Atheism

[colpepper1]

It might, I would suggest, be worth separating the theology - or atheology(?) - from the cultural phenomenon.

Admittedly this is difficult - clearly if it appears that someone is prejudiced in some way by their world view it's difficult to separate their contribution from their personality.

What is this 'cultural phenomenon'? And is it created by atheists, or by their opponents?

"if it appears that someone is prejudiced in some way by their world view it's difficult to separate their contribution from their personality..." :?
Prejudiced? According to whom? And are people with a 'personality' not allowed to have opinions or world views?

Atheism, like its first cousin, Evolution by means of natural selection, is really a very simple idea. It's only those who don't understand it (or who wilfully misunderstand it) who try to complicate things.

I disagree on numerous levels. Especially "Atheism, like its first cousin, Evolution". Seriously, WTF!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

What is this 'cultural phenomenon'?

In the same way that we might talk of the cultural phenomenon of religion as distinct from the specific act of faith or the intiricacies of theology (or, say, marriage as distinct from the specific act of union) we can talk about atheism with reference to factors not neccessarily inherent to a lack of belief.

And is it created by atheists, or by their opponents?

It's created by everyone who expresses an opinion either way.

"if it appears that someone is prejudiced in some way by their world view it's difficult to separate their contribution from their personality..." :?
Prejudiced? According to whom? And are people with a 'personality' not allowed to have opinions or world views?

Of course they are but it would be disingenuous to pretend that we don't use what we know (or think we know) of someone's beliefs when assessing claims that they make.

Atheism, like its first cousin, Evolution by means of natural selection, is really a very simple idea. It's only those who don't understand it (or who wilfully misunderstand it) who try to complicate things.

And in doing so contribute to the cultural phenomenon of atheism...

 

[colpepper1]

The 'cultural phenomena' are those uncompromising, reactionary, grim, perverse representations of deist belief and their opposite number who present all belief as versions of it.
From my understanding very few people subscribe to religious dogma these days but a much greater number entertain beliefs of some kind or another. I find such people sympathetic, not stupid.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I agree with Rynner - I feel the propositions are trying to overcomplicate something that is really very simple. Much of what is being proposed by Colpepper is in the realm of philosophy, a discipline which is subjective and refers to ideas I for one find no meaning or value in.

You cannot discuss atheism without its context, and the meanders of this thread have all been related to that context.

It's a typical tactic I've encountered to try and separate atheism out as a philosophy, to try and attack it. This is a straw man - plain and simple. Atheism isn't a philosophy - it's a rejection of philosophy.

Those who for whatever personal reasons want to attack the atheist position simply cannot apply their own rules and definitions as to what atheism is. All Colpepper's talk of worldviews and apriori assumptions is meaningless, because the only a priori assumption made by most atheists is the agnostic "we don't know" - we see any attempts to express ideas or knowledge of the existence or properties of "gods" as an unsupported divergence from this position. Hence most of us being agnostic and atheist, at least when it comes to general god belief.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour" Don Hirschberg

Again, it is an important misrepresentation of scepticism and atheism to say that it is an a priori commitment to belief in the lack of an entity - this has been explained over and over but keeps getting thrown up.

It is simply a working assumption that things of which we have no knowledge don't exist, pending evidence that they do, as we can take no useful knowledge from an idea until we have any genuine reason to believe it exists. We don't write books on alien biology before we know that aliens exist and we have some data on them.

Again, I'll repeat - this is in no way discounting the possibility that the entity in question exists - it just means we cannot build anything into our working model relating to that entity yet.

 

[colpepper1]

I agree with Rynner - I feel the propositions are trying to overcomplicate something that is really very simple. Much of what is being proposed by Colpepper is in the realm of philosophy, a discipline which is subjective and refers to ideas I for one find no meaning or value in.

You cannot discuss atheism without its context, and the meanders of this thread have all been related to that context.

It's a typical tactic I've encountered to try and separate atheism out as a philosophy, to try and attack it. This is a straw man - plain and simple. Atheism isn't a philosophy - it's a rejection of philosophy.

