Spreading Atheism

[AcacianLeaves]

The problem is that painting 'there is probably no God' is almost the same as printing 'Atheists are going to Hell'. It's a direct attack on Theists, rather than an expression of a belief or lack of belief. It's not so much promoting Atheism as it is deriding Theism.

Atheism is as much a religion as any other belief system, no matter how much atheists try to argue the 'non belief is not belief' idea. Atheism still has a shared idea of an ultimate truth dealing with the metaphysical nature of the human soul. It may be a different kind of religion than Christianity, but it's still a religious belief system. There are many religions on Earth that don't believe in a creator God, Atheism is just one concept of such a belief and is often ill-defined. I've had Atheists tell me that Atheism is the lack of the belief in anything metaphysical (the soul, the afterlife, God, Gods, Supernatural beings, etc), and others tell me that it is simply the lack of a belief in a creator God (but not necessarily the idea of a supreme being).

Look the bottom line is that Atheists are still a small, fringe group in the world. Promoting Atheism by attacking people's beliefs is not the right way towards tolerance and acceptance of Atheism as a mainstream belief system. Should they be allowed to paint "There is probably no God" on the cannon? Sure, but it's only going to get them negative attention and not mainstream acceptance. Also, adding the modifier 'probably' is more of an agnostic philosophy anyway...

 

[jamesworkshop]

"Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."

Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

Religion
A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.[1] Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, but more generally is interwoven with society and politics.

It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

Its a gigantic stretch to call Atheism a religion with its complete lack of structure and half the thing considered to be covered under atheism really belong to secularism of which sure most atheist are secularists at the same time but the two are not the same

 

[Gubbinz]

Atheism is no more a religion than not believing in the Tooth Fairy is.

Atheism is no more a belief system than not believing in Sasquatch is.

Not all Atheists are Agnostics, but all Agnostics are Atheists. (You can't not know if there's a God, and believe in one at the same time.)

 

[Brett Alex]

The problem is that painting 'there is probably no God' is almost the same as printing 'Atheists are going to Hell'. It's a direct attack on Theists, rather than an expression of a belief or lack of belief. It's not so much promoting Atheism as it is deriding Theism.

Its not really. It's more like painting "Jesus died for your Sins so you could live" on a cannon. Or even "Jesus Saves". Implicit in the statement that "belief in Jesus will save you from the fires of eternal damnation and pain" is also "Not believing in Jesus means you won't be spared".

Implicit in the statement, "There is probably no God" is also "Chances are god doesn't exist, so all you christians who do believe are wasting your time. Well done cuz".

Yes, "There is probably no God" can be offensive, but its prettied up offensiveness. In the same way that "Jesus Saves" is prettied up offensiveness. Neither of them are that bad, but they're at least equally as bad as each other.

 

[Biosophilogical]

AHA!!! I love humanity, it panders so well to my love of hypocrisy ... which i hate having used against me ... YAY HYPOCRISY!!! But at any rate, bias and hypocrisy are common parts of life. Try something for me, go beat up a black guy for no reason and see if you get charged with a hate crime, next beat up a white guy and see if you don't. Even if the motivation is the same, people will always be overly sensitive to these kinds of things.

Spoiler: condensed version of OP

... On campus we have an old war cannon ... So one morning we woke up to see the following message on the cannon, "There is probably no God".

This seems fine to me but apparently the school did not think so and while there are no official rules regarding what can be painted on the cannon they were made to paint over it ... we have an organization on campus called "Campus for Christ" and they are allowed to *do religion promoting activities* but the Atheist society is not allowed to broadcast their message for one day?

I think that this is a double-standard ... and that the Atheists should be allowed to spread the word about their "religion" ... is Atheism a religion, and should they be allowed to spread their message in any manner they please?

Seeing as you go to the university (college?), you could always approach those responsible for painting over it as to why they did. At least that way you would either
a) Let them promote Athieism some more OR
b) Figure out if their actions are religous bias OR
c) If they did it for the other students' bias OR
d)*insert some other possible outcome that I cannot think of*

 

[Biosophilogical]

Why would you spread a lack of belief in something? That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever - it is simply a definition. Therefore, no, there shouldn't be any groups that "spread Atheism", because that's just stupid. You know how you often see environmental activist groups around College or University campuses? Well, would it make any sense if you saw a similar group who was spreading a message of complete and utter apathy towards the environment? No, because that would be fucking retarded.

