Just A Question

and first of all, I know that anyone on DU has a RIGHT to post here, and that's fine. And I'm not telling anyone not to post here, or that they shouldn't post here, etc.

My question is this:

(first a little background, I just read a web page that was devoted to the "lies" of Christianity.
On that page was a section that said one of the lies is that Atheism is a "religion". Well of course it isn't a religion. It is non-belief, and in different degrees.)

so back to the question:

Why, since Atheism is NOT a religion or set of beliefs, and it is certainly NOT a theology (since there is no theism in Atheism)

Why is there such a collection of Atheists who post on the Religion/Theology forum?


I'd really be interested in Atheist's reasons for choosing the Religion/Theology forum, when Atheism is so much not about religion or theology.

Seriously asking, not intending to flame.

Peace


:hi:

arguments? all kinds of reasons, a good many of which should be fairly obvious, including pointing out errors of fact about atheists?

Atheism is directly related to any and all religions. Opposites only exist with each other. And, while discussing atheism I would think many faith related question would be aroused. Having these boards in the same grouping makes C&C much easier.

but I am still interested in mythology of all sorts and always have been, even if I do not believe in them.

To be honest, I generally don't go around trying to discredit anyone's belief systems until they shove them down my throat, but I still enjoy a good discourse and will defend my non-belief as well as question certain elements which I wonder about.

is it wrong to challenge someone to defend their beliefs? I have mixed feelings about this - most of me says "no" but I am often completely flabbergasted about the discrepancies found in people. i don't know. I guess I am just a jerk, but I tend to be less of one when I am in a society in which there is not a group trying to legislate their beliefs onto all citizens, and I get a bit more defensive about it, even to those who don't deserve it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.....but they still enjoy attention and a few even enjoy a good heated discussion/argument occasionally. That's the only thing that makes any sense to me.

and I'm sure a big part of it is that we tend to get defensive because of being written off by a lot of people even in mainstream society as having no morals or having nothing to live for, and by the fringe groups for being evil.

I enjoy discussions with anyone (yes, even Atheists;)

just hadn't thought about it the way you put it

the atheism forum is for donors only.

I have found that atheists really enjoy talking about religious subjects, and most do it very respectfully. I enjoy the challenge.

I asked the same thing once and SMUS explained it that way very gently. Where is she, anyway?

After all, how long do you hang around when you discover there's no intelligent life down here? :D

but I somehow doubt it

I remember that. I was sick of fighting with the usuals and almost lost my temper when I saw your question.

Almost.

Then I remembered who I was talking to.

Not everyone is a foe here.

That's easy to forget when you're in the middle of the shootout at the RT Corral.

Or is it because I enjoy attention? I don't know.

While it is true that atheism is not a set of beliefs, nor is it theology, it does come to bear on religion and theology. I take it many "new-age" ideas such as astral projection, out of body experiences, etc. don't fall under the strict terminology of "Religion" or "Theology" but are welcome here nonetheless. I take it that this forum is centered around what people believe about the world, God or Gods, and an afterlife. Well, I do have beliefs about the world, God or Gods, and an afterlife - and I feel I have just as much right to express them as anyone else does. I like to express them here primarily because of the differing viewpoints. I don't know whether or not I am correct in my beliefs, but I do always enjoy hearing other people's perspectives on things that I think and believe. If my opinions (when presented in a respectful manner) offend you, then with all due respect, you need to develop a thicker skin.

if you had, you would know that I'm not offended, I was and am asking a serious question

talk about thin skin man

please, re-read the OP

Perhaps I was a bit misleading in saying "you" - I did not mean you in particular, but theists who seem to get all huffy at the nearest mention that they might be incorrect.

And, as for my response, I was trying to answer the following question that you put forward in the OP:

Why, since Atheism is NOT a religion or set of beliefs, and it is certainly NOT a theology (since there is no theism in Atheism)

I think that, if you go back over my post, you'll see that I attempted to answer that question as well as the question of why I post here. Which, unless I don't know what words mean anymore, is what you were asking for.

And the attention bit? I was mainly agitated at Minnesota Libra for implying that most atheists just post here to get attention.

why atheists, myself among them, choose to post here.

For me:

1) Why not? Do you not find religion an interesting subject? What about some of the other religions..... which you & I both do not believe, but many are more than happy to discuss. (Like fundies, for example). In other words, religion fascinates me.

2) I am fascinated with improving the world, I am learning to communicate effectively to that end.

3) I want to know what others think, psychology fascinates me.

4) Stickler to info bieng correct.... that 'atheism is a religion' stuff arises from people not knowing any different, you know, so I thought I might let anyone who wants to know, about atheism.

.

We're trying to proselytize and save Xtian souls here? Sorry, but there's not "saving" to be had. I'm not trying to bring anyone into the folds of the evil atheist conspiracy, frankly because I'm not certain that I am correct.

And to use that example you did assumes that this is a Christian forum. It's not. They have one, just like us athiests. The R/T forum is a very diverse group of people - not just Christians and atheists.

Not taking into account the replies already there, and assuming the worst are the two main things I will object to.

I think those people who post on boards that don't support their point of view do so for any of a number of reasons. A few specific ones follow.

Conversion:

While Athiests aren't trying to save souls, they are trying to persuade people about their point of view. To convince people that religion is hogwash. Christians (or others) try to convince others that religion (or at least their specific brand of it) is not hogwash. Don't be put off by the term "conversion." Call it brainwashing, anti-brainwashing, saving, enlightening, or waking up. If you debate the merits of a point of view, you are trying to convert.

Ego:

Some are proud of their beliefs and the rationale behind them. So proud they must put them on display. Note once again: I believe this applies equally to religious and non-religious alike.

Love of debate:

Some people like to poke fires. I know some who don't really care what position they adopt, so long as it will ruffle someone elses feathers.


And you'll note I don't claim this is a Christian forum. I barely posted at all.

that it was the same reason Christians would post in an Atheists forum, I had to think, I haven't ever posted in an Atheists forum. I've never had any desire to do so.

Perhaps there are some that post to "convert", I don't know?

I have to ask myself, why do I post here if your conversion theory is correct. I don't think I'm trying to convert. Because to be honest, I'm not sure what I'd be converting them to. I have some different views of Christianity than "mainstream" would dictate.

Is it ego? Perhaps.

Is it love of debate? Of course I love to debate. And sometimes to poke fires.

But this thread wasn't really intended to poke any fires, although, there seem to be some embers waiting to be poked here.

all, I think, than the conversion thing. You can want to find out about others beliefs (and explore your own) without believing that one should change from one to another (which, to me, implies that one would have to believe ones beliefs better than anothers to do so).

I would dearly like to poke embers, but I am afraid I am too much a peacemaker these days.

I like to think that's why I'm here. I'm sorry not to have added discovery to my reasons above, for, unlike the reasons I put down, discover seems a worthy one to me. A positive, rather than negative.

I guess as I've grown up I've become preoccupied by the memories of all the times I've been preached at by someone who would swear (sic) they were doing anything but preach. It gets wearisome, and it comes from people on the big, organized religion side of things, and the small New Age side, and from the non-religious and stridently anti-religious as well. Doesn't matter what the 'ism is. As soon as I detect preaching, my ears shut down.

So, thanks for "discovery." I'll try to keep that in mind. :)

That was imprecise of me, and perhaps revealing of my somewhat anti-Christian bias. When I think of big, organized religion I tend to think "christian," which isn't accurate.

And your original didn't come across as an attempt at conversion. (Or, if it was, it was a very sneaky one. ;) ) I didn't mean to imply you were preaching, or flaunting ego, or just lighting fires.

I was thinking "Why DO people do this?" I just came up with negatives. But someone in a post below came up with at least one positive (discovery.)

Maybe your thread will/has turned up some others?

While Athiests aren't trying to save souls, they are trying to persuade people about their point of view. To convince people that religion is hogwash. Christians (or others) try to convince others that religion (or at least their specific brand of it) is not hogwash. Don't be put off by the term "conversion." Call it brainwashing, anti-brainwashing, saving, enlightening, or waking up. If you debate the merits of a point of view, you are trying to convert.

I think that, if I knew I was correct in my beliefs (or at least had gotten the idea in my head that I could somehow be certain about them), and if I actively went about to each Christian and asked them for evidence as to why they believe - then I'd call it conversion. Unfortunately, I don't really give a rats ass what you or anyone else believes. I can think it's silly, sure. But in the end, you're going to believe whatever you want to and there's nothing I can do to change that. Conversion presupposes truth (as do the other terms you listed), which is why I don't think that's the case. It's not my purpose to try and get everyone to think like me: only to think at all.

Some are proud of their beliefs and the rationale behind them. So proud they must put them on display. Note once again: I believe this applies equally to religious and non-religious alike.

Oh damn - does this mean I can't wear my "I'm an atheist and proud of it" shirt? I can count on one hand the number of people in my real life that know I'm an atheist. I only speak of it so freely here because I know that I can't suffer any sort of retribution for simply stating what it is that I believe (I live in the South, go figure).

Some people like to poke fires. I know some who don't really care what position they adopt, so long as it will ruffle someone elses feathers.

I would agree I have a love of debate - though I think your idea of what a debate is and what my idea of what a debate is differ markedly. I enjoy talking to other people, finding out what their thoughts are, and using conversation to determine what the most appropriate answer is. I do not enjoy flame wars, being upset myself, or upsetting others intentionally.

And you'll note I don't claim this is a Christian forum. I barely posted at all.

Not explicitly - that's why I termed it an assumption. You said that the reason an atheist would post to a Religion / Theology forum were the same reason a Christian would post to an Atheist forum. Note that Religion / Theology does not equal Christian.

I can count on one hand the number of people in my real life that know I'm an atheist.

I can't count how many people conclude I'm all sorts of things, simply because I (normally) don't wear it on my sleeve. I've been thought to be a Christian, a Wiccan, a Democrat, an African American (a result of a handle I used to use in an online game,) Extremely Conservative, a stoner, a prude (almost true), a brainiac (in my dreams), or a jock (in my youth.) It's the story of my life that people assume I am something I'm not.

Now, the original poster asked why an Atheist would come and post on a Religion/Theology forum if they themselves aren't religious. I put out an (unfortunately short) list, one item of which (debate) instantly proved true. While you joke of an "Atheist and Proud of it" shirt, I know someone who works as hard at spreading atheism as any southern Baptist preacher. (Conversion) And I know several people who love to show off their mental prowess by declaring all religion to be the province of superstitious, unwashed savages. (Ego.)