Those who for whatever personal reasons want to attack the atheist position simply cannot apply their own rules and definitions as to what atheism is. All Colpepper's talk of worldviews and apriori assumptions is meaningless, because the only a priori assumption made by most atheists is the agnostic "we don't know" - we see any attempts to express ideas or knowledge of the existence or properties of "gods" as an unsupported divergence from this position. Hence most of us being agnostic and atheist, at least when it comes to general god belief.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour" Don Hirschberg

Again, it is an important misrepresentation of scepticism and atheism to say that it is an a priori commitment to belief in the lack of an entity - this has been explained over and over but keeps getting thrown up.

It is simply a working assumption that things of which we have no knowledge don't exist, pending evidence that they do, as we can take no useful knowledge from an idea until we have any genuine reason to believe it exists. We don't write books on alien biology before we know that aliens exist and we have some data on them.

Again, I'll repeat - this is in no way discounting the possibility that the entity in question exists - it just means we cannot build anything into our working model relating to that entity yet.

1 ) What you personally find meaning in may or may not have anything to do with the wider debate. Lots of people find belief an excellent starting point for negotiating life's ups and downs. Who are we to begrudge them their comforts?

2 ) I am trying to discuss atheism without the philosophical baggage. I refer you to yesterday's posts. Denying such baggage exists is disingenuous and the rest of your posts reveal it to be so.

3 ) Tactic? This is a messageboard, not a wargame. Nobody's trying to subvert you from your deeply held beliefs.

3 ) You said you can't discuss atheism without its contexts and in the next sentence you say atheism isn't a philosophy, it's a rejection of philosophy. The context is its philosophy, it comes through repeatedly.

4 ) I'm totally with you on 'we don't know'. Any assumptions made around that lack of knowledge are partial at best.

5 ) My position regarding the thread title stands. Popular atheism, like the thread, has moved away from a belief or disbelief in a god to a colonising influence on people's thoughts. Of course you can discuss belief and disbelief in gods without the militancy. When I get current deadlines out the way I shall start such a thread.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I agree with Rynner - I feel the propositions are trying to overcomplicate something that is really very simple. Much of what is being proposed by Colpepper is in the realm of philosophy, a discipline which is subjective and refers to ideas I for one find no meaning or value in.

You cannot discuss atheism without its context, and the meanders of this thread have all been related to that context.

It's a typical tactic I've encountered to try and separate atheism out as a philosophy, to try and attack it. This is a straw man - plain and simple. Atheism isn't a philosophy - it's a rejection of philosophy.

Those who for whatever personal reasons want to attack the atheist position simply cannot apply their own rules and definitions as to what atheism is. All Colpepper's talk of worldviews and apriori assumptions is meaningless, because the only a priori assumption made by most atheists is the agnostic "we don't know" - we see any attempts to express ideas or knowledge of the existence or properties of "gods" as an unsupported divergence from this position. Hence most of us being agnostic and atheist, at least when it comes to general god belief.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour" Don Hirschberg

Again, it is an important misrepresentation of scepticism and atheism to say that it is an a priori commitment to belief in the lack of an entity - this has been explained over and over but keeps getting thrown up.

It is simply a working assumption that things of which we have no knowledge don't exist, pending evidence that they do, as we can take no useful knowledge from an idea until we have any genuine reason to believe it exists. We don't write books on alien biology before we know that aliens exist and we have some data on them.

Again, I'll repeat - this is in no way discounting the possibility that the entity in question exists - it just means we cannot build anything into our working model relating to that entity yet.

1 ) What you personally find meaning in may or may not have anything to do with the wider debate. Lots of people find belief an excellent starting point for negotiating life's ups and downs. Who are we to begrudge them their comforts?

"Lots of people" can believe away at whatever they want. I don't begrudge them their right to "believe", but I'm not going to pretend I think it's a good starting point for knowledge. I will argue for reason instead.

2 ) I am trying to discuss atheism without the philosophical baggage. I refer you to yesterday's posts. Denying such baggage exists is disingenuous and the rest of your posts reveal it to be so.

I don't understand what you mean here - again, it just seems to be trying to overcomplicate what atheism is - there is no philosophical baggage, as atheists have chosen to travel light.

