Do you feel (new) Atheist culture?

[Spooky]

Guilty as charged.  I own a copy of 'The God Delusion'.

 

[BrokenQuill92]

Guilty as charged.  I own a copy of 'The God Delusion'.

 

Oh please, I think everybody on this form does .

[Alex K]

Well carry on, no need for me to clog up the thread!

His talk about different lower and higher varieties of man are a good demonstration how much science he got wrong
Yet, he was a rather compassionate guy who did not endorse the enslavement or eradication of other peoples.

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures

[Faith No More]

Guilty as charged.  I own a copy of 'The God Delusion'.

 

Oh please,  I think everybody on this form does .

I've never even read it.

"God Is Not Great" on the other hand, yeah, that one's in my library.

[BrokenQuill92]

Oh please,  I think everybody on this form does .

I've never even read it.

"God Is Not Great" on the other hand, yeah, that one's in my library.

So do I! I also have a copy of Deconverted and The God Virus.

[Lemonvariable72]

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

That's not a veiw, so.much as a observation of results of imperialism. Unfortunately it's not far as ff the mark, as we have nearly completely killed off chimps and gorillas. Also more civilized doesnt mean better in this context it means more advanced.

[Alex K]

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

That's not a veiw, so.much as a observation of results of imperialism. Unfortunately it's not far as ff the mark, as we have nearly completely killed off chimps and gorillas. Also more civilized doesnt mean better in this context it means more advanced.

From the quotes though it appears as though Darwin thought of different peoples as being sufficiently different in their inherited traits that natural selection based on that (and not on culture) would actually play a role in the struggle between the races - it doesn't, and so this is a point where he simply gets the science wrong. I do not think he endorses the killing off of "savage races", so much is clear from his statements about slavery alone.

[Alex K]

Looking at my library it seems that we own everything Dawkins has ever written, maybe with one exception. Embarrassing!

[BrokenQuill92]

Well carry on, no need for me to clog up the thread!

His talk about different lower and higher varieties of man are a good demonstration how much science he got wrong
Yet, he was a rather compassionate guy who did not endorse the enslavement or eradication of other peoples.

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

This does not sound compassionate to me. This is someone being pussy about killing outright, so he suggest that if we were to die due to neglect it would beneficial though it would be "Technically wrong". Gee such compassion indeed!

[drfuzzy]

I'm a relatively new atheist who lives in the middle of the American Bible belt.  I'm still in the "phase?" of reading everything I can find on the subject.   (I do like Boghossian, Joshua Kelley, Penn Jillette . . . )  I gradually became atheist by a combination of reading scientific literature by Sagan, Hawking, etc., and sitting through church services that sounded increasingly insane.  So no, I have no actual community . . . unless you count this forum.  My brother is also atheist but we don't discuss it much.