• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists vow to fight monument rejection in Levy County, Fla.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, it is tangentially attached, because it seems to me that atheism should be understood as a positive belief system in the 21st century Western world.
Other than believing there are no gods, we heathens have nothing else in common,
except perhaps a greater tendency to accept scientific consensus in areas such as
evolution, geology, cosmology & biology.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, it is tangentially attached, because it seems to me that atheism should be understood as a positive belief system in the 21st century Western world.
"Atheism" and "theism" are labels applied to belief systems, not belief systems themselves. There are theistic belief systems and atheistic belief systems, but atheism as a whole is no more a belief system than theism as a whole is.

Just as a polytheistic Pagan's beliefs or actions don't have a whole lot to do with your faith as a Christian, it's incorrect to assume that someone as antithetical to freethought and humanism as Stalin has anything to do with the beliefs of a modern freethinker and humanist just because neither of them believed in gods.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
"Atheism" and "theism" are labels applied to belief systems, not belief systems themselves. There are theistic belief systems and atheistic belief systems, but atheism as a whole is no more a belief system than theism as a whole is.

That's a good point. Lumping all atheists together is just as unthoughtful as lumping all theists together.

But many religionist seem to see it otherwise -- thinking of atheists as the opposite of their own theological position. Probably it all reduces to our tendency to think in terms of friends and enemies.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Other than believing there are no gods, we heathens have nothing else in common,
except perhaps a greater tendency to accept scientific consensus in areas such as
evolution, geology, cosmology & biology.
"Atheism" and "theism" are labels applied to belief systems, not belief systems themselves. There are theistic belief systems and atheistic belief systems, but atheism as a whole is no more a belief system than theism as a whole is.

Just as a polytheistic Pagan's beliefs or actions don't have a whole lot to do with your faith as a Christian, it's incorrect to assume that someone as antithetical to freethought and humanism as Stalin has anything to do with the beliefs of a modern freethinker and humanist just because neither of them believed in gods.
I know all of this and do not disagree with it. What I meant is that in the Western 21st century it seems that "atheism" has generally become a word meaning "metaphysical naturalism". While metaphysical naturalists can be humanist or anti-humanist — as Roman Catholics can be humanist or anti-humanist — there is a philosophical unity regarding the nature of reality. In other words, those who identify as "atheist" appear to be of a similar cloth. It is very rare to find a self-identified atheist who believes in a non-theistic transcendentalism such as we find in the pre-Socratic literature.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I know all of this and do not disagree with it.
Yet your arguments imply that you do.

What I meant is that in the Western 21st century it seems that "atheism" has generally become a word meaning "metaphysical naturalism".
By who? I've seen no shortage of atheist skeptic naturalists who recognize that everyone from non-theistic Buddhists to Raelians are atheists too.

While metaphysical naturalists can be humanist or anti-humanist — as Roman Catholics can be humanist or anti-humanist — there is a philosophical unity regarding the nature of reality. In other words, those who identify as "atheist" appear to be of a similar cloth. It is very rare to find a self-identified atheist who believes in a non-theistic transcendentalism such as we find in the pre-Socratic literature.

That may have something to do with the fact that very few people - theist or atheist - are familiar with pre-Socratic literature. ;)

I notice that it's very rare to find a Catholic who's a competitive biathlete. What should we infer from this? Is this evidence that there's a "unity" amongst the Church faithful that the co-mingling of skiing and shooting is something to be avoided?
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
Darkness said:
It is very rare to find a self-identified atheist who believes in a non-theistic transcendentalism such as we find in the pre-Socratic literature.

Some Hindus, some Taoists, most Buddhists, Jains, some Quakers, and various others possibly in New Age and the Occult.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I notice that it's very rare to find a Catholic who's a competitive biathlete. What should we infer from this? Is this evidence that there's a "unity" amongst the Church faithful that the co-mingling of skiing and shooting is something to be avoided?
Blatantly ignoring my point, but all right then.

Some Hindus, some Taoists, most Buddhists, Jains, some Quakers, and various others possibly in New Age and the Occult.
I imagine that these are far and few in between. Buddhists may be non-theistic, but they generally identify as Buddhists, not by the label "atheist".
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Blatantly ignoring my point, but all right then.
I'm not ignoring my point; I'm calling attention that it's wrong-headed. If something is rare in general (e.g. "belief in a non-theistic transcendentalism such as we find in the pre-Socratic literature"), then odds are that it will also be rare among atheists... or theists... or football fans... or plumbers.