3 ) Tactic? This is a messageboard, not a wargame. Nobody's trying to subvert you from your deeply held beliefs.

I have no deeply held beliefs - that is the whole point. You have continually tried to imply that I do, but that is the whole point of scepticism and atheism, whether you like it or not. I reject the concept of belief - I want knowledge of what can be known through application of science, not of imagined realites.

I can take pleasure from fiction, but I'm not going to confuse it with the real world.

You cannot portray a lack of belief as a belief, because it suits your ends - this was my entire meaning.

3 ) You said you can't discuss atheism without its contexts and in the next sentence you say atheism isn't a philosophy, it's a rejection of philosophy. The context is its philosophy, it comes through repeatedly.

No, the context is the rejection of philosophy - you've just tried to create the same straw man I objected to. The context of atheism is the claim of theism that there is reason to believe in the existence of gods, a claim which an atheist views as deviating from the neutral position without reasonable cause. We simply reject the philosophy of theism.

It is just not as complicated as I think you are trying to make it.

4 ) I'm totally with you on 'we don't know'. Any assumptions made around that lack of knowledge are partial at best.

5 ) My position regarding the thread title stands. Popular atheism, like the thread, has moved away from a belief or disbelief in a god to a colonising influence on people's thoughts. Of course you can discuss belief and disbelief in gods without the militancy. When I get current deadlines out the way I shall start such a thread.

I'll at least grant you this - I could conceive of popular atheism as at least a political movement, but I would shy away from any concession towards referring to it as a philosophy.

 

[colpepper1]

You're being mischievous by stating Atheism (large A) isn't ambitious beyond the decision of belief/disbelief. You admit you'd like to see it as a political movement and you're certainly not alone.

The polemic surrounding that position is largely based on a depiction of religion, and by extension belief, as something that must be curtailed and a lot of stuff about destiny and enlightenment and fear. I think that representation of belief is a gross distortion.
I agree atheism is a reactionary belief, but the thing its reacting against isn't clerical threats and mind games, but the freedom of people to believe what the hell they choose. Once you deny or curtail that choice, you're on the road to deciding what are acceptable and unacceptable ideas, control freakery in other words, precisely the stuff atheists accuse religion of trading in.

If atheism is simply a decision not to believe in a deity - the kind of thing that would be useful to discuss on a fortean messageboard - it would take rogue or a conman to deny an individual that right but that's not what the thread has been about. It's been a sales pitch with a wedge driven between belief and disbelief that leaves many forteans, those who can see the value and possibilities in both sides of the argument, on the outside.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

You're being mischievous by stating Atheism (large A) isn't ambitious beyond the decision of belief/disbelief. You admit you'd like to see it as a political movement and you're certainly not alone.

The polemic surrounding that position is largely based on a depiction of religion, and by extension belief, as something that must be curtailed and a lot of stuff about destiny and enlightenment and fear. I think that representation of belief is a gross distortion.
I agree atheism is a reactionary belief, but the thing its reacting against isn't clerical threats and mind games, but the freedom of people to believe what the hell they choose. Once you deny or curtail that choice, you're on the road to deciding what are acceptable and unacceptable ideas, control freakery in other words, precisely the stuff atheists accuse religion of trading in.

If atheism is simply a decision not to believe in a deity - the kind of thing that would be useful to discuss on a fortean messageboard - it would take rogue or a conman to deny an individual that right but that's not what the thread has been about. It's been a sales pitch with a wedge driven between belief and disbelief that leaves many forteans, those who can see the value and possibilities in both sides of the argument, on the outside.

Atheism is not a decision - I am an atheist because I cannot believe in the existence of gods with the data available to me - there is no choice involved.

Atheism is simply the rejection of theism. What stems from that and what I think you are referring to isn't atheism itself and probably does fall under the umbrella of what is being referred to as popular atheism, neo atheism (hillariously loaded label), cultural atheism or any number of labels, so let's address that separately.

Where do you get the idea that atheists want to deny others the right to believe what they want? You seem to confuse arguing against something with attempting to ban it; this is the language of totalitarianism and is not appliccable here. All the atheists I've ever spoken with want to have their say, but would never try and outlaw theistic belief. There are a great many things I would argue against but still maintain are a matter of individual conscience, so I would have no desire to ban them.

