Excellent essay

Thanks, anno. I call myself a humanist too but I prefer the atheist label if I need a label at all. Happy with either or both really.

Thanks for the link, Bags. The definitions of positive and negative atheism didn't appeal much to me. I prefer the definition of Humanism you will find here.

I wasn't actually addressing my comment to you, Greatnan.

I consider most Sharia law is harmful to others - mainly women!
I have posted on another thread how I was interested in finding out what and why people believe the things they do about religion, and I was lucky enough to find a Christian who was willing to enter into dialogue with me. Not in the least combative, Lilygran. Why would I not be interested in finding out more about something that is so fundamental in many people's lives? Are you saying I am not entitled to further my knowledge of religion because I am an atheist?
And my kind Christian friend is one of the most intelligent people I know.

J08 - take it up with HQ - their rules

Not sure about tolerating things that are within Sharia Law, greatnan.

I simply don't believe in any god - I don't think it is something you choose, either you do or you don't. That is all atheism means to me. On the other hand, secularism means a great deal more. I vigorously object to the linking of church and state, and the privileged position enjoyed by the Church of England. There are plenty of believers who share my opinion.
I don't mind what anybody else chooses to believe, although I am interested in discussing the what and why of their beliefs, and I certainly don't want to prevent anybody following any faith providing it remains within the law. (So, no to religious practices which harm others).
I am deeply offended by the implication that I cannot have good ethical standards because I am not a believer.
And to suggest that the best art comes from the hands and minds of believers only, is clearly bunkum.

I think there is too much combativeness in some posts from non-believers for them simply to be searching for understanding. And why search for understanding when you think you already have the answers? Terms like 'fraudulent' sound dismissive rather than analytical!

feetlebaum grummpa well said.

I agree with that view, feetle.

I enjoyed your 'longer than usual' post, grumppa.

I see atheism as the default position - were it not for clerics impressing their notions on children, religion would probably no longer exist - it is always absorbed from older, believed to be authority, figures.

Of course it's not just your god I don't accept (whoever you are, and whichever it might be). It's all of them... The whole mythical, fraudulent gang of them! So that'll be just one more than the ones you don't believe in.

As a non-militant atheist of long standing, I don't believe atheism is "for" anything. It is the logical outcome of not being able to believe in extra-human forces that take a personal interest in our individual lives and whom we should appease in the hope of a better life or afterlife. Apart from anything else, the sheer bureaucracy inherent in the Christian structure of heaven and hell, and who gets sent where, has always beggared belief!

I have no interest in analysing how religion works except as part of the, to me, more important analysis of how extremists manipulate religion for their own ends.

And I can't see the point of a thread devoted to atheism unless it is to be a vehicle for the religious and spiritual to argue against it: a sort of religion and spirituality thread in reverse.

This is longer than my usual contributions to GN, but I am sitting in DD's house waiting for a furniture delivery. This requires the patience of a saint. Oops, what have I said?

anno (and others), you might find the definitions of positive as opposed to negative atheism here interesting. It's a site apparently at Cambridge University.

@Lilygran - Why? Because religion has such a privileged position in this, and certain other countries - privilege unearned.

On the one hand, we are told that we are not competent to criticise because we have not studied 'theology', and on the other we are asked why we find religion interesting, and want to study and ultimately dissect it, if we don't believe it...

And consider the ridicule that Chief Rabbis, and archbishops attempt to level at those of us who don't believe the incredible claims... (Mervyn Stockwell and Malcolm Muggeridge come to mind).

Exactly, when.

Why does any person want to analyse any knd of belief or behaviour? It's what we do, an attempt to understand each other.

For me, atheism is about rejecting something I grew up with and sometimes I miss the fellowship of the churches I once attended. But I concluded that I no longer need the 'crutch' of religion and just got on with it. I prefer to call myself a humanist which has a more positive connotation than atheist.

Why would you want to 'analyse how religion works' if you think it is nonsense? Unless you are out to ridicule the simple-minded believers?

Good pounce, lily! I knew I could rely on you.

If that's the case, presumably Bags will continue to use it as a platform for going on and on and on about the unacceptability of faith of any kind. And I shall probably go on telling her to give it a rest.

Quite. Thanks, bluebell.

The next thing will be that someone will ask "Is atheism a religion?"

To which the answer is another question: "Is the TV off mode a channel?"

(The person on twitter who as the first question then replied "Fuck you", to which the teapot replied with great amusement and said it had made his day).



For me atheism is for analysing how religion works, why it has and wants to have political influence, and discussing/arguing such issues.

When all else fails - read the instructions. GN is quite clear that in the Religion and Spirituality thread, posts are welcome 'of all religions and none'.

Ah! Never thought of that, Bags...I knew there must be another way. Thanks, petallus.

I've asked

Just seen your post, feetle. I think it means the cartoon is based on what Sacks wrote (and which the article I linked to demolished with rational argument).