However, I think the original poster was just curious. (Discovery, a reason I should have had on my list.) That seems a good model to follow, there.

It's not about poking fires and ruffling feathers.

It is a far different beast from discussions.

A discussion is a give and take of ideas. Laying thoughts on the table so everyone can roll them around. No one has to pick them up and take them home, just mull them for a bit. No losers, but maybe some winners.

But the whole point of debate is to determine winners and losers. Sure, information MIGHT come to light. But, for anyone who watches political debates has noticed that informing takes a distant second place to winning.

Debate can be about many things, and poking fires and ruffling feathers is VERY much a part of it. So is rationality, logic and timely use of information. In general I suck at it, which is evidenced by how my first post on this thread was so wildly (in my opinion) misinterpreted.

That's why I prefer discussions. I want info. I don't much care who is right or wrong. And I'm often not surgical enough in my language to avoid being taken apart.

I meant to post an idea for discussion. Namely: That religious people and athiests might post on each others boards for much the same reasons. That they aren't so different from each other.

Ah well.

I suppose it is natural to want to sway someone to your understanding.

foolish idea to convert, and converse instead. In other words, conversion is not really a reason.

I do think that is why some come here. The original question wasn't "What are some worthy reasons." It was "Why do they come here?"

I'm not claiming conversion is the ONLY reason people come here. But I think it's undeniably the reason SOME come here. I think that's true for Thiests and Athiests alike.

I even think there's a few "preachy" Agnostics out there. ("I'm not certain about anything, and YOU can't be, either!") :)

I had been prepping a deflamer/ atheist-theist get together and had completely forgot the agnostics!

Whoops!

Thanks for the (inadvertant) reminder.

I am waaaaay to tired to answer the rest of your post!

debate I believe you would go to the christian liberal or liberal catholic sub-fora where we atheists aren't allowed to do that. that is my understanding about how all this works although I could be wrong. :hi:

I asked a question about what brings Atheists to the Religion/Theology forum since Atheism is neither a religion, nor a theololgy.
You've taken a different tact by assuming that I'm complaining. I'm not. I enjoy the Atheists that are here for the most part.

:)

Anyway, for this poster I would guess that challege to their beliefs is something they are here for, though they are of course more than welcome to correct me.

religion and theology, but about beliefs. Not trivial ones, like "Rove is bad" or "Fitzgerald is the embodiment of morality", although I have no doubt that those are held with nearly religious fervor by some posters in other fora.

Atheists have beliefs, which are little different in some respects from theists and deists; some will consider those fighting words. We all have assumptions about how things work and how values and ethics interact, many unprovable without recourse to other assumptions that are unprovable or at least based on something other than reason (no point in quibbling about that here); they all have assumptions about what's good and what's not and why, and how that affects conduct. You can couch them in a way that involves a theos, and a systematized, codifed set of rituals and rules; or you can couch them in terms of completely secular philosophy and other kinds of less stringent ruminations.

Atheists frequently have a different set of questions and problems because they're not trained in ready-made systems; theists frequently question the systems they have, and wind up asking the same questions as atheists. And they sometimes come up with different answers. That's worth talking about. Politely. For the most part.

Most atheists have a religio in the etymological sense, a set of things binding them to a course of conduct (re-lig-, as in 'ligature' or 'ligament', with the same root as in 'lex, legalis' 'law, lawful'). It's just a question of who's doing the binding about, the "ob-lig-ating": themselves, or some external preternatural agency.

Then there's the range of theistic and deistic views, some of which are interesting to ponder--and some of which some individuals find somehow faulty (based, of course, on their *own* assumptions), and the appropriateness of which they challenge. Most challenge them civilly; not all. But then again, there's the occasional believer who fails to observe civility. And they lapse from civility for pretty much the same reasons, too.

I've been clearly rounded off for making such a statement.

if it sounds like saying the people believe in things irrational, or have faith, (when they are of some system where that is not particularly the case) if you will, you will be met with opposition. Everyone has expectations, if you will, or learned associations, but belief is a much trickier word.

said something like that he'd get his ears boxed.

I followed it up in a way that I hope is careful enough to not be offensive: "We all have assumptions about how things work and how values and ethics interact, many unprovable without recourse to other assumptions that are unprovable or at least based on something other than reason (no point in quibbling about that here); they all have assumptions about what's good and what's not and why, and how that affects conduct. You can couch them in a way that involves a theos, and a systematized, codifed set of rituals and rules; or you can couch them in terms of completely secular philosophy and other kinds of less stringent ruminations."

But the sets of assumptions only partially overlaps, hence they're similar "in some respects", but certainly not all. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to be in the same state, much less forum.

"He was quoting me, saying if said something like that he'd get his ears boxed. "

I know, I was attempting to articulate under what circumstances he would offend, not flame him myself.

Never any flames from me, if I can help it.

A phrase my brother-in-law frequently uses in referring to himself, "shit magnet", comes to mind.

But I tried to clarify what I meant by it, and limit it to 'some respects'. With enough qualifiers and caveats you can appear to draw useful parallels between a laser printer and a boiled carrot.

I seem to be a pretty good shit magnet here with or without your help

I don't like it anymore than I like dancing, but it is a part of the culture in which I live. So I discuss it occasionally. I wish I could understand theists, and perhaps someday I will.

including atheists, although, I've gotten some ideas about understanding them that I didn't have before from posting here and reading. Although that isn't the same as face to face interaction, I don't know many atheists. So, I guess virtual understanding is better than no understanding.

I especially am interested in how people coming from different ideas and beliefs (or lack thereof)come to similar ideas politically, etc.

So, yes, religion is a part of our culture. And so is Atheism. So I appreciate your feedback.

Atheists don't share your belief in God. And I'll bet you know more of them than you realize.

I really don't get why others not believing in God is such a big deal to some people. I didn't think it was a big deal when I was a Mormon. If anyone had told me they didn't believe in God, I have gone, "Oh," and probably considered the possibility that they were right. Maybe I just never really believed in God myself.

To answer your original question, I'm here because I'm trying to figure out why this forum interests so many of my fellow atheists and see if it interests me as well. I haven't decided, but I will say this: At a glance, to a newbie, it looks as if the presence of atheists is what makes this forum go. It appears to be largely about atheists.

accept there are NO god/gods/deity; so why is it so difficult for the atheist to accept that someone can believe in what they want to?

Grenades are tossed by both sides, but discussion should be what we all are looking for. It is too easy for either side to just dig in their heels and use flamethrowers at each other. I find intolerance on both sides...no one has a patent on subjective "truth".

It would be far easier on all involved if we just sat down to dinner and discussed these things rather than get into a food fight...:D

Did you intend to reply to my post? If so, you'll need to explain how your comments are related to mine.

"I really don't get why others not believing in God is such a big deal to some people."

This is why I was asking why it is a big deal why some people see that believing in God is a situation that requires an answer that some cannot give.

As I did down thread, I have to explain that I ask only as a member of DU, and the Mod thing has nothing to do w/this...:)

What I'm getting at, is that there is a rift betweeen the two sides, and there really needn't be. One believes, the other does not. Some who believe can be pushy, and some who do not believe can be pushy as well. (IMO, you do not fit into this category btw).

Over many years I've seen both sides go on the defensive because there is essentially no way to prove that God exists or God doesn't exist. So it all boils down to faith for each side.

I, for one, hold no animosity toward anyone for what they believe, or desire not to believe...it is their choice, and since no harm is done, I see both choices as acceptable to society.

:)

or say anything to indicate that I think it's a big deal. I asked him what's not to understand about atheists.

I don't agree that atheism is a matter of faith, and there's plenty of evidence that there's no god - the biggest piece being the lack of evidence that he/she/it exists outside of stories. Then there's his/her/its failure to show him/her/itself for thousands of years and all the scientific explanations for just about everything that have developed in his/her/its absence.

If you're concerned about a rift, equating atheism with faith is only going to aggravate the atheists.

this is not a one way street, it is a discussion; during discussions, some may become aggravated, that is the cost of debate...:)

Not trying to sound facicious here, but when two beliefs collide, that is what happens, regardless of the side one in on.

and you started this one, Rasputin. My question to the OP sat unanswered for days until you came along and engaged me, and now we're talking about your remarks ... or I should say I am. I see, too, that I'm not the only one having difficulty getting you to acknowledge the problem with your remarks.

The thing about me is, I don't really enjoy debate. I'm more of an agreement seeker and one liner. This exchange, frankly, feels like you're trying to goad me into saying something to bring the mod thing into play.

discourse. I can assure you that I do not play games in any way with things like that. I take Moderating and being a member here with great respect and integrity. I would never goad anyone into any type of situation.

Frankly, I enjoy debate, and am always seeking answers. You are knowledgeable in this area, and that is why I began this discussion. I am also knowledgeable in this area, and others as well. I enjoy intellectual conversation, and there is nothing more to this than that, of this you can be assured.

Thank you for speaking frankly about your concerns, and remember, my PM mailbox is always open to every member here....:)

The ones who claim we're denying their god(s), specifically.

I neither acknowledge nor deny their deities.

the very existence of believers aggravates some atheists as I've observed

"The definition atheists themselves use, is a wrong definition"

Nyah nyah na-yah nah!


















:cry::cry::cry:

with your evil atheist society, and get a mission statement

but the question 'what to do about it' helped spawn that poll I have going right now about it.

The very existence of believers in DU's religion/theology forum aggravates non-believers.

That's why we're always posting threads asking why YOU GUYS post in here.



Hey, why not?

I mean, it's obvious the existence of 85% of all Americans aggravates the hell out of us as well.

I guess that's why we're planning to kill you all and finally take over the world as is our not-god given right, since we are obviously an intellectually superior race.

Oops.

I wasn't supposed to say that out loud.

Now they'll kick me out of the clubhouse again.

I just thought you were a club

now that I think about it the atheists I've known (except my mother) had lizard tongues, are you lizard people????

:wow:

You shouldn't have listened to me.

I couldn't help myself

it was funny that I found it

No, it doesn't, not by a long shot. In addition to the very different roles of faith in believing in God or not, the threads here cover much more than "Does God exist or not?".

If you want to understand why I disbelieve your god, ask yourself why you disbelieve the god(s) of others. You too are a disbeliever in many of the deities of others. Monotheists just choose to make one exception. Atheists choose to make no exceptions.

If you wish to understand disbelief, look within yourself. If you can understand why you disbelieve that black cats cause bad luck, then you should be able to understand why I disbelieve that your god causes good luck.

Disbelief is a universal trait. Belief is not.