That being said, I do agree that there is a double-standard in allowing religious groups to spread their message, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't see the problem in letting them hand out their bibles or put up their posters. You don't have to believe in God, just as you don't have to care about the environment if some hippy activist gives you a pamphlet about the poor polar bears. Just throw it away, or ignore it. It's simple.

Actually it makes perfect sense, if someone can be allowed to try and convert people to believing in a higher power which is intimately interested in our day-to-day lives and problems then why can't someone try and convert people to believing that we are not here on this earth because some guy in the clouds wanted us here??? After all, Athieism isn't so much a non-belief system, as it is a belief system pertaining to the non-existance of something (in this case a God of some sort).

EDIT: BTW OP, awesome BuckyBall avatar.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The Christian Union at my uni had a debate on abortion going on and they put up a heap of posters around the campus showing a baby being cradled in some persons arms. They got pulled down for inflammatory material, so it works both ways here. You've just got to be careful with religion, it's a touchy subject at the best of times.

 

[Nickolai77]

I would define athiesm as a type of philosophy, rather than a "non-religion", a term which i don't think makes much sense. (e.g- think of a "non-vegatable" for instance, what is that?

I see no reason why philosophical societys can not advertise themselves around campus, be it it a Ultatarian Society or a Neo-Plantonic society or whatever, a humanist or athiest philsophy society is no different. Perhaps if the Athiest society in the OP's campus re-branded themselves as a "humanist" society, they could probably still advertise.

Finally, yes i agree too that the university authorities have a double standard, you just have to find ways to get round their hypocrisy.

 

[T-Bone24]

Atheists worship Athe the god of nothing and must be stopped. If Athe is allowed to run rampant it will eat all the other gods and eventually the universe.

FOOL! You claim to understand us, but not our God, the great Atheismo!

 

[Richard Eis]

Atheism is not a religion for exactly the same reason why not-collecting stamps is not a hobby.

-Back in january, an Atheist group in Britain paid to have "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life" stuck on a load of buses and underground stations.-

This graffiti probably references this poster campaign. The probably is because you have to have truth in advertising and you can't prove a negative. Atheists are not hedging their bets. They are being truthful. "probably" does have a positive slant to it though.

 

[The_Echo]

Atheism is a religious view, not a religion.

And they are not an exception to free speach, so yes, they should be able to spread their message.

 

[Amnestic]

First off, paragraphs are your friend. Walls of text are not.

is Atheism a religion, and should they be allowed to spread their message in any manner they please?

1) By definition, probably not. A true religion involves a divine being or higher power, generally (though not necessarily) one who created the universe. Atheism, by contrast, denies the existence of a higher power, and is thus probably not a religion.
(bonus note: Buddha never intended his teachings to be a religion, nor for himself to be a deity. True Buddhism is probably not a religion either).

2)No, in the same way that Religions should not be able to advertise however the hell they want. Both need some regulation on how they can spread their message. I'd say the cannon is fair game though.

Dude, religion is basically a set of philosophies with the purpose of offering guidance and comfort in life. That's why Buddhism is considered a religion, and there is no reason people can't look up to Buddha just because he's not a god. He still fills the same role as one in "his" religion by being the figurehead and granting inspiration, and other fancy words.

Atheism basically tells you that you should not worship any deity, or that deities do not exist. That's sounds like a philosophy to me.

So what's a "True" religion? :S

The difference is likely under the "purpose of offering guidance and comfort in life." There is nothing to link one Atheist to another besides their lack of belief in a God. Religious people have rules, philosophies and the like that are common between people. Beyond "There is no God" anything Atheists have in common with each other is all just a coincidence.

There are no rules, no leader, no real organisation the same way you get the Church. Also no central text or doctrine the same way people have the Bible or the Koran.

"Atheism is a religion the same way bald is a hair colour." - Some guy on the internet.

