They seem to suffer the delusion that atheism not only has to make a positive claim, but does so.

Oh, well. I guess we'll just have to live with never going anywhere until we make a positive claim. Just like the people who don't believe in leprechauns.

Or is he one of those screaming horrible ones who are no different than religious fundies who bomb abortion clinics?

of an atheist who was also pointing out when certain types of arguments by atheists backfire would finally help get this point through to atheists here who are misreading what I posted earlier.

Your words suggest otherwise.

In fact I'm just gonna say I don't bellieve you.

It simply validates my observation about the larger than 10th Commandment, and its requirements.

You must be proud of your accomplishment.

A minority doesn't have to sit there and take whatever the majority decides to dump on it.

If you want a good reason why, consider the group laughingstock's behavior right here. We are not going to roll over and let that dishonest individual get away with all his crap.

You just think atheists who speak certain opinions need to shut up because they're no better than the fundies who murder people.

So I am asking, is Shermer an acceptable atheist to you?

0 for 2.

That's what happens when you quote from a search, blindly.

Remember when we had a genuine Young Earth Creationist participating in this group? He posted and linked to material from a right-wing preacher's site to support his position, and didn't notice (or didn't mind) that the proprietor of that site promotes SPLC-listed Christian hate groups. Oopsie.

I do, however, notice how often religionists try to find some sort of "official spokesperson" for atheism. There are actually none of those. It is religionists who read their books and listen to their speeches. Atheists don't bother will all that nonsense. Atheism is far too simple to need spokespersons.

However, where there is a demand, it will be filled. Shermer is one of those who try to fill it, but steps on his own genitals when he makes statements like his Point 1.

It couldn't possibly be because religious dogma still affects our lives, nope. If we care at all about it, then we're way out of line. We should remain silent - or only say positive things about religion.

Richard Dawkins thinks about it professionally. I've read several of his books. He cares.

And I don't think there is something negative about that.

Dawkins doesn't care either and doesn't even take the approach that god doesn't exist.

I'm in this thread. I'm following up with question. I do care what you think, tbh.

I passed by a bunch of threads and posted here. I care.

But if by "care" we mean "want to change" what someone believes, then I agree, I do not want to change you.

I'm pretty sure that's also what the person you quoted meant.

It wasn't the "believes" so much as the "care" I was asking for definition on.

NBD though.

He also speaks extensively on the topic in a wide variety of forums. Does he not speak and write on these topics because he would like people to agree with him? What other motivation could he have? Just to sell books?

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. He encourages atheists to challenge bullshit. That's not the same as giving a shit what they believe or don't.

I don't think you have any more illusions of changing my belief than I do of yours, but we both stated our opinion on the subject.

It's about convincing anyone who might be open to it on at least some issues. And it's not a short term project like a forum thread. It's more of a long term interaction with his audience, some of whom will change their views and some won't. Others may already agree but use his points for talking to their friends, which sometimes is more convincing than anything else.

You can offer a dissenting opinion without trying to change someone's mind.

The reason religion has as much influence over other people's lives is largely because they remain silent and allow it to happen. Meanwhile the dominant religion enjoys the status of privilege because some have managed to convince others religion should enjoy some kind of venerated status free from criticism. It would be one thing if that privilege had no effect over the lives of those without it, but it always does.

If all he wanted to do was reduce the influence of religion on people's lives by offering a dissenting opinion, how does he do that without changing someone's mind, at least a little bit?

A religionist can decide evolution is wholly compatible with their personal belief. A religionist can decide women's and LGBT rights are wholly compatible with their personal belief. Many do exactly that.

What I'm pretty sure he is after is trying to change how people think, not necessarily what they believe.

If you think that's not what Dawkins is doing, then why does he also attack other forms of pseudoscience that have absolutely nothing to do with religion or religious belief?

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2019, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

But if you want to make one, that's fine by me. Why does he attack pseudoscience? Because he isn't only interested in religion.

Which explains why the method is exactly the same.

Without ever changing any of their beliefs about evolution, religion or science. He wants to make a change in people's thinking. I don't care what you call it or how you describe it. The key word is change.

Without changing their religion. As long as they aren't trying to force those beliefs on anyone else, who cares? The problem is organized religion inevitably does, and when they do they are most certainly trying to make a change in other people's thinking. Pretty much a bridge to far not to expect a response.

...and proselytizing.

Selling books is probably not a drawback, either.

And speak out against conservatism.

Do they not speak and write on these topics because they would like people to agree with them?

Is it ok for them to proselytize?

The word doesn't bother me. But to avoid argument over definitions, I'd say they trying to persuade or attract voters.

is bashed as "proselytizing" for atheism and so intensely frowned upon. Even when a believer group says people are going to go to hell, and an atheist group responds by saying "naw, probably not, just enjoy your life" and THAT'S held up as an example of this horrible atheist brigade insulting all believers. Seriously? smh

They get to say worse things about you than you can say about them. It's unfair, but it's a fact of life for every minority

And this thread certainly illustrates how some few illustrate the same thing.

Maybe if you just repeat it another hundred times it will. Or not. At least nobody can ever call you a quitter.

There has clearly been disagreement on that.

I can truthfully say that atheists, by definition, don't use religion to threaten much of anything. It would be helpful if theists would carry a little more of this load.

Fervently.

