Richard Dawkins setting up atheist schools

[Anonymous No.3247300]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849563/Richard-Dawkins-interested-in-setting-up-atheist-fr
ee-school.html

The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.

Jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.3247308]

cool story
On a more serious note, why are you posting this on /sci/?

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3247312]

I don't see the problem with this. There are private Christian schools in every town.

[Anonymous No.3247323]

This is basically the adoctrination they go against, way to fucking shit all over yourselves 'militant' atheists

>Hey teacher what about this book called the Bible, looks interesting
>LOL DONT FUCKING TOUCH, IT MAKES YOU STUPID.

[Anonymous No.3247330]

>my home is within driving distance of three private religious schools
>two christian, one jewish
>there are three christian churches on the road where I live
>I pass at least three more on my way to work
>this is okay with everyone

>atheism
> INDOCTRINATION
>END OF AMERICA
>AFFRONT TO HUMANITY
>IMMORAL
>EVIL

It's like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Anonymous No.3247333]

>>3247323
It would be more a kind of:
>hey kids look at this book
>look at these bits of it, they're so fucking stupid and retarded
>these faggots actually believe in this shit
>laugh at them

[Coup de grâce !kZYyYslgzs No.3247334]

>>3247323
RTFA, it clearly says they'll teach about various religions, abrahamic, norse, greek etc. Whilst also teaching rationality and critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.3247348]

So basically it would be like American public schools.

[Anonymous No.3247349]

Dawkin's isn't an atheist

The real atheists don't give a shit.

We don't care about bowing our heads with the rest of our family for dinner, we don't going to a church wedding, we don't care about saying "under god" or "in god we trust," and we don't care

We live our lives and keep our lack of religion to ourselves.

Dawkin's in just an attention whore who wants to turn atheism into a religion.

[Anonymous No.3247356]

>>3247349

No true Scotsman fallacy.

[Anonymous No.3247357]

Atheism is not a belief, why do they need to spread it?

[Anonymous No.3247360]

Don't we already have secular private schools?

I don't see why we need an atheist brand one.

[Anonymous No.3247363]

>be a failed scientist
>become atheist preacher, write books
>acquire millions
>create atheist cult
>create atheist schools
>acquire billions

Religion will go bankrupt!

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.3247365]

>>3247330
I think it's more like, we're trying to lower ourselves to "fight a battle" when atheist, in fact, shouldn't fight a battle at all. We should just stand back and laugh, have fun, better this world.
But when atheists focus completely on the anti-religion part, they aren't any better than the Kent Hovinds and VenomfangX's around the world, except that they obviously want to promote sceptisism..
It's still annoying as fuck.

They should get their heads out of their asses and contribute instead of fighting something you can't defeat: ignorance and misunderstanding to a degree you'll never be convinced of the proof given to you.

[Anonymous No.3247379]

>>3247349
You're projecting your personal definition of atheism as if it's universal.

[Anonymous No.3247380]

>>3247365

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Sit at the side lines and do nothing. Be a spineless member of the politically correct mushy-middle. I'm glad you're content with living your life without having to draw lines in the sand, but not all of us are cowards.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3247383]

>>3247349
That's called Apatheism, not atheism.

[Anonymous No.3247392]

>>3247380

Error: identifying religion with evil

[Anonymous No.3247397]

plz no more discussion of religion on /sci/, over 50% of threads are about it now

[Anonymous No.3247403]

>>3247397

If it's an atheist thread, I have to say, by definition, it is not religious.

[Anonymous No.3247411]

>Private Christian schools
Lol whatever dude let them do whatever they want, they have the rights.

>Atheist schools
OMG WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS GUY DOING FAGGOT

It's like /sci/ is one big asspained Christfag or something.

[Anonymous No.3247412]

atheist school just means a school where religion isn't taught.

Its like calling all schools a-teapotists

fucking hell, the Bias. Its burns!

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247413]

>>3247357
they're not spreading atheism. You're getting that from the journalists.

They're spreading skepticism. And that's a good thing. deal with it.

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.3247416]

>>3247380
It's not like creationists will be able to convert an atheist.
Creationism and other radical forms of religion need to put to a halt, yes, just like every form of radicalism, but I think it's useless to lower yourself on their level. Why not instead make use of our intelligence to win this battle? Simply overpowering the human race with evidence so great, they have to accept the possible inexistance of a diety.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247418]

This whole thread:
>implying nondenominational schools don't exist everywhere.

wtf people!!

