What do Atheists actually want?

[The Caped Cod]

You see that's kinda what I was beginning to think. Someone once said about debate, that it is good, because we might learn more about the other side and sometimes this makes the "other sides" position even less appealing.

In fact when it comes to Atheism as expressed on this site I can readily say that where I was neutral toward it to start, I now like it even less.

It doesn't have anything to offer as far as I can see other than taking shots at what is already there. It is a void. It builds nothing. It has no central values and it assumes that the Common Good is achieved through neutrality on the same good.

It as taking a shot a Forty Coats because of his behaviour on another thread. I would however ask you to read your bullet points in the OP. you opened this thread to mock and insult atheists, and go on ahead if you like, but as in every other discussion of this nature, the christians always end up loooking worse.

1. World domination
2. Re-runs of "Glenroe"
3. Independence for Leitrim
4. Jackie Healy Rae for EU President

So this is what you bring to the debate

[Tony_1975]

Nope. Now surely there is more to Atheism that this. It's a good start though.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that atheism is some kind of life philosophy. It's not. It's simply the lack of belief in any gods (same as you, except go one god further). After that, all atheists are different.

[Toland]

You see that's kinda what I was beginning to think. Someone once said about debate, that it is good, because we might learn more about the other side and sometimes this makes the "other sides" position even less appealing.

In fact when it comes to Atheism as expressed on this site I can readily say that where I was neutral toward it to start, I now like it even less.

It doesn't have anything to offer as far as I can see other than taking shots at what is already there. It is a void. It builds nothing. It has no central values and it assumes that the Common Good is achieved through neutrality on the same good.

The mistake is seeing atheism as something at all. It's not a set of coherent or incoherent beliefs. It is simply the lack of belief in anything that can sensibly called 'god'.

Atheism wants and builds nothing. Individual atheists want and build and pull down and are passionate about things, but don't define themselves by their atheism.

For instance, this particular atheist sees it as important to reduce the power of the catholic church in Ireland and elsewhere. Other atheists (probably a majority) couldn't give a flying fig about he power of the catholic church.

We have even less in common politically, ideologically and philosophically with each other than the variety of people that call themselves christians have. You'd probably sympathise with some atheists (perhaps, for example, Michael Ruse's religioius politics and philosophy would be to your taste, despite his clearly stated lack of belief in any god. Richard Dawkins would probably not be in this category (Michael Ruse also has a deep -- and imo deeply misguided -- distaste for him).

Closer to home, we've already established that you don't like what I have to say but it is very possible that you find Clanrickard's professed atheism far less offensive.

[A Voice]

Such as ?

Ah, you know. Stuff about coffee, Miss World, or questions/assertions back about Sharia law.

Cato talks more about Atheism but the question mentions Atheists. Assuming that it is people who will bring Atheism to the masses, what is it that these people want to do, want to happen. Other than assert that there is no evidence for God or talk about content.

[Andrew49]

You see that's kinda what I was beginning to think. Someone once said about debate, that it is good, because we might learn more about the other side and sometimes this makes the "other sides" position even less appealing.

In fact when it comes to Atheism as expressed on this site I can readily say that where I was neutral toward it to start, I now like it even less.

It doesn't have anything to offer as far as I can see other than taking shots at what is already there. It is a void. It builds nothing. It has no central values and it assumes that the Common Good is achieved through neutrality on the same good.

[Foghorn]

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that atheism is some kind of life philosophy. It's not. It's simply the lack of belief in any gods (same as you, except go one god further). After that, all atheists are different.

Tony,

That's exactly one of my concerns. Atheism is not a life philosophy. And as a political set of values it can assure us of nothing. Atheism is can only react against religion.

It can tear down certain parts of Society as they are right now. But it can make no promises as to what Society will be like after it does so. And it can open the door to things I have listed before -

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Eugenics
4. Designer Babies
5. Cloning
6. Cloning for organ harvesting

It's a little bit like a Reform party that doesn't like what it sees, can make meanignful promises about the future and doesn't have a manifesto of its own.

[The Caped Cod]

Ah, you know. Stuff about coffee, Miss World, or questions/assertions back about Sharia law.

Cato talks more about Atheism but the question mentions Atheists. Assuming that it is people who will bring Atheism to the masses, what is it that these people want to do, want to happen. Other than assert that there is no evidence for God or talk about content.

So contibute then. Let's see yourbullet points, if you can put serious ones up, I'll respond. The OP was just provocation.

[Gimpanzee]

Of course Atheism builds nothing. Thats what the 'A' indicates.

I'm more agnostic that atheist, but either way I'd say that in general they want a more secular society. Personally I want:

No legislation based or influenced by religion

No religion in the vast majority of schools

No daft prayers or religious superstition at the start of the Dáil, or other state or social organisations (GAA clubs etc...)

No tax or other exemptions for the Churches

I like the Angelus.

[Foghorn]

The mistake is seeing atheism as something at all. It's not a set of coherent or incoherent beliefs. It is simply the lack of belief in anything that can sensibly called 'god'.

Atheism wants and builds nothing. Individual atheists want and build and pull down and are passionate about things, but don't define themselves by their atheism.

For instance, this particular atheist sees it as important to reduce the power of the catholic church in Ireland and elsewhere. Other atheists (probably a majority) couldn't give a flying fig about he power of the catholic church.

We have even less in common politically, ideologically and philosophically with each other than the variety of people that call themselves christians have. You'd probably sympathise with some atheists (perhaps, for example, Michael Ruse's religioius politics and philosophy would be to your taste, despite his clearly stated lack of belief in any god. Richard Dawkins would probably not be in this category (Michael Ruse also has a deep -- and imo deeply misguided -- distaste for him).

Closer to home, we've already established that you don't like what I have to say but it is very possible that you find Clanrickard's professed atheism far less offensive.

Appreciate what you are saying but its not exactly a manifesto. You could stand on it electorally but you couldn't make any real promises.

And in my opinion it pre-supposes a lot about Human Nature that is not borne ouy by History.

What is it that has all of a sudden made us inherently good? There is a prevailing logic amongst some, present company excepted, that if you take away values that it makes people and Society better in some. I don't ascribe that to anyone here.

[Gimpanzee]

And it can open the door to things I have listed before -

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Eugenics
4. Designer Babies
5. Cloning
6. Cloning for organ harvesting

That's just mental. You are not removing the values -these are not in anyway the exclusive of religion. Instead of not going down these routes because you'll burn in hell for all eternity, people just have to realise they aren't going down those routes because they decide not to.