Islamaphobia?

I think you are interested in understanding viewpoints Buffy.

I think that post structuralism can be very useful in understanding viewpoints and certainly positions. It is definitely useful in understanding the massive debate in the U.S. over science, which does have a connection to atheism.

But there are lots of different ways of understanding things (which I think we both agree on), and I think there are other valuable ways of looking at religion, the lack of it, theism and atheism.

And if we have the basic definition of atheism - not believing in God (or a similar sentiment), we can then look at that in lots of different ways. One of those is then looking at common connections between atheism and other beliefs. But I don't think we should go straight for that connections approach and only that approach, which we're pushed into if we define atheism as meaning - a system of beliefs based on the scientific understanding of material reality to the exclusion of all other forms of understanding including spirituality and the supernatural (or a similar sentiment).

And I don't think that is what a lot of people mean when they say they are an atheist anyway.

This is my last post on this particular topic. Slugseatlettuce said: "Belief has no place in science."

So, Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1833. He put it together out of stuff he'd noticed on the Beagle voyage and things he'd read, most notably Malthus's Theory of Population, which is a work of political theory.

He had no evidence to back it up, it was pure speculation. It was belief without foundation in empirical evidence. He spent the next 25 years collecting evidence to back up his belief, and only published On the Origin of Species in 1859 because he thought someone else, who'd had the same idea, was going to get there first.

Does belief have no place in science?

Manatee I agree that you get nowhere fast by lumping together all religions into one category. As I've said about science, there's no such thing as religion that can be abstracted from the people who practice particular religions.

am slightly reeling at the person upthread who sought to equate the US with repressive Islamic societies. It's Christmas so I'll be charitable and assume she's pissed.
One thing I don't understand in these discussions about Islam is the distinction people seek to draw between religion and culture. Unless you believe in the spiritual truth of Islam, which I imagine most people here don't, it's all culture, isn't it? And I think we should be able to criticise those aspects which are problematic without being told we're bigots.

Science, religion and atheism should be separated. I will try and expand on this later on.

This thread is odd. A couple of things spring to mind:

1. Why can't people do a class analysis of Islam as it is practised In relation to feminism without being derailed? I thought feminism was okay with class analysis even though NAMALT. Surely it's a given that NAMuslims (or even half the Muslims) ALT; sure it is not the only religion ever to have mosogynistic traits. But does that mean any discussion of misogyny in relation to Islam must be derailed with talk of all the other things that are mosogynistic?

2. Violence. Whether it is sanctioned by the Koran or not, many Islamic doctrines in many parts of the world are underpinned by more violence than is the case, in the contemporary world, than any other major religion. Many, many quite moderate (in Islamic terms) Muslims believe it is justified to punish apostasy with death; that adulterers should be stoned; homosexuals killed etc etc. It is a religion used to sanction mass violence not historically, as Christianity was, but now. Much of this violence is directed at women who violate codes of sexual morality.

3. Theology. People are saying all religions are equally nasty and patriarchal. I think this is a bit woolly. You need to look at the scriptures of a religion, the principles and worldview it promotes, the practices that develop from it. Buddhism, for example, is strong on renouncing individual desire and materialism; it's been hugely influential in the relatively collectivist cultures of Asia. Christianity's big schtick is forgiveness, altruism and the equality of all humans before God. This has had (however dodgy the implementation) a fundamental influence on Western social and political philosophies and ideals. Others are better informed than me on Islam but my understanding is that ideally it sees no separation between priesthood and government, believes man should submit to the will of God (via the priest/rulers) and is energetically, often militantly evangelical. It goes without saying that different groups have varying interpretations of doctrine (there'd be no religious wars otherwise) but these different philosophical traditions can't, just can't, be lumped together by saying 'well they're all patriarchal so equally bad'. It's just lazy thinking. We have to be able to look critically at the effects of different doctrines and make value judgements, however partial our own perspective is. The only alternative is a total moral vacuum.

I have no beef with anyone who chooses to practise Islam any more than I would a Jain or Hindu. Why should I? But Islamic ideology, in many instances of mass practice, I do have a problem with. I reject the concept 'Islamophobe' because it's nonsense to conflate questioning a doctrine with prejudice against adherents to that doctrine. I do my think it's enough to just denounce all religion. Islam is the fastest-growing world religion, and as feminists, we need to be engaging critically with it - and ensuring people like the OP are not harassed into silence for doing the same.

If someone tells me they are an atheist, I assume it means they don't believe in God

Yup, exactly.

I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

What is wrong with the definition of "a lack of belief in a god or gods"? And if that isn't a satisfactory answer, then I'm afraid it's the questioner's problem not mine.

So far as the point about it existing independently in someone's mind, bearing no relation to any other beliefs that someone has- well it's a bit of a sweeping assumption to know what is in anyone's mind. It would be a bit rude to describe a committed belief in a god in that way.

All I can say is I have never believed in a god. I can remember sitting in an RE class aged about 7 and thinking this makes no sense to me.

That someone is an atheist.

If someone tells me they are an atheist, I assume it means they don't believe in God.

I don't assume that a. they believe in evolution or b. that if they do believe in evolution, it is connected to being an atheist.

People are atheists for lots of very different reasons based on very different experiences. But you only know that by asking. If you immediately start asking about science, or even proof/evidence, then that's the debate you'll get.

I'm not saying it is a floating thing, but neither is it a belief system.
I suppose you could compare it to a wheel. A wheel can be part of many other systems, but it is not alone a system.

I don't think you're causing harm to atheists in particular.

I think you're just not going to understand what other people are trying to convey if you keep assuming things about them based on one small piece of information.

Slugs I absolutely agree with your point below. This is why I was confused in the beginning because Buddhism was being agued as another form of atheism. Science does not explain reincarnation. This is one of their strong belief. So what kind of atheism is this.

When am going through my atheist periods, it's the absence of non creator with understanding that science will explain everything. Which it will with no doubt about that.

Then I do have my religious dip in and out period which tends to come when In dire need of something that I have to influence over.

This makes me consider my self agnostic. It's more about leaving the door open just in case.
My explanation for who I am is that being educated in a religious Catholic school for all my school age is more like brain washing.

As an agnostic, I think atheism is not unlike religion, as it is based on something that nobody can prove

Slugs, I definitely think that religion can be broken down into a certain range of human needs that it fulfills. And you can compare other, non religious ways of living as often fulfilling those same needs.

It was something I thought about a lot when I decided to bring my kids up with little contact with religion. I had to work out what to replace it with.

Buffy some of the things you said does clarify certain areas of the arguments put forward. Thanks.

I hope I haven't been rude, and I apologise if I have been personally rude to anyone.

I don't think disagreeing with people is the same as being prejudiced. If there is prejudice on display it might be on both sides - in a polarised debate like this you very often get people not listening to the other side. I have tried to listen but perhaps I haven't as much as I think.

But I feel sad if not agreeing about the subject under discussion is in itself interpreted as rudeness and prejudice, because that's a way of shutting down debate.

I did address the question of the evidence for belief in God in an earlier post, Slug. It was at 17.05. But I am sure you won't think it's at all convincing

But that is just your prejudice Buffy. You are making massive assumptions about what people mean when they say they are an atheist.

I mean, a lot of the reason science is being debated on the thread is because you conflated the two.

I'm not saying it is like trans to position you. I'm trying to communicate the similarity in how it feels when people make assumptions.

I think the weakness in your post structuralist approach is that you are always viewing things as aposition, and not as an attempt to be understood or to advance shared understanding.

I would have said atheism is the absence of religion, or do you have to believe in it to be considered one? If so then that makes it comparable to religion.