The moderates' right to believe does not trump my right of free speech to explain why I don't believe, and this is crucial - I need to use the arguments to reject belief to argue against the extremists, where the foundations of their belief systems are based on variations of the fundamentally flawed concept of theistic belief.

If the world was full of people who simply held passive beliefs in deities, that ended within their own sphere, atheists would probably still exist, if exposed to those beliefs, but you would not see them being vocal or active. They would simply quietly disagree and get on with it.

We don't live in that world. We live in a world where large numbers of those of various religious beliefs, all of which are driven by theistic belief, are trying to impose their particular theologies on everyone, be it islamist terrorists, creationists attempting to disrupt science education, active opposition to gay and women's rights, or the representation of the C of E within our political establishment.

It is these ideologies and privileges against which atheists are motivated to take a stand, not the majority of those with personal religious belief.

I think people who hold personal religious belief are being foolish, but I would defend to the death their right to hold such beliefs. I respect their right to believe what they want, but I don't respect the underlying belief itself, in the same way I would respect the right of someone to be a tory, whilst not respecting their underlying ideology.

Dawkins has expressed very clearly why he is attacking moderate religion as well as extremist, as he feels moderate religion provides protection for extremism. I am a little less cynical than this, and whilst I can see what he's doing and why, it feels a step just a bit too far for me.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I agree atheism is a reactionary belief, but the thing its reacting against isn't clerical threats and mind games, but the freedom of people to believe what the hell they choose. Once you deny or curtail that choice, you're on the road to deciding what are acceptable and unacceptable ideas, control freakery in other words, precisely the stuff atheists accuse religion of trading in.

If atheism is simply a decision not to believe in a deity - the kind of thing that would be useful to discuss on a fortean messageboard - it would take rogue or a conman to deny an individual that right but that's not what the thread has been about. It's been a sales pitch with a wedge driven between belief and disbelief that leaves many forteans, those who can see the value and possibilities in both sides of the argument, on the outside.

I'm sorry but I simply don't see that atheism is attempting some sort of totalitarian assault on the mind (on the contrary most atheists would argue they wish to oppose exactly that sort of assault perpetrated as it is by theists). Atheism simply argues against the intellectual acceptance of theism and when politicised (invariably in response to religious claims of exceptionalism) it does so to stop its advance, not to advance itself.

I also don't accept the conclusion that by behaving in this way atheism or atheists become comparable to their rival point of view. It would be as ludicrous as saying that by petitioning against the keeping of slaves you'd somehow be comparable to the slave owner.

Again, though, we're discussing the -ists and not the -ism.

 

[colpepper1]

This is a messageboard of ladies and gentlemen, not the angry brigade. We do not require re-education. It would be better if people left their stuff at the door on the way in. Otherwise bees escape from bonnets and make normal conversation difficult.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This is a messageboard of ladies and gentlemen, not the angry brigade. We do not require re-education. It would be better if people left their stuff at the door on the way in. Otherwise bees escape from bonnets and make normal conversation difficult.

It's probably inevitable that people get angry or at least lightly miffed when their point of view is misrepresented re atheism's alleged crusade against the rights of an individual to believe what they wish. That claim would surely be an example of baggage-smuggling.

 

[colpepper1]

There are two things we seem not to be able to agree on, and by the way, my last comment wasn't aimed at TBM.

First is the idea that Atheism is due special privileges because it has 'logic' on its side. There are large areas of human life that require kindness and empathy and understanding of other people's errors and our own, not simply a pursuit of truth, whatever than might be. Take it too far and you get not humanism, but autism.

Second is the notion that Atheism is endlessly misunderstood and misrepresented. If a friend tells me he is atheistic, I take him at his word. I don't require a reason why, nor a lecture how he came to those conclusions, in the same way as someone telling me he or she had become a christian minister.
I'd assume both were the result of long contemplation and even personal struggle and the details were their own business. I don't want to define people narrowly whether they be black, gay, religious or atheist or assume anything about what they may think as individuals.

