• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention Melbourne, Australia

It requires faith to be an atheist.

However likely or unlikely a religious mythos may seem to you, the certainty that we live in a cold material universe devoid of a spiritual element or deeper consciousness requires an act of blind faith. Dismissing theories or beliefs on the basis that they have no evidence to support them is compatible with the scientific method, but the positive certainty that we live in a dead material universe requires a leap of blind faith.

Most people dont have enough faith to be atheists.
 
^I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. I just can't let go of SOMETHING more.
 
Sentience said:
It requires faith to be an atheist.

However likely or unlikely a religious mythos may seem to you, the certainty that we live in a cold material universe devoid of a spiritual element or deeper consciousness requires an act of blind faith. Dismissing theories or beliefs on the basis that they have no evidence to support them is compatible with the scientific method, but the positive certainty that we live in a dead material universe requires a leap of blind faith.

Most people dont have enough faith to be atheists.
Click to expand...

That is utterly ridiculous, I am an atheist to the bone and faith is not required.
The dictionary definition of faith is "believing in something without proof" and that exactly why Atheists don't like religion, because it doesn't make logical sense to believe in something with no reason to do so.

Sentience said:
the positive certainty that we live in a dead material universe.
Click to expand...

This makes us Atheists seem like a bunch of whining depressed nihilist emo's.
Have you looked around recently? smelt a flower? looked at a sunrise? looked up at the stars? Smiled at a child's innocence?

I assure you the world is far from "dead" to an Atheist. I live in the same world, I just prefer not to give a sky wizard credit for these amazing things.
 
college_dropout said:
You've mixed the two up there. Atheism pertains to belief. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, which is what most atheists are, including the god of the godless, the all powerful Richard Dawkins. I think I'd put myself in that category.
Click to expand...

Finally someone said it.... I have to clarify this common misconception every couple months on this forum.

Agnosticism is NOT a "middle path" between atheism and theism. They are completely different concepts, as college_dropout pointed out. Whether you define yourself as an atheist or a theist, there is still the question of gnosticism/agnosticism.

Thus, there are 4 choices:

Gnostic Theist ("Strong theist") - I believe in God and I know he exists.
Agnostic Theist ("Weak theist") - It is impossible to know for certain that God exists, but I believe in him anyway.
Gnostic Atheist ("Strong atheist") - I am certain that God does not exist, and I do not believe he does, either.
Agnostic Atheist("Weak atheist") - It is impossible to know for certain whether or not God exists, but I do not believe in him.

To further confuse things, one can mix-and-match their beliefs pertaining to specific gods. For example, one might be a Gnostic Theist regarding Yahweh, while also being a Gnostic Atheist regarding Thor, Aphrodite, and Quetzalcoatl.

I am an Agnostic Atheist regarding gods in general, while also a Gnostic Atheist regarding Yahweh. The Argument From Evil sufficiently discredits the existence of the god of the Old Testament for me:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html

In any event, I can't see myself ever attending an "Atheist's Convention." I can barely be defined by the many things I am. I refuse to be defined by things I am not.
 
If all y'all don't knock off this atheist stuff and get back on topic, I'm closing this thread.
 
No offense, but wouldnt that be punishing everyone who actually wants to have this conversation, including yourself? I would kind of like my thread to stay open, even if we do debate atheism. I believe there is a difference between organic evolution of a topic vs threadjacking. In real life conversations branch out. I think splitting the thread would be more appropriate than closing it. Maybe if you split it then I can get a chance to reply to punctuality and also continue with my thread on thoughts about the afterlife.
 
punktuality said:
I really think the Dawkins hate is misplaced. I do understand that he can come across as somewhat arrogant however as I heard another person put on another forum "Just because you have a well thought out reasonable argument that makes your opponents argument look ridiculous by pointing out there is no basis for it whatsoever, that does not make you arrogant, simply right."

