Are atheists as important as they think they are

[Ginkgo]

Its crazy that there is no "Live and let live" religion. I believe what I want...you believe what you want...I will listen to your beliefs, you will listen to mine...we live seperate lives...religion does not support that though Someones wrong, we will MAKE them wrong as we cant really prove any of it right/wrong.


#tiredofjudgementalpeople

I don't think atheism is necessarily a useful stance for all people, but I do think openness to new narratives is important. The issue I have with most religions is that they have a built in mechanism to discredit competing narratives via cognitive dissonance (Jews - we are the chosen people, Christians - we get to go to heaven and they don't, etc.). I do think it's important for our future as a species to eventually reject these systems, as I consider them tyrannical in nature.

The more popular religions are built to discredit opposing ideas, but if it weren't for this strictness I don't think they would be taken as seriously as other competing "narratives", and their survival would probably compromised more often by those who compete with equal strictness. Even in fundamentalist groups who abide by a document that hardly breathes in their eyes, challengers aren't approached kindly because a) fundamentalists tend not to be prepared for challenge in general and b) not being prepared for a challenge compromises the integrity of the religion. The preparation fundamentalists are armed with will only decrease as ideas like evolution become more mainstream and convincing. However, since they are built with that mechanism, some religions will not go out with a submissive whimper but with stubbornness and an unwillingness to entertain even the least remote idea.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What do you mean by commonplace? In the USA, secular people are at best 10% of the population. Certainly we are not a political authority in anyway, either.

Regarding the importance of the issue. The question is how much religion plays into the major issues of the world. Of course it is not a seriously problem in and of itself that someone would believe something, it's what it makes them do. if religion compels people to uphold violent and oppressive laws, disregard important scientific facts, and generally remain idle in the face of global crises, then it should be stopped.

The debate centers on how much religion can exist without compelling people to do these things, and how likely people are to do these things without religion. I think Richard Dawkins overstates the case that religion makes people do these things and that people without religion are less likely, but I don't think he's entirely wrong.

I don't feel particularly "important" for being non-religious. In general, I loath the idea that standing firm on an issue must relate to self-importance.

Its crazy that there is no "Live and let live" religion. I believe what I want...you believe what you want...I will listen to your beliefs, you will listen to mine...we live seperate lives...religion does not support that though Someones wrong, we will MAKE them wrong as we cant really prove any of it right/wrong.


#tiredofjudgementalpeople

That wouldn't be a religion. That would have no identity and lead to no social cohesion.

 

[Poki]

That wouldn't be a religion. That would have no identity and lead to no social cohesion.

Thats only because people cant wrap there head around other peoples beliefs. Its one thing to believe in something, and something completely different to understand someone elses thinking/belief. At that point "bonds" would be formed around what actually matter...caring, friendship, etc. ...not religious beliefs. I guess some people need those "rules" or else they wouldnt know how to act.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Thats only because people cant wrap there head around other peoples beliefs. Its one thing to believe in something, and something completely different to understand someone elses thinking/belief. At that point "bonds" would be formed around what actually matter...caring, friendship, etc. ...not religious beliefs. I guess some people need those "rules" or else they wouldnt know how to act.

Everyone needs those rules, you included.

I'm not failing to wrap my head around someone else's belief just because I think they're wrong. If you say the sun orbits the earth, you're wrong.

This is not merely academic. A person's system of beliefs will affect how they extend friendship and care. If I honestly believed that having homosexual relations lead one to an eternal afterlife of despair, as some fundamentalist Christians do, would it not be the caring thing to keep people from doing that? If I were a Bushido Shintoist, should I not kill someone rather than let them live with the shame of dishonor? There's no way to separate these beliefs from what we consider moral, and how we choose to co-exist. I'm not religious, but I still hold beliefs absolute which do indeed guide my idea of how to treat people.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Right, it is a loaded question but it's not sarcastic. It's sincere, though incompletely worded, referring to a certain type of atheist. & the rest of the post is completely explicit & unloaded & I want to know people's opinions about the issue. I don't mean to offend any atheists, i myself am an atheist.

If I'd asked that question in a different context, I might have meant it sarcastically, but here I was actually wondering about it (i.e. are those atheists doing important work) which is why I put the disclaimers.

It continues to be what it was originally.

 

[EcK]

important ?
You could go with a pie chart view of the problem. The more viewpoints you have that relate to cosmogony and the nature of the universe at large the more the importance of each unitary belief set will be reduced.