It's clear to my own satisfaction that there's a colonising influence behind Atheism, the cultural force as opposed to atheism the disbelief. Disbelief doesn't take us anywhere but itself, Atheism says following my (our?) conclusions we are inevitably lead to la, la, la. There's no inevitably about it, those conclusions are a choice. They may be a choice influenced by wrongs in the world, they may be forged in political aspirations that see Atheism as an easy point to argue. What disbelief doesn't show us is way forward that encompasses the whole of human experience and it's a lie to suggest it might.

On that point I shall leave this conversation and begin a new one on belief and disbelief when I get time.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

There are two things we seem not to be able to agree on, and by the way, my last comment wasn't aimed at TBM.

First is the idea that Atheism is due special privileges because it has 'logic' on its side. There are large areas of human life that require kindness and empathy and understanding of other people's errors and our own, not simply a pursuit of truth, whatever than might be. Take it too far and you get not humanism, but autism.

Second is the notion that Atheism is endlessly misunderstood and misrepresented. If a friend tells me he is atheistic, I take him at his word. I don't require a reason why, nor a lecture how he came to those conclusions, in the same way as someone telling me he or she had become a christian minister.
I'd assume both were the result of long contemplation and even personal struggle and the details were their own business. I don't want to define people narrowly whether they be black, gay, religious or atheist or assume anything about what they may think as individuals.

It's clear to my own satisfaction that there's a colonising influence behind Atheism, the cultural force as opposed to atheism the disbelief. Disbelief doesn't take us anywhere but itself, Atheism says following my (our?) conclusions we are inevitably lead to la, la, la. There's no inevitably about it, those conclusions are a choice. They may be a choice influenced by wrongs in the world, they may be forged in political aspirations that see Atheism as an easy point to argue. What disbelief doesn't show us is way forward that encompasses the whole of human experience and it's a lie to suggest it might.

One can see a colonising influence in the behaviour of some atheists but to extract and extrapolate from these examples the core or totality of atheism and then to argue against them is surely what you accuse the 'large A atheists' of a few posts previous?

Again, though, I would point out that nobody is claiming that disbelief can show us a "way forward that encompasses the whole of human experience". It would indeed be a lie to suggest that anyone is making such a case.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

There are two things we seem not to be able to agree on, and by the way, my last comment wasn't aimed at TBM.

First is the idea that Atheism is due special privileges because it has 'logic' on its side. There are large areas of human life that require kindness and empathy and understanding of other people's errors and our own, not simply a pursuit of truth, whatever than might be. Take it too far and you get not humanism, but autism.

Nobody is asking for special priviledges. Atheism is the only logical stance to take towards theism and it has been clearly laid out why on many occasions. Theistic claims are unsupported and we are just not accepting those unsupported positive claims. The rest of what you say is pure unsupported conjecture on your part - I see no link between compassion and empathy and belief in gods - they are chalk and cheese. I have no theistic belief but I have compassion and empathy.

Second is the notion that Atheism is endlessly misunderstood and misrepresented. If a friend tells me he is atheistic, I take him at his word. I don't require a reason why, nor a lecture how he came to those conclusions, in the same way as someone telling me he or she had become a christian minister.
I'd assume both were the result of long contemplation and even personal struggle and the details were their own business. I don't want to define people narrowly whether they be black, gay, religious or atheist or assume anything about what they may think as individuals.

That's a bit rich, when you have misrepresented both the basic atheist position and the aims of atheists repeatedly within this thread.

It's clear to my own satisfaction that there's a colonising influence behind Atheism, the cultural force as opposed to atheism the disbelief. Disbelief doesn't take us anywhere but itself, Atheism says following my (our?) conclusions we are inevitably lead to la, la, la. There's no inevitably about it, those conclusions are a choice. They may be a choice influenced by wrongs in the world, they may be forged in political aspirations that see Atheism as an easy point to argue.

By "colonising influence" you still imply something negative - the anti-slavery and suffrage movements had colonising infuences, which those who partook saw as a good thing. I would personally see the gradual loss of theism as a good thing for human kind, but only if people came to the conclusion through reasonable discourse.

