Atheism Thread

Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life: Episode 2 from the Oct 22, 2012 broadcast...


 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is priceless.. the wordplay.. the message...

In the confines of a London dinner party, comedian Tim Minchin argues with a hippy named Storm.
While Storm herself may not be converted, audiences from London to LA have been won over by Tim's
wordplay and the timely message of the film in a society where science and reason are portrayed as the
enemy of belief.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
579152_10152196007645117_1562820994_n.jpg
 
CrystalGeezer said:
This thread isn't even about Atheism anymore. It's about "The New Atheism" and it's greyhaired pin-ups. They have made their views clear largely in connection with political issues so it's batshit crazy to say "no politics." You applauded a post about TSA pat-downs. Why do you feel THAT belongs in this thread? A nod to the Noam might be the thought if you dislike terrorists, quit creating them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To through my hat into the contentious ring, I do see what CG is trying to say. I'll reserve my opinion for my evaluation alone at this point, but I don't begrudge someone else sharing their own.
 
Happy Maudlin said:
To through my hat into the contentious ring, I do see what CG is trying to say. I'll reserve my opinion for my evaluation alone at this point, but I don't begrudge someone else sharing their own.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about "New Atheism." It is about all atheist thinkers, ideas, news, etc. The problem that CG and I had was that she was trying to equate Dawkins and Hitchens with interventionism--a political ideology. She was using the term "New Atheism" pejoratively, as most opponents of atheism do. "New Atheism" is neither a movement nor new. It's the same ideas. They are just now being put into books which are being published by big-name publishers, read by millions, and appearing on best seller lists.

That being said, there are distinctions to be made between what atheism looked like 100 years ago and what it looks like today. Today, it is a much safer environment for atheists to express their opinions, or even admit they are atheist. During Voltaire's, Jefferson's, and even Camus' time, this was not the case. Atheism was considered dangerous--still is by many. Thus many atheist thinkers were unable to openly express their ideas. So, they published underground, met secretly with other great thinkers, or when they did speak and write openly it was always drowning in Christian apologetic discourse.

This changed when Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennet published their books starting in 2004. These intellectual thinkers were assertive, outspoken, and made no apologies for their views. They were also not only atheists but anti-theists. In that they believe that religion should not simply be tolerated in society--a view that most atheist thinkers of the past held--but that it should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

Atheists today--both famous and common alike--still look to the late, great thinkers for inspiration, and respect and admire the courage they had to pave the way for the writers and scientists of today. However, the landscape has changed. And atheism has become more radical--as it should.

None of these "new" atheists have adopted the term "New Atheism." And until they do--if that ever becomes the case at all--I also refuse to give it any credibility. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. ~ Shakespeare
 
Last edited:
Stop the Religious Right. Four Steps You Can Take, author Sean Faircloth.

Plus one more... VOTE on Tuesday folks. Vote for Obama.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe in divinity. IDK what else more I can add to this thread or any other discussion about atheism... I am too lazy too even begin reading 17 pages.

And, frankly, I am not afraid of hell, even if it is real... I've heard some interpretations of "hell" as essentially being a state of spiritual non-existence. To me, that is a threat reserved strictly for people who are afraid of death because they can't accept the certainty and absoluteness of it.

f*** that shit.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” - T-Wain

Who needs salvation when you've got retirement to look forward to? I'm pretty okay with being worm shit, I just sometimes think I'd prefer not waiting around for that day to come. Early retirement, you dig? :cool:

Just kidding.
 
Last edited:
Happy Maudlin said:
Right, I more or less understand what you are saying, however not all of those who view the term New Atheism pejoratively are opponents of atheism. I have great admiration for Hitchens and respect for Dawkins, not only for their contribution to vocalizing atheist ideals, but in their respective fields. Both have reinvigorated secularist thought and both serve as a suitable introduction to atheism. But there is more to atheistic thought than the Fab Four Horsemen. Rigorous critique of religion especially of the monotheistic persuasion has predated Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. Nietzsche went so far as to say 'god is dead' something radical, shocking and perhaps dangerous for its time. By the turn of the 20th century, American writers like H.L. Mencken inspired a movement toward atheism. So, public acceptance of atheism should not be relegated to the early 2000s.

I disagree that the climate is more hospitable toward atheists. The stigma is still firmly attached toward atheists as being immoral, abrasive, and recently intolerant toward anyone else with different beliefs from them. The Fab Four, didn't make the prospects any better with their vociferous attack on religion, and the fan club surrounding them makes atheism seem more like a clique than just a simple absence of belief. I see the grave need for intellectual spearheads who will jettison the mores that promote religion as a necessary precursor to a 'moral' life. Its just that the attempts seem to be stymied by the fact that most of society is scientifically illiterate and so are the new atheists. Its redundant to declare the nonexistence of a negative, and noted astrophysicist Carl Sagan himself didn't identify as atheist, because you simply cannot know if such a thing (God) exists. A position based on pure scientific inquiry would be one of agnosticism. While that position may seem dormant, it is the most scientifically honest one. This is just my opinion at the moment-- it is in now way indicative of what I believe entirely.
Click to expand...

When normal typeface just doesn't cut it, go for the BOLD. Everyone is sure to stop what they are are doing and pay attention to your views!
 
Happy Maudlin said:
Right, I more or less understand what you are saying, however not all of those who view the term New Atheism pejoratively are opponents of atheism. I have great admiration for Hitchens and respect for Dawkins, not only for their contribution to vocalizing atheist ideals, but in their respective fields. Both have reinvigorated secularist thought and both serve as a suitable introduction to atheism. But there is more to atheistic thought than the Fab Four Horsemen. Rigorous critique of religion especially of the monotheistic persuasion has predated Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. Nietzsche went so far as to say 'god is dead' something radical, shocking and perhaps dangerous for its time. By the turn of the 20th century, American writers like H.L. Mencken inspired a movement toward atheism. So, public acceptance of atheism should not be relegated to the early 2000s.

