Do you really want Richard Dawkins for a spokesman?

Although it's tempting, try not to conflate "secular" with "atheist." They're not necessarily the same, nor do those groups necessarily have similar beliefs or ideals. Indeed, there are quite a few spiritual atheists. For instance, there are a number of mystics who are atheists.

Anyway, apart from relatively small atheist organizations here and there, atheists as a whole aren't really organized or united by a common cause, as so many religious groups and denominations are. Therefore, I don't know that there exists an atheist culture per se.

 

I am not conflating the two; I am aware that there are differences, but also that there is substantial crossover between the two. They do not necessarily have the same or similar beliefs, but nevertheless it is likely that they will share some (not believing in God, for example - or a personalised God, as seems to be the phrase around here ).

The fact that atheists are not organised does not mean that organisations are not atheist. As for "atheist cultures", again, the fact that they are not organised around their atheism does not mean that there are not many organisations that are coincidentally atheist (Britain being a pretty good example, China perhaps being another). My point was that an organisation does not need to have God or some other religious belief on its side to commit atrocious acts or to attempt cultural conditioning.

 

Oh, sorry for the confusion or misreading on my part. Thanks for clarifying for me.

I agree with you, except that I can't think of any examples of organizations committing atrocious acts or attempting cultural conditioning in the name of promoting or defending atheism. They may have done so, just not qua atheists. Their atheism is likely not a causal factor in, or at least not the proximate cause of, their actions regarding atrocities, etc.

 

Let's face it, the only atheist organizations that have ever been sufficiently powerful to be capable of committing atrocities have been communist parties and governments, and they've committed plenty of them, including persecution of religious people. The fact that they did this in the name of a more general materialistic philosophy called Marxism-Leninism seems a bit technical, since atheism was an integral part of the ideology.

 

See, I'd say that of religious organisations too. Most of them are enacting a political or financial agenda, and using religion as a motivator or an excuse. Religion is used to motivate people to do what they'd otherwise question all the time. In the same way, people can be mobilised under the non-religious banners of "Progress", "Common Sense", "Will Someone Please Think Of The Children?!" and so on.

That's my belief, anyway. That atheism isn't the causal factor isn't really relevant, since I doubt religion was the causal factor in separating Native American kids from their families; it was something people wanted to do anyway, and they used religion to justify it. Same with the indoctrination of slaves; if you're going to keep slaves for a long time, you've got to indoctrinate them with something, right?

Quite. Even post communism, Chinese Christians still face persecution. It's pretty messed up.

 

i've never heard of the guy so i have no idea what, if any pertinence he would have to anything i believe or disbelieve.

not that anyone entierly does anyway.

i could live without self appointed spokespersons of anything.

=^^=
.../\...

 

no, i vote for marcus brigstocke lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42p2SO5wQag&feature=related

reply:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yewj9FaMgAU&feature=related

the second ones probably more relevant.

roflol

 

seriously tho, we dont really need a spokesman

 

Haha, I remember that from when it aired. I like that he's actually pretty even handed, and far more lucid than pretty much everyone who claims to be intelligent here.

 

agreed, you gotta love the brigstocke, even if he does prattle on sometimes.

 

Yeah, he did some little rant about the environment and stuff that I kinda wasn't so sure about. I mean, he's unashamedly middle class (which is kinda refreshing when you've been around musicians half your life) and sometimes you do just need to think "no, shut up, you're a tosser" when he's whittering about how awful the working classes are, but even then he tends to be right about most things.

But yeah, accusing people of passive support makes a hell of a lot more sense than just telling them they've got a mindvirus or whatever.

 

hes a good satirist and an excellent comedian, its his combinations that get him, he doesnt infuse his rants with enough comedy sometimes to stop em just being irritating.

yeah, i do quite like the concept that atheists are doing good deeds for the sake of it rather than the promise of ethereal rewards.

 

Well that's basically humanism, rather than atheism. There's a lot of potential for crossover, but there's a fair number of atheists who don't see any reason to follow socially-constructed rules just because they happen to be imbued with some religious element.

 

if i really had to pick a spokesperson for something resembling my own perspective, i might pick yogibeyondanda/(www.wakeuplaughing dot something or other, which i'm too lazy to look up at the moment, but shouldn't be too hard to find).

=^^=
.../\...

 

well certainly, but how can you have a spokesman for atheism when it covers such a wide range of beliefs : humanism, existentialism etc its not a clearly- defined belief with doctrine like, say christianity.

 

I know. My problem with Dawkins is that he serves to tie atheism together with opposition to religion, which I believe is a bad thing because most atheists I know fall into the "if they want to believe it, I don't care" camp. I'm never sure with Dawkins because of how much he dumbs down his retellings of his own material a lot of the time, but it does seem like he is allowing his hostility towards religion or belief of any kind to become linked with atheism of any kind.