Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

True, but "not being an official member" suggests there's an actual organization that exists that you choose not to be an active part of. There's really no such thing with atheism. No organized movement, no common set of principles shared throughout, no places of (non)worship. Both political parties and religions also have differing viewpoints and sects therein who often compete with one another in some capacity. You'll never see two camps of atheists getting into a dispute about which one denies the existence of God better than the other, because atheist doesn't really have one camp, let alone many.

I think it's a bad comparison.

 

Actually, there are many. There isn't one singular "Official International Organization of Atheism" or the like, but there are plenty of groups on various levels that are centered around a common atheist belief.

 

Pplr, satanists and christians are both theists. Suicide cult members are theists. The members of the most barbaric religions ever to besmirch the face of this planet were theists, too. Atheists can't be lumped together for the same reason I shouldn't be lumping you with devil worshipers or the human sacrificing Mayans, Branch Davidians or the Heaven's Gate cult. You're all theists, but you do not share a set of unifying values. Just as there is no common values system common to all theists, there is no common values system shared by atheists. Atheism can not and should not be compared to religion. This isn't a comparison of apples and oranges, but of oranges and apple trees.

To get back back to my point, the real reason theists are more likely to be "organized" than atheists lies not with differing core values, but with the simple fact that a man who believes God exists is going to pursue the matter further (ie find and join a religion that suits him). An atheist, on the other hand, would have no reason to do this. None of the atheists wasting time in these silly little God threads are members of an organized atheist group, but rest assured that damn near every Theist posting thus far at least nominally subscribes to some sort of religion.

 

That's what I thought. Can't understand how atheism would be even considered a religion.

 

I'm sure this was a typo.

Drew, what I've been trying to say is that belief in gods is not the only reason to organize. In fact, historically, the #1 reason for any group to organize is social pressure. If you don't think atheists are under social pressure in the US... well, then 90% of your posts recently make no sense in that context. If you do, then there is reason to organize. You're right that atheism isn't akin to any particular religion, but to theism as a whole, but the variety to atheism is substantially thinner than it is for theism. As a result, the atheist organizations that do form tend to be noticably similar, with usually the largest differences being how forceful they are in their beliefs and whether they actively deny gods or simply don't believe in them. The former is akin to an active Baptist church vs an inactive Baptist church, so grouping them together isn't inappropriate. The latter is probably akin the difference between Baptists and Methodists, maybe Catholics as an extreme. I can see wishing to be distanced on that basis.

 

Fixed.

And again you miss the point. The point isn't that atheists will never organize, but that atheism is unlikely to influence the organizations a person chooses to involve himself with. You like anecdotes, so I'll use a personal one to illustrate my point.

I am a member of AAVS. My decision to join AAVS is not informed in any way, shape, or form by my non-belief in God. None of the other atheists on the board, as best I'm aware, are members of AAVS, and I doubt they would be willing to join, either. As you know, I am also a vegan, but my non-belief in God does not inform this lifestyle choice. The point isn't that Atheists don't organize, but that they typically don't organize around Atheism. They also don't organize around a common set of values. The same statement is also true of Theists. Theism influences a person's decision to engage in spiritual pursuits. Atheism will influence a person's decision not to engage in them. Theism, however, doesn't influence the faith ultimately chosen and followed by an individual. Atheism is the same.

 

I don't know. That sounds an awful lot like what I commented back at post #54.

Looks like we've come full circle.

 

There are atheists who are actively trying to "dispel" theism. These "fundamentalist" atheists "preach" that there is no god, actively attack the morals of those who believe in a god, and meet with others of their ken to discuss matters of their particular type of atheism. (see youtube)

Not all atheists are like this. Those of the type "I believe in God... not. No offense" or "Who cares? Don't bother me I need these done by Sunday" are ok.
Those who make the "disbelief in a deity" an excuse to act, however, have turned atheism into a "religion", of sorts.

BTW, some of your reactions are similar to the Catholic's who was told that there are indeed "Christians" who go around disrupting people's burials and carrying placards saying "Your son will burn in hell".

@Ragusa
Yep, although how we did things is back there was very different from how things are done here.

Not exactly. For some theism is just a way of life, an attempt to explain the unexplainable - a human quality. Now last I checked, atheists were humans too. It just so happens that one day some theists decided to cater to the masses and establish a set of very complicated rules for all of them to follow, some of which are obviously man-made (and not very well done at that). Although a lot of atheists will probably be less inclined to form similar groups, that doesn't mean they can't.
As for reasons, a human is a social animal.

