I certainly agree we may need to be a bit careful - but we can’t be so careful that we are scared of challenging the extremists. O’Hair might have been obnoxious, but without that level of obnoxiousness kids would still be forced to pray in schools. The criticism of new atheism I see from moderates (the NY Times, not exactly a church bulletin) is that Dawkins et al are obnoxious, and that anyway the critics’ god belief is nothing like that of a fundamentalist.
As for silliness, the big criticism of Dawkins is that religion’s defenders specialize in special pleading. Arguments that would be laughed out of the house when applied to astrology become cogent. For instance, I have seen Mormons defend their religion from attacks by traditional Christians by saying it is no more absurd than what the traditional Christians believe in. Which is quite correct.
I was active in alt.atheism when the Invisible Pink Unicorn started. The purpose of the IPU, which I’ve noted really, really pisses Christians off, is that the argument for this absurd creation is not different in any basic way from the argument for God. Being Jewish, I know what it feels like to believe in God. But belief in Jesus is as absurd to me as belief in a cargo cult. I was not raised to give Jesus any special position.
We can hardly credit that people really believed in Zeus and Odin. Anyone today who says they believe in them would be considered pretty silly, right? I rest my case.
Well, you are really trying to convince a cultural relativist and applied anthropologist to view other’s beliefs as silly. It is not in my nature to do so, whether I personally ascribe to their beliefs or not. So it innit gonna happin spanky.
I even respect atheism. It exists for a reason. You can explain in in a cultural materialism way, by saying by holding atheistic beliefs you are ascribing to a cultural system which satisfies your human needs for mental stability, social connectivity, acquisition of basic material needs, etc.
You can also explain it by applying functionalism . “Functionalist analyses examine the social significance of phenomena, that is, the function they serve a particular society in maintaining the whole.” Therefore your role in society is to force it to practice self reflection and reevaluation of the majority belief system and in turn creating a more functional and cohesive society.
I could use any number of theories and paradigms to explain why anyone holds certain beliefs and practices. They all serve a purpose and I pass no judgement on them, unless (and here is the fine line between relativism and activism) those beliefs or practices infringe on basic human rights.
see:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as proposed by the UN
Saying you respect Atheism doesn’t dampen your condescension. Calling Atheism materialistic is rich since the lack of belief offers no material reward whatsoever. We aren’t good now in order to obtain a future reward in this life or the next. I’m not sure what you mean by mental stability, but it seems to this Atheist social connectivity is one of the few things religion really has going for it, provided the tapestry of human individuality conform to it’s specific mores.
What other reasons do you believe Atheism exists?
You are conflating atheism with secular humanism. The former is simply the lack of belief in a god(s). The latter is system of ethical principles, social practices, and assertions based upon objective scientific evidence combined with philosophical/ political positions subject to revision as new findings allow.
You would agree though that one leads to the other, not necessarily but pretty much always. Yes they are different things and should be kept separate to avoid the misconception Atheism is in anyway a belief, but they do coincide enough where a religions person would feel frustrated by being unable to critique ‘Atheism in action’ as it were. A bit like debating a Libertarian without being able to point to it actually ever being practiced in government.
I actually think criticizing an Atheist with the principles of secular humanism is fair game as long as that ideology isn’t confused with a religion for the lame tu quoque and equivocation.
One can acknowledge the utility of a belief culturally or personally while still understanding that the belief is silly. All (or many) cultures have origin myths and glory days of the past. Even ours, given the deification of the founders by some. But these beliefs are still silly in the sense of being untrue even if they are useful.
Sorry, that is blather. You can say the same thing about going to church or not going to church, watching football, baseball, equestrian events, or not. Atheism in the US at least is not a cultural system. It is mostly highly individual, and before the web highly private. Material needs? Hah! People join churches to fit into their community. No one becomes an atheist to advance in business, not in the US anyway.
You seem to be in denial that atheism can be correct, and spend all your effort analyzing it socially to avoid actually looking at the evidence.
I can just imagine an applied anthropologist in 1920 or so studying Einstein.
“Well, I think he and others accept this theory of relativity because culturally they are out of place, and this puts them at an equal standing with others in their community. Further it fulfills their need to validate the diversity of …”
Physicist: No you twit. We accept it because Mercury was where Einstein predicted it to be!
