4 ms·

Not believing in god is not a religion. Atheism itself though has grown into a full blown region. There is a point where your "not-golfing" becomes hobby, and

Not believing in god is not a religion. Atheism itself though has grown into a full blown region. There is a point where your "not-golfing" becomes hobby, and it seems that atheism, at least for some, crossed that line long ago. I grew up in a very religious environment, but I have been an atheist for 10 years (I'm 30 now). I don't see much of a difference between "loud atheists" and "loud Christians." The intolerance is the same, the language is the same, and even the "I'm a better X than you" and "You're not a real X" are the same.

Jach 14y ago
[Ed: I see you edited your original comment to be less general. To address that, I'd say you're seeing similarities that aren't characteristic of religions, but of humans rooting for their team. Your last sentence applies just as well to "loud fans".] This is as wrong as calling the technological singularity idea a "rapture of the nerds."[1] It's important to separate religious-minded-thinking, which is more generally irrational (or if you prefer a less general statement for the sake of argument, non-scientific) thinking, from an actual religion. Do atheists suffer from the same cognitive biases religious people do? Of course. Do some of them (I'd guess a minority) make errors in probabilistic reasoning by assigning p(a god exists|observations) = 0, actual 0, rather than the technical 0+epsilon that permits Bayesian updating in case a god ever decides to show itself? Sure. None of this makes atheism a religion. Where's the promise of salvation, but only for atheists? Where's the Holy Book? Where's the rituals and traditions? Are you called an "inactive atheist" if you don't go to chu^H^H^H weekly meetups and thus get shunned by your fellow atheists? Where's the singular code of morality? Where are the articles of faith? If you spend five minutes thinking about it, can you think of other ways atheism differs, categorically, from a religion like Mormonism? [1]http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21 http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21
- rimantas 14y ago
  And to add pretty much every believer is an atheist regarding the gazzilion of gods he does not believe, but others do.
rimantas 14y ago
> I don't see much of a difference between "loud atheists" Then look closer. There is a difference between fighting human rights and trying to defend intolerance, homophobia, misigony in the name of some imaginary being. As for intolerance: the stuff above does not deserve any tolerance. To quote Popper: > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend > unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to > defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the > tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of > intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and > keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we > should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily > turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, > but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to > rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the > use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, > the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching > intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to > intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement > to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Jach 14y ago

[Ed: I see you edited your original comment to be less general. To address that, I'd say you're seeing similarities that aren't characteristic of religions, but of humans rooting for their team. Your last sentence applies just as well to "loud fans".] This is as wrong as calling the technological singularity idea a "rapture of the nerds."[1] It's important to separate religious-minded-thinking, which is more generally irrational (or if you prefer a less general statement for the sake of argument, non-scientific) thinking, from an actual religion. Do atheists suffer from the same cognitive biases religious people do? Of course. Do some of them (I'd guess a minority) make errors in probabilistic reasoning by assigning p(a god exists|observations) = 0, actual 0, rather than the technical 0+epsilon that permits Bayesian updating in case a god ever decides to show itself? Sure. None of this makes atheism a religion. Where's the promise of salvation, but only for atheists? Where's the Holy Book? Where's the rituals and traditions? Are you called an "inactive atheist" if you don't go to chu^H^H^H weekly meetups and thus get shunned by your fellow atheists? Where's the singular code of morality? Where are the articles of faith? If you spend five minutes thinking about it, can you think of other ways atheism differs, categorically, from a religion like Mormonism? [1]http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21 http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21

rimantas 14y ago
And to add pretty much every believer is an atheist regarding the gazzilion of gods he does not believe, but others do.

rimantas 14y ago

> I don't see much of a difference between "loud atheists" Then look closer. There is a difference between fighting human rights and trying to defend intolerance, homophobia, misigony in the name of some imaginary being. As for intolerance: the stuff above does not deserve any tolerance. To quote Popper: > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend > unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to > defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the > tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of > intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and > keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we > should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily > turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, > but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to > rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the > use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, > the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching > intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to > intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement > to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."