[flagged]
This is the difference.
I don't view "atheists" as a group of people with in and out groups. Any more than "pasta eaters" or "brown-eyed people".
But some atheists (I would call them "militant atheists") do. Of course I'd argue that militant atheists are largely reacting to the militant theism of others, which is more popularly accepted and gets way more air time (and also is responsible for horrible things in the world). But both are silly.
Do you believe this is not true of other religions as well?
But if we started rapturing all the militant religionists today, we'd lose a lot more Christians than atheists.
I'm completely in favor of rapturing the militants of all stripes.
The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof.
And FWIW I think that's generally not a product of the system, it's a product of people and power and resource contention.
But I was asking about the historical fiction of atheism. Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views.
This is ironic, surely, given your response?
> The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof.
This is a Dodge.
> Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views.
So you believe this is unique to atheists? Even ignoring the obvious "mythology" which rightfully can extend to common atheistic beliefs.
I think I see your agenda here though. Atheists have done terrible things. Adolf, Joseph, Pol. If you choose these folks as representatives of atheism (or, of what happens when you don't have a supreme accountability) then sure. They constructed a non-Christian(etc) mythology that was not competitive with their own supremacy, and did bad things with the power derived. I think we agree here.
But I don't view "atheism" as an organization or a correlated set of beliefs. You can choose to argue about "Atheism" and disagree. But we're talking about different things.
See also "[Dd]emocratic", "[Ll]iberal", "[Ll]ibertarian", etc.
My agenda is to make you (and those reading the thread) consider your own movement critically, instead of perpetuating your own mythology.
> Atheists have done terrible things. Adolf, Joseph, Pol. If you choose these folks as representatives of atheism (or, of what happens when you don't have a supreme accountability) then sure. They constructed a non-Christian(etc) mythology that was not competitive with their own supremacy, and did bad things with the power derived. I think we agree here.
So, by that logic, Christianity cannot be blamed for the inquisition and atrocities committed during the crusades, since it's on those in command of those movements (the Pope) and not based on christianity itself.
> But I don't view "atheism" as an organization or a correlated set of beliefs.
That strikes me as deliberately obtuse.
> You can choose to argue about "Atheism" and disagree. But we're talking about different things.
Again, you're not being intellectually honest here. You're defining terms so that you don't have to admit that atheism (and sects thereof) have their own mythologies and revisionist histories.
Your efforts above to extricate atheism from the atrocities committed by sects of atheism, even those committed those to convert the heretics, rather highlight that fact.
There is no "atheist movement", nor is it something about "the left" (like you mentioned earlier). There are, of course, rightwing atheists.
Atheist do not self-organize as "a movement". Yes, there is the "Brights" thing and other such nonsense with little to no traction. And it's just a marginal group of people who think they are better, anyway.
Atheism is not a religion or movement "opposed" to traditional mainstream religions like Christianity, Islam, etc.
It is, quite simply, the lack of belief in the existence of a god and usually anything supernatural. There is no "fiction" to it, no mythologies that go with it. There's no innate belief with "the movement of atheism" that being an atheist makes you a good person, for example; or that being religious makes you a bad person.
The condemnation of the crimes committed in the name of organized religion do not require one to be an atheist -- plenty of religious people condemn the Inquisition. Likewise, it's perfectly common to be atheist and acknowledge the crimes committed by non-religious against religious people.
There's no mythology and no movement to go with it. There are as many kinds of atheists as there are people who do not believe in a god. And no, it's not "the same" with religious people, because unlike religious people atheists do not recognize a source of "atheist" authority -- there's no scripture, no Pope, no Rabbi, no Imam, no person or object of unquestionable authority.
In order to be an atheist, you just have to not believe in gods. There's no "atheist" path to living a good life, no guideline, no set of rules.
There's no movement.
Huh. Sounds like almost any other religion.
> [Atheism] is, quite simply, the lack of belief in the existence of a god
This is incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god.