I have a feeling that they are all expressions of the same God/dess

even if they aren't, I don't disbelieve

I don't understand not believing in a deity well

I've tried

My Mother said she became an Atheist before she died.

I think she was just angry at religion though myself

lots of reasons for her to have been angry at religion

I am angry at religion sometimes

to miss my point.

but maybe it's easy to miss?

So there is no way that you will ever understand disbelief.

That certainly explains your beliefs to my satisfaction. Unfortunately people who haven't learned to disbelieve are not the source of much insight. (in my experience)

I am tempted to ask how you tell the difference between true statements and false statements, but I don't really think I want to hear the answer.

I'm giving you one

and why would that be??

Does this have an impact on your life?

You have the option to believe what you want to belive and not be harrassed over that belief, don't others have the same option?

What I fail to understand is why people from either side insist on pushing thioer system upon others, to me, religion is a personal experience, just as the lack of religion is a persoanl experience. As long as someone is living their life to the guidlines they have drawn, either by society, conscience, religion or any other base...how does this affect someone else?

:)

By that logic, why should any of us join DU?

Hell, let's take our collective balls and go home.

I mean, since nothing affects us...

Religion/Theology very deeply affects my life and I'd be a bloody fool to ignore it. Keeping abreast of what the RR is doing and what the RL is doing to counteract them is critical.

Also as an atheist it is important to insure that stereotypes of atheists are corrected and (whenever possible) amicable relationships between theists, agnostics and atheists are created so that Liberals can be more united against Conservatives. There's no need for us to have factions within our own group when we can unite and be more powerful.

but not often

one can always suppose that whatever is "right" as in correct, the Religious Right is not doing it!

who to marry or whether someone's daughter should keep the unwanted after she's been gang raped pisses alot of people off.

Therefore we want to explain to people how their beliefs are screwy such that for example:

Eve and Adam were in paradise and Eve bit an apple and gained sight and therefore they were banished from paradise. Paradise means that you don't know that you're naked? That you don't know truths?

Noah is a hero when he complied with God's wishes to destroy all his friends babies, and didn't help them to escape.

I don't have problems with Christians who don't stick their nose in other people's business, even when they are so anti-women that they would never have a woman lead their church. But being happily married myself, I would not deny that opportunity to people simply because they want to marry someone of the same gender.

Perhaps Right Wing Christians will learn to be more openminded if they learn that there are biblical contradictions and that there was an Ice Age and Dinosaurs who had been living on this planet for millions and millions of years were wiped out by whomever God had complied with to allow that to happen. As he sits in compliance or neglect with SAAATAN who supposedly controls this earth.

Perhaps Right Wing Christians will learn that it does not necessarily take a Bible to have a conscience, it can perhaps take teachings from the Buddha, et al.....

Perhaps because we'd rather do this than watch some multi-millionaire mega-church televangelist steal money from poor suckers.

:toast:

really sucks as a reason to come here

but welcome to DU anyway, huh?

:shrug:

And the Religious Right does not want to allow that to happen, I'm going to speak out.

My appologies to Christians who don't force their religion on me. I would still allow people to attend church of course.

But why aren't you speaking out somewhere the religious right will hear you?

the opportunity to be cured by stem cell research....

I don't like Cookies from right wing web sites.

I would appreciate your ideas on where I might make statements to right wing religious people. But they usually don't listen that well. Helps anyway to discuss with likemined anti right-wing christians altho' to a lesser extent.

n/t

not a very good writer.

or some other computer that you can use that isn't yours

delete cookies

and not Christians in general, since that is where your beef is

on the policies that their church is following. (Say for example someone who still goes to a Church even tho' it follows an anti-choice policy) How do you get them to not give money even in the form of a weekly offering if their church does that (how do you get people to care enough about that?)

Just because you're not religious doesn't mean you're not interested in religion: any attempt to study the intellectual and cultural history of Europe without understanding Christianity and it's evolution and influence in the relevant time and place is doomed to failure.

If you want to understand the history of Indian or Chinese thought, you need even more knowledge of religion and theology, because you'll need to look at the interaction of multiple religions, rather than just one.

The same is true of any other area of cultural history. The study of religion, from a non-judgemental perspective, is of crucial interest to anyone studying the history of literature, philosophy, or many other disciplines, whatever their own views.

However, there isn't actually much discussion of religion or theology here - if you want to learn about or understand religion, this forum will not help you much. "Atheism and debunking" would be a better description than "religion and theology".

If you're an atheist with a chip on your shoulder, this forum is an excellent place to come to pick fights with Christians; that, I suspect, is the reason for the presence of many of the more vocally atheistic posters (and, mutatis mutandis, for a fair few of the religious ones).

If you want to learn, you go to a text. If, like me, you enjoy arguing, you go to a discussion forum.

if as you say it should really be "Atheism and debunking"

that's really a great reason to come to a forum, to debunk others beliefs?:shrug:

I think that coming to a forum to argue with other people who've come there to argue is perfectly reasonable - argumentation is a useful and interesting skill.

I do agree that it's a shame when one of the few threads started with the intention of containing an actual discussion of religion or theology degenerates into one of the usual tribal wars, though.

I also think it's a shame that most arguments here go from "debate" to "fight" quite quickly.

the fact that someone may have come for a discussion of theology

not a lesson from the wise ones about how religion is stupid, etc.

that's not theology

that's atheology

but wait, there is no study of atheism because, atheism is a state of non-belief

I enjoy arguments/discussions, and I want to keep track of the arguments/people who are opposite me on religion but on my side politically.

In addition, religion is OVERWHELMINGLY and sometimes oppressively part of life in America, especially under the * administration, so some of us monitor it and this area for news of how it will affect our lives NEXT.

Other atheists have other reasons...

BTW, the groups are for like-minded "yes" men/women (not just for atheists, but for the religious as well); this forum, imho is for us to "mix it up"...

and you come here to "monitor it and this area for news of how it will affect our lives NEXT"

so, who exactly here knows what the RR will do to us next?

into my life next; what offices I will not be allowed to hold, what publicly funded religious activities I will have to support with my tax dollars; how religion will be forced on the schools (where I work); things like that...

all those horrendous activities

and offices you can't hold?

does your state have laws like that

and religion forced on the schools? what religion is that?

Look it up and educate yourself. There are MANY links posted by others in this very forum on that topic...

As far as religion in school; creationism is being pushed in numerous places, and a number on this board want religion taught in public school.

Atheists are the most distrusted minority in america.

I would never tell anyone at a job that I was one (I made that mistake ONCE; I am not a slow learner). I am unusual in that I have told all of my friends and family; most think that is weird but are to polite too say so. Ask other atheists; they tell almost no one (I have seen their posts).

You have no idea how it affects life on all levels. When I was younger, I thought I would get married; but the poll posted earlier that shows that atheists are the group that people would least like their children to marry is true; it makes it very hard to find someone. That is one example, there others.

Really, religion, and in this country christianity, is everywhere, you can't get away from it...

Thus, I keep tabs on it among other ways by coming here. I have answered your question; you just seem not to like the answer and want to poke holes in it by claiming that atheists are not oppressed. Easy for you to claim with your mind closed to this truth; but ask any atheist and I would bet 9 out of 10 would have a list of ways they are oppressed/discriminated in this country...

I've not seen that here


Now for atheists holding public office, since there is no requirement to proclaim your religious beliefs, I would imagine there are in fact atheists holding public office.

My state has that law on the books, but I've not heard anyone use it, or prohibited from it.

Christianity is everywhere in this country, it always has been in this country. That doesn't mean we were meant to be a "Christian Nation" as the fundies preach, but we are a predominantly Christian dominated country.

Atheists may be discriminated against, and that is WRONG and we should not discriminate against anyone based on their beliefs (or "non-beliefs")

As for Atheists being the most distrusted minority, well, I read that story too. It is based on silly prejudices that promote the idea that atheists are "immoral" because they have no moral compass. I've also read recently that only about 0.2% of people in prison are atheists. Does that mean atheists are just too smart to get caught? No, I think it meanst that atheists are not more prone to illegal acts, in fact, if this statistic is true, they are less likely to be involved in an act that ends them in prison. I think that stereotypes about atheists are what drive the distrust.

How to end stereotypes? Education. You need some famous person who is well liked, to be brave enough to come out and say they are atheist.

I can't change the facts about the religious demographics of our nation.
But, I am for the most part, a friendly voice on the Christian side in regards to atheists. But I get pissed sometimes when I see spiritual beliefs being contrasted with childhood beliefs in Santa or the tooth fairy.

Peace

But I get pissed sometimes when I see spiritual beliefs being contrasted with childhood beliefs in Santa or the tooth fairy.

most of the time, unless someone has pissed me off (ask papau).

peace.

If you truly want freedom of religion and not just 1 religion.

how Atheism is now a "religion"???

what is there to teach?

Why should any religion be taught in school?

Athesism - is anti theism a belief that our origin is not via a higher power.

Religion - may or may not include an explanation of our existence, and may or may not include a set of behaviors which are considered "moral", or merely a set of beliefs.

In this case Athesism claims that our existence is not via a higher power which is an explanation of our existence.

My dictionary is not readily available here.

I personally am Agnostic a belief that there could be some type of force which created us altho' not the one in the bible. Some wierdo I believe who likes rocks alot (ie.. we have zillions of empty planets and stars that take up a s-load of space so wtf?)

What is there to teach? Biblical Contradictions, the Bible, the facts about multi-millionaire televangelists, why there is no God. Why Secular Humanism is more moral than the Bible.

Religion should not be taught in school unless you can provide alternative viewpoints and equal time to all religions. Diversity of religious should be respected we don't want to be the M-E and this is what emphasizing the religious aspects in society will lead as has been proven in the multitude of religious conflicts that have occured.

it is absence of theism

to teach biblical contradictions, the bible, why there is no God.

yes, I'm sure that makes sense to you.

Religion isn't being taught in school.

Secular Humanism is more moral than the bible? The bible is neither moral nor immoral. It's readers interpret it's writings in ways that are either immoral or moral.

But of course, morals are relative to a culture as well.

:) I like what I see.

:thumbsup:

There is hope for an end to 'sides' all right!

Your socialization may include knowing that little Mary Frances and all her friends see each other every Sat nite at Midnight Mass or something, plus attend each others confirmation et al, see each other on xmas day. So that's one sort of thing that might go on. Plus of course all the mentions of Gawd in the Pledge of allegiance, etc.

And if you're in The Belt you may probably be subjected to the myriad of billboards with Jeeeeezus with the lite brown hair etc as you walk on your way to school.

