I know others have asked, and you've always ignored it, but what do you mean by 'atheist doctrine' ?

doc·trine   [dok-trin] - noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Now, I'm an atheist - I make no bones about this. But I wasn't taught to be an atheist. I didn't listen to anyone preaching atheism. I haven't read any texts or writings about atheism, other than some of these threads. But in spite of all my apparent antipathy towards any indoctrination, I came to the conclusion that I don't believe in god, or gods, and thus I am an atheist. All by myself.

There are, I accept, people such as Dawkins who could be said to be a bit preachy about atheism, but it's not with a view to converting people and teaching them 'The Way of the Atheist' - it's more about trying to get people to wake up and smell the coffee and not be indoctrinated by whatever religion they subscribe to.

Fro what I can tell you fear atheism - it's clearly something you feel strongly about and which seems to anger you, and I wonder if that's because you think there may be some merit to what atheism means, i.e. not believing in god, or gods. Could that be the case ?

Nick, you give the definition of doctrine yourself, do you suggest Atheism is not taught? Why? Of course it is, it's a new idea, a cultural paradigm, it's the Zeigeist, hardly spoken of Pre WW1 - infact they say it's rise is the result of the Post War existential angst and the philosophy of Authenticity that followed which tried to reason quite what had gone wrong with humanity.

Let's get this straight - humanity and culture evolved around the ideas of there being a higher spiritual realm, there is not a civilisation in history or a culture in existence that doesn't have a revered God head, the ideology is part of us, it's in us by nature, Religion is learned but a reverence to the spriritual, a belief that we are not all there is, that we are not the top of the line, is innate to humanity, if it were not we would not be having this discussion, people would not study cosmology, philosophy or religion and we wouldn't have gone to the moon.

Atheism is a modern movement, stemming from an academic process that seeks to change the status quo, the very fabric of our nature, there is nothing wrong with this, it may very well be progress, I admire good critical thinking. Unfortunately Atheist doctrine now revolves largely about arguing semantics of words and pointing fun at peoples belief systems, because as you will see from The Heretics adoption of Dawkins silly gnostic/agnostic semantic riddle no one can actually say for definate whether there is a God or not, if they do they're lying or deluded, it's not possible to fix on that conclusion without an element of belief or faith, to say you don't believe is simply the opposite of saying you do believe, both fairly baseless conclusions.

The atheist will often tell you that they don't believe in anything with out evidence or experience, but this is also not true they just choose to put their belief in evidence and experience of a certain nature.

Pick a subject that is relevant to modern society.
It can be any sort of thing that requires thought regarding ethics, morals and real world practicality.
Especially good if there is some sort of controversy around it but, for the sake of fairness try and avoid it being an issue that is already being debated with church leaders involved.

Then tell me what I would do about it, or even just want as 'an atheist'.
How many of the atheists that contribute to this thread do you think will have exactly the same view?

Paedos are paedos regardless of their religious orientation, or lack thereof.

A better question to ask would be "Is paedophilia over represented in the catholic church compared to other religious organisations?"

Actually I copied it from the internet...

Absolutely I do !! And why ? Because it patently isn't !! Where do I go for atheist classes ? Is it taught in schools ? Are there gatherings of atheists who discuss their non-beliefs ? Who is the leader of Atheism ? Are there preachers or non-spiritual leaders of atheism ?


New ?!! Or maybe another way to look at it is that it pre-dates any and all religion. It just didn't have a label then, but before humans invented their gods then by default everyone was an atheist.

And who are 'they' that you're quoting ?

That's easy - religion is what's gone wrong with humanity.

People have been atheists for, bascially, ever. It's just that people are less constrained by the religious constructs of modern societies and feel able to say, without fear of persecution, that they are atheists.


Many of which have come and gone, and their god(s) with them...

Civilisation and religion may go hand in hand, but context is everything - religion was to society in ancient civilisations what politics are to modern societies; a way of controlling the masses and keeping them just sufficiently under your 'authority' so you can maintain power and control.


Most people are not leaders, so need to be lead. Religion is a convenient way of pandering to that need.

And it may be your belief that 'we are not all there is', but it certainly isn't mine. Actually that's not quite true - I don't believe we are alone in the universe so we're not all there is if you consider that intelligent life exists elsewhere.


then who, or what, is ? And it's not 'innate' if something has to be learned, which you said yourself above is the case... I do not believe that children are, from birth, given to a sense of reverence to the spiritual or a feeling that we are not 'top of the line' - I think that is imbued upon them by parents and 'teachers'.

