Atheism

You're probably broadly right there about everyone being apathetic, but the UK is well marked by being very low on any sort of strong belief system. We never had, for example, a string communist or fascist movement throughout the first half of the 20th century, the same time as which much of Europe was destroying itself as those two factions fought. Similarly, we have absolutely no equivalent of the Christian movement in the US. The Church of England is spectacularly liberal- in my view, much to its credit, but sadly it's so liberal it is falling apart (attendances are down, foreign parts are threatening to break off as it is too easy-going etc).

But indeed, the problem is that this creates a void (and some feel this is why fundamental Islam catches on n some communities- if there's nothing to believe in, people will start grabbing for ideologies if presented with them). Hawking once made a point that he thinks science will succeed in explaining life where philosophy fails- but science doesn't inspire anyone in that way.

I honestly believe there needs to be some sort of secular replacement for religion that is independent of political authority but can attempt to define a moral platform. Actually that;s virtually what the CofE has become, but it's too tied to Christian tradition for peoplre to take it seriously any more.

Yeah, we're hard-wired for belief in a lot of empirically confirmed ways. You're probably right about the need for a secular replacement. Which is a struggle, because the whole idea of secularism - and particularly atheism - is about making your own intellectual and/or spiritual way.

There are some promising philosophers that I think could light the way in such an endeavor. Unfortunately, none are anywhere near the critical mass needed - even when combined with their like-minded peers as a conceptual movement - to really do much on a societal scale.

For me, the big knotty problem is this- you can't make a rulebook. That's for two reasons- first of all, rulebooks always end up being abused in a way that disguises itself as being loyal. Second, as you say, the kind of thought that begats atheism is contradictory to the idea of an assumed authority for there to be a rulebook.

But... if you don't have a rulebook, all you have is a lot of vague ideas and principles, and that just doesn't get attention. Time and again we see how movements grow in power and faith- it all comes down to simple rules for people to latch onto and find meaning. When all atheistic/humanistic belief systems start on the principle 'We can't really explain anything yet', a lot of people just stop listening right there.

I love the base idea of exisentialism, or at least the early musings on nit, which come down to "In a world where we can't be sure of anything other than that we exist, that there is likely not any rulebook or god or right or wrong, there are still good reasons for us to create moral and selfless ways to live". But the amount of people willing to go past those first few words and not be totally disheartened is proportionately very low.

As it happens, I do believe in objective right/wrong so I am not really an existentialist but that's a whole other issue (and not actually that big of a problem, because I think most people believe that, whether they admit it or not, though they may not have thought about it much).

So you need a secular system that a. people are inclined to listen to/be guided by, b. doesn't come across as a tool of control or arrogant assumption of superiority over lives and c. is able to produce a system of the equivalent of priests and bishops etc. ready to dedicate their lives to that cause. I'm knackered if I can think of what it is, though if I ever do a big, serious book, it'd relate to that whole concept.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For me, the big knotty problem is this- you can't make a rulebook. That's for two reasons- first of all, rulebooks always end up being abused in a way that disguises itself as being loyal. Second, as you say, the kind of thought that begats atheism is contradictory to the idea of an assumed authority for there to be a rulebook.

But... if you don't have a rulebook, all you have is a lot of vague ideas and principles, and that just doesn't get attention. Time and again we see how movements grow in power and faith- it all comes down to simple rules for people to latch onto and find meaning. When all atheistic/humanistic belief systems start on the principle 'We can't really explain anything yet', a lot of people just stop listening right there.

I love the base idea of exisentialism, or at least the early musings on nit, which come down to "In a world where we can't be sure of anything other than that we exist, that there is likely not any rulebook or god or right or wrong, there are still good reasons for us to create moral and selfless ways to live". But the amount of people willing to go past those first few words and not be totally disheartened is proportionately very low.

As it happens, I do believe in objective right/wrong so I am not really an existentialist but that's a whole other issue (and not actually that big of a problem, because I think most people believe that, whether they admit it or not, though they may not have thought about it much).