So uh.... actually I saw awhile back this show called Country Boys on either POV or some other public TV which brought some more ideas about how religion is taught in schools. I recommend it highly.

The immoralities expressed in the bible are not of course taught. Love to discuss them with people, but so many times you're afraid that the bible is the only thing that keeps them together and you may cause them some mental distress or perhaps nervous breakdown because they cannot handle the truth. Plus you can't really because you'll be branded as an outsider and people will claim you have no morals. They really do have the upper hand here.

that has nothing to do with religion or the bible being taught in school

so you see a billboard

so you say the pledge of allegiance

so most of the people are religious

listen, I grew up where most of the people belonged to one dominant religion that pervaded everyone's life, and even in Jr. High and High School, the members of that religion got an hour where they attended "seminary" which was conveniently built on the edge of the school's campus.
Where was the separation of church and state there? (and everyone who had "seminary" had it at different hours throughout the day so they had one fewer hour of school than I did, but conveniently you needed one fewer hour per year of school than I had to pass to the next grade)

When you don't belong to that dominant religion (97% did) then you get a taste of being discriminated against because of religion

so with that in mind, I'm very cognizant of separation of Church and state, but the things you describe, poppycock, that's not anything to do with it

issues then. Geez! sorry, man! I'll allow your having a cow, tho'.

But, I still say the socialization of this where all the kids go after school is important too. What if I had then become enticed to join the group in order to fit in and found myself being inappropriately touched by some priest?

Anyway. I feel your pain regarding what went on at that school.

Everything about it interests me...the myths themselves are not as interesting, but the way people argue and have dialogues about religion draws me. I'll give it to you straight...I don't much like religion, and I have never believed in god (despite attempts my some friends and families to convert me...even as a kid). But I find it fascinating how people believe. I really don't want to seem patronizing, but to some extent, I also like to study how people try to twist reality to make it fit into preconceived religious notions. I especially love liberal christians...I would love to argue with religious righties but that is almost impossible. You can't really argue or debate with people who have absolutely no grasp of reality and are entirely creatures of emotion. Liberal christians can be very reasonable, and that makes dialogue more interesting.

Part of me also yearns to educate people about people like me. We all want to be understood, and I am no different. It really gets tiring when people make terrible assumptions about you because you "have no god". Unfortunately, this is not just restricted to the religious right. I want to explain myself, as well as answer to criticisms. Not that I completely hate criticism..this was my response to that in another thread (actually I think it was too you SouthPawkicker)


"Hell, I love when people criticize me....without criticism, we can't grow. Without argument, I can not hone myself into the Souless, Godless Argumentative killing machine I so want to be! HEHE. In fact, I don't dislike anybody on this forum and I want people to call me on my bullshit when I spew bullshit (which I don't, because I am nigh-perfect *grin*). If anything, the posters I find the most bull-headed and who make the most grievious fallacies are my favourite...at the very least, they provide me with a look into the psychology of the average person. At most, they change the way I think about religion."


Lets face it....this forum would be absolutely dead without debates between religionist and atheists. I have paid a visit to the christians group...theres about a new thread every month, lol. Without back and forth between different people, this would just be another echo chamber. It would be boring and it would not be used. I do think that should change the name so people would stop asking, "Why do atheists post here" lol. Maybe it should be changed to Religion, Atheism, and Theology.

to come here:



Believe me, none of us find you "patronizing". (quite the opposite)

Actually, I find it amusing that Atheists are interested in the thing that they disavow, religion.

I'll go back to "twisting reality" to make it fit into my "preconceived" religious notions.

I probably shouldn't have written it like that. I'm sorry if I sounded like a jerk. I didn't mean you specifically...most of the christians here are really good about logic, including you. There are some people here who I do think are kind of loony, though. They are my favourites.

I can be kind of loony too!

You asked, Why, since Atheism is NOT a religion or set of beliefs, and it is certainly NOT a theology (since there is no theism in Atheism)

Why is there such a collection of Atheists who post on the Religion/Theology forum?


You may have noticed that I happen to think/believe that atheists are perfectly able to be religious if they so choose.

I've noted that Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Wiccans, Jews, and people of other sorts of religions might be atheists.

Some would or would not depending on your definition of God/dess. Some people's definition of God/dess is so broad that others do not recognize it as a definition, anyway.


Why I personally am drawn to the R/T forum is because I think that it is a good place to discuss different topics - I like to see what people of different religions think. I question what I think. etc.

One question that came up recently was the question of whether there is a difference between believing in a certain religious theology VS. believing what scientists say. IOW - is there belief involved in believing science - just like there is belief involved in believing religion. It is certainly a different thing to believe scientists instead of clergy when it comes to explaining the universe. One is assuming that the scientific ideas are based on mathematics and various other quantifiable evidence. But there is still some matter of belief that the scientists are not pulling rabbits out of hats.

There are probably people who hate the idea that atheists believe anything.

But we do. Beliefs are not all about religion.

be·lieve (b?-l?v')

v., -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.
v.tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe

http://www.answers.com/topic/believe

----

And as far as I'm concerned - everyone has a cosmology - as least as far as this definition goes - "A system of beliefs that seeks to describe or explain the origin and structure of the universe."

Maybe this should be the Cosmology forum. :)

maybe it should be the cosmology forum

there are some on this forum who obviously have no interest in religion except to have a chance to point out religion's deficits and even atrocities over time.

This is usually done in some way as to make religion, especially Christianity look bad.

That is I guess the type of poster that I wonder about the most. So drawn to the R/T forum, yet, so angry as to spend their time posting negativity.

I see no reason for that in the Religion/Theology forum personally, although I do believe that they have the right to post that here if they choose.

Maybe they need an angry atheists forum?

doesn't mean I'm not *interested* in religion or theology. Especially when so much of what goes on in the country results from the application or misapplication of religion and theology.

Just because I do not believe in OR and, quite frankly, find it often very dangerous, does not not mean that I am not interested in it. I'm interested in--what I consider to be--mythology of all points of view. I'm interested in why people believe the things they do. And, of course, in fucktard's America, I am always on guard for proselytizing on a national scale.

:shrug:

I've probably only joined a Church because my wife and I wanted to raise our child in a liberal leaning Church. Mainly for the socialization, exposure to religious beliefs, and all of that in a more tolerant atmosphere than one might find at the local fundie type churches.

I am fascinated by how and why people can believe in such. It's really that simple (for me).

And I understand why you feel offended when your belief is compared to a belief in Santa Claus, but for many of us that have a hard time imagining how you could believe in a deity there's no functional difference between the two beliefs. They're both unevidenced and unfalsifiable thus unprovable. That's not a slam directed toward you, or anyone else, it's just how we think and feel. We just don't get it.

And that doesn't mean we don't respect your choice to believe. Most of us do. It's just that we have a hard time respecting the belief itself. Nor do most of us think that you can't be an intelligent and informed person and still believe in a deity. Obviously that's not true because there are many highly intelligent people, some of whom I have great respect for, that do believe. And believe me, a lot of us spend a great deal of time and effort attempting to tip-toe around your beliefs because we know that if we were to talk as we normally do among ourselves (remember --for us there's nothing sacred) we know we'd end up insulting you. We're not always successful and certainly we can be provoked.

Finally, and I know you did not bring this up but I think it needs to be said, very few of us would ever equate your belief in a deity with mental illness. I've said that before here at DU, I've said it on my own site, and I'll continue to say it whenever the issue is brought up. The very idea is stupid because otherwise then 80+% of the U.S. population would have to be considered mentally ill then and that's clearly not the case.

I appreciate them, straightforward and honest

One thing to think about as you try to understand the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing in a deity.

Lots of people (myself included) believe that we have felt and experienced the effects of a deity in our lives. I feel better when I do things like pray, meditate, read spiritually uplifting books.
As a child I looked forward to Santa coming with gifts. Then when I realized it was my parents, I was surely disappointed, but I got over it and moved on.

Nearly every culture that has existed has had belief in some form of deity(ies) and the sense of a deity seems to prevail to the point that people die for their beliefs when they are threatened.
Santa has never left too many that I'm aware of with that kind of conviction or committment to their beliefs.

So, I see very little similarity to a belief in Santa, which is transitional at best, and in a deity, which for many is a life long committment to a belief in that deity.

Santa is childish, whereas belief in a deity is something that grows with a person who is a believer.

My beliefs in God today are not what they were when I was a child, nor what they were when I was in my 20's or 30's. My beliefs have evolved and matured, but they haven't disappeared. They have gone through times of questioning them. Times of wanting to oversimplify them. But they have always persisted, like the burning embers of a fire. Reload the firepit, fan the flames, and you have fire.

Really, I've thought about this for quite a long time now. A lot of atheists have. I know for you that your belief is absolutely central to your life and that you believe that you've experienced real effects from your deity in your life. That's why I'm very careful to constrain my language around beleivers (usually).

As far as Santa Claus, well, that's a belief we train kids out of. The entire culture isn't geared to supporting the Santa belief. But imagine if it were. Isn't the Santa belief similar to the Pacific cargo cults? Besides, doesn't Santa have his historical origins in Odin, and then over time, due to competition from the Christian religion, morphed in the jolly old elf we know him as today? A lot of people really, truly, believed in Odin so powerfully that the Church had to adapt its' belief systems to accomodate Odin. So I really don't see Santa Claus as much different than the Christian deity, other than a large number of people believe in one and not the other.

Again, I don't say that to kick you in the religious nads. That's just how I see it. All anomalous beliefs are the same to me.

On edit: My subject makes it sound like I'm being short with you. I didn't mean it that way.

that I have often associated atheists with Stalin, and Mao, and communists.

I know that isn't fair either, but I can't help it. I've been socialized to see it that way as a lot of people have.

In fact, that may be at the heart of the "distrust of atheists" that there was a thread and recent survey that was done.

Those few spoil the whole bunch. Much like the few bad apples in Christianity do.

Now, I don't see how beliefs in deities are "anomalous" since 80% of the population believes in a deity.

I'd say that non-belief is anomalous in our society by that number.

Is a term from, wait for it... anomalistic psychology. They're also sometimes called problematic or even bizarre beliefs. Here's how David Schneider from Rice University describes it (pretty well I think) (emphasis mine):


I broaden it from just including extreme religious beliefs because, again, to myself, all religious beliefs are "in fragile contact indeed with any known larger reality."

On edit: I don't think anomalistic is a very good term for this class of beliefs. Nor do I think problematic works and I refuse to use the term bizarre. There was a time when 'moron' was a medical term too, but you won't catch me using that term either (in a medical sense, George Bush however is still a moron).

for defining anomalous beliefs, taking it from "extreme" religious, to include all religious beliefs because they are "in fragile contact indeed with any known larger reality"

Reality is this, 80% of Americans believe in a some kind of spiritual reality.

