Posted: Jan 02, 2020 3:25 pm
Hermit wrote:Fallible wrote:Also, why the fuck are we yet again providing definitions of atheism?
It matters for as long as theists rule. Your country has an official religion, and it is not without clout.
Not only are 26 seats of the House of Lords occupied ex officio by archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, but a significant number of members of both houses believe that your country's policies must be morally sound, and that there is no morality unless it is ordained by God as revealed in the Bible.
It's kind of difficult - impossible, actually - to expose theism as a bullshit foundation for policy making unless both theism and atheism are defined.
It's tempting to regard modern organized religion as a collection of cults based on some mystical metaphysical rubbish, but it's more tempting to regard modern organized religion as a loose affiliation of criminal gangs sanctioned by the government. I'm sure some of the rank and file do believe in the existence of deities, but nobody trying to run the show is going to get very far if his thinking is that foggy. For them, it's important to talk as if they believe, using the most florid language possible.
If you recall my remarks about "fool me once, shame on you" you'll pick up the thread again, here.
Hermit wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:Hermit wrote:
So, how do we test for atheism? For that we need a real-world definition of atheism first (which disqualifies the SEP's article on atheism). I go by what another encyclopedia starts off with:Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
The only distinction between atheism and theism that can be made is this absence of belief in the existence of deities.
That treats theism and atheism as two clocks which only exist to wind each other up; such atheism can't exist in the absence of somebody else's belief in deities.
Yes, Cito. If there were no theists - or no atheists - there'd be no clocks that would wind each other up. If winding each other up were the only purpose I'd leave well enough alone.
Unfortunately it's not. Theism has been a Trojan horse to gain and maintain power since time immemorial. It's political. Not only that, it also claims a monopoly on being the provider of morality, which also is ultimately about power and policy. Principally, so the theist argument goes, there are no moral standards without God, and among the God-given moral strictures are:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also." And so on, and so forth.
My comment was directed at the encyclopedia entry you quoted; your more recent remarks take atheism quite some ways beyond simply lacking belief in the existence of deities. I applaud those sentiments, which correctly focus on sectarian dogma and culturally-centered bigotry, rather than on some moldy metaphysical boilerplate. The definition of atheism you selected does not sport a spectacular track record in defusing resentment of atheism; its best showing is in winding up anyone who, well, doesn't genuflect to some moldy metaphysical boilerplate.