[Jennie No.3247421]

>>3247300
>skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.

Is there a problem?
He wants to teach children the value of evidence and /not/ indoctrinate them. That's what that sentence means.

[Anonymous No.3247422]

oh boy

I would understand a general science school. I mean, that basically becomes an atheist school among the students

But this is just silly

But man,

[Anonymous No.3247424]

I've actually been to a few of his lectures. I can assure you, they're terrible. He pretty much approaches debate with the same style that he criticises religious people for using.

The guy is pants on head retarded. I really can't be done with people like him, they make everyone else interested in science look bad. IMO, he's just another upper middle class kid who fell in love with Communism at university and never let go.

Of course, he isn't critical in the slightest of Islam.

[Anonymous No.3247428]

>>3247300

So basically, the British school system finally decided to do what the American school system has been doing for decades?

Why are people getting mad over this?

[Anonymous No.3247432]

>>3247412

So if you believe in God does that necessarily mean you follow a religion?

No, a school where religion isnt taught is not an atheist school.

[Anonymous No.3247437]

What? So there can be private religious schools but no purely non-religious schools?

Although I am under the belief that mister Dawkins is mostly doing this just to point out how ridiculous it is to separate people like this, I actually see nothing wrong with this idea. At all.

[Anonymous No.3247440]

>>3247428

The British school system has been doing this for decades. Religion is taught educationally - not as fact or anything to follow.

Basically, he's making a lot of noise in the papers so he can sell some more books.

[Anonymous No.3247442]

Imagine what the christfags and durkadurkafags will do

[Anonymous No.3247444]

eh, dosen't look that bad.

It will probably provide a better education than normal schools, and it a de facto better choice than christian schools

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247445]

>>3247424
>He pretty much approaches debate with the same style that he criticises religious people for using.

lolno. evidently, you're lying or weren't paying attention.

[Anonymous No.3247447]

>>3247424

Confirmed for babby retard who's never even listened to Dawkins speak once.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-t
he-great-evils-of-the-world.html

If anything, he criticizes Islam more than Christianity.

[Anonymous No.3247449]

guys, don't just headline read

If you read the article, its not that bad.

[Anonymous No.3247450]

>>3247300
It's about learning to truly think for yourself and not just believing or not believing what you are told to by people of a certain world view.

[Anonymous No.3247452]

A Christian school is a religious school. A normal school is an atheist school.

>dealwithit.png

[Anonymous No.3247457]

>>3247424
>Of course, he isn't critical in the slightest of Islam.

[Anonymous No.3247458]

>>3247403
it's not religious but it's about religion, as opposed to being about science, a science thread would be about a new laser engraving nano sculptor creating miniature solar panels and transistors

[Anonymous No.3247460]

>>3247447

Yeah, maybe because that's because Islam is, mainly, the biggest threat to our society right now?

Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3247462]

Like an idiot, I headline skipped and posted a negative comment

then I realized "thats how parents start hating the gaming industry" and so I read the article

Guys, this actually sounds like a pretty good school

[Anonymous No.3247463]

>>3247457
this guy is fucking nuts

[Anonymous No.3247466]

[Anonymous No.3247467]

>>3247460

Never said it wasn't, fucktard. I was just proving him wrong when he said that Dawkins doesn't criticize Islam.

Read my post next time before being so buttmad.

[Anonymous No.3247474]

>>3247467

Oh. Sorry. You know how it is: laziness, that's all.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247491]

Atheism needs more Michael Shermer, less Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins does well but gives you 'agnostic' hipster (atheism is just too mainstream) faggots fuel for the fire.

[Anonymous No.3247494]

Cool

[Anonymous No.3247508]

>>3247491

>Atheism needs more Michael Shermer, less Richard Dawkins.

Why?

Honestly, I don't get this hatred for Richard AT ALL. He's not doing ANYTHING wrong. He's angry, and he has all the reason in the world to be that. In fact, he is almost obliged as a man of science to be angry at religion.

The hate for Dawkins is unjustifiable until he says something completely bewildering, which he has not, in my opinion, ever done.