I disagree that the climate is more hospitable toward atheists. The stigma is still firmly attached toward atheists as being immoral, abrasive, and recently intolerant toward anyone else with different beliefs from them. The Fab Four, didn't make the prospects any better with their vociferous attack on religion, and the fan club surrounding them makes atheism seem more like a clique than just a simple absence of belief. I see the grave need for intellectual spearheads who will jettison the mores that promote religion as a necessary precursor to a 'moral' life. Its just that the attempts seem to be stymied by the fact that most of society is scientifically illiterate and so are the new atheists. Its redundant to declare the nonexistence of a negative, and noted astrophysicist Carl Sagan himself didn't identify as atheist, because you simply cannot know if such a thing (God) exists. A position based on pure scientific inquiry would be one of agnosticism. While that position may seem dormant, it is the most scientifically honest one. This is just my opinion at the moment-- it is in now way indicative of what I believe entirely.
Click to expand...

First off, I just want to say that your post was very thoughtful and intelligent. You clearly have a very strong grasp of the history of atheism as well as the current landscape. I would just like to take issue with a few points. Atheism got a second wind due to the Four Horsemen and their books and media onslaught which was largely made possible due to the political and cultural climate at the time. People were angry and fearful of religious fundamentalism--Islamism, in particular. This was the catalyst that launched "New Atheism." The term came about much in the same way that the term grunge came about. And like the atheists of today who reject the term New Atheism, the artists labeled as "grunge" such as Pearl Jam and Nirvana hated that term and never embraced it. When other people try to put labels on a group, often that group does not embrace them as their own--unless it is of course to their advantage. The Seattle based rockers had nothing to gain by adopting the grunge label. It was mainly used as a marketing ploy by the fashion and music industries to drum up sales of CDS and flannel shirts. If the new atheists could sell thousands of more books and thus reach a greater audience by adopting the New Atheism label, they would have. But it wasn't to their benefit, as the term was used pejoratively by religionists and the conservative media. But, the term is here to stay. I just don't care to use it and don't consider myself to be a New Atheist. I was an atheist long before those guys came onto the scene. So much of my early inspiration came from philosophers such as Sarte and Camus. Today I find the branch of philosophy to be sorely lacking great atheist thinkers. Perhaps the exception being Daniel Dennett. Physicists and neuroscientists, plus Dawkins, seem to be holding the cards at the moment.

Of course, there are a few well known atheists who have adopted the New Atheism term. And then there are those atheists who don't even call themselves atheists--preferring the term agnostic, such as the late Carl Sagan--who you mentioned--and Neil Degrasse Tysson-- both astrophysicists. But not all scientists refuse to call themselves atheists. Lawrence Krauss is a very outspoken anti-theist as is Dawkins.

You claim the climate is not more hospitable towards atheists these days. Well, the Salem witch trials and the Crusades come to mind. But ya, tolerance is still a long ways away--especially in the US's rural south and non-western nations--particularly the Middle East.

Please continue the discussion. Your insight and input is much appreciated.
 
Skylarker said:
Dude you know that shit is RIDICULOUS. Now come on. But yeah, alright, I'll behave.
Click to expand...

Ya it was hard on the eyes. I had to take three Tylenol after reading it. Headache.
willmoviepic15.jpg
Am I coming in clear?


Can I tell you a little secret? I was a bit worried to open this thread and see your response. My heart skipped a beat as I scrolled down. But, to my pleasant surprise, you posted a nice, humorous response. Whew. :lbf:
 
realitybites said:
Ya it was hard on the eyes. I had to take three Tylenol after reading it. Headache.
willmoviepic15.jpg
Am I coming in clear?


Can I tell you a little secret? I was a bit worried to open this thread and see your response. My heart skipped a beat as I scrolled down. But, to my pleasant surprise, you posted a nice, humorous response. Whew. :lbf:
Click to expand...

Like I told you the last time I posted in this thread; debating this subject gets me very irate and it blurs my ability to separate the argument from the person I'm arguing with, which in your case would be unfortunate since I like you.

I also don't care enough whether there is a God or not, nor do I see that it makes enough of a difference in day to day life, so it is hard for me to spend much time discussing it.

But yeah, someone types a mini-article about atheism on a Morrissey forum and puts it all in bold...yeah, I can't resist that one. Sorry.
 
Skylarker said:
Like I told you the last time I posted in this thread; debating this subject gets me very irate and it blurs my ability to separate the argument from the person I'm arguing with, which in your case would be unfortunate since I like you.

I also don't care enough whether there is a God or not, nor do I see that it makes enough of a difference in day to day life, so it is hard for me to spend much time discussing it.

But yeah, someone types a mini-article about atheism on a Morrissey forum and puts it all in bold...yeah, I can't resist that one. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. And we came to an understanding about that. :)

OK. Which is worse, bold or colored font?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Was I ever any good
Another poetry thread
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Anonymous
A
TheSmiths_1985
The epic banter thread
15 16 17
Replies
329
Views
12K
TheSmiths_1985
TheSmiths_1985
S
(Tops) Argument thread
Replies
2
Views
1K
Anonymous
A
Redacted
The Thread for Smart People
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
4K
Vegan Cro Spirit 555
V
D
The Brexit thread
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Vegan Cro Spirit 444
V
Back
Top Bottom