The Atheist Corner

[Il Penseroso]

The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:

1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.
2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.
3. Life on earth had to begin through abiogenesis, since the absence of a deity implies that life had to begin from nothing, since all things have a beginning.
4. Morality is a human/social construct (or evolutionary development) that is plastic and flexible in nature, and almost fully dictated by majority rule, "might makes right," cultural agreement or some sort of Hobbesian social contract idea.
5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.

That's the short list off the top of my head. Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

I'd agree with these, for the most part. I might want to hair-split over the existence from "nothing," but I won't.

[billyjack]

i don't think i'd say everything is a belief system. for instance, my head sitting on my neck and not falling off is not a belief or a product of belief. it might depend on your definition of belief.

[togre]

These are good points.
It is unclear how Scripture can be self-authenticating. I can see how, for example, presenting a living breathing black swan could be said to be self-authenticating as to the existence of black swans. Clearly you mean something different here. Please elaborate.

To explain this thoroughly would side track this particular conversation. If you would like me to elaborate, I would be happy to in a different thread. I will stick to a rough sketch at the present.

Faith/belief to a Christian is more than an intellectual thing (it doesn't exist apart from the intellect, yet it encompasses more). There is a spiritual aspect (again, this is from a Christian point of view). The spiritual aspect of faith is created by something outside the one who believes. The Bible teaches that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

So...I trust in Jesus (specifically in the forgiveness he won through his death) because the Holy Spirit created faith where it didn't previously exist (in my heart). The Holy Spirit did this by working through a message/truth-claim that "Jesus died for you sins."

I heard this through the Bible. Why do I trust the Bible? Because I trust the God who gave it. How do I know the God in whom I trust? Through the Bible. These things are interdependent and cannot be verified (or disproved) externally. Yet on matters of such magnitude, there can be no reliable or even truly external authority.

So I guess I am admitting that on a purely logical basic Christianity is based on circular reasoning, or at least on the acceptance of certain primary truths/truth-claims.

My secondary point is that all methods of understand life/death/the world/meaning/existence have equally unsubstantiated core tenants that are accepted a priori. Why does a black swan prove that there are black swans? Because you (and I do not fault you for this) believe that matter exists and that observations are generally reliable and that a black swan is a swan of a blackish color. Does that help?

[Virgil]

i don't think i'd say everything is a belief system. for instance, my head sitting on my neck and not falling off is not a belief or a product of belief. it might depend on your definition of belief.

Nope, that's a belief system too. Ask the philosophers.

[billyjack]

philosophers, ha. isn't saying that everything is one thing, in this case-belief, make that statement meaningless. you cant test it, get outside of it to prove it.

[Virgil]

Yeah I understand your frustration with philosophers. I'm an engineer and I work in the realm of science. But science is an enclosed system and we believe what we believe based on the assumption that it is the only system. Philosophers hold to the possiblity that it is not the only system. I don't know if that's accurate what I just wrote, but it's how I understand it. Here's more:


Belief
First published Mon Aug 14, 2006
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term "belief", in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The "mind-body problem", for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. [SNIP]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

[billyjack]

i use the word belief in everyday language about things that don't require belief, like believing my head is on my neck. but that's just nomenclature. when thinking about existential whatnots, i use belief in accordance with its root, "lief," which means to wish. Feelings or senses or anything that you just know, like breathing, seeing, yada, yada require no belief or wishing them to be

[togre]

Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.

You do realize that you are (albeit inadvertently and politely) saying, "You believe things. I know things"? That the atheistic (or perhaps the anti-supernatural) worldview can begin the argument from this assumption allows it to claim it is based on facts and evidence while religious world views are pipe-dreams and hopes. Yet all worldviews are built on assumptions. The fact that you make these assumptions subconsciously and are surrounded by a society that shares them does not make the assumptions inherently more valid.

[Jozanny]

Yes, but atheism has no tenets which necessarily insists on evolutionary theory or a reduction to materialist determination. Red is wrong; there is no atheist doctrine or ideology--just a rejection of a god or many gods as tenable supernatural causes.

I have met a lot of crazy atheists online, quite similar to crazy Christians, with all kinds of implausible crock popping their eardrums. There is no creed to it, though atheism may be incorporated into doctrine.

That I can do nothing about.

[The Atheist]

The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:

Category error #1.

