Pericles,

I really do not know how to put it clearer: there are atheist belief systems (or collections of beliefs, if you prefer) and world views (note the plural) adhered to by atheists (one of them is apparently explicitly described by Russell in his “What I believe”), but there is NO belief system or world view that could be called THE atheist belief system/collection or world view. Like there are European languages spoken by Europeans but there is NO language that could be called THE European language. Or if you speak of brown horses, the adjective is there just to distinguish a class of horses from among many others. I really do not see where you saw the difficulty.

>>Proselytising atheism-in-general contributes nothing,<<

Contributes noting to what? Absence of belief in a Divine as such contributes indeed nothing to how we feel about ourselves the world we perceive or how we can better understand it and act morally. Did you have that in mind? I thought that was rather the position of the opposite proselytizers.

>>while proselytising the atheism of Pol Pot might encounter some cultural resistance.<<

I don’t think anybody here would endorse proselytizing the atheism of Pol Pot or Islam as (mis)understood by islamic terrorists or Christianity as (mis)understood by the Inquisition.

As for proselytising atheism-in-general, if I understand what you mean, is simply proselytizing or advertising the advantages of the absence of belief in the Divine. You either approve of that, but then you must assign the same rights to those who want to proselytize belief in the Divine. Or deny the rights to proselytize to both equally. Unless you want to drive religion underground, as I mentioned in an earlier post

That certainly clarifies your position, George. Which means that I can now confidently disagree with your premise, safe in the knowledge that I have understood it.

>>...there are atheist belief systems (or collections of beliefs, if you prefer) and world views (note the plural) adhered to by atheists (one of them is apparently explicitly described by Russell in his “What I believe”)<<

“What I believe” explains Russell's personal philosophy, that contains his conviction that there is no God. But there is no "belief system", or even "collection of beliefs", that can be described as "Russellism", or "Russellianity".

Similarly, my own belief system - which contains Russellianity only in the sense that I am also an atheist - cannot be described as "Periclesianity", and has no followers, no disciples, no preachers, no churches, no hierarchy and no "bible".

Let me take a look at it from another angle.

Let us assume for a moment that the ethos by which I live is indistinguishable from that of Christianity, with the sole exception that i) I don't believe in God and ii) don't accept that Jesus is my saviour, or whatever the appropriate words may be. My belief system includes atheism, just as Russell's does. With no discernible difference in the way I conduct my life (we are talking hypothetically here, I can assure you) is my "worldview" Christian or Atheist?

>>You either approve of that, but then you must assign the same rights to those who want to proselytize belief in the Divine.<<

I thought I had covered that. I see absolutely no value or benefit whatsoever in proselytizing atheism, which is why I would tend to discourage Susan Jacoby from her desire to do so. My reading of her article suggests that her intentions are more along the lines of telling Christians to htfu, and not lean upon a non-existent deity to "get them through", or grant their requests, or forgive their sins.

It is exactly the same for "proselytizing for the Divine", as you call it. Both can be can be harmful in some situations, and completely benign in others.

Dear George,

Did your specialist cold call claim you ill without examining you? Or claim your children were sick from the day they were born, again without ever seeing them? People can seek the comforts of a faith as long as it is their choice. There is a sense that much of the proselyting done by all sides involves first dumping the bucket of mud on a person's head then offering to show them how to get clean.

I have been reflecting on the story of the Belgian twins who were euthanased last month.

“The two men, 45, from the Antwerp region were both born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding that they would also soon go blind.
The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again. The twin brothers had spent their entire lives together, sharing a flat and both working as cobblers.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/two-deaf-twins-in-belgium-allowed-to-die-in-unique-euthanasia-case-2013-1#ixzz2I7LrsyZF

The doctor presiding the deaths said “They were very happy. It was a relief to see the end of their suffering,” … “They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation. The the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.”

Wow!

It drew thoughts of Saul's death “The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me." But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him.”

All the deaths sought dignity. My interpretation is that God revealed in the OT would condemn none.

The above are mere musings so don't feel you have to respond.

Dear Pericles,

I must pick you up on one point.

No one can walk with the throng of other adherents from Flinders Street toward the G with its halo of light and the flocks of seagulls wheeling around on a magical September finals night and not know it is a religious experience, often a quite deep one. The atmosphere is tribal, it is hopeful, it sings with expectation and it is reverential.

No one is an atheist on those nights.

Pericles,

OK, so you do not like the adjective “atheist” to refer to personal beliefs (though I do not see how a belief could be impersonal), systematized or not, held by an atheist. And Russell should have called his book not “What I believe” but “What is my personal philosophy”. Or you do not like the word “belief” when referring to non-religious convictions, like runner does not like the word “conviction” when referring to convictions he does not agree with.

Whichever it is, I do not see any point in continuing in this nit-picking about proper terminology. I respect your point of view, as you can see from my original post to pelican (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153188), where I wrote “you use the term ‘belief system’, that is OK with me, however some atheists seem to claim they do not have a belief system”.

Thanks for the clear position as to who should proselytize. I would have guessed it having followed your recent debate with David (of AFoA).

Dear csteele,

>>The above are mere musings so don't feel you have to respond.<<
So I don’t respond, nevertheless I read your “musings” with interest. If I did continue, I would have to further explain what I meant when I wrote that we two look at these matters from different angles, not necessarily mutually opposite. That would not be easy, so, indeed, let us leave it at that.