> There's no movement.
There's as much an Atheism movement as there is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
> Huh. Sounds like almost any other religion.
I preempted this comment and you ignored it. No, it's not like any other religion, because "Brights" is not a "movement" of atheism (unlike say Catholicism for Christianity) because the Brights just happen to be a group of people who happen to be atheists, and have no major influence on atheism nor are they any kind of authority over even a fraction of atheists (nor do they claim to be). They don't prescribe anything over atheism nor do they hold any authority over it, not even a tiny fraction of it.
More importantly, atheism is not even a religion. Yes, I know you are going to claim this (it's your angle, and it's best if you admit it early on. No point hiding it. It's been attempted and refuted thousands of times before, so let's get on with it).
> This is incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god.
You are wrong, but that's splitting hairs anyway. Before we go down this rabbit hole though, best get back on track and examine your assertion that there's an atheist "historical fiction". You haven't spoken one word about this, and instead got sidetracked into pointless distractions.
> There's as much an Atheism movement as there is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
Do you want to argue honestly? I know you don't believe this. You can make a (mistaken, in my opinion) argument about atheism as a secular religion, or about atheist "beliefs", but no-one will seriously consider atheism a movement similar to Christianity, Islam, etc.
If you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments. Otherwise you just come across as dishonest.
Weird! That's my perception of you!
This is incorrect and may be the basis of your misunderstandings on this thread.
I do not think there is a mythology around atheism. This was my question to you, effectively. Atheism is literally the lack of belief in a god. Yes there are people who have constructed belief systems around that lack of belief, but those are not necessary to meet the definition. There is no complex set of beliefs necessary to be an atheist. Just one lack of belief. Anything on top of that is something other than atheism.
There are no sects of atheism. But maybe of Atheism-as-you-understand-it. You claim I'm being intellectually dishonest here, but I maintain that we are talking about different things.
I'm still curious about the "historical fiction" of any version of (your) "Atheism", but I don't think I'm going to get a conversation about that at this point. If you're talking about the mythologies created by our friends Adolf, Joseph, and Pol -- then you are really stretching. They used anti-religionism (which is not atheism) as a vehicle for their own crazy/evil. I also do not blame Christianity for the Inquisition, although I do blame (bad) Christians for it!
It seems that you feel attacked in your beliefs by a vocal minority of atheists. That sucks, absolutely.
But militant Theists have far more power in this world than militant atheists. The latter are just rabble-rousers.
I am fully aware that tolerant Christians exist. But as intolerants go, the atheists have nothing on the Christians. At least not in terms of numbers or influence.
I wish we could ignore the militant Christians as easily as we can ignore the militant atheists.
But there are definitely religious leaders and sources of authority: your congregation, the Pope, your Rabbi, your Imam, your scriptures.
There is no such thing for atheism.
Don't get me started on the non-IPUists.
> In public speeches, he portrayed himself and the Nazi movement as faithful Christians.[42][43] In 1928 Hitler said in a speech: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian."[44] But, according to the Goebbels Diaries, Hitler hated Christianity. In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
I mean, if his public speeches describe it as a Christian movement and his right hand man’s private journals describe him as a secret atheist… I dunno, I think it is just typical Nazi incoherence on topics not related to racial hatred.
In general I think it is hard to work out whether a historical figure believes in anything other than power. I’m not sure it makes sense to attribute the evil actions of individual leaders to particular religious belief systems without some pretty deep scrutiny. If you just go by the beliefs they profess, you get a list of which belief systems were popular, because those are the belief systems they went to co-opt.
Christianity isn't a monolith, so it depends on which flavor of Christianity we're talking about. If we're talking about fundamentalists that interpret the Bible literally (this is a large and politically influential group in the US), then yes, science and those beliefs are incompatible.
I tried! My search came up with *The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" topping the list which, while an amazing book, doesn't feel like what you had in mind...
What did you have in mind?