In one recent discussion, a good lady, Dogly, said this about me:
“It is just that Madhukar seems to be trying to find a common set of beliefs or opinions among us all. I'm trying to convince him that that is impossible.”
Earlier, she had hardly participated in the several discussions posted by me but seems to have observed me from distance, because her observation is accurate.
My reply was obvious:
“I do not, cannot and will not deny that I would be very happy to evolve some commonalities in atheist character,”
I feel most annoyed when an atheist says that ‘atheism is nothing more and nothing less than not believing in god.’ I also find some opposition to me when I say that atheism is an ideal. This may be a result of a fear that calling atheism an ideal will turn it into an ideology, which, indeed, is to be feared! However, there is some difference between an ideal and ideology. To me, atheism is an ideal that every intellectual should try to achieve. Attaining this ideal would be the best proof of an intellectual’s intellectualism. This is supported by the result of a recent discussion that finally seems to have established that atheism is based on knowledge and not on ignorence.
Likewise, I strongly believe that there should be something like an “Atheist Identity” that should distinguish an atheist from the rest of the people, by his character. The religious faithful often try to say that being an atheist is being immoral. Why should anyone try to attach such labels to us? Why should it not be obvious to others that being an atheist gives some good attributes to one’s personality?
Aren’t there enough good qualities that all atheists can posses and that can be attributed to atheism? Whatever be the answer, it will not deter me from finding such a common character.
I think, MK, you are elevating atheism above what it deserves.
I am not sure that you have correctly got my point. I do not say that attributes of atheism may only be high ideals. Let us think of lessser attributes which can be seen to be associated with an atheist. If it becomes accepted that an atheist can not accept any thing that is not a proven truth, then anybody, not necessaryly a creationist, would take this character in to account while discussing any subject with an atheist. Again, this is an example to illustrate my point. Presently we are not discussing any qualities, we are discussing only a principle.
Apparently you are missing my point. Lots of atheists take lots of things for granted, true or not, with enough rational justification or not. You are yourself providing an example of someone taking something for granted without evidence, or perhaps despite evidence to the contrary, by asserting that there might be some unifying characteristic about atheists, some unifying virtue specifically. No such unifying virtue or quality exists. People come to atheism through different routes, not all of them being rational or supplied with evidence. In fact I would argue that many atheists are just as dogmatic as religious people in that they do not fully understand the reasoning which supports our position, and that as far as their reasoning has taken them, they are justified only in agnosticism and no more. Have you for example studied Descartes? Can you tell me anything about epistemology?
There are mny who oppose my ideas, but I will give you the credit for putting your opposition more logically than others.
Well thanks MK, I do appreciate your response.
If it becomes accepted that an atheist can not accept any thing that is not a proven truth, then anybody, not necessaryly a creationist, would take this character in to account while discussing any subject with an atheist.
That's absolutely not true. As I mentioned before, we have atheists who believe in homeopathy, ghosts, crystal power, psychics, and astrology.
What you're talking about is skepticism, not atheism. All skeptics who properly apply their skepticism to all areas of their life are atheists.
The same doesn't work in reverse. Not all atheists are skeptics. People lose their faith in deities for all sorts of silly reasons, in addition to the good, rational reasons.
Have you got another example?
I agree with others who post comments here. It really comes down to an issue of English semantics and definitions. The word defines one who does not hold to a position(theism, belief in god(s)). As such, under the umbrella of that word, we are defined for what we are not, and nothing about what we are.
If Madhukar wants to identify with positions that are inclusive of atheists, he might consider joining other groups that identify with other topics here at Atheist Nexus.
If Madhukar wants to identify with positions that are inclusive of atheists, he might consider joining other groups that identify with other topics here at Atheist Nexus
This is not about group at all. I have explained my purpose above and you may just goback a few replies to see the same. I have also replied about groups earlier. This comment is not exactly in line with the thread.
He's not talking about local groups for you to get together with in person. He's talking about groupings of people. Categories. Labels. The group he's speaking of is atheists. ALL of them.
Or perhaps he's talking about the groups on Atheist Nexus. For example, we have at least one group on the site for Secular Humanism. This entire discussion doesn't really have anything to do with Origins, which is what this group is focused on.
Or perhaps he's talking about the groups on Atheist Nexus
ECHO ... Echo ... echo ... echo ...
What the hell happened to the rest of my message? I wrote that that is EXactly what he was reffering to. The part that was posted was supposed to be in italics.
You shouldn't have clicked the ethereal button then, I guess.