The fact that a generally rare thing is also rare among some subset of humanity doesn't mean that this subset is trying to exclude people.
 

enaidealukal

Well-Known Member
Well, it is tangentially attached, because it seems to me that atheism should be understood as a positive belief system in the 21st century Western world.
Ok, but what effect does that have, one way or another, on the case the OP mentions, or the double standard exposed therein? :shrug:
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I'm not ignoring my point; I'm calling attention that it's wrong-headed. If something is rare in general (e.g. "belief in a non-theistic transcendentalism such as we find in the pre-Socratic literature"), then odds are that it will also be rare among atheists... or theists... or football fans... or plumbers.

The fact that a generally rare thing is also rare among some subset of humanity doesn't mean that this subset is trying to exclude people.
I am not quite sure it is that rare. Daoists commonly believe in a non-theistic transcendentalism.

Ok, but what effect does that have, one way or another, on the case the OP mentions, or the double standard exposed therein? :shrug:
I think that if atheists want representation, they have to position themselves as a positive belief system rather than absolute negation.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
I think that if atheists want representation, they have to position themselves as a positive belief system rather than absolute negation.

A positive lack of belief in a god? I don't get it. :no:

I think we're doing just fine. There has even been an openly atheist politician or two, so we're making some good progress.
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
I am not quite sure it is that rare. Daoists commonly believe in a non-theistic transcendentalism.

I think that if atheists want representation, they have to position themselves as a positive belief system rather than absolute negation.

They do... they positively don't believe in a deity.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think that if atheists want representation, they have to position themselves as a positive belief system rather than absolute negation.
One positive belief system we could all share is the fight against discrimination
in favor of powerful religions & against atheism (& minority religions). It's not
a big system (like a theology), but it could work for us.
 
Last edited:

enaidealukal

Well-Known Member
I think that if atheists want representation, they have to position themselves as a positive belief system rather than absolute negation.
Ok, but why? And do all atheists need to do this? Many atheists, including myself, not only accept that our atheism is a positive, cognitive, intellectual position, but take issue with construing atheism as mere absence of theistic belief. But again, how we construe the nature of our position does not seem to have any connection to whether we can enjoy the same sorts of things that theists routinely do, like the case the OP mentions.
 
Last edited:

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Here in my area, they are made the city remove a war memorial that has been up for many, many years because it is in the shape of a cross. If it isn't considered discrimination in that case, then this can't be called discrimination, either. You can't have it both ways.
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Here in my area, they are made the city remove a war memorial that has been up for many, many years because it is in the shape of a cross. If it isn't considered discrimination in that case, then this can't be called discrimination, either. You can't have it both ways.

Without knowing the specifics, the immediate difference I can see between the cases is you don't state if other memorials were allowed to stay up, after the cross was taken down.

IF other religious monuments were allowed, but the cross was removed for religious objections, then yes.. I agree that it was handled incorrectly.

..if not, there's an obvious difference between the two cases.... and I don't see how you can state this is "having it both ways."
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Without knowing the specifics, the immediate difference I can see between the cases is you don't state if other memorials were allowed to stay up, after the cross was taken down.

IF other religious monuments were allowed, but the cross was removed for religious objections, then yes.. I agree that it was handled incorrectly.

..if not, there's an obvious difference between the two cases.... and I don't see how you can state this is "having it both ways."

I was actually speaking of it being called discrimination. If it isn't discrimination taking down Christian or other religious monuments, then it isn't discrimination for taking down or not allowing "atheist" monuments. (Since, as far as I know, atheists have no movements or no symbols, I don't know how it could be called an atheist monument, btw).
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
I disagree.
Discrimination implies a group, or all but a group being singled out and treated different.

If an area takes down a cross, and refuses ALL other religious monuments to be erected, or kept.. they are enforcing a blanket rule.. I.E. If they ONLY took down crosses, but left all other religious or spiritual monuments up, that would be discrimination.. If they took down the cross, and ut was the only religious monument, and they would allow any NON-cross.. that's discrimination.. If they take down the cross, and it was the only religious monument, and they refuse to allow any other religious monuments to go up, or stay up.. that's NOT discrimination...The ruling is being carried out against any religious monuments.

In the case of the atheist monument, they are allowing select religious monuments to stay, and picking and choosing which they allow..
..that is why it falls under discrimination...
If they took down the atheist monument, and the ten commandments, then.. it wouldn't be discrimination.
 
Top