Who are you to define reality (of the majority) as being "anomalous", when in your own citation only extreme religious beliefs

so everyone who has spiritual beliefs is an extremist?

give me a break, you don't consider anomalistic a very good term for this class of beliefs, (the majority of people's beliefs) for good reason! It isn't an anomaly to belief in some kind of deity!

Neither is belief that we're being visited by extraterrestrials, or that "scientists are suppressing alternative medicine" or any host of other unevidenced beliefs. That's why I don't consider the term anomalistic to be a very good one. But for myself any unevidenced belief is in the same class as any other.

Again, I respect your right to believe, I can respect that a rational adult can come to belief in a deity, but I can not respect the substance of the belief.

And if that's offensive to you, then I'm sorry but as I said in my original post in this thread I just find belief in deities unfathomable.

unfathomable

No, it doesn't bother me. I can't help how you have been conditioned to think of atheists. I can however try to correct misperceptions you have. Whether or not that changes your actual beliefs about atheists is another story.

And yeah, the few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. I have real world proof of that in my refrigerator right now. They're a lovely shade of blue.

But, and you're going to have to go with someone more knowledgeable about history than I am, I think the distrust of atheists stems from the way that organized religion has propagandized against non-believers throughout history. I don't think a few modern examples of atheist dictators is enough to account for the incredible ill-will against atheists, nor do I think it's peculiar to the Post-World War II era.

but in the context of modern times, I think you have had negative reinforcement of people's views of atheism due to the communistic regimes that promoted atheism (for whatever reason) and then were deemed to be "evil" by such leaders as Reagan (who despite the fact that he probably ruined the economy, and went a long way to destroying the progressive ideals that had been started by the great society program of the '60's, is "beloved" by so many who remember his "evil empire" statements about the Soviet Union)

and started well before Reagan, from what I've heard - adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance to distinguish the USA from the USSR in the 1950s, for instance. I never really heard it advanced as an argument about communism here in the UK - only when I started reading Americans on the subject.

did not advocate atheism?

regardless of the purpose (to take away competition) they advocated atheism and religious people had a hard time during the years of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

China is still very oppressive and repressive of religion but has some tolerance

communist=atheist, should really be communist regimes often used atheism as a way to oppress the masses

As you say, they didn't like any competing organisations, and so they made sure they either had state control over 'official' religions, or they persecuted organisations that wouldn't cooperate with the government. We still see this in China - they have the 'official' Lamas for Tibet, who aren't recognised as genuine by the Dalai Lama and his group. This is behaviour that we have seen in other countries, too - England under Henry VIII, for instance.

But my main point is that the association of communism and atheism is coincidental - you don't have to be an atheist to be a communist, or vice versa. But in the USA, some people tried to use it as a political tool, saying the communists were trying to ban all religion; and this made some Americans think worse of atheists in general. I think this may explain why some atheists here on DU don't like revealing their atheism to work colleagues - there are still a few who think atheists are 'bad', because they associate it with oppression of religion. Yet we wouldn't think that someone who doesn't drink is trying to restrict the liberty of others to do so - even though the USA did go through a phase of that. In Britain, on the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate at all to call myself an atheist, if anyone asked. Here in England, of course, the monarch is also head of the established church, and religion has long been associated in many countries with monarchy - but American politicians never tried to talk up a connection of "theist" and "hereditary monarchy".

they first tried to win over the lamas, they then tortured and killed lamas that wouldn't go along with the communist doctrine

they killed and tortured citizens of Tibet for their religious beliefs and refusal to go along with communism

I think you have the watered down version of communism if you think it wasn't atheistic in nature

look at Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses and all

Marx was utopian communism, in practice it was/is vicious and mean, and atheistic unless it suits their purposes to be otherwise.

It would be wise to deal with the root of the view in question, which has nothing to do with atheism per se, but rather with the role of religion in society. People are accustomed in the United States to view religion as a purely personal matter, without much effect or importance beyond that which it may have on an individual's state of mind and pattern of life. While this is a valid enough view from some angles, it is far from the whole story.

Religion in its origin was far from a private matter. Religions arose in every human society of any complexity, and in all human societies, are a major prop of the ruling power in the society, and the form of order and government that society takes. Indeed, at the start of the phenomenon, and through the great bulk of human history, there was no essential difference between religion and government: they were at most simply different arms of the same body, no more different from one another than a government's administrative bureaucracy is from it armed forces or its diplomats. Religion, and the priests embodying it, made the claim it was the ultimate source of all events, that its devoted practice was essential to good weather, plentiful harvests, success in endeavors of all kinds, and that failure in any such matter was explained by failure of persons to be properly religious, for this led to the diety's looking with disfavor on the people and the land.

All religions have functioned as means of validating unjust social orders, and not only validating them, but of guarding them against reforms or revolutions aimed at correcting injustices in them. No better mental armor against moving to assist one's suffering fellows has ever been devised than the doctrine of karma; no better mental armor against moving to revolution has ever been devised than the doctrine of eternal paradise. The classic left critique of religion focuses, like all classic left thought, on the large social forces at play, and is quite unconcerned by the details within those forces, or the personal motivations of those who wield them or simply adhere to them. That religious persons might, as individuals, do good works or behave excellently in a variety of ways is quite beside the point of what religion, as a body of thought and a concrete organization with real estate and treasuries and propagandists and sometimes even armed bodies at its leadership's disposal, does within the social order.

Tibet was a theocracy on the old line, the sort of thing you would have found almost anywhere in the world a couple of thousand years ago. Its society was rigidly stratified and the great bulk of its populace hopelessly impoverished, with a good portion of that poverty enforced by the maintainance of the religious rulers of the place. That the people were devoted to the system, convinced beyond question it was sacred and must be maintained at all costs, does not make it a just system, any more than the moral worth of the Dalai Lama today alters these facts of the past.

I think you're only describing salvationist religions. It's not true that every human culture has had "unjust social orders".

Once you get much above the hunter-gatherer band, the thing does not seem to be avoidable. Nor can the claim be restricted to "salvationist" religions, if that is to be taken to mean those of the Abrahamic grouping, which use that term frequently. It can be seen in operation long before those evolved, and in parts of the world they never touched before modern times.

Why qualify human culture like that? Why not include tribal cultures? How would you define complexity?
Is more complex always better? There's no reason to not include them, just like there's no reason to believe that humans were born building cities and planting fields.
One doesn't need to go back in time to find these cultures that you don't want to include in humanity, for many of them still exist.

Recognizing differing degrees of complexity is not a value judgement; it is merely a taxonomic observation --- cultures have differing degrees of complexity, just as organisms do. Nor is it excluding anyone from humanity to comment on the general case without noting areas where it does not apply: the fact is that the overwhelming proportion of humans live in societies of far greater complexity than the sort of tribal order you mention, and that taking all the humans who have ever lived, the great preponderance of them have lived in societies of greater complexity than that. Agriculture, the basis of such societies, ushered in, it should be remembered, a tremendous explosion in population, as this means of securing food supplies enables an area of land to support a much greater number of people than the hunter-gatherer mode.

The question of what constitutes a more complex society admits of various definitions. Among the threshold ones would be a social group numerous enough that it is impossible for even the most gifted "networker" among its members to recognize personally every member of it, and a social group in which a signifigant portion of its members are specialists in some particular activity, as opposed to one in which everyone does just about everything anyone else does, albeit with differing levels of skill. More rigorous definitions would include a society with a liesure class, supported by "contributions" from those who are not members of that class, over and above the mechanisms of bartering trade.

Fact is, your statement:



is baloney. It stems from an incredibly narrow view of both human societies and religions. Even though you wrote plenty, support for your statement is missing.

Furthermore, when you now say "Recognizing differing degrees of complexity is not a value judgement" you're missing the point that you still choose to discount human societies that aren't, in your opinion, complex or numerous enough. However you want to elaborately define and rationalize your filters, they remain myth-based filters.

What do you suppose the first "religion" was?

Are varieties of magic, with the central tenet that by executing particular ritual acts, a human may influence, if not control, various natural events that, in fact, are wholly beyond human control. This exists at even the less complex tribal level of social organization, and indeed the shaman is about the first dedicated specialist in human society, getting his living by exchange of his magic for foodstuffs and services and other items of value.

If you do not desire to engage on any substantive level the social function of religion, that is your business, but it is an odd ground from which to level a claim that someone else is displaying "an incredibly narrow view of both human societies and religion."

The point that you seem to missing is that the question of whether societies are complex and numerous enough to warrant consideration in this discussion is that not only are these not value judgements, they are not opinions either. Complexity of social organization, and the number of persons in a social order, are objective facts. Egypt of the Pharaohs was a more complex society, and a more numerous society, than was any tribe in the Arabian interior existing simultaneously with it.

The first varieties of what we would call religion, which approach animism, didn't include magic or anything supernatural.

"The point that you seem to missing is that the question of whether societies are complex and numerous enough to warrant consideration in this discussion is that not only are these not value judgements, they are not opinions either."

Baloney. It was your opinion that "All religions have functioned as means of validating unjust social orders, and not only validating them, but of guarding them against reforms or revolutions aimed at correcting injustices in them. No better mental armor against moving to assist one's suffering fellows has ever been devised than the doctrine of karma; no better mental armor against moving to revolution has ever been devised than the doctrine of eternal paradise."

It's absolutely clear that you're only speaking of salvationist religions there. When I suggested as much, you used the phrase "cultures with any complexity" in an attempt to say you didn't mean all cultures, just the ones that matter; those that don't meet your standard of complexity or drive for overwhelming their environment don't count. That opinion is pure myth.



"If you do not desire to engage on any substantive level the social function of religion, that is your business

Are you especially fond of adding irrelevancies to discussions? I don't desire to make things more complicated than they need to be. My point is that "all religions have functioned as means of validating unjust social orders" is an untrue statement.

But you might, perhaps, try defining a "salvationist" religion. It is hardly a precise term, nor one in common usage. Does it include Hinduism or its off-shoots, or the cultus of Rome in the days of the Republic, or the sacred character of the Son of Heaven's office in old China?

You repeat the statement that four percent of the world's people today live in tribal societies. As long ago as five or six thousand years ago, it is quite probable the proportion of people living in such societies was already a decided minority of living humans. The figure you keep pressing here would seem to be a confession that this is far from the main-stream of human social experience, and peripheral to consideration of predominant human social orders, those in which the overwhelming majority of humans actually live and have lived.