So you need a secular system that a. people are inclined to listen to/be guided by, b. doesn't come across as a tool of control or arrogant assumption of superiority over lives and c. is able to produce a system of the equivalent of priests and bishops etc. ready to dedicate their lives to that cause. I'm knackered if I can think of what it is, though if I ever do a big, serious book, it'd relate to that whole concept.

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

Assassin's Creed reference aside, I'm in rough agreement with this. However, I actually don't think we need a secular institution like the one you're describing. Or rather, I think it would be needed to see the type of cultural shift we're talking about. But I don't think we need it in the other sense of the word. I'm happy enough to let religion have a stronger hold than it otherwise might if it means promoting secular and atheistic worldviews as truly free-thinking enterprises.

Otherwise, it's just an arms race for attention and adherents, even if the motivation for it is different for secularists. I realize you might not envision it as the same type of convincing, but that's what it would end up being. And secularism should be anything but that, with the operative idea being personal freedom and choice.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t610326.html

Unfortunate relevance. Apparently the nastier elements of anti-atheist intolerance are just now making their way to national platforms here in the US. In my experience, while prevalent, it's always been a bit more passive than the hatred leveled against blacks or LGBTs. Other than a random celebrity faux pas here or there, this is the closest thing to a mainstream stage where I've seen such bile being spewed.

http://youtu.be/ZVc1ab2RcMs
I find this pastor's reactions painfully ironic (can you say that in English?).

great topic

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t610326.html

Unfortunate relevance. Apparently the nastier elements of anti-atheist intolerance are just now making their way to national platforms here in the US. In my experience, while prevalent, it's always been a bit more passive than the hatred leveled against blacks or LGBTs. Other than a random celebrity faux pas here or there, this is the closest thing to a mainstream stage where I've seen such bile being spewed.

Pretty sure there's more religious intolerance. And you'd need to expand on the creed of the Assassins as per what Ezio and Al-Tair discuss.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Pretty sure there's more religious intolerance. And you'd need to expand on the creed of the Assassins as per what Ezio and Al-Tair discuss.

I'm not sure a video game series is the best place to expand on the words of Duck Dynasty, but sure. There's obviously more to morality - atheistic or otherwise - than his mind can fathom.

Originally posted by Digi
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

You can pretty much justify anything with that. Awful. Sounds like Aliester Crowley as well I suspect thats were they got that from. Aliester was not a nice man.

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t610326.html

Unfortunate relevance. Apparently the nastier elements of anti-atheist intolerance are just now making their way to national platforms here in the US. In my experience, while prevalent, it's always been a bit more passive than the hatred leveled against blacks or LGBTs. Other than a random celebrity faux pas here or there, this is the closest thing to a mainstream stage where I've seen such bile being spewed.

I want to punch Phil in the face.

Originally posted by Deadline
You can pretty much justify anything with that. Awful. Sounds like Aliester Crowley as well I suspect thats were they got that from. Aliester was not a nice man.

Lol. I was responding to Ush's post with a slightly topical but most joking reference to a video game, not actually espousing this as a way of thinking. Even in the video game series, they elaborate on the phrase to the point where it's not just a meaningless tagline, as it is in its simplest form.

But you're welcome to respond to the rest of my post, where I actually make points that aren't entirely vague.

Originally posted by Surtur
I want to punch Phil in the face.

Problem is, he put it in more extreme terms than most would, but his viewpoint is a VERY common viewpoint on atheism. I've had good friends seriously ask me how I can live with believing that there is no such thing as morality, and that any horrible act is permissible. Usually they don't name the horrible acts, but the implication is clear. They can't fathom how I define or find morality outside theism, because it's all they've ever know. And these are intelligent, kind adults who I've considered close friends.

Now, that they can't perceive morality outside a theistic worldview is their problem, not mine. It suffices that it can and does exist in an atheistic worldview, regardless of their ability to understand it. But it does atheists no favors with public perception.