Then again the multiplicity of viewpoints in an open forum type of society (freedom of information, lots of media to communicate ideas etc) can broaden that pie so that alternative and even opposing viewpoints all gain from the dialogue that is bound to be created in an information society.
Now gain or loss depends upon whether you see religions as institutions trying to reach some kind of platonic ideal or something that changes with its time to the point that 'truths' can change through dialogue without necessarily harming the religion as an organism.

Now the issue with the broaden the pie vision is that you could point to religion A B and C and compare their relative importance centuries ago perhaps but nowadays you find a large number of self-declared Christians who don't agree with many points of dogma supposed to be absolutely central. And I won't even go into the attitude vs behavior duality.

Religions were never as unitary as 'low resolution' history and their brands (christianity, Islam etc.) can lead us to assume. It's a bit like a poster seen from the distance of history, you miss the dots the image is made of and you give significance to letters and words that only really exist in your linguistic mind.
So how do you define what religion A or B is if they change through time and their members can find themselves in complete disagreement while supposed to be part of the same religion? If there is no discrete category within the pie then it's just a continuity of viewpoints about cosmogeny of which atheism is a part. A part that itself is of course not completely congruent: there are many viewpoints that are, sometimes quite wrongly, tagged as atheism.

So who are the atheists you speak of ?

 

[FunnyDigestion]

It continues to be what it was originally.

I never claimed otherwise, why would you assume I don't know what a loaded question is? This isn't a trial or a public debate, it's a casual discussion forum. I'm not trying to catch people or trip them up, I just want to hear new opinions even if those opinions are "fuck off with your bullshit questions". So I guess I'm saying i just don't see a problem.

 

[FemMecha]

It is important to the same degree that there is a correlation between atheism and being concerned with using systematic reason to form conclusions and to make clear distinctions between the process that produces facts and processes of speculation.

There is a significant problem in the lack of critical thinking and reasoning in society. People are constantly subjected to emotional manipulations in the media, and they replicate those same tactics in their social and professional interactions. I think society is in danger of repeating all of its worst mistakes if there isn't a higher importance placed on solid reasoning skills.

There are certainly examples of atheists with poor reasoning skills and religious thinkers who use higher levels of critical thinking, and so the categories are not clear-cut, however, there are some significant problems using emotional manipulation through religious ideas that are prominent at least in. U.S. society. It is more vulnerable to that sort of approach than atheism is. I am not personally invested in what someone's conclusions are so much as their ability to demonstrate critical thinking and reasoning skills to reach their conclusions. Any person who uses reason, and encourages others to do so, is extremely important to the future of our society.

 

[iwakar]

@op No, but maybe they're more tolerant than people think they are.

A meeting of hearts if not minds:

Dr. Michael Lill, head of the blood and marrow transplant program at Cedars-Sinai's Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, is a last recourse for Jehovah's Witnesses with advanced leukemia.

They arrive at Lill's door out of desperation and a desire to live. Many specialists decline to treat them because of their biblically centered refusal to accept blood transfusions, a mainstay of conventional care for the cancer.

Lill thinks their refusal is risky and illogical but nevertheless has devised a way to treat them that accommodates their religious convictions.

Despite his belief that God doesn't exist, he has become a hero to many devout believers.

"We don't care if he believes in God or not," said David Goldfarb, chairman of the Los Angeles-area Hospital Liaison Committee for the Jehovah's Witnesses. "What we really believe in is, 'Are you a skilled and great doctor … and can you respect our belief system?'"

Lill, a 52-year-old Australian native, said ideological differences between doctor and patient are beside the point.

"Just because someone makes a decision which I would view as the wrong decision … doesn't mean at that point in time I say, 'No, I am not going to look after you anymore,' " he said. "I try and treat people's religious beliefs with respect."

 

[reason]

How important to atheists think they are?

 

[tinker683]

How important to atheists think they are?

My mommy says I'm special

Ok, on a more serious note...my being an atheist has ---> | | <---- about this much to do with my normal day to day affairs.

 

[So It Goes]

I am a thuper important atheist. I even have the tie to prove it.

I recently watched an entertaining lecture by the blogger and writer, Greta Christina. She talked about why some atheists are perceived as "angry" by others. This video might give a perspective as to why there are atheists that are fighting to stop dogmatically-based policies and discrimination. I think, there are many atheists who only want to be treated as human beings and not moral-less heathens who eat babies. Although, babies do taste good. Others, of course, are against all forms of religion, and are anti-theists, as well as atheists. I'm not against all religion or even people believing in certain metaphysical claims, but I don't want people to impose their beliefs on me or others in a harmful fashion.