[Anonymous No.3247535]

Not atheism so much as political secularism true, but then having a political opinion well represented is hardly as troubling as this sort of squeamishness when dealing with religion
Why are you people afraid of what the christfags will think?
if just one less person feels justified in claiming evolution is a hoax then mission fucking accomplished.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247536]

>>3247508
i couldn't be bothered typing more out but since you responded, i was going to say, the nontheists who dislike dawkins would probably come up with the same bullshit about anyone who took on that role as 'public ambassador for science'. Perhaps we should change that figure frequently or have lots taking on that role so the media can't focus one in the way they seem to accuse dawkins of being the pope for the religion of atheism

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247551]

having said all that, if this plan is anything like his plan for the new ivy league university in london, then I oppose it, but not for anything associated with the religion/atheism debate.

[Anonymous No.3247570]

I fail to understand what problem some of you have with religion, much less why you seem to think that a 'man of science' should hate religion. Many men of science were not only religious, they were members of clergy! Mendel was a monk, for fuck sake. Giordano Bruno, too. That one got executed for his take on mysticism rather than anything science related, by the way.

But I guess it helps you feel superior to people like, say, Euler, knowing how retarded religion is and all.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3247621]

>>3247570
Yes yes, more people in the past than today were religious, but times have changed as people realise it's both unnecessary and problematic in more ways than one.

I went to catholic school. the learning about religion wasnt bad, not that we ever got that - more like colouring pictures of jesus. the mass looks nice but ultimately was a waste of time that could be spent learning. it was futile when you consider at the same time kids were going through secular schools and never turned out any worse.

[Anonymous No.3247720]

>Talking about Richard Dawkins like he's still relevant
>2011

[Anonymous No.3247753]

>>3247570
>Why won't they just leave us alone
>They're just jealous
>They're mean
>They're sad
>We're not bothering anyone
>More people are religious
>Religion has large influence in politics
>Religious ideologies are forced onto everyone else

Hurr, common sense is hard.

[Anonymous No.3247791]

>>3247397
>plz no more discussion of religion on /sci/, over 50% of threads are about it now
>NOW

Ahahaha...

[Anonymous No.3247814]

>>Have a problem with atheist schools
>>Have no problem with theist schools
>>Pretend to have a problem with both when this is pointed out so you don't appear hypocritical

[Anonymous No.3247815]

>>3247753

How is that any different from antitheists pushing their beliefs on everyone else?

>hurrdurr be reasonable use your brain!
>but God help you if you don't reach the same conclusion as me, that means you're retarded!
>we must exterminate all religion its the greatest evul

Some of the antitheists here seem to present a mindset of a stereotypical inquisitor. (Real inquisition was probably more reasonable)

[Anonymous No.3247883]

What some of you may not appreciate is that in the
UK, religious education is compulsory. The Church of England is the official state church. It's not like
the US where school is already secular.

[Anonymous No.3247891]

>>3247883
>What some of you may not appreciate is that in the UK, religious education is compulsory. The Church of England is the official state church. It's not like the US where school is already secular.
Oh ok.

No longer mad.

[Anonymous No.3247907]

>>3247815

So NOT pushing beliefs on people is.. pushing beliefs of people?

Are you really this thick? The initial state of ANY human being, even during most childhood, is ATHEISTIC. It is only when the people in power and authority abuses the children that they become adamant in their beliefs.

Tabula rasa man. Atheism isn't a belief. It's lack thereof.

[Anonymous No.3247913]

Most European countries do not have proper separation of church and state except France, and that country has some pretty severe secularization laws that limit public religious expression.

[Anonymous No.3247918]

>>3247815

>>Misrepresenting antitheists because you can't refute their arguments
>>Childish caricatures
>>SO MAD

[Anonymous No.3247937]

>>3247907
No it's not. Agnosticism is the default condition.

[Anonymous No.3247946]

>>3247815
First off:Anti-Theist is not the same thing as non-theist

Non-theists are a minority, they can't push their beliefs on anyone politically. Religion has such a large following it reaches all branches of government and is even an unwritten requirement to become the president in the US in our current time period.

You see non religious people trying to spread their beliefs so they don't become negligible and ignored politically. You can believe whatever you want, and I don't care, until it starts to have major influence over in the way government works and controls MY life.

>Reasonable
You don't even know the meaning of the word.

[Anonymous No.3247954]

SKEPTICISM
=/=
ATHEISM

SECULARISM
=/=
INDOCTRINATION

Now everybody kindly shut the fuck up. The American media loves to go "Holy shit this new thing is going to kill America in 3 weeks or less, we swear." Moral outrage sells newspapers.

