Thinking like an atheist for a moment....

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm sorry Dream, but I still don't understand the question being raised in the OP. Are you asking why atheists don't game the religion system?

Chris

[Dream]

I think I had atheism a little mixed in with social darwinism like Vaj pointed out. What I have gotten from the thread is that people don't live by social darwinism. People just live, and the rest is all explanations. Knowing people who do play the game, I would imagine that's how they justify it like the social darwinist capitalist industrialists Vaj mentioned in the 1800s industrial England. Its a moot/answered question now. Your point is well taken that those who have experience know and those who don't, don't.

[Tao_Equus]

Thats it Dream. Why dont the cynical atheists like me just play the game? Because we care too much about our children. Because we really care. Sometimes it seems like religion trys to claim a monopoly on caring. nothing could be further from the truth. I am an atheist because I care.


Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by omprem

Each and every atheist is a perennial candidate for a Darwin Award. They dumb down their gene pool and ensure the ultimate demise of their belief system.

Atheists like to proclaim that they rely only on observation, reason and logic but every atheist commentary that I have seen is riddled with logical and factual error. The atheist belief system rests on several logical fallacies. Atheism is actually an attempt to justify the estranged ego, fear, lack of curiousity, and general ignorance of atheists.

Atheism is a religion that follows 'via negativa' route to God in that they seek to know God by eliminating that which they think as not-God from their search.

Many atheists are mystics but are unaware of that and therefore cut themselves off from their innate divinity by insisting on upon the supremacy of the illusions of sense impressions.

Originally Posted by omprem

You should bear in mind that Swedes as a result of their atheism are well-known for alcoholism and suicide. Hardly a ringing endorsement of atheism.

Well how far up your own arsehole do you need to get to see your own nostril hair? Well you can count them!! And they certainly number more than your brain cells.


I am tempted to qualify that, but I have enough regard for the regulars here that I feel no need.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sometimes it seems like religion trys to claim a monopoly on caring. nothing could be further from the truth. I am an atheist because I care.

But that's the problem. Your undue attachment to your world view is causing you to behave unduly .


Originally Posted by Tao_Equus
Sweden is 80% atheist.
Would still like to see your source for this.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Dream

I have met Dawkins evangelists in religious chat. I think they are college students who have listened to activist statements Dawkins has made. It reminded me of some experimental evangelism attempts I made when I was younger. Cute.

Atheism isn't just a word in the dictionary but a culture of atheism with its own set of books about why religion exists, many of which imply religion is a cultural evolution.

I find the whole Dawkins entourage thing a little strange. I mean, good for him, he's got groupies, but it just seems odd. I'm sure he enjoys it, though. I don't have much use for organized atheism. That's why I'm loathe to use the label. I do think that it functions somewhat like a religion at the (sort of) support group level. Kinda like how AA has a religious feel in a way. Maybe it's a substitute for the sense of identity one gets from the social aspect of organized religion. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can do without the "ism" part.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I find the whole Dawkins entourage thing a little strange. I mean, good for him, he's got groupies, but it just seems odd. I'm sure he enjoys it, though. I don't have much use for organized atheism. That's why I'm loathe to use the label. I do think that it functions somewhat like a religion at the (sort of) support group level. Kinda like how AA has a religious feel in a way. Maybe it's a substitute for the sense of identity one gets from the social aspect of organized religion. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can do without the "ism" part.

Chris

Organized atheism? Organized for self-control or organized with the aim to influence/control others? How about Evangelical Atheism?
I've noticed how Dawkinism closely resembles a religion--where the belief in God is replaced with the belief of 'No God.'

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dream,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Dream

You used the term 'Value'. If I'm asking about Social Darwinism then there is a race value to deception which may be positive or negative. Both honesty and deception are present in our populations. If you're talking about the immediate value of lying then that is another thing. Lifelong results are still another matter. I agree. It is easy to assume other people are like us.

my response was a reply to your query regarding why atheists didn't manipulate religion to their benefit. as most atheists lack a religious orientation the assumption of one to espouse their ideas would be deception and, to my view, there seems to be no benefit in doing so. i was curious why such an approach seemed viable to you, sorry for the clumsy wording in the previous post.

So you'd have to give me an education on evolution in order for me to even ask about this.

not particularly, no. biological evolution has nothing to do with atheism, they aren't related even in the slightest bit *other* than a being that is an atheist may hold that the modern synthesis is the correct explanation of biological evolution. an atheist certainly isn't compelled to hold this view by virtue of being an atheist.

Atheism isn't just a word in the dictionary but a culture of atheism with its own set of books about why religion exists, many of which imply religion is a cultural evolution.

it is _also_ that and more but the term atheist just indicates a lack of belief in deity.

You have pointed out the myriad new varieties of the word atheism, but I was talking about simple culture of atheism which as far as I know is very deterministic and does not include religionists.

most of the atheists that i dialog with are not deterministic though there are a few whom are. its interesting to me that beings still have such a view. i cannot really say that i am aware of a culture of atheism even though i classify myself as an atheist. i may simply not be aware of it

Also, I've said that atheists are not necessarily social darwinists, and who doesn't have misconceptions about biological evolution?

despite the fact that the term bears Darwins' name it has little to do with biological evolution and can be fairly said to have been the product of multiple authors and their works. social darwinism isn't a single philosophical view it is, rather, a collection of related philosophical propositions.

it seemed in your OP you were equating darwin's theory of natural selection to explain biological evolution with a political and social theory and atheists, as such, it seemed apropos to remark upon them. i've read the rest of the thread now though my initial post was composed with only having read the OP.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste omprem,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by omprem

Each and every atheist is a perennial candidate for a Darwin Award. They dumb down their gene pool and ensure the ultimate demise of their belief system.

i think that you are, perhaps, projecting some of your own views upon others which do not share them in the first place. the term atheist indicates a lack of belief in deities, nothing more and nothing less. there is no belief system attached to the term though it is certainly possible to have a philosophical system which is atheist in orientation the terms are not equivalent.