You lost me towards the end with "la, la, la", so not sure what point you were trying to make there - if you are trying to imply that I choose to be an atheist, you are simply wrong - as I stated, I cannot believe in gods, as I have no reason to believe in such things - that makes me an atheist whether I like it or not.

What disbelief doesn't show us is way forward that encompasses the whole of human experience and it's a lie to suggest it might.

And the alternative - belief - shows us this how, exactly, when it leads to multitudes of different conclusions? I wouldn't say disbelief aims to do what you imply it does - disbelief is not a choice or a philosophy with goals.

Only people with and without belief working together will sort out the worlds woes - nobody is putting forward Atheism as a panacea.

 

[Jerry_B]

1 ) What you personally find meaning in may or may not have anything to do with the wider debate. Lots of people find belief an excellent starting point for negotiating life's ups and downs. Who are we to begrudge them their comforts?

It depends if some demand that those 'comforts' somehow become enshrined in law, or take precedence over aspects of people's lives. Subscribing to any given belief system is a choice, often as not. People choose to believe in a god, or gods, etc.. Because of this, the idea that this choice should give them the right to steer laws, etc (for example) is problematic.

And some beliefs, for various reasons, are taken more seriously than others. If, for example, an adult proclaims belief in the Biblical God, this is seen as normal. If, however, an adult proclaimed belief in the Tooth Fairy, that would be seen as odd. But, on the face of it, both involve the same mechanism. It's just that AFAIK no-one currently lobbies for changes to laws, etc, on behalf of their belief in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[coaly]

I think someone, somewhere on the board is mistaking Atheism, for Anti-theism. There's no prejudice in this lack of belief, (apart from maybe the natural disgust at certain extremisms)... but, as Jerry wrote, there is in religion. I don't believe less in the monotheistic God, than I do in the polytheist ones, as is the same with tooth fairies, gnomes, goblins and djinsetc.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I think you have hit a point, but again the argument seems cyclical. Atheism isn't anti-theistic but some Atheists are.

Just like religion doesn't start wars but some religious people do.

I would like to suppose a theory regarding anti-theistic Atheists: an atheists cannot be for atheism without being against theism.

I am not saying that they cannot be atheists and accept theists but simply that they cannot be positively for atheism without being negative towards theism.

 

[coaly]

I'm atheist, but when a certain situation arose in my family, and a family member felt lost, I felt compelled to reassure them that whatever my views, I would support them withwhatever belief they wanted, and went as far as saying that I'm just as likely to be wrong in my assumptions, as I believe religious people to be, (about the afterlife, and its likelyhood)... so that I could at least give them something to live for. All the "Well, supposing one does burn in Hell for suicide, or even just giving up, then where would you be for eternity? Stay as positive as you can, just incase there is an after life, and you meet up with your loved ones" etc. What else can you do? I certainly wouldn't say that they have a point, and there's no point going on in a life so futile feeling, where their loss is greater than anything they wish to gain. Which is probably the truth, but you're not going to say that to someone who's lost his wife of 54 years to cancer. That would make you a C word, of the highest and most selfish order! So, I do think that in some instances, Jesus really does save lives, so there is a place for it, not in mine, of course... but in moderation, and in a loose way, it can be a good thing for people.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think you have hit a point, but again the argument seems cyclical. Atheism isn't anti-theistic but some Atheists are.

Just like religion doesn't start wars but some religious people do.

I would like to suppose a theory regarding anti-theistic Atheists: an atheists cannot be for atheism without being against theism.

I am not saying that they cannot be atheists and accept theists but simply that they cannot be positively for atheism without being negative towards theism.

I'm not sure we see the antitheist label applied, or if anyone chooses to be labelled as such - I could conceive of antitheism being the opposite of theism, which would make antitheism postivie belief (usually labelled as strong atheism) there are definitely no gods. Simple agnostic atheism isn't an opposite of theism though, it's just a lack of theism (prefix "a" before "theism" just means "without theism"). Most atheists would fall somewhere between the two states in relation to different god concepts being touted by theists, so I am in the former camp with regards to the Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Roman, Greek etc. god concepts, but the latter camp towards the vague deist-type god concepts. Either way, I have no compelling reason to, or the ability to actively believe in any such concepts.