He's showing INTEREST (perhaps won't even go through with it) in schools which promote secularism and skepticism (instead of blind faith, inb4 ad hominum and guilty by association fallacies).

And if you can't recognize that he's trying to spread the scientific method and isn't trying to actively bash religion AND if you don't want your kids to be affected by the atheist threat, don't send them to the fucking schools.

[Anonymous No.3247958]

>>3247937

No.

If you ask a child/youth (or whatever) who has grown up without even having heard of a god or a creator or whatever, and you present each religions individual case for their god, he will laugh it of and think it's all a joke. There will be no "you cannot know" bullshit. That comes from people too scared to admit that it is, in fact, a bunch of bullshit.

When you are born, you have no god. The god you get is instilled during childhood. Which is, in my opinion, the greatest wrongdoing of religion, and also the most disgusting thing about it.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3247961]

Two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Dawkins.

That said, if I were a teacher, I would want to teach there.

[Anonymous No.3247966]

I would most definitely send my son to that school. Because I'd knew that he's not being fed bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3247970]

>skepticism
>changed definition to mean screaming about how religion is stupid and evil and itchy
okay.jpg

[Anonymous No.3247972]

>The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.

> He also said that his “free-thinking school” would provide lessons about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality.

So it's a school where people are taught rationality and critical thinking. Holy shit, what an intolerant bastard.

Did you Christians just read the title and work off that or something?

[Anonymous No.3247974]

>>3247958
Which is impossible since everyone hears of religion eventually in their life. A newborn baby is an agnostic because he hasn't yet heard to religion to reject or accept it.

[Anonymous No.3247977]

>school teaching critical thinking
>intolerant atheist indoctrination camp

Did you not read the article before you posted it, OP?

[Anonymous No.3247982]

>>3247970

No. But skepticism is tightly related to logically debunking things. Anyone who has ever logically debunked religion and not reached the conclusion that it is false, is not a skeptical or rational person.

Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.3247986]

>>3247974

No religion = no agnosticism.

Do you not see the point?

[Anonymous No.3247996]

>>3247986
Exactly. A newborn baby does not know if a god exists or not, thus making it an agnostic.

[Anonymous No.3247997]

>>3247977
>hurr

I was quoting the first paragraph of the article.

Clearly you're the one who didn't read the article.

clearlyyouareanignorantfuck-allowmetoeducateyou.jpg

[Anonymous No.3248000]

I'll repeat this again for people who don't read entire threads:

- Richard Dawkins is British.
- Public schools in the UK are NOT secular.
- The Church of England is the official State Church.
- Religious education is compulsory IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Richard Dawkin's proposal is perfectly understandable under those circumstances, and is an attempt to STOP publicly funded religious indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.3248010]

>>3247996

God does not exist for such a newborn baby. The concept is non-existent.

By you logic, everyone's agnostic because "we cannot know"...

[Anonymous No.3248022]

>>3247996
>>3248010
>/sci/ devolving into semantic arguments

[Anonymous No.3248028]

>>3248022

Sorry bro.

Forgive me?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3248035]

>>3247996
A newborn babby doesn't have any philosophy. He is not agnostic, atheistic, or theistic. He first needs to learn the concept of God to be any of those.

[Anonymous No.3248038]

>>3248010
Exactly. The baby has no established concept of God, making it an agnostic (without knowledge). You only become an atheist if you hear of the concept of God and reject it.

[Anonymous No.3248045]

I guess theologically noncognizant would be the best term for a baby. By that logic, we could call a squirrel an atheist because it has no concept of religion.

But I don't see any squirrels posting on richarddawkins.net, do you?

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248047]

>>3248038
No, you become atheist if you lack a positive belief in a God. If you are not a Theist, you are an Atheist. By definition. Anyone who has not consciously chosen to be a theist is an Atheist. If you do not say "I believe God exists." you are an Atheist.

[Anonymous No.3248058]

it's all a misunderstanding guys

[Anonymous No.3248059]

>>3248047
Again, passive atheism does not exist by definition. Atheists are in essence all actively rejecting religion.

[Anonymous No.3248063]

>>3247958
You said earlier that the initial state of any human being is atheistic, which is entirely different than what you just wrote. You are not born atheistic. You can't believe or not not believe in something you don't know about.

