Richard Dawkins: Illness made Christopher Hitchens a symbol of the honesty and dignity of atheism - Opinion - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Absolutely, KD.

It was a fact. Hitch had a way of writing that made you look deep inside and question. Even if you didn't agree with his stance, you almost had to admire his courage.

He had the intelligence and courage to dissect, understand and promote his convictions. Even to the very end.

He was a role model for atheism praised by non-believers and believers alike. He lived big. He died well.

Algernon plays the piano while his butler arranges flowers. Algy asks, "Did you hear what I was playing, Lane?" Lane replies, "I didn't think it polite to listen, sir." And there you have it.

Smart lad to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.

A-theism is as much a religion as religion

Why else place a label on yourself.

A-theism is as much a religion as religion

Religions have set creeds and dogmas. Atheism has none.

Unbelief is a way of thinking. Not an an organized\structured belief system.

If everyone in the world were atheists there would be no name for it.

It's kind of like trying to define quietness without referencing sound.

As long as there is sound we must have a definition for quietness, and we must include the word "sound" in that definition.

The word "atheism" means literally "without-theism" or without theology.

Anyone who comments "A-theism is as much a religion as religion", lacks an understanding of the English language. Such a statement would be akin to declaring that "quietness is the same as sound".

I've come to think Atheism is a religion as well and it certainly does have a doctrine.

Reason over faith.

Must be proveable in some scientific, measurable, demonstrable way

There is no God.

These are three tenets of their faith. There are probably more but these are off the top of my head.

I've come to think Atheism is a religion as well and it certainly does have a doctrine.

Please show me the religious text you would call an "Atheist Bible".

Where are these supposed doctrines listed?

Who wrote these tenets?

At what council were these tenets agreed upon so as to encompass the (un)beliefs of all atheists?

Are there varying denominations of atheists?

Here is a good Hitchens quote that many Newviners can put into practice everyday:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Please show me the religious text you would call an "Atheist Bible".

Mostly it seems to be more of an oral tradition so far, however, like krounded who posted after you shows, atheists are fond of quoting Hitchens, Dawkins and other Atheist writings in the same way Christians quote the bible. He even describes it as something to practice every day.

Where are these supposed doctrines listed?

They're easily found in the postings of Atheists right here in Newsvine. We only have to listen to what you say to know what you believe in. You can also hear them in Youtube postings of Atheist speeches and in books by atheist writers.

Who wrote these tenets?

Already answered above.

At what council were these tenets agreed upon so as to encompass the (un)beliefs of all atheists?

Because Atheism is not that structured (yet) doesn't mean anything. All it takes is a belief in unprovable things that is accepted by a group of people, such as Atheism.

Are there varying denominations of atheists?

No two people are the same, let alone millions so probably.

like krounded who posted after you shows, atheists are fond of quoting Hitchens, Dawkins and other Atheist writings in the same way Christians quote the bible. He even describes it as something to practice every day.

Who said I was an atheist? You better look at #2.1 & #8.

My views on God are certainly not traditional, but also not dismissive.

The quote is a good one and is certainly not confined to religion.

...atheists are fond of quoting Hitchens, Dawkins and other Atheist writings in the same way Christians quote the bible.

The difference being such quotes are based upon logic and reason as opposed to superstition and fairy tales. So shared logic and reason is now a religion?

They're easily found in the postings of Atheists right here in Newsvine.

So various postings equate to a doctrine? Not really. There needs to be a foundational authority and controlled organization for it to be a organizational dogma\doctrine.

Because Atheism is not that structured (yet) doesn't mean anything.

Of course it does. Especially since you made the comparison to organized religion.

...so probably.

Then which denomination is Dawkins? Or Harris? Or Dennet? Or Robert Price?

Krounded,

My apologies, then.

As for the quote, it sounds good, I'll give you that. Whether it is true or not might depend on how it's used.

Thank you Drakkonis.

I didn't mean it in a purely religious way (although some would certainly apply it as such).

It's just something that makes sense most of the time.

The difference being such quotes are based upon logic and reason as opposed to superstition and fairy tales. So shared logic and reason is now a religion?

Yes, when based upon unsupportable, unprovable assumptions, such as religion being fairy tales and superstition. Specifically, Christianity. To be honest, I also believe most religion in the world is superstition and fairytales, but not completely. I think man has always known God exists and it was their attempt to define Him but missed the mark. Christianity has it the other way round. God explaining who He is to us rather than us trying to describe Him.

In any case, what makes Hitchen's use of his own quote useless is that although there is proof, it isn't the kind he was willing to accept. He wanted physical, measurable proof while the proof God offers is spiritual for the most part. Even the physical proofs He provides today have to be accepted spiritually, such as miricles.