Welp, I'll stop my jabbering. Watch and enjoy.

 

[Unique]

I am a thuper important atheist. I even have the tie to prove it.

I recently watched an entertaining lecture by the blogger and writer, Greta Christina. She talked about why some atheists are perceived as "angry" by others. This video might give a perspective as to why there are atheists that are fighting to stop dogmatically-based policies and discrimination. I think, there are many atheists who only want to be treated as human beings and not moral-less heathens who eat babies. Although, babies do taste good. Others, of course, are against all forms of religion, and are anti-theists, as well as atheists. I'm not against all religion or even people believing in certain metaphysical claims, but I don't want people to impose their beliefs on me or others in a harmful fashion.

Welp, I'll stop my jabbering. Watch and enjoy.

Absolutely brilliant!

 

[Red Herring]

I am a thuper important atheist. I even have the tie to prove it.

I recently watched an entertaining lecture by the blogger and writer, Greta Christina. She talked about why some atheists are perceived as "angry" by others. This video might give a perspective as to why there are atheists that are fighting to stop dogmatically-based policies and discrimination. I think, there are many atheists who only want to be treated as human beings and not moral-less heathens who eat babies. Although, babies do taste good. Others, of course, are against all forms of religion, and are anti-theists, as well as atheists. I'm not against all religion or even people believing in certain metaphysical claims, but I don't want people to impose their beliefs on me or others in a harmful fashion.

Welp, I'll stop my jabbering. Watch and enjoy.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

How important to atheists think they are?

The average, probably not at all, but there are some who go on & on & on about it, argue & argue & argue & rant & rant & rant & rave & rave... which can be fun like any other ranting session, & perhaps important also. Which is what I wonder about. Which is what i made this thread about. Which forms a question creating what the "crux of the matter" is, to my vantage (see original post). Some ranting atheism is really entertaining, & I've done it myself.

This article is something you ppl should all read, as it makes the case for confrontational atheism which I was getting at pretty well, & is also funny as hell:

GOD CAN SUCK MY DICK

"The reason that intellectuals like Chomsky are so polite when it comes to religion is, I think, a result of their not taking it seriously, because it is so transparently stupid. Few serious critical thinkers are very much intimidated by the prospect of proving that there isn't such a thing as a three-tiered afterlife, a heaven, a hell, and a waiting room called purgatory. There are obviously more difficult problems to tackle. So they blow it off. And in the meantime, religion keeps hanging on and prospering even, so that there hasn't yet been a President of the United States who wasn't terrified to be caught not going to church regularly. In an age when the human genome is almost completely mapped out already, 70% of Americans believe in the physical existence of angels. It is not yet safe for an atheist to be an influential public figure. The idea behind belief in God is not a powerful one, from a logical standpoint, so our best thinkers ignore it—but the phenomenon of belief is more powerful than ever, and becoming a bigger and bigger bummer all the time. "

 

[reason]

You're joking, right? I understand why some atheists are angry (though the angry atheist does seem to be a rather American phenomenon), but articles like that are just as hypocritical, insidious, and close-minded as what the author purports to be against.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

You're joking, right? I understand why some atheists are angry (though the angry atheist does seem to be a rather American phenomenon), but articles like that are just as hypocritical, insidious, and close-minded as what the author purports to be against.

I'm joking & also serious. I'm always like that. don't be so close-minded about opinions, they don't exist on a number line.

 

[reason]

I'm joking & also serious. I'm always like that. don't be so close-minded about opinions, they don't exist on a number line.

So in the future I should prompt you for clarification before jumping to conclusions, right? Like I did in my last post?

 

[FunnyDigestion]

So in the future I should prompt you for clarification before jumping to conclusions, right? Like I did in my last post?

Of course not, you should do whatever you want like I do. As long as you read what I say, I'm happy.

Why is the article I posted hypocritical?

 

[reason]

Of course not, you should do whatever you want like I do. As long as you read what I say, I'm happy.

Why is the article I posted hypocritical?

It exemplifies the kind of intolerance and close-mindedness that it is railing against. The author's conviction that theism is just a load of old nonsense, the tacit dismissal that there could be any good counterarguments to the author's position, is ironically similar to the attitudes of the much maligned religious dogmatics.