[Anonymous No.3248068]

>>3248063
People who claim babies are atheists are the same people who insist agnosticism doesn't exist and that everyone is either atheistic or theistic. Which is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3248073]

>>3248059
Your definition of 'atheist' is no different than the Muslim definition of 'infidel'.

[Anonymous No.3248077]

>>3248047
facepalm.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3248085]

>>3248068
Yep, exactly

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248087]

>>3248059
Wrong. If you are not a Theist, you are an Atheist. you have to actively believe in a higher power, since you can't believe in a higher power without any knowledge of it, you are an Atheist, and you continue to be one until you become a Theist. If you lack a belief in God, you are an Atheist. That is the definition of it.

>>3248073
So, and Atheist is anybody who isn't muslim?
Cool, i'll go tell my Christian friends!

[Anonymous No.3248089]

>>3248063
If you don't know about it, then you don't believe in it.

I'm sure there are tones of gods that I've never head of before. I don't believe in them.

Not believing != rejection
rejection = not believing

[Anonymous No.3248093]

>>3248087
They're atheists in regard to Allah--and every other god that someone says exists besides Yahweh.

[Anonymous No.3248094]

>>3248089
And that makes you an agnostic.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248097]

>>3248068
Agnosticism is a descriptor of knowledge, not of opinion. If you do not actively subscribe to theism, you are an atheist.

To quote Rush "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." your choice is to not be a theist, which makes you an Atheist. It is a dichotomy in the truest sense, in that you can be either group A, or not group A.

[Anonymous No.3248098]

>>3248093
Atheism is the rejection of any gods, not "I believe in some gods and not others."

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248102]

>>3248093
What is your point?

[Anonymous No.3248105]

>>3248094
I'm no more an agnostic theist than I am an agnostic astrologer.

We don't need words for people who don't believe in astrology. We don't need words for people who don't believe in gods or religion.

[Anonymous No.3248107]

>>3248097
I consider myself an agnostic, but I don't consider myself an atheist.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248112]

>>3248098
>Atheism is the rejection of any gods
No it isn't. It is the lack of a positive belief in any Gods.

[Anonymous No.3248113]

>>3248107
Good. Go write your own dictionary then.

[Anonymous No.3248114]

>>3248107
So you believe that you can't know that a theistic deity exists but you believe in one?

[Anonymous No.3248115]

>>3248112
Why do people think you can CHOOSE to believe something or not to believe? Reasons are the currency that hold power over the opinions of the reasonable.

[Anonymous No.3248119]

>>3248112
It's the denying of any Gods.
The word Atheism comes from the A (negation) theism (god)

[Anonymous No.3248120]

>>3248112
Except that, as I said, passive atheism doesn't exist in the real world.

[Anonymous No.3248123]

>>3248107
You just got lawyered by >>3248114

[Anonymous No.3248125]

>>3248119
Theism isn't God.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248126]

>>3248107
Agnostic is not a belief option. If you do not actively believe in a God, you are an Atheist. It doesn't matter what you consider yourself, your preferences don't count. You can also be an Agnostic and a theist.

Agnostic refers to knowledge. ANY honest person is an agnostic, as the existence of God is impossible to know with certainty.

Let me put it this way: Do you subscribe to the New York Times?
Yes? You are a NYTist.
No? You are an ANYTist.
Never heard of the New York Times? You are still an ANYTist.

[Anonymous No.3248127]

You know... /sci/ I actually think this is the least "bash filled" thread I've ever seen on 4chan. Semi-decent discussion and nobody's getting buttmad.

What's going on here?

[Anonymous No.3248130]

>inafter shitstorm

[Anonymous No.3248131]

>>3248114
I do not know if one exists, but I don't totally reject the concept or I'd be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.3248132]

>>3248119
The A- prefix simply means without, it's not a statement of rejection; ex: symmetry, asymmetry.

[Anonymous No.3248133]

Is this the thread to discuss cucumbers?

[Anonymous No.3248138]

>>3248089
Of course you don't believe in something you don't know about, but you can't not believe in something until you're aware of the actual entity.

Do you get it? Babies don't know of calculus, but that doesn't mean they deny it. They can't deny or accept it. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.3248144]

>>3248132
As I said, passive atheism doesn't exist in the real world. Any atheist you encounter actively rejects religion.

[Anonymous No.3248145]

>>3248131
So you don't BELIEVE in a god, you just entertain the possibility that one COULD exist.

