George, you spoiled a good punch combination by leaving your jaw horribly exposed.

>>Atheism is not a a replacement for religion but rather the absence of traditional religion.<<

This is something I have been trying to explain to Mr Nicholls for some considerable time. There is simply no need to create a cult around atheism, complete with its calls to the faithful, feel-good assemblies (I still can't get past that "the atmosphere was filled by a powerfully exquisite joy" description of the Convention) and insistence upon conformity.

But I have to take issue with this casual barb.

>>The Communist version of atheism, as a would-be viable replacement of Christianity, collapsed in 72 years. Probably even more so with this “ideology-free” version of atheism<<

Communism was absolutely not a "version of atheism". Communism was a system of centralized control over a people and an economy, based on the notion of collectivism.

(Although much of its - admittedly theoretical - abhorrence of the accumulation of personal wealth does have a distinctively Jesus-like ring to it, does it not?)

But the absence of religion within the system was simply a means to reinforce the centralization of power, having particular regard to the global power wielded by the Roman Catholic church. Or, in the case of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox church. Henry VIII had similar concerns about the Pope's influence on his people, although his response was slightly different.

You also contradict yourself a little by describing Mr Nicholls' version of atheism as "ideology-free". Atheism is at base an ideology, given the generally accepted definition of an ideology as "a manner or the content of thinking, characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". Its common "thinking characteristic" is the acceptance that God does not exist. While I personally object to Mr Nicholls taking this characteristic and turning it into a "powerfully exquisite joy", it is stretching the language too far to label atheism in general as lacking ideology.

Pericles,

You are definitely good chuckling material. “…cult around atheism…” You mean that if atheists get together and enjoy religion-free company and hear from some of the best critical-thinkers that humanity has produced then that is cultish. Yeah, of course it is? I know of a sceptics group which does the same thing and yes, they are a cult as well. Please spare me such babble.

The general meaning of ideology that is accepted by most errrr rational people is somewhat more than one consistent thought, in this case the lack of a god in one’s life. This again, is a rational conclusion and not an ideology plucked out of the many in existence.

By your ‘logic’, all people who are sceptics in preference to being non-sceptics follow an ideology. Most of them have the common thought that woo is stupid.

Maybe you should explain what other parts of the ‘atheist ideology’ is a common factor. And to bring up the reasonably shared objections to the bad parts of religion, well that just rationality and nothing to do with ideology.

Using the word ideology in regard to atheism is done in the pejorative and maybe you could explain why you do that.

It is about time you dropped your antagonism to people with a good idea. It has always shown a poor side of your character but persistence continuing erroneously with it demonstrates that being right is all that matters to you. Not a good look.

On the brighter side, hopefully, the High Court Challenge decision will be out today at 10:15 AM EST. And another interesting happening is the release (Thursday) of some of the Census data re the No-Religion demographic stance and whether it has changed substantially from 2006.

We live in exciting, albeit busy, times.

David

I just lurrve the way you go around wagging your finger at me, Mr Nicholls. It is positively heart-warming and life-affirming to be scolded by someone of your stature.

Now, where were we. Ah, yes.

>>It is about time you dropped your antagonism to people with a good idea. It has always shown a poor side of your character but persistence continuing erroneously with it demonstrates that being right is all that matters to you. Not a good look.<<

The assumptions you make are classic Nicholls-isms.

You assume I have antagonism to people with a good idea, which I most certainly do not. I am all in favour of them, wherever I find them.

The second that yours is a "good idea". We differ on that point, obviously.

And finally, that my criticism of you is erroneous, and somehow demonstrates a lack of character on my part.

An interesting assessment. What sort of criticism of you would you not regard as erroneous, do you think?

You see what I mean by "classic Nicholls-isms"?

Oh.

Perhaps you don't. Never mind.

As far as labelling your acolytes a "cult" is concerned, it's all down to that duck. Any gathering that describes its impact on its attendees as generating "powerfully exquisite joy", quacks like a duck to me. Any meeting that creates in its audience "feelings varying from elation to euphoria" is powerfully, exquisitely duck-like in my book.