But for another example in popular culture, Steve Harvey has said similar things about atheists. He leaves out the violent descriptions of rape and murder, but the point is exactly the same otherwise.

Those people SCARE ME. They are essentially saying they need invisible magic dudes to tell them what is right and wrong.

It doesn't mean any act is permissible because WE WOULD NOT HAVE PRISONS. People like that need to be put in padded cells IMO. Can't do anything good just for the sake of it, only because they feel they will suffer eternal torment or some shit after they die if they don't. Ugh..religion.

Those people SCARE ME. They are essentially saying they need invisible magic dudes to tell them what is right and wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
Lol. I was responding to Ush's post with a slightly topical but most joking reference to a video game, not actually espousing this as a way of thinking. Even in the video game series, they elaborate on the phrase to the point where it's not just a meaningless tagline, as it is in its simplest form.

But you're welcome to respond to the rest of my post, where I actually make points that aren't entirely vague.

I don't won't to respond to the rest of your post. You said you were in rough agreement with that statement I was interested to what degree. Also looking at the rest of your post seems I was right to ask you....

Originally posted by Digi
. I've had good friends seriously ask me how I can live with believing that there is no such thing as morality,

Please elaborate.

No, he said he was in rough agreement with my post.

Fair enough. Easy mistake to make.

Anyway I've kinda jumped in here aimlessly.

In basic principles when it comes to right and wrong religions have got it right and actually agree on a lot. So this idea about religons/cultures having difference views on morality is overated. On the nature of God/Divinity sure there is lots of difference on opinions but there is a suprising consensus on more basic stuff.

Here's the thing it doesn't matter what you say you believe people are going to do bad things anyway, people will always find a reason to justify evil. The idea of religion is supposed to be that even if you get away with something you don't there are consequences. That is preferable to believing there is no divine force and you die and that's it.

The concept of atheism is also irrational but I guess it depends on how you define it.

Originally posted by Deadline
In basic principles when it comes to right and wrong religions have got it right and actually agree on a lot. So this idea about religons/cultures having difference views on morality is overated. On the nature of God/Divinity sure there is lots of difference on opinions but there is a suprising consensus on more basic stuff.

This is easy enough to agree with, but it glosses over the huge, culturally-dividing, war-starting issues that various religions DON'T agree on. This is basically a "COEXIST" bumper sticker in paragraph form. A nice sentiment, but too simplistic to have much value.

Originally posted by Deadline
Here's the thing it doesn't matter what you say you believe people are going to do bad things anyway, people will always find a reason to justify evil. The idea of religion is supposed to be that even if you get away with something you don't there are consequences. That is preferable to believing there is no divine force and you die and that's it.

Two responses. One, I'm a determinist, so the idea of consequences is a bit repugnant to me. Prisons and punishments (should) exist for the safety of non-criminals and to rehabilitate criminals, not for retribution. I would expect no less from an omniscient, omnipotent god in charge of an eternal afterlife. The very concept of hell as an eternal punishment with no possible recourse is an archaic, barbaric holdover from ancient myths and ideas.

Second, I actually kinda agree here, but you're conflating two ideas. Would it surprise you if I said it would be preferable to have a (pleasant) afterlife? If I said I hope I survive beyond physical death? But belief isn't about what's ideal. I'd love to believe that I'll "survive" death, but I can't because I find absolutely no reason to believe that, and ample evidence to believe the contrary.

Basically, I'm just saying that I'm against believing in something because it's preferable to believing it exists over the alternative. Our justifications for belief should withstand greater intellectual rigor than that.

Originally posted by Deadline
The concept of atheism is also irrational but I guess it depends on how you define it.

Vague statement is vague.

Originally posted by Deadline
Please elaborate.

Not much to elaborate on. I said most of it earlier. I've had more than a few inquiries along the lines of "how do you define your morality?" or "how do you determine right from wrong?" Both from curious acquaintances as well as friends. Many theists have a hard time understanding morality outside a theistic worldview.

I would expect no less from an omniscient, omnipotent god in charge of an eternal afterlife.