Congratulations, you're an atheist.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248154]

>>3248120
Which is totally irrelevant, and also not true. Someone brought up squirrels earlier. Squirrels do not believe in God (well, maybe they do, I'm making assumptions here) therefore, squirrels are Atheist. It sounds silly, but by the definition it is true. They are also Agnostics.
The same is true for babies. Now, I think you're arguing from the perspective of the adult human, in which case, you're right, everyone has heard of religion, and everyone has to either choose believe it, or choose not to believe it (someone brought up earlier that beliefs are not a choice, which is somewhat true, and we could argue for days about whether or not anything is a choice, but it is something you have to positively subscribe to)
A theist is a person convinced of the claims of religion.
An Atheist is someone who is not. There is no positive rejection needed. I don't reject God any more than you "reject" Santa Clause.

[Anonymous No.3248156]

>>3247300
Look, here is the honest truth about life:

Life started in some bizarre random process that was initiated very mechanically. In this process less 'mechanical' organisms came into being--organisms like us.

Based on this I cannot say that a "god" created life. In fact, if you really think about it and most people's concept on what a god does or is--the closest thing to a god is US, yes, I mean humans.

We create things thoughtfully and methodically and purposefully. We are the "machine" + more.

So this 'mechanism' of sorts pushes life through (even through death/chaos) and it does not take into account the "why's" and "who's".

We, on the other hand, do give a shit about the 'why's' and the 'who's' but everyone has their own perception of how life should play out, which means that our world, with the human gods in charge, could mean we create something like a utopia for all, or something horrid and painful for some, if not all.

In the 'machine's world--it's a little of both because, again, IT doesn't care either way.

Who you wanna bet money on/or whose world you want to live in?

Me, I'm not sure really haha Cuz there are a whole lot of things that need to happen before this rat's nest becomes anything even close to Utopia of any kind.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3248163]

>>3248156
This post made no sense to me, probably because I am out of brain.

Are you trying to make some statement on the effect of the concept of God on human culture? And if so, what?

[Anonymous No.3248166]

>>3247349
Someone get is.
Thanks bro.

[Anonymous No.3248167]

>>3248144

They are vocal, wear t-shirts, are members of an organization, announce themselves as they enter a room, etc. Those are the only ones you know about because the vast majority DON'T DO THAT SHIT. Therefor everyone just passively assumes the silent ones are something else...something "good" like perhaps whatever they themselves are.

[Anonymous No.3248171]

[Anonymous No.3248179]

>>>/adv/6537714

[Anonymous No.3248180]

>>3248144
Passive theism doesn't exist either, if you're going to generalize everything. Neither does passive agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.3248181]

>>3248167
Are you going to argue that there are two ways to believe in God then? --Those who tell people about it and those that don't?

Seems they both believe just the same, and the two "types" of atheists don't believe just the same.

I smell bias.

[Anonymous No.3248187]

Be cool if everyone could just admit none of us really know a damn thing about "Who or what" started it ;)

[Anonymous No.3248191]

>>3248154
Your logic throughout this entire thread is... wrong. You're an atheist if you think god doesn't exist. But to be an atheist first, you need to know the concept of god. Squirrels are not atheists.

[Anonymous No.3248192]

There exists an organized evangelical minority in this country with tremendous political influence.

The potential exists for atheists, however few, to meaningfully counter this influence by achieving a similar degree of organization.

However, this makes moderates uncomfortable. They are okay with atheists only as a silent, disorganized underclass. There is literally nothing atheists can do except shut up and hide that will make moderate Christians happy.

So ignore them. Even as they demand you be tamer, quieter, less ambitious, simply ignore that and continue with organization efforts anyway. It's necessary so long as an organized evangelical political presence exists in this country.

[Anonymous No.3248195]

>>3248191
ok
9/10
now be on your way

[Anonymous No.3248196]

>>3248163
I'm just saying that this is a thread about god/atheism. The same old, same old.

I'm saying that there is no god, well, not one that anyone has thought of anyway (I doubt anyone thinks 'god' is a thing that is an it that doesn't care about things play out because it's just doing it's thing).

And that we are making ourselves out to be the gods we always wanted to have.

tldr: There is no god. We are becoming the gods we wish we had. Life is a 'process' /system that was created in a way that perhaps is beyond our comprehension (NO not by a god).

Just look at the universe. Look at those 'non-organisms' for example--galaxies that smash into each other and create life--not unlike organic systems like our cell replication. SMASH and then there is something that can become something else.

