Come on... you know what an Atheist is....

Kim,

I find your response to be backing off way too far, and completely discarding the context of the conversation. We're talking about atheism in present times, in the present context and, when in doubt, in the context of the Dawkins talk. So while in some sense you're "right", ... I don't think your reply addresses the situation that I'm talking about.

When I talk about atheists, I am talking about people at Pharyngula or people that Dawkins talks about in his presentation. They are much more than simply "people who lack belief in a supernatural being". They are people who often claim to be more intelligent than theists. They are people who claim that the world is better off without religion. They are people who push the idea that people should incorporate scientific evidence and theory into how they live their lives and how we construct the shared laws.

You've completely discarded these things in your reply. By doing so, you're talking about something very different than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a group of people we're both familiar with. In this discussion, they're tending to gather around the name "atheist", but sure, of course, they are "more" than that.

What's funny is that you ascribe a lot more to a "theist" than simply a belief in a supernatural being. Theism, in your stripped down way of defining, is only the belief in a supernatural being. It says nothing of absolute moralities, views on gay marriage, unwillingness to accept scientific evidence. My point is, ... I'd rather have the interesting conversation where we both use "atheist" to mean the group of people I referred to above, and "theist" to refer to the group you've continued to refer to. The other conversation is one of where we play definition games. That's not interesting to me.

With that said, you have a quote:

I think atheists ask of people that they base their choices, decisions and lives on something other than supernatural fantasies fed to them by their culture. (my bold)

Yes, I think it is choice that is the key. Remember Barry Schwartz and "The Paradox of Choice"? http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

To me this is important because where there is appeal to an invisible, supernatural power, there is no room for discussion. ... There is no arguing, no convincing, no room for people to change their minds or their viewpoints.

What good is discussion? Why is this any good?


Choice doesn't necessarily lead to happiness. There is some amount of choice that seems good, and some amount of choice that is simply too much, too overwhelming. We can't make decisions because we can't all be experts, we can't ever have enough information.

This is atheism. It's too wide open. The space of possible facts, possible lives, possible moralities is too great. People need guidance. People need to have a structure in which to build their sense of goals, morality, love. Atheists totally ignore this. There is no establishment. There is no place for a person to go to get facts, to help construct a life, to search for morals. Atheists throw away the necessary parts of life that religion fills, without identifying the need for replacement.

Choice. Atheism takes people out of too-much-comfort, and throws them into a void. And I think it does so because atheists tend to be more intellectually adept, more socially independent, and more able to deal with some issues themselves. The atheists we know as representing atheism present atheism and a movement forward as a train wreck, because they don't identify the important social issues that exist in making such a move. They are arrogant and self-unaware. I dislike it.