Nor have you in any way demonstrated the statement that religion everywhere serves to validate and prop up unjust social orders is false. You have not engaged it at all. You have made no statement whatever on the functions and effects of religion in human society.

(though I've played along and supplied a link(twice) that refutes your statement, you say in effect "5000 examples isn't enough, those people aren't complicated enough." It's interesting that you habitually use the terms "sir" and "ma'am".)

Perhaps I should have been no more complicated than to ask for evidence for your extreme claim that "All religions have functioned as means of validating unjust social orders".

All five of the most popular modern religions are salvationist religions, and they all arose after the expansion of one culture from the Mid-East(ours).
In varying amounts and combinations, they all stress that humans are the favorite subject of God's attention, that love of the world is evil, that escaping from the experience of being human is the prime goal, heavenly rewards and punishments, that humans need to be saved because they are divinely flawed/fallen, and that there is One Right Way to Live.

Seems to be a novel, an admitted work of fiction, presented in a manner that can only be described as cultic? You are free to credit it if you wish, but it is impossible for me to take such a thing seriously. Private jargons like "Taker expansion" and "salvationist" derived from such a thing can carry little weight.

That's why I linked twice to nativeplanet.org. Do you suppose it's fiction that there are 5000 identifiable human cultures on Earth? Do you suppose the work of thousands of sociologists and anthropologists working all over the planet is fiction?

Referring to what one particular expert has to say on the subject is only a matter of convenience for me, for you don't seem to want to credit the anthropological evidence before you. I understand your mythological perspective, because the vast majority of people in our culture share it, but for you to say my source is a work of fiction is ignorance writ large. (I mean that in the nicest way possible) We all know gorillas can't talk. That's only a device to help imagine how the world came to be this way without the burden of our culture's ubiquitous mythology, but with the benefit of discoveries in the fields of paleontology and anthropology over the past 200 years. (In addition to being able to "talk", the gorilla Ishmael can read and has a voracious appetite for knowledge that will help ensure the survival of the community of life on Earth)

Furthermore, Daniel Quinn's novels are in line with what other experts on the subject have to say, perhaps most notably, Jared Diamond. In addition there are Dr. Alan D. Thornhill, Rachel Carson, Dr. Russell Hopfenberg, David Pimentel, Richard Manning, Malcolm Gladwell, Jack Ewing, J. Zornado, Alan Weisman, Janine M. Benyus, Michael Maren, Gita Mehta and Richard Dawkins just to name a few.

I can presume why you haven't presented evidence that "all religions have functioned as means of validating unjust social orders" and that "all human cultures have an unjust social order".

As this thread is becoming cumbersome, and the subthread off-topic, I propose you start a new thread with your premises as the OP. If you don't want to, maybe I shall.

Finally, here's something from Quinn that I think is telling:

The further clarification is much appreciated: it really does do a lot to put this exchange into a proper perspective.

You may also depend upon me, Sir, in future contemplations of human social behavior, to be sure and take those arrangements and patterns by which the smallest proportion of human lives are and have been guided to be the general case, and to ignore those by which the great preponderance of human lives are and have been lived, for you have made it quite clear that the latter is to be ignored in such an endeavor, while the former must be taken as normative.

"The various religious superstitions of the Empire were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the official as equally useful."

You need to dilute my argument ridiculously to give the appearance of winning?

Sad fact is, you are speaking from a mythological pov and you don't realize it.
The lack of evidence for your premise is glaring.
See ya

Best not to rest any point of your effort on quotes from the ruminations of a talking gorilla, not even one with an insatiable thirst for knowledge and a fierce resolve to save the world: it is not the sort of thing a person who has made a serious study of a matter, and is speaking from a deep knowledge of it, does, and so suggests to spectators as well as opponents a limited degree of understanding, and inclines them to a summary dismissal. Particularly avoid doing so when you are asked to provide definitions for terms you have employed that are not in general usage, and that you have been employing as if they were in such usage, for this only cements the impression outlined above even further, by making clear that really is the root of the position you are pressing, and even persons who have not even a nodding acquaintance with the matter in question will be aware that there must be sources and commentaries available that are far superior to that....

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse, of course, that is, of course, unless the horse, is the famous Mister Ed."

You are dishonestly mischaracterizing my side of the conversation, while persisting in not coughing up any evidence for your two ridiculous claims which started this.
See ya.

The Sage wrote: "The King has his Executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand."

That should be sufficient for you to answer that particular question....

"It's shapin' up up be a pleasant evening."

I think that the leaver cultures are complex in different ways

their social order is different
they care for one another
they don't take what they don't need
they live in harmony with the Earth and their environment

to me that is a much more complex type of culture than a taker culture that has one real goal, to take, subdivide, pillage resources, and move on; all the while squashing the less fortunate in that culture.

I guess that's complex, but awfully predictable.

I'm not the one saying that indigenous cultures are cultures without "any complexity".

I think if you look again, you'll see that we are in agreement on this particular issue, as I totally agree with your post.

and trying to figure out what the Magistrate was saying

but also trying to figure it out with some sarcasm too

Sorry I wasn't clearer about that

because your post seems to not relate to my post except in that it mentions Tibet

and proclaims that Tibet was a "theocracy on the old line" except that it was what the people there were happy with

they weren't happy with the atheistic communists that came in and destroyed their culture, their relgion, and it's people.

Contentment is rare.

You were raising the issue of a Communist government's actions in regard to religious belief in a particular place, and suggesting its action was rooted in atheism conviction. That is not the root of classic left attitudes towards religion.

as from what I've read about Tibetan Buddhists who survived the communist Chinese takeover of their country, and the death and destruction that followed, it seemed very much that atheism was used to remove resistance, and the destruction of temples, jailing of monks and lamas, torture of those who resisted, murder of those who resisted, was widespread.

So I find it hard to buy that atheist conviction of the Communist Chinese government was not at least a large part of what happened in Tibet.

Of course, the cultural revolution's end, eased some of the tensions.

the reason for wanting Tibet is obvious. It should be obvious that China is using all of it's resources and will undoubtedly have to either be a bigger player in the world economy, or we will see war in Asia.

Given the state of politics in the Middle East, and central Asia, there could be problems in the not so distant future as China needs oil and other resources

Atheism is a by-product of anti-clericalism, related but not identical phenomenma. The history of China and Tibet is very tangled, and the fact that it was under rule of China for some centuries before the collapse of the Ch'ing dynasty early in the twentieth century had a great deal to do with events, as did a pattern of border war during the later war lord period before the Communist victory in the Civil War, and the basing of Nationalist forces there in the latter stages of that conflict.

It is defined by its opposition to Theism. Where else is one to post about matters faith and belief. Even agnosticism, the refusal to commit to either position, belongs here. To really confuse the matter the Universalist Unitarians accept both Atheism and Agnosticism as valid religious positions and welcome both Atheists and Agnostics into their faith community.

Over on wikeopedia I ran in to a post where the author speculated that cosmologists might just have to begin assuming a Creator to get along with their work. Strange but true, Some of these fellows are working on particles that may be impossible to experiential verify. A super collider the circumference of the universe would be, according to the writer, necessary to generate the voltages required to observe them.

You don't have to be theist or monotheist to be religious.

my initial reasons for this thread relate to reading the ideas that "atheism isn't a religion", and it "isn't a belief", which led me to think about this in the context of posting in the R/T forum.

You've made some interesting points though, and I agree with them.

A-theism is 'without theism'. The a does not negate but denotes an absence. Please don't repeat tired old canards.

It is my experience that an absence is usually defended by negation. Even if no defence is offered the absence is always defined in reference to that which is absence, in this case Theism. Old and tired, yes: A canard, no.

However, "There are no Atheists in a foxhole!" is an old and tired canard.

My point as to why you find Atheists posting here is, I think, well taken.

the R/T forum is not for the faint hearted

there are in fact atheists in foxholes despite the old canard "there are no atheists in foxholes"

and I still think your ideas from your other post is interesting.

thanks

Thanks,

Ya, life in a foxhole tends to shake one's belief in a beneficent God.

Is someone who presents with a tumor, but none of the symptoms of cancer, described as being 'against symptoms'? No, they are described as being 'asymptomatic' -- without symptoms. Is an apathetic person against pathos (emotion)? No, they are simply without pathos (without emotion). Is a person with aphasia against speech? No, they are without speech.

The other meaning of the prefix 'a' in English is 'not'. Atheist = Not a theist.

Take your pick. Without or not, but never does the prefix 'a' mean against. That is what 'anti' means.

Learn the language please.

a means not or without it does not mean against.

I shut my mouth, I will not speak of a or anti again on this thread

There's a long history in this forum of certain posters pushing an anti-atheist platform, of which redefining atheism has been a central plank so some of DU's atheists are especially attuned to misuse of terminology.

Welcome to DU too! :hi:

I have no desire to redefine atheism. Neather do I like to misuse words.

this topic.

Religious people have faith that they are correct in their beliefs, and atheists have faith that they are correct in their beliefs...the object of both sides is to sow seeds of doubt at the other side so that one side can "win".

The reality of the situation is, why bother? The main points of contention are that either side of this issue insist that they 'force' their POV on others. If everyone sat down and discussed the situation, things would probably work out. Both sides insist on tossing rocks and fireballs at the other.

It is interesting to watch occasionally, and I think that both sides have valid questions.

So why doesn't everyone just sit down and talk? Simple...it is far easier to argue points that cannot be proven, one does not have to face the notion they might be wrong. The same people who argue against a deity, are more than willing to accept other notions that have been in areas of grey; UFOs, ghosts, TM, OBE's etc. Some who express views from a religious point also delve into these areas...point is, we're all looking for a "reason" for us being here, a purpose. Some find it in science, others in religion and still others in other supernatural aspects. To defend ones position by attacking others never pans out well for anyone.

An interesting aspect of atheism is if they are right, all is well in the end; however, if they are wrong, it could get interesting...whereas, if the religious person is right, all we be well for them, but if they are wrong, nothing goes badly after they depart this world. The next situation is, out of all of the religions and their various sects, which would be the "right" one? If your an atheist, you just don't have to worry about it, (at least yet).

I am just stating, after all of that, we should learn to talk about these things and not beat each other unmercifully over them...:D

the believer is correct and there is a God, but it is not the one he believes in?

What if the believer is correct and there is a God, but it is not the one he believes in?

Then it's possible that all of the believer's hard work, prayers and sacrifices have been for naught, and that they'll suffer the wrath of the actual god because s/he didn't make all the "right" sacrifices/works/prayers.