We are feeling beings that come from non-feeling things.

[Anonymous No.3248198]

>>3248191
Depends how you define atheism.
If you define it as the lack of belief then you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.3248202]

>>3248191

>>But to be an atheist first, you need to know the concept of god. Squirrels are not atheists.

You don't need to know about the concept of god to LACK belief in it.

Meanwhile, you DO need to know about the concept of god in order to assert that it's unknowable, aka agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.3248206]

And here I thought the religious crazies here in America are retarded.

Europeans should go hang themselves.

[Anonymous No.3248210]

As always, religion threads on /sci/ always ends up being arguments about semantics and the definition of atheism rather than addressing the main topic.

[Anonymous No.3248216]

>>3248210

This is the result of ongoing efforts by the religious to redefine atheism as something more easily dismissed.

[Anonymous No.3248217]

Grrrm.

God Tier: Secular and atheist/spiritual.

Top Tier: Secular and religious.

Mid Tier: Atheist but coercive; religious but moderate.

Bottom Tier: Religious and fundamentalist.


The whole point of secular is to have institutions which are ignorant of, transparent to, religious beliefs. To be concerned wholly with matters of life, and not at all with matters of soul.

And besides, the more children learn about religion in school the better.

[Anonymous No.3248220]

>>3248202
I'd advise you to understand what an atheist is.

[Anonymous No.3248221]

>>3248191
The reason atheists are vocal is not because they merely don't like other people thinking differently than them.

The entire "new atheist" movement only exists because religion is wielded as a political force, and a debate card in discussions of public policy.

If the religious were content to admit they don't have proof for their metaphysical beliefs, and therefore can't expect them to be foisted on civil society (abortion, gay marriage, tax subsidies for churches, moral legislation), people like Richard Dawkins would disappear.

[Anonymous No.3248223]

>>3247356
No true scotsman is not really a fallacy at all; it is semantic quibbling over definition.
Example: No true NAZI helps jews escape.
Adam Schinlder built bombs for the NAZI war effort.
Adam Schlinder helped many jews escape.
Imagine my confusion.

It's almost as though there has been a concerted effort by anti-religious extremists to distort and confound the public's perception of truth itself.

[Anonymous No.3248228]

Hi guys, can we talk about engineering?

[Anonymous No.3248231]

>>3248216

They seem to frame it as people either worshiping correctly (of my religion); worshiping incorrectly (of certain other religions); not worshiping because of doubt (agnostic); or not worshiping because of anger (atheist).

In any case, they all seem to think that people really all know that god exists, they just have personal problems that make them deny it.

[Anonymous No.3248233]

>>3247424
>he isn't critical in the slightest of Islam.

lolwut

He's critical of all religion, and he's especially critical of Islam because it is so much worse than the alternatives.

[Anonymous No.3248235]

>>3248223
No. The problem is that if one vocalizes their issues with religion's influence in PUBLIC life, they are called intolerant, and told the only acceptable atheist is really and "agnostic" who keeps his mouth shut while religion continues to face no opposition.

[Anonymous No.3248237]

>>3248231

2/10, I replied.

[Anonymous No.3248238]

"Richard Dawkins setting up atheist schools"

I'm not sure the maladjusted creepy kids are the best qualified to set up an educational system.

[Anonymous No.3248240]

>>3248198
Sure, but idk about you but I don't go skipping around changing the definition of atheism.

[Anonymous No.3248241]

>>3248238

Dunno man, this system has been in America, Canada, Australia, etc for decades.

[Anonymous No.3248243]

>>3248231
this

[Anonymous No.3248244]

>>3248223

No true scotsman is definitely a fallacy.

It's a redefining of terms or actors mid-conversation, on the whims of some dishonest debater.

In religious debates, it is most often used to define true Christians down, ultimately to either a single sect, or to anyone the debater likes the sound of.

[Anonymous No.3248246]

>>3248235
It makes the only way to argue religious overreach opening a bible and having a theology debate that tries to moderate religious interpretations, but never actually questioning to exercise to begin with.

The religious are the only one's allowed to debate the religious.

[Anonymous No.3248253]

>>3248244

[Anonymous No.3248254]

>>3248240

The way atheists all define themselves doesn't change.

They just don't think the people who say they know what god is and what god wants know what they say they know. And so, in absence of evidence for the claim, they dismiss it.