In the end, the biggest example of Atheism being based on faith is the statement that God doesn't exist, which is as provable as stating He does, scientifically speaking. And don't give me that Hitchens allowed that God could possibly exist. It's obvious it was just a sop to the science of probability, not something he actually believed.

So various postings equate to a doctrine? Not really. There needs to be a foundational authority and controlled organization for it to be a organizational dogma\doctrine.

Thus you believe. For me, it is enough that these ideas are consistently refered to by Atheists. They are obviously something they believe in. Your demand that it has to fit within this narrowly defined box is exactly the sort of thing Atheists do in order to make their position tenable.

Of course it does. Especially since you made the comparison to organized religion.

No I didn't. That is something you keep insisting on. That for Atheism to be considered a religion it must mirror Catholicism or something equally organized. Wiccans are fond of saying that there is nothing organized about their religion. There has been no grand wiccan council to codify wicca. Yet it is considered a religion. If you want to compare it to some other religion, then wicca's your man.

Then which denomination is Dawkins? Or Harris? Or Dennet? Or Robert Price?

Loosly, their denomination would be the extent in which they differed on certain points with their fellows. That is all a denomination is, after all.

They're easily found in the postings of Atheists right here in Newsvine.

Drakkonis,
I'm an Atheist.
Show me where my postings support your claim, if you can.

Abby,

I decline. I'm not familiar with your postings and I know not all Atheists are identical. Instead, why don't you tell me what it means to be Atheist to you? That is, what makes you an Atheist?

Quite simply, a lack of belief.
Not a religious determination against a god.
Atheism for me is not a religion, nor is it anti-religion.
Just a lack of belief.
I don't go around insisting to all & sundry that god doesn't exist.
That would be disrespectful to those that do believe.
I think that a person's faith, or lack thereof, is a personal thing, & should be respected as such.

I think man has always known God exists and it was their attempt to define Him but missed the mark.

Incorrect. A child born and placed upon a desert island will have no concept of any "god". Gods are inventions of man to explain the "unexplainable". Later, the concept was used to promote morals and beneficial human interaction.

...there is proof, it isn't the kind he was willing to accept.

There is not a single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence for any god. Proof is not subjective regardless of your implication.

...while the proof God offers is spiritual for the most part. Even the physical proofs He provides today have to be accepted spiritually, such as miricles.

God does not offer any proofs...regardless of wishful thinking.

"Accept proofs spiritually" is simply a euphemism for believing the self-induced hormone release in the brain associated with spiritual thoughts and worship is some kind of factual affirmation of existence. It is NOT.

"Miracles" is simply a word used by the uneducated to explain events that they do not understand or events\happenings that have not been scientifically explained.

Raise the dead? Water into wine? Walking upon water? Fairy tales unworthy of belief in an advanced, educated and enlightened society.

...the biggest example of Atheism being based on faith is the statement that God doesn't exist, which is as provable as stating He does, scientifically speaking

Again incorrect. You are confusing the use\definition of the term faith. In regards to god belief it refers to "belief without proof"...not "trusting in". You cannot speak of faith in scientific terms.

As for "scientifically speaking", you should know that you cannot prove a negative. But proving a positive is possible and yet there has not been a shred of evidence for a god since the beginning of mankind.

They are obviously something they believe in.

People mutually believe in a lot of things and that does not make it a religion. Most people believe the earth orbits the sun and will say so...that does not make it a religion. For some unknown reason you cling to the thought process of unbelief as a religion. Do you understand the difference between unbelief and non-belief?

Atheists deny the existence of any god, which isn't the same thing as believing in the non-existence of something, but what I think you have (at least in your own mind) built a false equivalency here.

Theists have faith in the existence of a god where faith is defined as belief without reason. Atheists deny such existence because of that lack of reason. They are not equivalent views on opposite sides, they are diametrically opposed.

Wiccans are fond of saying that there is nothing organized about their religion.

What they are fond of, regardless of your claims, and what is reality are two different things. My wife is Wiccan and we have shelves full books presenting facts, traditions and organization of the non traditional religion. So her spiritual beliefs do not a religion make but yours do? Untenable.

Abby,

Quite simply, a lack of belief.

A lack of belief in or about what? I mean, it's a bit vague. Lots of people have a lack of belief in Obama but it doesn't mean they don't think he exists. Or are you simply saying that you believe God doesn't exist the other way around to avoid phrasing it as you believe?

Not a religious determination against a god.
Atheism for me is not a religion, nor is it anti-religion.
Just a lack of belief.

