Thanks Helian.... er North. I watched the entire clip. I agree with a lot of what he says, but it still doesn't convert me to contheism*.  It's true that many new atheists are of the opinion that religion is "ridiculous" and don't stop to see what's relevant in them. They have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can also see an unhealthy "craving" developing - a kind of revolutionary zeal to embrace the idea that there is no God/ gods. It's almost a kind of cowboy diplomacy in the mould of George W Bush. - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists (theists)" and religions are caricatured to the extent that they portray the very worst aspects of religions. In that frantic search for truth, the truth itself is lost.   Personally I see this as being no different to religious zeal.

*Contheism- The believe that the concept of "gods" is useful. Contheism includes theism and atheism.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:21am:


"New athiests"?

Religion is ridiculous. The entire concept is silly. There is nothing to be "gained" from religious texts that you cant gain from other sources without the doublethink or the need for a deity.

Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore it cannot be included in your definition of a belief.

Atheism is the default position. Religion has to be added. IMO if little children werent exposed to religion so young more people would be able to make up their own minds.

SOB

Aha okay like a non-practicing catholic then. I have a friend who calls himself a non-practicing catholic. Brought up catholic and sometimes follows the dogma and puts it on forms and stuff and weddings and funerals.

Cant watch clips. Flash stuffed up on this computer.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:42am:

Yes, its true that wisdom (or consolation) can be had from non-religious texts (and now that de Botton has been introduced to the discussion, check out his "Consolations of Philosophy" - one episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtW3cLWAC3I)...

And you'd be surprised who would agree with de Botton's idea of "Atheism 2.0"... None other than the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett, to name three, all of whom admit to enjoying something of religious ritual.

It would be hard to deny that Paul's 1 Corinthians 13 does not say everything that should be said about the need for charity (compassion)... For atheists reading that chapter, its not hard to see that Paul was betraying his closet agnosticism ("For we know in part, and we prophesy in part"... "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"... "For now we see through a glass, darkly").

If only we all lived like we could only comprehend in part, that conviction is only the art of certainty, not certainty itself... That there is always the veil of doubt before our eyes (looking through a glass darkly)... Socrates would be proud.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:18am:

All true... Worth noting though that at least three of the world's leading English speaking atheists (one being the world's most renowned militant atheist) agree that there is something worthy, not in religious belief, but in religious ritual.

And its not hard to understand why... Central to a human sense of well-being is the need for routine and ritual.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:16am:



I agree - I only use quotes from the Bible when it suits my arguments - that's it.

I don't believe in the fairy tales written all through the Bible.
It's no better than Jack & the Beanstalk.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:36am:


Dawkins is some kind of expert on evolution or something. Thats why he gets deferred to a lot. He is famous too - another reason. He is not the "leader" of atheists though. In fact not all atheists even "believe" in evolution. some do some dont. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism since atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity.

Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word.

You still dont understand? Some atheists prolly will since its about soldiers. Some atheists may not for whatever reason they have. Me I dont observe it because i dont like it but i dont care if others observe it - its part of australia.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

And , of course, he is more than just an atheist, he is a militant antitheist.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

Are you saying a dictionary does not allow the possibility of ritual being anything other than requiring religious connotations? have you never observed ANZAC Day commemorations? Have you ever observed court proceedings? Parliamentary proceedings? Military proceedings? Citizenship proceedings? (I could go on but, as you'd expect from a species that has a deeply innate need for ritual, the numbers are legion).

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

How do they observe it? Ritualistically?