Besides his stance on religion he is also one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists and is responsible for clarifying that the gene is the smallest driving unit of evolution as well as describing how altruistic behavior is compatible with the individually selfish force of evolution. Dawkins also coined the term "meme" which anyone on the internet would be familiar with, to describe how social systems can be effected by Darwinian evolution. His contribution to Science is enormous and if he comes across as angry and arrogant it is simply because small minded individuals have tried to undermine science and education by trying to teach 'intelligent design' as a Science in schools. If I had dedicated my life to furthering science as Dawkins has then I would be awfully pissed too!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but directing this argument towards me is misplaced. He is arrogant. He is small. He is petty. I don't care to take anything away from his legitimate scientific research, but the irresponsible zealotry I hear come out his and his ilks' mouth is foolish. I creates an unnecessary dualism and excessive antagonism and most importantly it will never work. Those he is trying to convert have deaf ears for such logic.

My major issue with him is his only conception of god is the fundamentalist mythical god interpreted literally. I could logically tear apart a conception of god as an old greek dude in the sky at the age of five, as many people could and somehow he thinks he's some lone bastion of rationality. Shit dude, the western enlightenment was like 300 years ago. He's stuck in the past. He's never developed a rational or trans-rational understanding of god.

The certainty with which he believes he is right is the same certainty of a true believer (and don't give me that 99% bullshit. that is certainty to a scientific materialist). He's blind.

In any event, I can't see myself ever attending an "Atheist's Convention." I can barely be defined by the many things I am. I refuse to be defined by things I am not.
Click to expand...

I like this.
 
I got a better idea. How about we move you and punktuality's spinoff conversation into one of the two already existent threads about atheism, and close nothing. Then you can chat to your heart's content.
 
While I understand the concept that people find it strange to gather for a negative belief I see real benifits to this. Polititions are known to pander to certain groups, particularly religious groups to get votes, if we show the world that we are a united body of people rather than an unorganized rabble then we stand a much better chance of being counted and listened to. I think that is a great step to being heard and to help create a more secular Australia/world.

To be honest, even as an Atheist I would rather the conference be targetting secularists, humanists and freethinkers rather than using the word Atheist which has misplaced stigmas attached.
 

In any event, I can't see myself ever attending an "Atheist's Convention." I can barely be defined by the many things I am. I refuse to be defined by things I am not.

This.
 
punktuality said:
While I understand the concept that people find it strange to gather for a negative belief I see real benifits to this. Polititions are known to pander to certain groups, particularly religious groups to get votes, if we show the world that we are a united body of people rather than an unorganized rabble then we stand a much better chance of being counted and listened to. I think that is a great step to being heard and to help create a more secular Australia/world.

To be honest, even as an Atheist I would rather the conference be targetting secularists, humanists and freethinkers rather than using the word Atheist which has misplaced stigmas attached.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Whilst I would agree that Dawkins is a patronising zealot, I think we need to situate him in relation to the influence of religious groups on contemporary politics, particularly in the United States, but also elsewhere. In some places I think we should be genuinely concerned about the influence that religious groups are having on political decision making, and someone like Dawkins is just reproducing the fervour that these religious groups bring to attacking liberal ideals.

One of the points that Dawkins makes which I agree with is his critique of the idea that we need to "respect" people's religious beliefs in a way that makes these beliefs beyond rational argument. Criticising people's religious beliefs is often seen to be "impolite" or somehow arrogant, as though religion is untouchable. Anyone who argues against religious beliefs is being disrespectful, rude, or getting above themselves. I think this is a very dangerous idea. It puts some extremely important issues, particularly those concerned with the value laden nature of certain social policies, practices, and institutions, outside the sphere of argument and debate. I see no reason why religious ideas should not be critiqued in a rational way, particularly when religious people do not accept that religion is not fundamentally rational, and relies on a leap of faith that has no reasonable evidence to justify it.

So in a political climate in which religion is often used to justify shutting down open minded and reasonable debate, why not have an atheist convention? Maybe it's important, as punktuality said, to act in order to constitute atheism or agnosticism as a political constituency?
 
marsmellow said:
For all this talk about science and reason, atheists sure have a lot of faith in their belief that there is no god. How can you possibly know that for sure?
Click to expand...

You dont need 'faith' to NOT believe in something. Being atheist is being NOT faithful because you dont believe in something that you cant see or know for sure exists.
 
^this is the spinoff.
that quote came from the afterlife thread, together with some other atheist vs religion posts. funny he moved that line to the "global atheist convention" thread =D
 
Will they be streaming any or all of this over the internet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top