diversity going every which way isn't so good. Nor is a total hive mind.

Ok, why?
We already have plenty of diversity of cultures etc. across the planet,
I very much doubt a human society of any kind would 'not have diversity of thoughts/opinions' which is the diversity that matters when it comes to society advances. The west has after all done pretty much every great achievement it's done without the type of diversity politicians sing about, but simple with the normal in-group diversity you can find within any human society.

moreover ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies are more peaceful etc.

 

[EcK]

The title is put in a way that can easily attract hatred to the address group. So weldone if that was your intention. However, perhaps it wasn't since you identify as one.



Yes it is. There is an ongoing extremely visible battle between two groups: one group, who is trying to govern the laws of the land according to the religion of the majority vs the other who is trying best to separate religion and state. Most often the latter consists of atheist and agnostics.

So yes, they are important. Are they annoying? Of course they are, because they do come across as extremely arrogant. However, they don't run around beheading non-believers and blasphemers.

So I'll gladly have their arrogance over any day than live under the rules (blasphemy rules to be more specific) of religion on any given day.

Well the thing is that it's the militant atheists you hear about, but the vast majority are just keeping to themselves. Which I guess is the same to a degree with religion.

But it's the militants that tend to shape societies - ie: most countries that were taken over by Sharia law and became human rights no-go-zones didn't have a majority of extremists within the population. But the extremists scream louder and get their way.
Same in nazi germany - where only 10% of adults if i recall properly were part of the nazi partya the height of its power. Yet they got their way into shaping their societies profoundly. Same with communism etc.

All you need is 10% to shift the balance of power because the other 90% don't care enough to get involved. When looking at the popular backing of things like Sharia law (which goes against western defined human rights) within Muslim populations in the west for example it makes no doubt that if they ever become the majority of the population the west would go the way of every other muslim majority country and we can kiss human rights, freedom of speech etc. bye bye

However as you said [MENTION=22067]riva[/MENTION] the militant atheists are not the ones running around beheading people and taking away their rights. So I would take a Dawkins over an ISIS guy or even a young earth science denier every day of the week.

 

[Mole]

Resenting Evidence and Reason

It is important to believe what we reasonably know to be true.

So it is not reasonable, in fact it is preposterous, to believe in Ganesh, the God with the head of an elephant, and it is unreasonable to believe in the Trinity, the God with three heads.

It is also unreasonable to believe in astrology, as it is unreasonable to believe in mbti.

Yet all kinds of excuses are made for believing in Ganesh, the Trinity, astrology, and mbti.

And because there is no evidence for these beliefs, and they fly in the face of reason, so we readily become nasty.

At a deeper level, we experience ressentiment at evidence and reason for disturbing our narcissistic fantasies.

And this is the sin we can't forgive. We can't forgive anyone waking us up from our narcissistic fantasies.

 

[SR7]

Not really, atheists aren't anymore different in fact I find they can be quite miserable.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There are Christian atheists, there are Judaic atheists, there are Hindu atheists, there are Islamic atheists, there are Sikh atheists, there are even New Age atheists, in fact every religion has its own atheists.

Each atheism is conditioned by its religion of origin.

Actually, I've thought this for a long time. The gods people don't believe in are all different, so not all disbelief is the same.