It's a big part of why I'd be quite content to see it utterly eradicated.

If that vice could be eliminated--and I'm not sure it would still be religion as we know it at that point--I'd view religion significantly more favorably.

The teaching that man has dominion over Earth and its creatures is not harmless.

But, oh, those negatives are just absolute deal-breakers.

I can't help but think of some of the genuine cretins who arrogate to themselves the right to insist that's already part of atheism.

I do have an extreme dislike for intolerance in all of its forms.

Every now and then you reveal far more about yourself than you'll ever admit.

And another poster has talked about many of the same things that I have been saying about this Group. A non-theist by the way.

And I’m not talking about any other posters, but diversion noted.

Consistent at least.

Now you are just making shit up again. Kinda sad you’d have to resort to such tactics and just provides more convincing evidence.

Another familiar meme.

The difference is you also broad brush other posters with your “choir” garbage alleging it’s some kind of conspiracy against you. Then you’re shocked when multiple people see through all of it for exactly what it is.

I would also use your same meme and say you’ve managed to convince yourself, but if true that would be even more sad.

But you are also exhibiting the same behavior in this post toward the original poster.

So how does anyone interpret that? You know my opinion. What is yours?

Just sayin’

Agreed.

Especially when the intent is diversion.

Another diversion post noted, BTW. Not that I’m keeping count, but you know, evidence.

The exact same phrases, the exact same accusations, the exact same memes.

Only this time, the poster is not a theist.

Why else would you put so much effort in diversion?

And I understand why because it is the exact same behavior.

More evidence

Because instead of explaining why you hate atheists, you’d rather pretend someone else hates atheists.

Another diversion from that, btw.

"have you stopped beating your...." questions.


Your question was a part of your unsupported accusation.

Arguing agaisnt a narrative is not hate. it is pointing out, in many instances, the illogic of the narrative.

When you go about throwing around accusations against “the choir”, you give up the right to complain when it comes back around. Your obvious problem is you’ve pulled that enough times against the same sort of people that the pattern of behavior just isn’t that hard to figure out.

But hey at least you’ve actually decided to address it rather than divert, albeit hypocritically.

chosen for its religious overtones.

The fact that it does have religious overtones I’m sure gives you a particular level of glee when you attribute it to those who reject religion.

The part you don’t get is you aren’t the first one to bring in hateful rhetoric to this group. And those with whom you direct it at will simply wear it as a badge of honor. It’s not as if atheists don’t see this kind of shit all the time.

And the tone of this Group toward theists was well established prior to my posting here.

Interesting premise.

He fails with #1:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe

That is simply a false statement.

I stopped there.

Then, there's this, as well...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/09/the-shermer-affair-erupts/

It was years ago, so it's not like it should have been a surprise to the OP.

But, yes, right at point #1 he lets loose with one of the clearest announcements that there's no "there" there intellectually.

They make their livings writing books and speaking in public. More power to them, I suppose. However, as an individual atheist, I never read their books or watch their public appearances. I find nothing of value in their expansion of the simple definition of atheism that is the only thing needed. Sometimes, as in point 1 of that statement, they even screw up the basic definition, in their zeal to say a great deal about something so simple.

It's interesting, though, that so much is said about those "professional" atheists. For believers, it is important to try to demonstrate that there is a "movement" to atheism. There is not. Most atheists are simply non-believers who go about their daily affairs without ever thinking about atheism at all.

We have no spokespersons, because there's really nothing complicated to say about non-belief. It is far too simple.

Where people fuck up when they allege these false equivalencies is they pretend there's a "belief system" that goes with atheism. There's no such thing as a good or bad atheist. Any characterization of a particular atheist as good or bad has exactly nothing to do with atheism. The only thing you can say about all atheists is they lack belief for all deities. It's nothing at all like religion with tenets, doctrine, dogma, and philosophy.

There is no uniformity to atheism - except for disbelief in deities. There are a few people who make their livings talking about atheism, but I've never understood what more there is to day about it than "I don't/can't believe that any supernatural entities like deities exist." Once you've said that, you've covered the entire subject.

It's interesting to discuss religion from that point of view in places like this group. And individual atheist's perspective is always useful in such discussions. However, atheists spend a lot of their time in such discussions explaining that atheism isn't a system of thinking. It's just a simple disbelief. We, as individuals, end up doing that mostly, really, in such discussions.

I cannot speak for any other atheist, and no other atheist can speak for me, no matter how prominent such an atheist might be.

They hold conferences and write blogs about it. It might be more accurate to say it's secular humanist movement focused on analyzing religion, separation of church and state, rationalism and related issues. Seems like there is a lot to say about that and we cover many such topics in this group.

Theists assume because their stance on the existence of gods comes with a moral philosophy (of a sorts) in tandem, so does everyone else's. And so they treat atheism like it's a religion when it clearly is not.

I never consider religion. It never crosses my mind. I also don't debate Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin. Those things are for children who have not reached the age of reason and enjoy a good fairy tale.

I will not be labeled by those who need labels for people.

There is, as you say, no need for labels for one's own personal thinking about such things.

So if we are going to talk about these issues, we are going to end up with label whether we like it or not.

Especially when people don't agree with YOUR labels.

I don't have black friends or Catholic friends. I have friends.

Thomas Jefferson struck out the parts of his Bible he didn't like. You could do the same thing with your dictionary.