On 14 Oct, 03:28, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Which atheists don't talk about unless some theist brings the subject
> up.
Which puts us back where we were: the fact that we have only the
assertions of atheists that they'd be willing to leave it alone if all
the religious folk stopped talking about it.
Actually, for what it's worth I'm quite willing to accept that most
atheists wouldn't be prone to talk about it off their own bat, since
most of them, I'm fairly convinced, don't really think about it all
that much. But let's consider where we are, and the groups we're
posting from...
> >The closest we'd ever be able to get
>
> Is right here - since atheists don't discuss God unless theists raise
> the subject.
'Right here'? No, come on, Al. You can't be serious, in a
conversation revolving around religion, in a group
(alt.religion.christian) that's based on religion, and another group
(alt.atheism) that depends for its very definition on the concept of
theism?
> In a society in which the concept of 'atheism' makes no sense? Of
> course not. Is there an alt.atoothfairyism?
Bad example, really: the tooth fairy is a concept we're aware of,
whether we believe in it or not. I'd have been more inclined to use
bob's hypothetical snatchelpoof, or the like. So far relatively few
people know about it, and perhaps only bob knows what it actually is
(hypothetically).
But otherwise you see my point. The very reason alt.atheism exists is
because religion exists ('religion', not 'deity'), and there are those
who seek to oppose it or deny it. Not just those who're not religious
- the atheists who just don't think about the issue that much. These
are the ones who not only don't believe but have a need to tell others
- especially the religious - about the belief they don't hold, and
collectively oppose that belief. To that extent, we might agree that
atheism (or at least your group) exists because of atheists' rejection
of religion. But we have to look further. You say that atheists
wouldn't talk about gods, left to their own devices. I question that.
> >Greek society pre-Jesus had a sight more gods than most people have
now.
>
> But there were no people who discussed not believing in Jesus. Gods
> are only discussed by atheists when theists bring the subject up.
A unnecessary distinction, I'd say. From an atheistic point of view,
Jesus should be just another god. Your point that they weren't
talking about Jesus doesn't do anything to address the fact that they
were talking about lots of other gods; theirs and other people's.
Atheism does not imply a specific rejection of Christianity, but a
general rejection of all religion. This despite the occasional
confusion of the two terms by those who hate Christianity specifically
and don't bother to investigate the concept of religion any further.
> It's on point. Atheists don't sit around discussing the gods they
> don't believe in.
But you do. You've got a whole group set up precisely in order to do
just that. Or was alt.atheism set up in response to religious
crossposting to alt.atheism?
A discussion group has been created which supposedly rejects any input
from religionists (observe the frequent objections to religious
crossposts into there) yet still defines itself by reference to its
members' position as non-religionists. I don't doubt there are many
interesting, non-religion-related conversations in alt.atheism.
But don't forget you've said if you're left alone you don't talk about
religion *at all* - *only* in response to the intrusions of theists.
So while you're discussing whatever else it might be - which cars you
use, or what movies you've seen (I imagine it must be difficult to
talk about things like art, music, literature, politics and philosophy
since you'd have to be so careful to avoid touching on religion) -
you're still a group of people who define themselves based on the fact
that they're not religious; collected together in a group labelled to
indicate that it's full of people who define themselves as 'not
religious'; and having to avoid talking about the one thing that you
all have in common.
And let's be realistic - this is the point, isn't it? It's not just
that you don't want to be religious. That's your choice and I'd have
no objection to that. As I said, everyone has to follow their own
path. The problem is that you don't want ANYONE to be religious.
You've said yourself you want the religious types to shut up and never
mention their beliefs. But why should they comply? Just because you
command it? You don't have the *right* to demand that. You simply
don't. If you don't want to be religious, then by all means, don't
be. If you don't want to listen to me talk about religion then don't
listen to me - but you don't have the right to demand I don't speak.
Any more than a religious person has the right to demand that follow
his god or obey his god's laws. I say the same thing to you as I say
to Pastor Frank when he commands people off his supposed 'pristine
christian newsgroups': if you only want to see messages you approve
of, then create or join a moderated group.
> They discuss not accepting theists' assertions
> about THEIR gods. No atheist begins a discussion about how he doesn't
> believe in god A or god B.
And yet Bill (to name but one) begins those very discussions all the
time.
My point is not that atheism is better than theism, or vice-versa. My
point is that an intolerant militant is an intolerant militant,
whether pro- or anti-religion. None are acceptable.
|