I understand you are speaking for yourself. Nor am I insisting you recognize Atheism as a religion if you do not wish to. I am expressing my opinion that it seems like one to me, especially when Atheists go after religion the way they do. Of course, I don't mean all Atheists attack religion, but the ones who do seem to do it religiously.

I don't go around insisting to all & sundry that god doesn't exist.
That would be disrespectful to those that do believe.

And I give you thanks for that. I do not go around insisting to all & sundry that God does exist. I respect your right not to believe in the existence of God although I admit it saddens me as my "delusion" or whatever, more polite word you might use, saddens you perhaps. But still, I don't think badly of you.

I think that a person's faith, or lack thereof, is a personal thing, & should be respected as such.

I agree. And to my knowledge I have not disrespected anyone for their beliefs, although I may have for their behavior. I'm only human : )

Incorrect. A child born and placed upon a desert island will have no concept of any "god". Gods are inventions of man to explain the "unexplainable". Later, the concept was used to promote morals and beneficial human interaction.

No offense intented, Bluearcher, but I don't think you gave this one a lot of thought. First, you speak as if this experiment has been conducted. Second, it implies the child is alone, meaning that there is no one there to explain the "unexplainable" that will most certainly be a part of his life. For instance, what is wind? Where does it come from. What are those bright points of light in the night sky?

You claim gods are an invention to explain the unexplainable. If so, it is a lot more likely that the child will develop the concept of god or gods, no matter how vague, than not. Add more children and I believe it's almost certain.

There is not a single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence for any god. Proof is not subjective regardless of your implication.

Which only serves to validate my point. Scientifically verifiable evidence is a tenet of the Atheist religion and is nothing more than an Atheist self-imposed restrictions on what they will consider. It completely ignores the spiritual side of being human.

...while the proof God offers is spiritual for the most part. Even the physical proofs He provides today have to be accepted spiritually, such as miricles.

God does not offer any proofs...regardless of wishful thinking.

Well, a bit lacking in reasoning but it's an opinion at least.

Again incorrect. You are confusing the use\definition of the term faith. In regards to god belief it refers to "belief without proof"...not "trusting in". You cannot speak of faith in scientific terms.

And I suggest it is you who are confused about the use of the word "faith" concerning God. Trusting in God is most certainly an aspect of faith in God. One cannot read, understand or apply the concepts contained in the Bible without applying faith that is defined as "trusting in".

As for speaking of faith in scientific terms, I probably agree with you. I haven't really given it a lot of thought. But speaking of faith in scientific terms was not the point. The point was that declairing that there is no God is not scientific and therefore is a position accepted on faith.

As for "scientifically speaking", you should know that you cannot prove a negative.

Actually, I've done a search on the idea "you cannot prove a negative" and most of the sites I visited say it's not really true. Try it and make up your own mind on that.

But proving a positive is possible and yet there has not been a shred of evidence for a god since the beginning of mankind.

Well, none that you will accept, anyway.

I feel there is plenty of proof, most of it contained in the bible. But you look at the bible differently than I do. You look at it for things you can scientifically examine or verify. There have been thousands of verified facts in the bible. In fact, as I understand it, the bible is one of the best archaological tools for studying that region of the world and it's history. But what seems most important to you is the areas where there seems to be disconnects. Things that don't seem to be true or whatever.

In my case, not a lot about those things really matter to me except concepts like what were people like in those days. What did they think. What did they take for granted and so on because it helps me understand what is truly important in the bible.

I see the bible as not a historical document but an up to date description of the human condition. It is an explanation of why we are the way we are and why we do what we do. More importantly it explains what we were meant to be. People of your beliefs seem to ignore that aspect of the bible as unimportant when it is the entire point. It is an examination and explanation of the spiritual condition of man.

Wiccans are fond of saying that there is nothing organized about their religion.

What they are fond of, regardless of your claims, and what is reality are two different things. My wife is Wiccan and we have shelves full books presenting facts, traditions and organization of the non traditional religion.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing here? Seems like it but maybe being married to a wiccan gives you a different perspective. When I say wiccans aren't organized, thats straight from what wiccans themselves tell me. They are as organized as, and independant as cats. If this isn't true, then maybe the problem lies with what wiccans tell me about themselves.

So her spiritual beliefs do not a religion make but yours do? Untenable.

Yes, it isn untenable, but these are your words, not mine.

Or are you simply saying that you believe God doesn't exist the other way around to avoid phrasing it as you believe?

I'm not avoiding anything.
I simply lack the belief in a god, that's all.

ok, I accept that. (not that my acceptance is likely significant to you : )

Thankyou, Drakkonis.
(I do appreciate it, actually)
:)