Pure speculation on my part of course, as I don't believe in any gods.

"Pure speculation on my part of course, as I don't believe in any gods."

What if you are wrong? Seems to me the deity would be a shocking experience if you found out that s/he was there and rather than seek for the key, you just said "the heck w/it". Then you would certainly be looking to the wrath of speculated s/he deity.

A mild observation on your specualtion...:)

Seems to me the deity would be a shocking experience if you found out that s/he was there and rather than seek for the key, you just said "the heck w/it".


I never said "the heck with it". I stopped believing and continue to not believe as I find there is no evidence of god(s). If somewhere along the way evidence came up I would analyze it and, if I found it sufficient, I would believe in the god(s) it supported.

an atheist.

There is the double edged sword...there is no evidence that there isn't a deity.

Since there is no way to prove the situation either way, w/o a "grand" showing, such as a deity actually exposing him/herself, the whole argument goes moot and relies on faith alone.

An atheist insists there is no god/gods while religion insists there is/are god/gods; the lack of a manifestation 'proves' nothing, so agnosticism is the only viable avenue to take under the circumstances. One should accept the possibility since there is no evidence that a deity/deities do not exist.

In any case, it may not be the deity that should be addressed, but rather how we as a human family conduct ourselves toward each other while alive on this planet, (and home we treat our home as well).
Religious or not, we should be doing a much better job on how we deal w/each other and this planet...:)

athiesm rather than agnosticism. This argument has been done before, abscence of belief is what us atheists have, though the abscence of a belief that there is no God implies weak atheism rather than strong, of course.

(This argument has been done many a time before in here)

proof in either direction, while atheists have the faith that there is no divine aspect in universal occurrences. Atheism is a belief system in its own right, the belief there is no god/deity is created by faith. An Agnostic leaves room for a manifestation or a search for a "causation"...Atheists reject the notion that there "might" be a deity or such. A true atheist is little more than a Fundy w/o a purpose...:)

Semantics aside, everyone believes in something. It may be a 'god', a 'deity', 'nature', a rock or ones 'self'; everyone believes in something. Atheists tend to believe in 'self', (after all, one must exist to think, so at the very least, an atheist has to believe he/she is alive and their POV is the 'best' one).

One can be an atheist and still follow some of the base guidelines of behavior toward others, they just don't believe that those guidelines are divinely inspired. One need not believe in god/gods/goddesses to be civil and empathetic to others and help to lift humanity ot greater heights. I am not a Buddhist, but I can see many things the Buddha spoke of and use them daily in my dealings w/people. I am not a Jew, but I can see where some of the Kosher laws and laws of cleanliness affect keeping disease to a minimum. I am not a Muslim, but I can see where the requirement for education in mathematics and science can have a real payoff.

The tenets of religions are there to aid people on social as well as religious levels. One can find good in all of them if one is willing to search out that good and sift it from much of the chaff of religious culture. One need not be a Deist to use some of those guidelines...they are universal in their nature.

I will conclude the better option for you, that you are unaware of the long, large flamewars that have been fought over this.

Atheism entails no belief in God.
For most atheists in this forum, this is simply a lack of belief in God. It is NOT a belief that there is no God. To state to the contrary is to define the beliefs of another person in a way that disregards their own opinion. (That is why the wars happened, it means that you are bieng disrepectful, though it is a common enough mistake)

For some, the strong atheists, there is a belief that there is no God. (This is not done on physical evidence, there are other arguments I will not go into)

Back to the main thing, "Atheists reject the notion that there "might" be a deity or such" No, we don't. We simply do not believe in said deities. Rejection of the possibility is not part of atheism!

(Weak atheism is the main point of contention here, so that is why when someone says "atheist" it refers to weak atheists)

Just to reiterate:

1) I cannot accept "Atheists have the faith that there is no divine aspect", as I do not have faith in that there is none, I simply do not believe that there is any.

2) I cannot accept "Atheism is a belief system in it's own right" - there is no system in atheism, all that is required for one to be an atheist is that one does not believe in God(s). Atheism is a religion like barefoot is a pair of shoes.

3) I cannot accept "Atheists reject the notion that there "might" be a deity or such" as it is contrary not only to my own beliefs but also the beliefs of every weak atheist I have encountered.

4) Telling someone what they believe, in this example that they reject the possibility of the existence of God is extremely distressing, to make this clear, think of "All theists think that they have a direct personal line to God, that noone else has"

Thankyou for reading.

Edit: Things wrong, much sleepy!

like this, I do so only as a member of DU. I understand fully that some of what I post may be contentious, (isn't that why this Forum is here in the first place, to work these things out...:) )
Being a Moderator has little to do w/what I post as a member.

The other thing is that what you have produced is essentially a strawman argument...You have to have faith that there is no deity to be an atheist. Faith, by it's very definition, brings w/it the ideology of a belief system. One believes things either by proven fact or by faith. Facts stand alone, faith is simply belief that one is right. To have faith there is no god is a belief system, hence by very definition, a form of "religion".

No one can prove there is a god, no one can prove there isn't. My posting has been along these lines and consistent. I choose to follow what Jesus spoke of, with some additions from other sources, that move in general direction of Love, Peace, Empathy and Justice. You, and anyone else, can believe what you/they want...:)

I have stated that these are not "bad" ideas. One need not believe in a deity to move forward in this direction. I hold no animosity toward those who do not believe as I do; people are free to believe what they choose.

Atheists move on faith that there is no deity, agnostics sit on the fence waiting/searching. Semantics over this in the past may provide fuel and fodder for religious/secular warfare, but that is not my intention. For far too long, people have used the semantic argument that the belief in no deity is not a faith based system, that is simply wrong....one must have faith in their beliefs, regardless of what they are, or they have no basis for that belief system and are left sorely wanting. You can believe there is no deity, but you cannot deny that that belief is not based on faith that you are correct...:)

I am this tired right now: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5303895

And I must to bed, I have been awake so long I feel sick.
In the morning, I shall post more. We have a failure of communication, I think I can fix it. I LOVE fixing things. Entropy fascinates me too.

:)

1) You are telling people what they believe.

You have made a number of statements about atheism, but have not asked any questions, and given that these statements appear to be based on preconceived notions eg "A true atheist is little more than a Fundy w/o a purpose" rather than actual people, these are incorrect enough to be insulting. I am not arguing about definition semantics, but rather what people believe, to which you have repeatedly said that atheists believe things we do not; you have not listened to points to the contrary!

Examples:

- "A true atheist is little more than a Fundy w/o a purpose."

- "Atheists move on faith that there is no deity"

- "that the belief in no deity is not a faith based system, that is simply wrong"

- "An atheist insists there is no god/gods "

- "Atheists reject the notion that there "might" be a deity or such"

Untrue! All! (As per part 2)

These are all examples of telling other people what they believe
You think you have good arguments as to why, but that by no means gives you the right to tell other people what they believe.

To illustrate, how you are saying those things is similar to me saying these things:

- All theists believe that everyone not of their religion is incapable of good

- Theists believe that God is looking out for them

- Theists have faith that miracles will save them whenever something goes wrong

All, of course, extremely unwise things to say, and flamebait because it is telling other people what they believe.

To reiterate, you have been telling people what they believe, I should ask you, in future, to avoid this practice by asking people what they believe, rather than telling them. You can see clearly how it is offensive, and you have my word that I will not do so. (Or at least retract with apology if I slip up)

No one can prove there is no deity, just as no one can prove there is or are...that equates to faith.

Atheists do insist there is no god(s)...Agnostics might not believe, but they do not propose that there "Are none". This is semantics.

Rather than go down the entire list, I do listen to what others say, and while I might not agree I am open to discourse. I cannot tell what someone 'believes', I am not a mind reader, (something for another discussion:) ). When someone tells me, "There is no god", I figure I can call them on it to prove such a statement...just as others are called on to prove there IS a god....neither can be accomplished, so why waste tons of energy on futile arguments?

I guess my whole point is, does the idea that someone believes in something, regardless of what it is, affect the lives of those around them on a personal basis? I could say yes when legislation is produced that harms people or infringes on their rights and liberties, but that is why these people are stopped before they can do harm...usually by exposing the ridiculous aspects they are pushing.

I do not care if someone believes in God, Allah, Krishna, or anything else, (or nothing for that matter), as it has little affect on my life. When someone, regardless of their belief system infringes on the rights of humanity, it is time to stand up and end the absurdity. Everyone can see what theocracies have done throughout human history, never, has a theocracy done anything to aid said societies. Inevitably, human nature takes the place of the baseline tenets of a religion, and people suffer horribly.

Yep.

Did I say "you think you have good reasons" is insufficient justification for not asking people what they believe? Yep.

I never said that God cannot exist. I never said God does not exist. I have a complete absence of any belief in God. Therefore, I am an atheist. I am NOT "uncertain" on the topic of what I should believe.

To attempt to make the point clear: We all "don't really know" of there is a God. As you say. However, are there people who are not agnostic? Certainly. It depends on how you interpret the evidence.

For me, there is a complete absence of evidence of God, so I do not believe in the slightest. This is not the uncertain state of agnosticism. This does not require that God "cannot" exist.

Got me?

Atheists do insist there is no god(s)...

Only the "strong" atheists, but most atheists are "weak" atheists who simply do not believe in god(s). I am an atheist and I do not insist there is no god(s), but simply do not believe in them. There is no "faith" involved in not believing in deities just because others believe in them.

Atheists do not believe in god, neither do agnostics. An atheist uses faith that there is no god, and agnostic awaits proof one way or the other, essentially the "weak' atheist, (agnostic actually).

If someone does not wish to believe in a deity, that is fine, if someone wishes to believe in a deity, that is fine w/me as well.

But pigeonholing everyone does nothing to alleviate the situation, rather it obfuscates what should be discussed.

There are people who believe in a religion, and people who don't...the most enlightened of either realm are those that search for answers as opposed to demanding proof from the other side to make their case when it cannot be made.

If there is a god, and he/she decides to remain hidden, one cannot prove that he/she exists; if there is no god, the situation is moot. There are clues that go in either direction, and the wise seek to see where the paths lead, if anywhere....:)

Sometimes, there is no answer, yet people from both sides demand what cannot be delivered, and that is the contention I have w/both sides. I find that it would be better to join forces to seek answers, rather than just toss broadsides at each other.

One of the reasons I entered this discussion was to entertain a sense of balance between the sides by starting what should be obvious, both sides are working on faith that they are correct, both cannot be correct, one side or the other must be wrong. The object of our lives, if we choose ot look at a spiritual aspect, should be to answer questions that are answerable, and leave the mysteries to the faithful of both sides.