Atheists like to proclaim that they rely only on observation, reason and logic but every atheist commentary that I have seen is riddled with logical and factual error.

most atheists like to proclaim that they lack a belief in deities. atheists are humans, like are theists, and prone to the same fallacies and faulty thinking as any other. the only thing that makes one an atheist is a lack of belief in deity.

of course we don't really know which commentaries that you've read, their subject matter nor who wrote them and thus that you find them to be lacking isn't communicating all that much information.

The atheist belief system rests on several logical fallacies. Atheism is actually an attempt to justify the estranged ego, fear, lack of curiousity, and general ignorance of atheists.

at this point i have to presume that this is farce.

Atheism is a religion that follows 'via negativa' route to God in that they seek to know God by eliminating that which they think as not-God from their search.

i'm pretty sure that you're not sure what the term atheist means. it means there is no belief in deity one way or the other and thus we search not for that which is nonexistent.

Many atheists are mystics but are unaware of that and therefore cut themselves off from their innate divinity by insisting on upon the supremacy of the illusions of sense impressions.

blimey.. and you're criticizing others for logical fallacies

many fish are mystics but are unaware of that and therefore cut themselves off from their innate fishinity by insisting on upon the supremacy of being caught in a net and eaten.



metta,

~v

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well how far up your own arsehole do you need to get to see your own nostril hair? Well you can count them!! And they certainly number more than your brain cells.


I am tempted to qualify that, but I have enough regard for the regulars here that I feel no need.

tao

As usual, atheists are unable to defend their completely illogical beliefs and have to resort to invective as a defense never realizing that ad hominem comments are logical fallacies and provide even more proof of the illogic of the atheist belief system.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'd say this proves my point.

Chris

Which is?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by omprem

As usual, atheists are unable to defend their completely illogical beliefs and have to resort to invective as a defense never realizing that ad hominem comments are logical fallacies and provide even more proof of the illogic of the atheist belief system.

OMG!! Netti has a disciple cutting and pasting from his words How very predictable.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i think that you are, perhaps, projecting some of your own views upon others which do not share them in the first place. the term atheist indicates a lack of belief in deities, nothing more and nothing less. there is no belief system attached to the term though it is certainly possible to have a philosophical system which is atheist in orientation the terms are not equivalent.

You are quite mistaken. You have forgotten to factor in the reasons why atheists 'lack a belief in deities'. They believe that sense impressions represent some sort of reality. Consequently they believe in the supremacy of empiricism and its handmaidens reason, logic, language, space and time. They mistakenly believe themselves to be discrete beings. Part of their belief system is a disbelief in paranormal activity, in miracles, in the validity of non-linear learning styles, in the ability to acquire information in any way other than through empiricism. They tend to believe that consciousness is a biochemical process in the brain. They believe that religions postulate an individuated God. In addition, they demonstrate a lack of curiousity and an attachment to several logical fallacies, namely, over-generalization, argumentum ad nauseum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

most atheists like to proclaim that they lack a belief in deities. atheists are humans, like are theists, and prone to the same fallacies and faulty thinking as any other. the only thing that makes one an atheist is a lack of belief in deity.

Of course, no religion postulates an individuated god. There are individual religionists who take a literal view of scripture and believe in an individuated god. Atheists are literalist fundamentalists who argue only with their own false notions of religion or with other fundamentalists of the religious variety.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

at this point i have to presume that this is farce.

Denial and ridicule is the stock in trade of atheists and others who cannot defend their views.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm pretty sure that you're not sure what the term atheist means. it means there is no belief in deity one way or the other and thus we search not for that which is nonexistent.

Your own statement with its mention of 'nonexistent' clearly shows that atheism is not just a lack of belief in God but rather an active disbelief in God. Again, God is not individuated and therefore will not be known through an empirical search.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

OMG!! Netti has a disciple cutting and pasting from his words How very predictable.

Still unable to defend your atheist views, I see.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Organized atheism? Organized for self-control or organized with the aim to influence/control others? How about Evangelical Atheism?
I've noticed how Dawkinism closely resembles a religion--where the belief in God is replaced with the belief of 'No God.'

Evangelical Atheism. What a great description. In my associations with atheists they spend a great deal of time evangelizing themselves. They engage in group think and high five each other for doing so. They have the curious belief that the more times they repeat their illogical statements somehow that repetition makes those statements true. They protect their ignorance with a belief that those who disagree with them, especially religionists, are somehow dangerous.

Your comment on Dawkins is right on the money and points to the hubris of the atheist as their defining characteristic. They don't want someone else's religion, they want their own. If they get one and it has political power they will commit all the mistakes and crimes of which they accuse other religions only more so. Consider that they view childhood religious education to be a form of child abuse and then consider what they would do to those who 'abuse' their children in this way. Fortunately, atheism is a dead end.

They, of course, have an outreach form of evangelizing. They have their contemporary prophets - Sam Harris, David Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling. And their historical prophets - Hume, La Mettrie, Diderot, D'Alembert, and d'Holbach. They even attempt to subsume Deists such as Hobbes, Voltaire and some of the founders of the U.S. into the cult of atheism. And they have a political wing every ready to keep religion, and therefore morality, out of government and schools.