 

[Venatio]

Congress offically made Atheism a religion, and it is a double standard that the school would force the Atheist Group to paint over such a moderate message. They have no right.

 

[Amnestic]

Congress offically made Atheism a religion

Source. That's the first I heard of it.

 

[Worsle]

Atheism basically tells you that you should not worship any deity, or that deities do not exist. That's sounds like a philosophy to me.

You are putting the cart before the horse there. You don't believe in a god there for you are an atheist, atheism does not tell you any thing because there is nothing to tell. Now you can have philosophies and even religions witch are atheist (types buddhism would qualify here) but the fact they are atheist is not what makes them such.

The problem is that painting 'there is probably no God' is almost the same as printing 'Atheists are going to Hell'. It's a direct attack on Theists, rather than an expression of a belief or lack of belief. It's not so much promoting Atheism as it is deriding Theism.

To be blunt you need to harden up, if you think being told there is probably no god is an attack. Really if that is an attack then by being an atheist you are by default attacking theists because that is just a fairly simple statement of what atheism is, so that is an absurd point of view there. Also no this is not the equivalent of saying you are going to hell but the equivalent of here the good news, making any mention of relgion an attack on all others.

Also, adding the modifier 'probably' is more of an agnostic philosophy anyway...

No it is not. I will explain in the form of a joke I quite like.

Teacher asks his class "what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?"
One boy replies "I don't know and I don't care"

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, any one who has that view regardless of what they call them selves is an atheist as that is what atheism is no more no less. Agnosticism is believing you can not know, meaning you can be an agnostic atheist because they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Deacon Cole]

So I ask you two things, is Atheism a religion, and should they be allowed to spread their message in any manner they please?

Atheism is a religion the way collecting stamps is a hobby. I forget where i saw that, but I found it clever.

As for the second question, we have freedom of speech in the united states. That should be the end of it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The problem is that painting 'there is probably no God' is almost the same as printing 'Atheists are going to Hell'. It's a direct attack on Theists, rather than an expression of a belief or lack of belief. It's not so much promoting Atheism as it is deriding Theism.

Yep. And this is the reason that it really is basically just a case of bigoted idiocy. There is no way that anyone is going to change their minds because they have been insulted by someone, especially someone who knows so little about the subject they are insulting that they make Bill O'Reilly look like Stephen Hawking. The purpose behind it is to evangelise and make themselves appear better in their own little clique, to insult and to feel superior.

Atheism is as much a religion as any other belief system, no matter how much atheists try to argue the 'non belief is not belief' idea. Atheism still has a shared idea of an ultimate truth dealing with the metaphysical nature of the human soul. It may be a different kind of religion than Christianity, but it's still a religious belief system. There are many religions on Earth that don't believe in a creator God, Atheism is just one concept of such a belief and is often ill-defined. I've had Atheists tell me that Atheism is the lack of the belief in anything metaphysical (the soul, the afterlife, God, Gods, Supernatural beings, etc), and others tell me that it is simply the lack of a belief in a creator God (but not necessarily the idea of a supreme being).

It depends on the level one takes their atheism too. Some people practice their atheism to such a level it becomes almost like a cult. People do the same with PS3s, PCs, Xboxes, Batman, Yahtzee, ice cream, The Office, Xenu, political parties, hair colour, 4chan, and all manner of stupid things. In these instances the actual thing they are obsessing over (whether atheism or crappy Christian Bale movies) are not to blame for their malady.

Look the bottom line is that Atheists are still a small, fringe group in the world. Promoting Atheism by attacking people's beliefs is not the right way towards tolerance and acceptance of Atheism as a mainstream belief system. Should they be allowed to paint "There is probably no God" on the cannon? Sure, but it's only going to get them negative attention and not mainstream acceptance. Also, adding the modifier 'probably' is more of an agnostic philosophy anyway...

I disagree with you here. There are a lot of atheists in the world, the vast majority of whom are content to just be atheists without being a bother. The people you are talking about are people on the lunatic fringe (you will see many such people on this forum). You know how moderate reasonable Christians hate to be associated with the likes of Phelps and Falwell? Be careful you don't fall into the trap of associating reasonable and tolerant atheists with the likes of Harris and certain Escapist posters.