 

Under the heading of theism you have religions and many religions (and branches thereof) are organized to an extent.

You also mentioned an organization you were a member of which does have an ideology relating to how animals should be treated but relates neither to atheism or religion.

There have been and are atheist organizations (based on, at least in part, an agreed disbelief).

There are some atheists with beliefs that disagree, however there is not a single centralized organization of atheists so there is unlikely to be an official schism (though American Atheists sort of went through one).


American Atheists was an organization, had memberships, had leaders (a notable one was Madalyn Murray O'Hair), and set out goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

There are a bunch of organization listed on wikipedia (many states have one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benhocking/List_of_atheist_organizations

So while many atheists like yourself simply choose not to go to a church on Sunday and so on you're not an activist on any level or a member of any organization centered on atheism there are others who aren't like you.

I don't say atheists of the fundamentalist variety represent all atheism (and thus may not represent you) but I would argue they do exist-similar to how not all religious people are fundamentalists but they do exist.

Other than official atheist organizations there is the habit of various individual leaders to support an ideology. Rush Limbaugh (and those like him but less well known) for example doesn't hand (as far as I know) membership cards to those who listen to and follow him. But he does encourage them to support a particular ideology and sometimes act. I would expect that a portion of the people attending the "Teabag" rallies aren't members of the GOP but listen to conservative commentators that encouraged them to attend the rallies. Thus the radio personalities served as an organizing force without getting their followers to become official members of something.

It seems some authors (who serve in a manner similar to right wing radio pundits) have encouraged atheists to view religion with a certain ideological view that it is irrational, destructive (encourages violence), organized by liars, and is only a bad thing. This is a particular ideological view that many atheists do not share but I would point out I have come across some who do (and thus may have slightly different beliefs about the topic than you).


As they relate to the movie that was part of the starting point to this thread I can see why the ideological views they further would encourage people to initially think that the movie is being suppressed by religious people (as one of the list of evil acts religious people are assumed to be behind). But we addressed the possibilities of the movie just isn't likely to make money or this being a marketing campaign.

 

WOW! That wasn't a Freudian slip, was it?

And I'm a member of AIAA, and a Republican (for now) and, believe it or not, neither is informed by my religious beliefs.

So American Atheists isn't organized around a common set of values?

So, are you agreeing with me that the law is, while poorly worded, an acceptable attempt to teach about a major influence on our modern society?

 

As I commented in post #54 I've been in classes where it is taught as literature and I had no problem with it - as it was taught (which was not as literal "fact." It only took 50 posts to convince you of that.

 

I'm not sure you've convinced me of anything. I'm still unclear. You were (or at least seemed to be) criticizing the bill based on it's mandating a teaching of the Bible, and now you say (and did at the beginning) it's OK to teach the Bible. I'm confused. What was your point in this whole thing?

 

Are you referring to the Westboro Baptists? Yeah, they are.... interesting (fanatical may be a better word) people, they protested an AIDS walk I was part of.

 

NOG - Go back and read the posts. My whole point was that the law WAS poorly worded. I'm glad I convinced you of that point. Note: at the end of post #106 you said almost exactly what I posted in #54. How could that be?

 

I'm aware of the many theories concerning the 'real' birth of Christ. It's important to note that these studies were conducted using information in the Bible, since there are no credible, undisputed, non-religious sources documenting the life of Jesus. The fact that a lot of scholars have put in a lot of time and effort speculating about this, doesn't lend the story more credibility.

That's the unfortunate turn to sensationalism that the movie takes. There are mentions of 'the 12' for all these deities, but not necessarily '12 disciples'. Mithra and the 12, Horus and the 12, they're all references to the constellations. Horus' birth on dec.25th omits the longwinded explanation: Horus was the morning sun, so was technically born everyday. Horus' temples are aligned to the winter solstice, etc. Similarly, the virgin birth story has been embellished to make it more striking. Most of the gods at the time were considered 'immaculate', even the adulterous Zeus. The 'virgin birth motif' was definitely present throughout ancient mythology, and there's evidence to back it up. You won't find it by browsing any encyclopedias though. Information in encyclopedias is summarized, not only to clarify and save space, but also to avoid (religious) controversy. In the past, you could be killed for claiming Hercules didn't exist...