Antireligious however would probably be a readilly associated label with many atheists, especially the politically motivated ones Colpepper seems to dislike. I fall in to this camp with many aspects of religion (as previously discussed in the thread) but agree with Coaly's post above that I would try wherever possible not to trample all over someone in distress who is using religion for support mechanism. I'm not sure I could console them with religious ideas myself - I would look to more worldly comforting, but I couldn't sit there at that point and tell them I think they are watsing their time. I ended up in this boat myself towards the end of my Nan's life, as she was religious.

 

[Jerry_B]

I am not saying that they cannot be atheists and accept theists but simply that they cannot be positively for atheism without being negative towards theism.

Well, maybe - maybe not. I'd say it's possible to be an atheist but not be negative towards theism. One may be just able to say 'whatever floats your boat', but simply not share a theist outlook. Non-belief does not have to be negative. Similarly, one may be an atheist and still have an interest in religion. I'd guess you could say that different flavours of atheism are possible, without a contradiction being involved.

What tends to happen is that atheism tends to get branded as inherently negative, just as scepticsm is seen in a poor light WRT Forteana. But IMHO there are various halfway points that can be reached without contradictions.

 

[Analis]

I've explained why - people lie, and they do this a lot - there is clear social advantage in having interesting stories to tell to others about your amazing experiences

In fact, socially, people who tell fortean stories have usually much to lose and very little to gain, except discredit, ridicule, shame and marginalization.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I've explained why - people lie, and they do this a lot - there is clear social advantage in having interesting stories to tell to others about your amazing experiences

In fact, socially, people who tell fortean stories have usually much to lose and very little to gain, except discredit, ridicule, shame and marginalization.

That argument, which is regularly used in defence of eyewitness testimony to the supernatural, is precisely what I take issue with. I just see no evidence to back it up.

My experience is that people crave the attention that such tales generate, generally; all publicity is good publicity, so to speak. Obviously, not all may fall under this category, but choosing which ones don't would be very difficult and is core to the problem of eyewitness testimony as evidence to extraordinary claims (and maybe even ordinary ones).

 

[Jerry_B]

That argument, which is regularly used in defence of eyewitness testimony to the supernatural, is precisely what I take issue with. I just see no evidence to back it up.

There are a few cases where going public has bought negative results, but I agree that on the whole people tend not to suffer badly from such situations.

There are many, many reports of a variety of Forteana, but it seems that a largely negative reaction to them to any great extent is somewhat limited.

 

[colpepper1]

I've explained why - people lie, and they do this a lot - there is clear social advantage in having interesting stories to tell to others about your amazing experiences

In fact, socially, people who tell fortean stories have usually much to lose and very little to gain, except discredit, ridicule, shame and marginalization.

There's a lot in that. There is certainly a youthful 'hey, guess what' approach to the telling of ghost stories, urban legends and so forth, as well as a neurotic older tendency, which a glance at many ghost hunting groups shows.

That still leaves a large constituency of people who have nothing to gain by repeating their testimony and it has to be winkled out reluctantly. The FT board, with its proliferation of anecdote isn't the best place to judge eye witness reports from, most first hand accounts will never end up here. This thread title has become a rallying point for people who identify themselves as 'atheists' rather than a place to discuss the concept and its contexts objectively.
In that sense it is an anomaly, with a much greater investment in the notion being unequivocally correct by its contributors, than a typical thread elsewhere on the board, where contributions are judged passively by and large, without the requirement to respond to their likelihood.

I also wonder how many 'militant' atheists have personally suffered at the hands of religious dogmatists, skewing their response to religion which I still maintain the majority couldn't care less about either way.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I object strongly to the use of the word "militant" to describe atheists - this is a loaded adjective, which implies a threat of violence from atheists to back up their position - this simply isn't the case with any atheists I've ever met and we have corrected this many times now in this thread.

This anti-atheist propaganda from certain board memebers is getting very tedious now. I don't know what their problem is with atheists, or why they choose to grind their axe here. All I can do is continue to counter their factually incorrect propaganda.