"essentially the "weak' atheist, (agnostic actually)." No, weak atheists are atheists, not agnostics. Sheesh. You sent forth a definition of atheist, one that works on faith that there is no God, and then you said all that if they are not that, they are agnostic. Guess what? Your initial definition was not even similar to the one the atheists themselves use. You are telling people what they believe. To not believe in God as per the weak atheist derivation is NOT agnosticism. I for one am certainly not agnostic, there is no uncertainty about my decision, uncertainty about the existence of good, or in this case more inability to prove that God does not exist is not part of the decision.

"An atheist uses faith that there is no god" see below. No we don't.

"If someone does not wish to believe in a deity, that is fine, if someone wishes to believe in a deity, that is fine w/me as well." Fine by us all, friend.

Cheers,
R_A.

"Guess what? Your initial definition was not even similar to the one the atheists themselves use. You are telling people what they believe."

The definition atheists themselves use, is a wrong definition. Because they use it, does not make it a right definition.

As far as telling people what they believe...that is precisely my point, "they Believe", if they believe, it is a belief therefore set on faith rather than fact.

:)

Here is something that is pretty freaking offensive. You had better be prepared to do a watertight QED, or I will ask you to retract this *rather* inflammatory statement:

"The definition atheists themselves use, is a wrong definition"

You are going to tell everyone that you know everything, without asking anyone, without learning about how other people think, without even seeming to know much about the subject.

If you can't back that up with breathtaking skill, it will be an act of inexcusable arrogance; to put forward that the definition you would like as The One True Definition; against the will and without knowledge of the people and the beliefs involved you claim that You are the holder of Absolute Truth.

I would like, in a seperate statement, your explanation as to why telling people how you are right and they are wrong, and more importantly, how disregarding the beliefs of others will lead to any kind of productive discussion at all.

And as for "As far as telling people what they believe...that is precisely my point, 'they Believe', "
You know, did you ever consider that people might use that for convenience? Do I WANT to sit here typing "you are telling people how much they believe things" and it is also used to maintain proper syntax.

In short, I am calling you on your definition. Back it up, to a most high standard, and seperately explain why it will lead to productive discussion.

It comes down to this:

If someone decides they do not believe in a deity, higher power, Cthulu, whatever, they take this stand on an act of faith, they believe they are correct, and that is an act of faith. There is no other way one can look at it.

This has been my intention all along, nothing more, nothing less. I am stating that being an atheist is an act of faith by the believer. My original post in this thread was that everyone believes in something. That something need not be a deity per se, but in order to make a determination on anything, one must believe they are correct, regardless of other opinions. This creates a belief system...it is the only natural order to come to decisions. People do not make decisions easily, (at least I hope they don't), either facts or faith must be involved.

the past aftermentioned flame wars. There are quite the differences between believers in god, and weak atheists. People who have BELIEFS in gods (like HAVING HAIR) have FAITH because, as we all notice and you have pointed out, there is no PROOF of gods, like them making an actual appearance.

Now, weak atheists LACK BELIEF in gods (like NOT HAVING HAIR), AND HAVE NO FAITH, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THEM.

Having beliefs v.s lacking beliefs is like having hair vs. lacking hair. You can not say that people who lack beliefs in gods have a belief the same way you can not say that people who lack hair have hair, you see?

Same thing with faith.

Strong atheists (or at least me), are somewhat different. I am like a theist, I positively assert that there are no gods, just like I would assert that there are no unicorns. See my explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=40163#40261

Get this: weak atheists are different from strong atheists (or at least me), they DO NOT assert there are no gods; they lack belief in them because there is no proof there are gods. They find it extremely insulting to be told that they have "belief" or "faith"; there have been BIG flamewars in this forum over the last year and a half between theists that insist on defining the weak atheists that way. It is insulting, arrogant, and condescending; equal in every way to atheists saying that theists beliefs are "childish", or the same as believing in santa clause or "sky fairies". If you continue to define weak atheists as having "beliefs" and "faith", I assume you would like for them to respond by saying that that you have a childish belief in "sky fairies", right?

Right?

Same, arrogant attitude of telling others what they think (that is different from what they ACTUALLY think). Turnabout is fair play, right?

the teachings of Jesus and others, I did not say that I believed he was the son of god. I merely stated that I felt their teachings were in line with what I believe to be a correct way of walking through this world, through Love, empathy, caring and justice.

So you have assumed, simply because I mentioned Jesus, that I must be a Christian of some sort...I guess I could be called that, but I also add what the Buddha spoke of as well as some of what Confucius spoke of as well, so a better nomenclature would probably be humanist.

There are other philosophers that I admire, and tend to look to the more peaceful aspects of their words and observations. I see no real reason to torch people, and I prefer to allow people to believe whatever they they think is right, as long as they don't use any belief process to do harm to others.

I do not, indeed I cannot, find blame in what you choose to believe...that is your option. I only contend that using the verbiage as it was intended is the best course of action. You, by your own admission, believe there is no deity, this is fine by me. But I reiterate, you hold that belief by your own faith alone. Each persons experiences are personal to the extent they wish them to be, but for the bottom line, in either religion, or lack thereof, faith is what drives the individual in what they believe.

So you have assumed, simply because I mentioned Jesus, that I must be a Christian of some sort

Totally wrong, unless you did not mean to respond to me, Strong Atheist.

I said NOTHING in my post about jesus or christians those words do not apper in my post even ONCE). I talked ONLY about gods (and santa clause, of course). Go back and read my post again.

assertion that the atheist definition was the wrong one.

In effect, you are saying that lack of belief is faith because

"If someone decides they do not believe in a deity, higher power, Cthulu, whatever, they take this stand on an act of faith, they believe they are correct, and that is an act of faith"

In other words you have repeated yourself. It is an act of faith because it is an act of faith. Why does it not require oneself to believe oneself to be correct? Because it does not presume one is correct.

Now, back up your claim atheists reject the possibility of God. You said the definition was wrong, you asserted that the definition atheists themselves use was wrong.

Now, in claiming the definition that atheists themselves use was wrong there are two specific claims you need to back up:

That lack of belief, when the decision does not require one to reject the possibility of the existence of God, and one does not require oneself to be 'the correct worldview', is an act of faith;

AND

That atheists reject even the possibility of God.

Given that most atheists don't, I am waiting for a watertight QED that shows why you know more about atheism than anyone else, and I should ESPECIALLY be interested in your proof that atheists reject the possibility of God.

That is what I ask for. I looked upthread. You have not provided exceptional proof of your claims, so I call upon you again to back up what you said, or retract it.

It is very disrespectful. Do you dismiss entire denominations of Christianity as "semantics"?




It can be broken down very simply. Bob, a theist, says "God exists".

The agnostic replies, "It is impossible for anybody to know if god exists or not".

The weak atheist replies, "I don't believe in god". (no "faith" involved)

The strong atheist replies, "No he doesn't".

"Do you dismiss entire denominations of Christianity as "semantics"?"

Yes I do, and other religions as well.

What I am looking for, from anyone, in any religion/non-religion is why they believe as they do.

It is always easy to say, "I believe ________", but when pressed, rarely does one know just why they do so. It is often more a thing of culture than of serious searching.

I do not walk into things blindly, I want to know why people insist they are correct, regardless of the side they are on, what justifies the belief? I figure that if someone can make a statement, they should be able to back it up with some form of reasoning. To say that "my way is the only way" is not just arrogant, it is almost always a foolish road to take.

I do the same thing w/my RW neighbors, I ask them why they are conservative. Initially I get the usual tripe, but after a discussion, they tend to see that there is no reason for them to enjoy the current administration because they have none of the true conservative values, they are a whole different animal...semantics again, they merely call themselves "Republicans", but there is nothing of R values to them.

Same thing w/religion, lets say Christianity...is there a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, sure, but when one strips away all of the unnecessary pomposity, it comes down to both believing Jesus was the son of God. This does not mean in any way they are necessarily walking the walk, but it is a belief, something based on faith.

It is the same with those who don't believe in a deity, it is an act of faith that said deity does not exist since there is no way to prove the point. That is the gist of the whole thing...both are acts of faith.

as Catholics using semantics"

2) "What I am looking for, from anyone, in any religion/non-religion is why they believe as they do" you never asked. You said "atheists believe this & that and are making a leap of faith"

"it is an act of faith that said deity does not exist" no it isn't. It never states that the diety does not exist.

then perhaps you should start a thread entitled "Why do you believe as you do?" I'm sure there are lots of believers here who would like to demonstrate that they CAN answer the question, as well as atheists who haven't already answered it and are not bored with the atheism-is-faith-and/or-belief line of discussion.

Whether it is because you aren't paying attention or because you don't want to get it I don't know. However I and several others have tried to explain the difference to you multiple times and you keep repeating the same error in thinking back over and over again.



It is the same with those who don't believe in a deity, it is an act of faith that said deity does not exist since there is no way to prove the point. That is the gist of the whole thing...both are acts of faith.


The weak atheist does not claim that said deity does not exist. The weak atheist merely has no belief in said deity. Therefore there is no "act of faith" involved in the situation. Your repeating that there is will not change anything.



What I am looking for, from anyone, in any religion/non-religion is why they believe as they do.


I do not believe in god(s) because I have never found any evidence of their existence. I do not declare that god(s) do not exist, I simply don't believe in them. I do not claim that the existence of god(s) is unknowable, I simply don't believe in them. Therefore I am a weak atheist. Not a strong atheist, not an agnostic, but a weak atheist. No. Faith. Involved.

"I do not believe in god(s) because I have never found any evidence of their existence."

It is a simple answer and does not nedd all of the circumvential rhetoric that generally comes from these discussions.

This is what I was looking for.

I can certainly accept your line of thought. It is not a big deal whether someone believes or not, it only becomes a big deal when sniping from either side destroys debate and enhances only ones ego at the expense of civil dicourse.

the entire time, as a FYI. :) Glad we finally hit upon the right way of explaining it.

To quote catbert: Blame it on the GODDAMN atheists!

How dare we be insulted when we are told REPEATEDLY that we are too stupid to correctly define our own atheism.
:eyes:

For all that has been said here, this is the correct answer...

"I do not believe in god(s) because I have never found any evidence of their existence."

It is a simple answer and does not nedd all of the circumvential rhetoric that generally comes from these discussions.

This is what I was looking for.


How many times did I say that? That's what started this whole mess. That's why you claimed I was an agnostic and not an atheist and began this entire flame-fest. :banghead: