Should there be Atheist groups?

[josef rosenkranz]

Exactly which bit of "I don't believe it until I see some evidence" did you not understand?

To my opinion one can not be a front stage propagator of the ideas of atheism as you are and in the same time to believe in something very close to Destiny.

Again, I have to state:

Which bit of "I don't believe it until I see some evidence" did you not understand?

You keep saying that I have some kind of belief in determinism and therefore that means I cannot possibly be an atheist. Whilst I think you can probably have some kind of belief in determinism and still be an atheist, I am not one who falls into that group. I am neither a "determinist" nor an "undeterminist". The best description of me would be an "apa-determinist" (morphing the words apathetic and determinist). I don't have any opinion on either and I really don't care about them. I haven't read into the subject at all, but it is common knowledge that certain things can be predicted. Science has so far failed to unite newtonian physics with quantum mechanics, so using it to argue against determinism seems a bit off. I would love to hear your opinion on the wikipedia article about determinism which states (in relation to quantum mechanics):

So quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates). Since we have no practical way of knowing the exact magnitudes, and especially the phases, in a full quantum mechanical description of the causes of an observable event, this turns out to be philosophically similar to the "hidden variable" doctrine.

Whatever your answer, please stop referring to me as though I believe in determinism. I don't and it is rude to suggest otherwise. Ignorance in a subject does not mean I believe in it. I do not have any opinion on either, although that seems to be changing now I have been forced to read into the subject in order to respond to you

Hi Adrian
Please don't take personally anything I am writing.
I consider you as the most involved here in the matter of atheism, against the majority of participants of this forum who are merely,including my self, amateurs.
I am entitled to have my own opinions eve if thy seem odd to others,even if they are not in full concordance with the great R.Dawkins.
One of these opinion are related to the existence of an element of Nature which can not be denied ,which has a lot of secular names as:chance,random,chaos ,arbitrary,hidden doctrine,uncertainity principle,undeterminism,as well as religious names as fate or destiny.
The issue is misplaced in this thread so I intend to continue it in new threads because I consider it to be a cornerstone of atheism ,by no means to be ignored.

[Ace Otana]

I'm with adrian on this.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

the "hidden variable" doctrine.[/
...... against the majority of participants of this forum who are merely,including my self, amateurs.

It may be a good idea not to project flaws you perceive in yourself onto others.

I am entitled to have my own opinions

I agree.

eve if thy seem odd to others,

All that matters is you are able to provide a rational argument supporting any opinion you hold.

even if they are not in full concordance with the great R.Dawkins.

Have you considered the possibility some atheists may have arrived at their viewpoint through life experience, observation, investigation, rational thinking, etc rather than being told what they should think by the contents of an expensive book?

I have not read any of the 'new atheist' books and do not give a tinkers toss if my views on religion differ from what is written in these.

[Brick-top]

Have you considered the possibility some atheists may have arrived at their viewpoint through life experience, observation, investigation, rational thinking, etc rather than being told what they should think by the contents of an expensive book?

I have not read any of the 'new atheist' books and do not give a tinkers toss if my views on religion differ from what is written in these.

I'll do you one better. I became an Atheist long before I knew of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or anyone of that sort. I've never read any of Dawkins books, I watched about 20 minutes of one of his documentaries out of bordom and the only thing I know of the man is 2 minute youtube clips.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Have you considered the possibility some atheists may have arrived at their viewpoint through life experience, observation, investigation, rational thinking, etc rather than being told what they should think by the contents of an expensive book?

I have not read any of the 'new atheist' books and do not give a tinkers toss if my views on religion differ from what is written in these.

'll do you one better. I became an Atheist long before I knew of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or anyone of that sort.

It's the same for me.

I've never read any of Dawkins books, I watched about 20 minutes of one of his documentaries out of bordom and the only thing I know of the man is 2 minute youtube clips.

I saw bits of his programmes on Darwin. I would have happily sat there all night listening to him explain evolution. However, I was put off by his by his attacking religion during what was supposed to be a celebration of a great scientist and an explanation of his discoveries.

[Brick-top]

I saw bits of his programmes on Darwin. I would have happily sat there all night listening to him explain evolution. However, I was put off by his by his attacking religion during what was supposed to be a celebration of a great scientist and an explanation of his discoveries.

I watched a national geographic documentary on Darwin. Trust me, you would've preferred Dawkins.

[Zapata]

I dont think Atheism groups would be good. It has the chance of becoming similar to religion like that. For me, the web is my atheist community.

[Brick-top]

I dont think Atheism groups would be good. It has the chance of becoming similar to religion like that. For me, the web is my atheist community.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Alan]

If atheists don't organise, they can't fight religion, really.

Religious people ARE organised and their organisations give them political strength, which directly influences our lives.

I realise many atheists are also pacifists, so don't hear me out if you're easily offended, but it's essentially the same problem: if you don't have an army, your enemies will and there's nothing you can use against them when they come and take away your home. If you refuse to fight, it won't cause your enemies to give up -- instead, it'll only allow them to kill you easier.

I agree that we don't need "Atheism" groups. But we do need groups. Atheism is far too useless a label, politically speaking, as that we could simply unite all "atheists" under that banner to fight the good fight.

What we need are organisations that promote Laozism (seperation of church and state). We need organisations that fight religious extremism (e.g. the Ex-Muslims in Germany, a group of de-converted muslims who fight for awareness of religiously justified abuse of women, children, etc). We need organisations that keep religion out of education and we need organisations that keep science IN education.

We don't need to unify. We need to diversify. Find common interests and promote them, don't wait for a unified Atheist group to share your opinions.

[Edwardo Piet]

The concept of destiny...as in the Idea of no free will...that choice is an illusion has got NOTHING to do with the idea of destiny being God choosing what happens.