And Cosmology and going to the moon have absolutely NOTHING to do with religion - I'm geniunely confused about how you think spirituality got us to the moon...


It's not a movement... The fact that you think it is shows your lack of understanding about what it is. It does seem to be a label applied by those of a religious bent to give some focus to their fears and self-doubts about their own religious beliefs.


What academic process ? It's not taught...

And atheists don't seek to change the status quo, though some may be more vocal in their questionning of religious beliefs, some may even mock those who are religious.


If you admire good critical thinking, why do you seem so aggressive towards the concept of atheism ?


There is no atheist doctrine....

The pointing fun at peoples' belief systems I find objectionable, not on religious grounds, but because I think it's unnecessary if a rational debate is to be had. It simply undermines the positions of those who poke fun at those with religious beliefs.

'semantic riddle' ? Or something you happen to disagree with and therefore lable 'silly' ? Or maybe it's because you struggle to find a way to refute the position that The Heretic has adopted ?? Therefore it's easy to try and put it down than engage in some critical thinking.


Atheism doesn't have to be evidence based. I have no evidence that god, or gods, don't exist. But that doesn't stop be from being fervent in my non-belief of gods - I am very clear that I don't believe in gods. And that, at it's core, is all atheism is - a non-belief in gods. Not just your god, but any gods. All of them. Every last one.

As an atheist I'm not setting out to prove the non-existence of god, or challenge the belief of others by presuming to say "you're wrong" - I just don't believe in gods. I am, if you will, a passive atheist, though I will try and explain my position in a dialogue such as this because I think it's important that people properly understand where I am coming from, rather than trying to label me based on their views and prejudices about what atheism is and what it might stand for (in their mind).


Again, this seems to be you projecting your opinions and prejudices onto people who choose not to believe in gods. I don't need evidence to support my non-belief - I simply don't believe there is a god, or gods.

But why ? People have explained that 'atheist' is merely a label which is used to define a non-belief. It's unsual in the world scheme of things because there isn't an equivalent term for the non-belief of fairies, goblins, the tooth fairy, etc. And it's not learned, it's not academic and it's not really an intellectual 'pursuit' - I'm not chasing anything or looking for answers, I just don't believe in gods.


Because some people either won't listen, or cannot seem to understand the concept...


That's because they're not trying to make comparisons with something else. And as an atheist I don't try and compare the non-belief of gods with anything else.


Atheism has no purpose, it is simply a label, and thus is benign in nature. SOME atheists may be more vocal and seek to use atheism as a platform to question the religious beliefs of others, but that's not an atheism, that's someone who is anti-religion. You appear to be confusing these two distinct concepts.


My views on this are nothing to do with whether I believe in gods or not - what was done, by many priests, in many countries, on many occasions, is an abuse of power by an adult over a child, and is wrong on whatever level you care to try and look at it.

Slippery atheists? See how you do exactly as you say "the atheists" do. Is it because you're an atheist you're like that?

You just can't understand it. I don't know why, maybe there's something wrong with you, but you've been told so many times and you still don't get it.

You never will.

May have mentioned this before, but think we're well past the point where the rational should engage with the religiously deluded.

The problem with engaging with them is that, by doing so, you add weight to the notion that there's a battle of ideas, where the reality is that there's rational thought and there's religious delusion. And that's it. There's no more reason or intellectual obligation to engage with mainstream religionists than someone who thinks fairies rule the world.

So, it's critical not to give religionists plausibility by association or engagement - it's the reasonable, agnostic middle ground that matters. Religionists will believe what they believe and for the most part won't be convinced otherwise, regardless of the suffocating, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's fine. Leave them alone, they're a lost cause.

But that agnostic middle ground ought to be left in no doubt that there's no clash of ideas. Just sanity and insanity. In that sense I think it's important not to pretend that there's some kind of discussion to be had, to feign tolerance for the ridiculous, and to be very clear that religion is a hang over from an ancient, ignorant age which, in a modern context, is batst insane.

Is Matt still adamant that Atheism has a doctrine, etc?

I repeat, Mattnunn, you are an idiot. You have no ability to absorb information, and repeat the same old logical errors. Despite these being pointed out to you you insist on saying them over and over again, repeatedly.

You are an idiot.

But most people at least have an ability to learn. He seems to have none, no matter how often you tell him, despite showing him definitions. And so on and so forth. He repeatedly spouts the Stalin, PolPot thing, despite never being able to tell us what part of atheist doctrine informs them to do these things.

I find it incredible how someone can be that ignorant.