Given that the "evidence" for god consists of personal anecdotes and a book, the only refusal required is a refusal to believe unsupported myths of gods.

However, since you have discussed your motives in this thread, I am more than slightly sceptical: Red, you said this:

I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system.

Your words, check them out.

That statement is clearly and self-admittedly false, because after claiming to seek clarity on what atheism is, you then state quite unequivocally what it is! This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely.

If you really wanted to find out what atheism is and what atheists do or don't believe, you would listen to replies from atheists, write to Richard Dawkins, read Bertrand Russell, but instead you choose to come in and state what atheists must believe to be atheists. The bad news is that you are clearly wrong on every count.


1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.

Incorrect. That's a materialist, not an atheist.


2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.

Incorrect. Atheism is no barrier to holding spritiual beliefs. Refer Buddhist atheists. (The statement is also merely a repetition of #1)


3. Life on earth had to begin through abiogenesis, since the absence of a deity implies that life had to begin from nothing, since all things have a beginning.

Incorrect. Atheists need not believe in abiogenesis, evolution, or any other mechanism to explain life as we know it. Some atheists have panspermian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) beliefs.


4. Morality is a human/social construct (or evolutionary development) that is plastic and flexible in nature, and almost fully dictated by majority rule, "might makes right," cultural agreement or some sort of Hobbesian social contract idea.

Incorrect. Atheism makes no comment on morality.


5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.

Incorrect. Refer again to Buddhist atheists.


That's the short list off the top of my head. Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

No hairs need be harmed!

You are simply wrong. I doubt you'll admit it, since reality doesn't fit with your description of "atheism", but you are clearly and demonstrably wrong on every one of the five tenets you listed.

I'll agree that many atheists have those traits, but none of them are a requirement to be an atheist. Psychics, spiritualists, mediums, homeopaths, Buddhists, believers that life is controlled by invisible aliens and even David Icke's lizard people can all be atheists.


I have met a lot of crazy atheists online, quite similar to crazy Christians, with all kinds of implausible crock popping their eardrums. There is no creed to it, though atheism may be incorporated into doctrine.

No kidding!

I even have a quote of mine which is widely used at an atheist forum:

"Atheism is no barrier to stupidity"

Interestingly enough, I've been discussing atheistic beliefs at Dawkins forum (from where I'm presently banned for slagging off atheists! :D) and there's some good research showing that atheists are actually more likely to hold other supernatural beliefs than theists, whose supernatural beliefs are generally limited to whichever deity they use. If I can hack my way back in, I'll find it and bring it along!

[Jozanny]

No kidding!

I even have a quote of mine which is widely used at an atheist forum:

"Atheism is no barrier to stupidity"

Interestingly enough, I've been discussing atheistic beliefs at Dawkins forum (from where I'm presently banned for slagging off atheists! :D) and there's some good research showing that atheists are actually more likely to hold other supernatural beliefs than theists, whose supernatural beliefs are generally limited to whichever deity they use. If I can hack my way back in, I'll find it and bring it along!

Off topic, but I find it interesting how those of us with *bans* in our pockets carry them around online like scarlet letters... however--I do not like feeling bullied in a thread I created in hopes to avoid circular argument, so the red cape, mon ami, is all yours. Don't get gored by those oh so strident and insistent horns, because I'd miss you.:p

(blows a kiss)

[hellsapoppin]

"Quotes from the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or what-have-you can not be persuasive as such to those who do not believe, since they lack authority for those who have not accepted them."


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Even in the New Testament, it is written "prove me now herewith" meaning that biblical laws are supposed to be readily made manifestly evident by its believers. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have yet to see anyone walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead.

Still, if one wishes to believe these stories, it is their right to do so. The wrong exists when one is willing to kill in defense of unprovable assertions.

[The Atheist]

Don't get gored by those oh so strident and insistent horns, because I'd miss you.:p

No chance!

I only get banned from places I don't care about.

;)


I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have yet to see anyone walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead.

This where confusion can easily set in. Imagine someone 2000 years ago giving the kiss of life to a drowning victim. If the victim survived, I think the locals would have been suitably impressed.

Even with medicine, the placebo is a powerful effect - look at how many people believe homeopathy works in 2008. Again, 2000 years ago sometimes a shaman would actually appear to facilitate a "cure" and would gain a reputation as a healer. Or viral infections where a person can go from well -> dreadfully ill -> well again, all on their own, in a very short time frame. Given the right timing of "cure" adminstered it could easily appear that the shaman is getting it right. Thus do myths grow.

Dunno about walking on water, but some of the girls in the Olympic synchronised swimming seemed to be able to stand on it briefly.

[Redzeppelin]

Category error #1.

Given that the "evidence" for god consists of personal anecdotes and a book, the only refusal required is a refusal to believe unsupported myths of gods.

Your use of the term "evidence" points to the Naturalist/Materialist strain that atheists must possess as a consequence of their refusal to believe in a spiritual component (i.e. God, angels, demons) to the universe. No Christian worth his salt will argue that he has any "evidence" for the existence of God. Atheists cannot prove God does not exist; nor can they prove the alternate explanation as to how we got here. The "evidence" argument gets us nowhere because the idea that there is "evidence" for a being who is beyond (not within) his creation is illogical: you can only find evidence for things within that system; God is "outside" the system he created (just as any artist is "outside" that which he creates).



However, since you have discussed your motives in this thread, I am more than slightly sceptical: Red, you said this:

I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system.

Your words, check them out.

By golly, you're right - those are my words!


That statement is clearly and self-admittedly false, because after claiming to seek clarity on what atheism is, you then state quite unequivocally what it is! This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely.

You "don't believe" my intentions are "stated honestly" but note your verb: "believe" - which is a different term than "know." How is that any different than what the Christian does? In other words: you attack Christians for believing something for which they have no "evidence," yet you judge me based upon what you believe to be true (but cannot really know with any true degree of certainty). Nice!

I'm interested in how atheists face the fundamental questions of existence - how did we get here? What gives meaning to life? Where did morality come from and what makes it binding? What makes life valuable? Why should love exist at all? Why should anything exist at all?



If you really wanted to find out what atheism is and what atheists do or don't believe, you would listen to replies from atheists, write to Richard Dawkins, read Bertrand Russell, but instead you choose to come in and state what atheists must believe to be atheists. The bad news is that you are clearly wrong on every count.

Oh please. Don't drop Dawkins into this conversation. His discussions of Christianity are the lecture notes of an amature. He knows little about what he attacks. I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with. You've done little to show how "clearly wrong" I am beyond simply stating so. I can do the same: You care clearly wrong on every count. There - how authoritative was that?




Incorrect. That's a materialist, not an atheist.

A semantic quibble. Once God and the spiritual world is dispensed with, all that is left is materialism/naturalism. When you refuse to give even slightly on points like this, I get discouraged thinking that we'll actually have a real discussion.




Incorrect. Atheism is no barrier to holding spritiual beliefs. Refer Buddhist atheists. (The statement is also merely a repetition of #1)

The word "spiritual" deals with a dimension of reality that connects to a world that is beyond the natural world. When I use the world "spiritual" I am specifically referring to the existence of a spiritual world within which God, Satan, and their angels/demons exist.



Incorrect. Atheists need not believe in abiogenesis, evolution, or any other mechanism to explain life as we know it.

Fine - "some" do; many do not, and what's left is abiogenesis. Telling me that a percentage believes something else doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to divine creation is life from nothing.




Incorrect. Atheism makes no comment on morality.

Too brief to be of any practical use in this discussion. Elaboration would be nice.


Incorrect. Refer again to Buddhist atheists.

That you can provide exceptions does not change the fact that my statements are generally true (which is what I said). Why you feel the need to try and argue against my list is a mystery - it's almost as if you're afraid to admit that I'm correct about anything.




No hairs need be harmed!

Harmed, no; split; yep.


You are simply wrong. I doubt you'll admit it, since reality doesn't fit with your description of "atheism", but you are clearly and demonstrably wrong on every one of the five tenets you listed.

I'll agree that many atheists have those traits, but none of them are a requirement to be an atheist. Psychics, spiritualists, mediums, homeopaths, Buddhists, believers that life is controlled by invisible aliens and even David Icke's lizard people can all be atheists.

I do not suggest that they are "requirements" in that an atheist HAS to believe the things I listed; from where I stand, the things I listed seem to be the logical beliefs an atheist must hold in the absence of a creator God. The issue isn't whether I'm 100% accurate in my list - my list was an attempt to show that atheists carry a number of common beliefs - despite the numerous exceptions you may be able to dream up.

[RichardHresko]

To explain this thoroughly would side track this particular conversation. If you would like me to elaborate, I would be happy to in a different thread. I will stick to a rough sketch at the present.

Faith/belief to a Christian is more than an intellectual thing (it doesn't exist apart from the intellect, yet it encompasses more). There is a spiritual aspect (again, this is from a Christian point of view). The spiritual aspect of faith is created by something outside the one who believes. The Bible teaches that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

So...I trust in Jesus (specifically in the forgiveness he won through his death) because the Holy Spirit created faith where it didn't previously exist (in my heart). The Holy Spirit did this by working through a message/truth-claim that "Jesus died for you sins."

I heard this through the Bible. Why do I trust the Bible? Because I trust the God who gave it. How do I know the God in whom I trust? Through the Bible. These things are interdependent and cannot be verified (or disproved) externally. Yet on matters of such magnitude, there can be no reliable or even truly external authority.

So I guess I am admitting that on a purely logical basic Christianity is based on circular reasoning, or at least on the acceptance of certain primary truths/truth-claims.

My secondary point is that all methods of understand life/death/the world/meaning/existence have equally unsubstantiated core tenants that are accepted a priori. Why does a black swan prove that there are black swans? Because you (and I do not fault you for this) believe that matter exists and that observations are generally reliable and that a black swan is a swan of a blackish color. Does that help?

Your last two paragraphs point to an argument not that the Bible is self-authenticating, but rather that acceptance of the Bible is non-rational (note that I do not say it is irrational). By this I mean that there is no rational basis for the decision.

I have consistently argued your second point, which is that neither the atheist nor the theist can offer a proof that moves his/her position to knowledge. Both theism and atheism are the working out of belief systems that are non-rational choices. Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

The argument on the black swan doesn't work. If a black swan is described as a material object that possesses certain attributes and an item that does possess those attributes is presented, the object is in itself a proof of existence. This is very different from what you present Christianity. Radical scepticism (for example, denying that matter exists) is a dead end in terms of discussion, since ultimately one is drawn into a position where nothing can be known, and therefore, as Wittgenstein would advise us, we should be silent.

[Jozanny]

No chance!

I only get banned from places I don't care about.

;)

For me the inverse seems to be true. I hold myself in check better when I care less, not more. My soul is, sadly, still tangled up in a Poets & Writers community which, literally, no longer exists as I was once engaged with it. My essay is fairly honest about my ghosts, and my lack of fresh sources for renewal.

The Network is okay, and it is a nice place to play aesthetic chess and lets me procrastinate while still using words, but on a personal level the community offers me no stepping stone to advance myself, and finding that would make me happier, so maybe I'll get banned for sniveling.:lol:

[billyjack]

Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.

You do realize that you are (albeit inadvertently and politely) saying, "You believe things. I know things"? That the atheistic (or perhaps the anti-supernatural) worldview can begin the argument from this assumption allows it to claim it is based on facts and evidence while religious world views are pipe-dreams and hopes. Yet all worldviews are built on assumptions.

Not really. I KNOW, and so do you, things which are sensed or infered from sensing. The limit to which we trust our senses is the limit of true knowledge. To know things unnsensed, things which i cant look at or hear or feel to confirm their being, is not knowing but rather, believing. I'm not saying believers or religious people are wrong. I'm just saying their views are based in belief because the things they assert arent based in the realm of true KNOWledge.

All world VIEWS are built on assumptions, but the world isnt.

[Jozanny]

I have consistently argued your second point, which is that neither the atheist nor the theist can offer a proof that moves his/her position to knowledge. Both theism and atheism are the working out of belief systems that are non-rational choices. Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

Despite my discontent with this thread, which is why I'd like to get rid of it and start over, you have not convinced me that lack of belief in theism is not in itself a rational decision. I may not want to believe my brain is damaged, but since the fact that my cerebral palsy is evidently manifest, I can accept that my physical therapist told me when I was 13 that I have a hole in my head the size of a quarter.

The argument that the geography of Israel is unique, which I've heard from apologists countless times, is not evidence to me of an omnipotent being who offers humanity conflicting moral prescriptions for success, and those that pick the wrong prescriptions are out of luck.

The argument that "god talks to me" is dubious. I have a cute little troll doll that Vinnie my cat insists on knocking off the tv--that I emotionally engage with Mr. Troll does not mean Pinocchio is a valid fairy tale.