Use that stuff all you want to say why people come up with ideas. It does no good at all evaluating if the ideas they come up with are true.
Well, except in the relative sense that we atheists are less likely to waste time, energy, money, and resources on religion-related activities.
(Until we squander that “freethinker dividend” on arguably frivolous things like hanging out at the Straight Dope Message Board…)
I think you need to look up the definition of cultural materialism. It has little to do with our concept of materialism. Not the same thing, but I can see how you would get confused.
It is a research orientation which helps anthropologists categorize and explain behaviors, cultural norms, and rituals in the context of how that particular behavior satisfies a human need.
Sounds about right…LOL
Also, I am not interested as an anthropologist if the belief is true, I am not making judgements of fact or fiction. I am respecting a belief system and seeing it for what it is. Atheism is a belief system and is designated a religion by the US Government (though that isn’t really saying much because the government does a lot of silly things, so I take that with a grain of salt).
From a comment under
I also like this article in about.com
Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism
Basically the final paragraph says it best. You can be theistic without be religious and be religious without being theistic. It all comes down to how you conceptualize and practice your beliefs. If you simply just don’t believe in a god, then yes that is not religion. But if you find yourself participating in activities such as atheists conferences, students groups, etc. and base your life and how you live it on a set of principles informed by your atheistic beliefs then you are hovering quite close to religious territory.
So secular humanism is probably much closer to religion than just pure atheism. I’ll grant you that! Just like I know plenty of people who say they believe in God but hate organized religion. They are no more religious than most atheists claim to be.
[QUOTE=April R;15513826Atheism is a belief system…]
[/QUOTE]
Not believing in Santa Claus is also a “belief system” then, right? In what way is your not convincing me that your god exists due to a lack of solid evidence a “system”?
Well, yes, a set of ideas is going to be a lot more like a religion than one idea is. There are many secular humanists groups that do the same kinds of things for atheists that religion does for believers - and of course some of the members of those secular humanists groups are probably also religious believers.
<Bolding mine>
If you don’t like how a term is understood stop defining it that way.
The government - quite rightly - doesn’t spend a lot of time trying to exclude belief systems from the benefits of religion. Scientology made it, for example. So I agree with them classifying atheism as a religion, even if it is actually a lack of religion.
Just to prompt you to search - atheism is actually the lack of belief in any god, though those with believe there are no gods qualify also. We’ve had tons and tons of threads about this so I’ll leave it there and let you search if you care to see the arguments.
You are not alone in your lack of interest in the truth of atheism. Most articles in papers or magazines seem to be around the thought that religious people live longer, or atheists are smarter, or religion builds community or religion oppresses women etc, etc. I contend that none of this is all that important to society (though frightfully important to anthropologists, no doubt.) Very few of the articles about atheism actual discuss the question of the existence of any gods.
If we reduced religion to God fandom, we’d have God fans doing good things and bad things, but we probably wouldn’t have any laws enforcing the views of one set of God fans. And people who are fans of no Gods would be slightly better off than people who are fans of no football teams, like me. Something else I need to keep in the closet.
So, science fiction cons are religious events?
Scientologists seem to think so.
Maybe not the best example to go with(Browncoats, for example?) 
I feel a certain satisfaction that more and more people are coming to regard views such as April’s with condescension.
April R, are you attending a Christian college? I’m curious because your ideas, even when partially supported by cites, have a distinctive spin. It seems as though you are trying to find a purpose for non-belief, but there is no motivating force or unifying feature of atheism. Try this analogy: Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
What motivates people to not collect stamps? What do people who don’t collect stamps have in common?
No. I attend a public secular university.
But in conclusion, from what I am hearing from y’all is that atheism is simply defined as a lack of belief in god or gods.
So to come full circle, if by definition atheism does not imply a belief system or code of ethics or doctrine or even defined purpose then there is no inherent responsibility if one identifies themselves as an atheist to challenge any one else’s belief.
In fact, in everyone’s own words, atheism doesn’t have a purpose or stated motivation at all.
So the original poster needs to leave his mom alone. It is not his responsibility because atheism is not motivated or directed by a defined code of responsibility , per the admitted definition of atheism the majority of posters in this thread have given me.
You can’t feel responsible to something that doesn’t exist.