The movie maker strongly referenced Acharya S. (pen name) for the movie. She has been doing pioneering work, building upon the forgotten works of Gerald Massey, using translations from many languages. Acharya has written many books on the subject. One of her books, IIRC, makes 2400 references to 900 sources. Her work hasn't been properly peer-reviewed yet. In case you think she's just a kook: Acharya is classically educated in archaeology, history, mythology, and languages. Her formal training includes a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College. She also attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece. Acharya served briefly as a fellow of The Council for Secular Humanism's Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER).
As for the many debunking attempts, the Zeitgeist Movement has been working hard to 'undebunk' all the debunking attempts. The most recent news is from a radio talkshow, where Acharya takes an hour in the 2nd half to defend her claims. It hasn't been made into a transcript yet; it's only 2 weeks old.
The piss-poor attempts at debunking Zeitgeist have only given the movement more exposure and credibility. The movie's maker, Peter Joseph, thanks debunkers for their efforts. MTV Russia will be showing both Zeitgeist movies soon!

 

You said:

The rest of it seemed to present it as a counter to my claim that there aren't many that want to teach Creationism in the public schools. That indicated that this was teaching Creationism (even if you didn't outright claim it).

What I said was:

Ah, I think I see the connection you're making now. You presented what you had already experienced as acceptable, but I took the presentation of the bill as unacceptable (in your eyes).

So, then, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?

... Study anything in archeology. The life of Jesus is actually pretty good comparatively. At least everyone agrees to the century and country. Unfortunately, the nature of archeology is piecing together not-enough-information from degraded and usually second/third-hand accounts, often filling in the blanks with guesswork.

It sounds to me like you're trying to justify your use of a terrible source.

No, they really didn't. Again, that's a load of BS, and the only thing you can claim to back it up is a grand, pointless, and unsubstantiated conspiracy.

The link isn't connecting for me for some reason. It auto-links to "http://audioam.blogtalkradio.com/show_685921.mp3", which doesn't load.

Piss-poor? There's no substantiation for any of their claims other than one single ameteur egyptologist from over a century ago, and half of their claims make no sense whatsoever: crucifiction from over 2500 years before it was even invented, a 'virgin birth' from a mother goddess (after several failed attempts at conception with her husband), the whole 'holy spirit' BS (after all, they were both deities), the 12 (of all those mentioned, I only found one that had any mention of ever directly interacting with humans at all), the names (half of which would be insults or make no sense in the setting).

I'm sorry, but Zeitgeist has about as much credibility with me as UFO conspiracies.

 

Teaching an idea does not mean you are teaching the concept as factual. I had a Classic Civilization course that viewed all religions (which drew from all areas of the world and recorded times) as mythology. Hence, the creation was discussed, but creationism was not taught.

It was quite a riot taking this class in Salt Lake City, the Mormons in the class (and others) would get offended that he was teaching Christianity as mythology and would start to argue -- at which point he would calmly state he would accept their drop request at the end of the class.

By the way, the number twelve shows in many mythologies -- long before the time of Christ. I've heard it said the number became significant because of the twelve major constellations in the sky whose stars are often used for navigation.

 

Only that in Texas, it can possibily be taught if they choose a "literal" reading of the text. It seemed to me that they may be crafting a "backdoor" for creationism. Of course, they might not be either. You commented several times that they should offer major interpretations of the content. They don't seem inclined to do so, but they seem intent on an "objective" reading. I will be curious to see how this works out for them, since they seem to be having problems with its execution.

 

I think that it is important to make an honest effort to avoid offending people. I ALSO think it's important to make an honest effort to not get offended at the drop of a hat. To put it a little more crudely, it's important to not be a douchebag.

I had a fellow Mormon student at the Lutheran college I attended. He did more damage to the reputation of my faith than a Bishop caught with a hooker, all by trying to "witness for the faith" at all the wrong times. What a douche. Fortunately, my style, panache, and all around studliness* served to counter his stupidity.

*not to mention my humility.

 

Well, if you're really interested, you'll find the link on this page. It should link to an mp3 download of the 2-hour program '9/09/09 "Zeitgeist Undebunked" with Acharya S'. Acharya discusses the religious stuff in the 2nd hour, that's why i'd recommend downloading it.
Peter Joseph didn't even tackle any debunking arguments about 9/11. That subject is probably better addressed by the 9/11 truth movement anyway. He tackles the federal banking cartels in the first hour, and leaves religion mostly to Acharya in the 2nd half. She focuses on the latest debunking site, aimed directly at the religion chapter.