 

[Jerry_B]

This thread title has become a rallying point for people who identify themselves as 'atheists' rather than a place to discuss the concept and its contexts objectively.

Hmm - not sure about that...

In that sense it is an anomaly, with a much greater investment in the notion being unequivocally correct by its contributors, than a typical thread elsewhere on the board, where contributions are judged passively by and large, without the requirement to respond to their likelihood.

... or that either.

I also wonder how many 'militant' atheists have personally suffered at the hands of religious dogmatists, skewing their response to religion which I still maintain the majority couldn't care less about either way.

It may cut both ways, if it happens much. That said, people tend to have a blind spot about atheism in general. Society expects people to be tolerant of a person's right to believe in something, but less so of a person's right to disbelief.

Not that it's always clear cut amongst people with a religious outlook either, of course. There's various levels of belief within any given religion, in which someone may or may not subscribe to a particular story, tenet, article, law, etc..

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I also wonder how many 'militant' atheists have personally suffered at the hands of religious dogmatists, skewing their response to religion which I still maintain the majority couldn't care less about either way.

I should expect there are fewer within the atheist ranks due to the psychological abuse perpetrated by religious dogmatists than there are in the ranks of god-fearing individuals who have chosen to remain with a faith foisted upon them.

 

[Analis]

That argument, which is regularly used in defence of eyewitness testimony to the supernatural, is precisely what I take issue with. I just see no evidence to back it up.

My experience is that people crave the attention that such tales generate, generally; all publicity is good publicity, so to speak.

What I've often seen is that reluctance predominates. What they may expect is attention from a limited audience of exopoliticians, of abductee gurus, of spiritualists, of ghost hunters etc... They are just small sects, and certainly, only a few witnesses follow the profile of cultists. The only case where thay may expect a greater attention, is when the alleged experience fits the bills of a widespread religious belief, in the case of a catholic who claims to have seen the BVM for example. But as a whole the disavantadges outweigh the benefits.
Once, some friends told me they had held a seance of spiritism. They never tried to gain any advantage from that, in fact I tried to dissuade them to do that. They were always reluctant and worried to speak about that. They were typical witnesses.

Personnally, I don't believe in campfire story tellers, as I have never met one or anybody who has met one. And if someone had tried to make up ghost stories to lure us, he would have found no social advantage in that !

There are a few cases where going public has bought negative results, but I agree that on the whole people tend not to suffer badly from such situations.

Most of the time, it is true that it only attracts them a few laughs and jeerings, and nothing more. But it is not always so benign. It may prove detrimental to professional and political careers. There are even cases where it led to harassment (hopefully, not many).

There's a lot in that. There is certainly a youthful 'hey, guess what' approach to the telling of ghost stories, urban legends and so forth, as well as a neurotic older tendency, which a glance at many ghost hunting groups shows.

That still leaves a large constituency of people who have nothing to gain by repeating their testimony and it has to be winkled out reluctantly. The FT board, with its proliferation of anecdote isn't the best place to judge eye witness reports from, most first hand accounts will never end up here.

The trouble is that nobody knows how many witnesses remain silent. For reasons easy to understand, the true ratio is impossible to test directly. Jacques Vallée had estimated that it was less than 5%. I suppose that there is only a small minority to 'come out'.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

So Analis, how do you account for where we have evidence of those who supposedly have everything to lose being exposed as hoaxers, How do you explain their motivation to perpetrate such hoaxes?

E.g. respectable British surgeon Robert Wilson, with everything to lose if exposed, completely lying about the origin of the famous Loch Ness monster photo, where he was even selected to front the hoax because he would be a supposedly "credible" front man.

 

[Jerry_B]

Most of the time, it is true that it only attracts them a few laughs and jeerings, and nothing more. But it is not always so benign. It may prove detrimental to professional and political careers. There are even cases where it led to harassment (hopefully, not many).

But it's still usually filed away by most people as just 'stuff'. For the most part, very few witnesses to Fortean events are subject to such detrimental reactions. They're usually not taken seriously, or pretty much ignored.

But aren't we going slightly OT...?