But that's not really the point, is it. You are clearly extremely sensitive to any suggestion that your ideas may be challenged, and that your vision of what "real atheists" may not be the one we should all strive for.

And I'm sure that you have some very good friends, who are not at all of poor character, who tell you - frequently - that you are absolutely wonderful.

May your afterglow forever burn brightly.

David,

You asked a question and I tried to answer it in the sense that I don’t know what the outcome will be, good or bad, because it will take decades before we could tell. If you know better, that’s fair enough, I do not want to contradict you since I only know arguments for and against. Especially, please do not expect me to counter your self-assuredness with a runner-like self-assuredness.

If Dawkins does not want to suppress something that, according to his words, is worse than sexual abuse of minors, then what did he mean by that? (c.f. “Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children … they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place” in http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/richard-dawkins/CatholicismDubliner.php).

Pericles,
>>Communism was absolutely not a "version of atheism”<<
In spite of your quotation marks, I never said that. Using the expression “King James version of the Bible” is not the same as claiming that the poor King James WAS a version of the Bible. He is used as an adjective just to distinguish the particular translations from other translations, the same as I used the adjective “Communist” to distinguish a version of atheism from another one, that David prefers.

>>You also contradict yourself a little by describing Mr Nicholls' version of atheism as "ideology-free". Atheism is at base an ideology<<
Again, I used the "ideology-free" adjective to refer to David’s version mentioned above, since he himself wrote

“… atheism today … has no ideological baggage with it and it is not a part of other ideological baggage”

So it is you and David who contradict each other, not I. I replied to David, so I took his understanding of atheism.

David and Pericles,
Thank you for lecturing me about what Communist praxis (in distinction to the corresponding utopia) - that I had to live through for twenty plus years - was alike.

I think I shall just keep on following (I almost wrote “enjoying”) the dispute between you two.

Pericles,

No finger waving this end. It’s hardly necessary.

I’m sure you think you are making intelligent comment and I’m certain your assessment of me and my acolytes *he he he* is accurate and most assuredly you consider your words are all dripping with pure gold but unfortunately, I can’t see any of that. I’ve tried, I really tried; I really have.

You do seem incapable of handling a cogent conversation without trying to show you are a superior being with a lot of balls & penis waving but you ain’t much good at that either.

Normally I’d put you back on the list but amusing self-aggrandising witlessness without a purpose somehow traps me every time. Not sure if that’s just me. Some would venture to say I’m easily amused. Could be true as I quite like the three stooges and have even been known to appreciate just one at a time. Oh, oops - now I see… It’s the nonsensical repetition of my harmless words that gets me in. :)

Possibly better to let you have your little hissy-spits about nothing and I’ll just enjoy the entertainment. Replying to you is a time waster but reading your stuff doesn’t take long at all. And it makes me think that I do so fervently wish there was a god though. I have a lot to thank her/him/it for.

Nearly forgot, I don’t think you’re striving for anything beyond satisfying your ego except maybe trying to enhance your abysmal duck recognition skills. They certainly need a lot of work.

And it would be a very good idea to answer germane comment I make. But, of course, you can’t. I do understand the predicament. It’s all about resumes, isn’t it and what looks good on yours.

There…there. (Sheldonishly said :))

David

George,

I suppose you realise that you have admitted you cannot find any worrisome faults with those proposing atheism as a way of looking at reality. You say ten years may show signs not wanted by society but it has already been going on in its present form for at least that long and many decades before that similarly.

I’m sorry but the connection between the statement by Richard Dawkins and anything dangerous or even indicating a problem for others is not jumping out and grabbing me. If you went further down the page you would have read why Dawkins said that. I’m not justifying what he said or condemning it. There is a whole lot of truth in there if it is as it is stated.

I know you want me to be like runner, but you realise that I am not.

I see no productive reason for us to continue nor do I wish upon you anymore stress than you have already been through. Let’s leave it as it is - are my thoughts.

David