The offering of human altruism as evidence is lame. We evolved as a social primate, and altruism is part and parcel of our success, so I do not see how accepting how matter behaves in the universe, and by extension its biology when it becomes so, as a process, isn't equally rational.

It is asking why the process is what it is which causes the trouble, and by the same token, asking why God revealed Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as inherently triumphalist when it isn't possible that each of them can be, at the same time, is what destroys the argument for God. If I know that Christians will eventually roast millions in ovens, and do nothing, then that isn't God; it is a monster--but monsters don't exist, thankfully.

[Mr. Vandemar]

My feeling towards atheists is that they, just as often as believers, attempt to force their beliefs on you but substitute faith with reason.

Being neither a believer or an atheist, I try to stay out of the issue as much as possible. I do however enjoy arguing with a very strong person (in either group, I mostly defend Christianity because it is more vulnerable than atheism in today's society) just to prove a point: your way is not the only way.

[The Atheist]

Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.

Which counter claim are you claiming to refuted?

I must have missed something, or, more likely, you given your opinion on something.

"Refuted" has a slightly different meaning.


Your use of the term "evidence" points to the Naturalist/Materialist strain that atheists must possess as a consequence of their refusal to believe in a spiritual component (i.e. God, angels, demons) to the universe. No Christian worth his salt will argue that he has any "evidence" for the existence of God. Atheists cannot prove God does not exist; nor can they prove the alternate explanation as to how we got here. The "evidence" argument gets us nowhere because the idea that there is "evidence" for a being who is beyond (not within) his creation is illogical: you can only find evidence for things within that system; God is "outside" the system he created (just as any artist is "outside" that which he creates).

Red.

This is nothing more than repetition of your previous points, which were all wrong.

None of it has any relevance whatsoever.

I shall state again: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Nothing more.

Until you reach the inescapable conclusion that what you said bears no relation to that simple statement of eight words, we are truly unable to make progress.

I must apologise for using the word "evidence", because my metaphorical use in that situation has clearly confused you. Evidence either way is not an essential trait for atheism. I was making a sly dig at the lack of evidence theists hold, not making any statement as to whether evidence is available, desirable or even necessary.


You "don't believe" my intentions are "stated honestly" but note your verb: "believe" - which is a different term than "know." How is that any different than what the Christian does?

In what way is this relevant?

What I personally believe has no relevance to atheism or this discussion.

If you want to preach, preach away, but this train is completely irrelevant.

I do note that you haven't answered whether my belief is correct or not, though.

;)


In other words: you attack Christians for believing something for which they have no "evidence," yet you judge me based upon what you believe to be true (but cannot really know with any true degree of certainty). Nice!

Just like that!

As far as I can tell, I don't think I've ever attacked christians on the basis of them having no evidence. I've certainly asked why they don't have any evidence, but I wouldn't say I've ever attacked people for it. And I was not judging you, I was passing a comment based on your demonstrated posting in this thread.

But as I said, the outraged paragraph is as good a way as any of avoiding the question.

No matter.


I'm interested in how atheists face the fundamental questions of existence - how did we get here? What gives meaning to life? Where did morality come from and what makes it binding? What makes life valuable? Why should love exist at all? Why should anything exist at all?

Then maybe you should ask those questions instead of making sweeping and incorrect statements about atheists and atheism.

Just be aware that any opinions you get will be personal answers from individual atheists. I'll gladly answer those questions from my personal perspective as a rationalist/materialist, but if you want to sue my answers as a basis for any truth about atheism, you need to go back to my italicised eight words above. You need to realise that the next atheist who offers an opinion might be a Buddhist and his/her opinions will differ vastly from mine.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss my opinion on those subjects.


Oh please. Don't drop Dawkins into this conversation. His discussions of Christianity are the lecture notes of an amature. He knows little about what he attacks.

Yes, but fortunately, I was asking you to check out his opinion on atheism, which you'd have to admit, he's a bit of a poster bloke for. That he's ignorant of christianity doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid opinion on what atheism is - he is a professor, after all. I just thought that being a name you're familiar with, you might be inclined to accept his opinion that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods.


I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with.

Please read that sentence again yourself.

It is lusciously ironic in its self-contradiction. Who on earth said atheists had to be logical? Sheesh, I gave you examples of several different types of atheists to whom logic is a dirty word.


You've done little to show how "clearly wrong" I am beyond simply stating so. I can do the same: You care clearly wrong on every count. There - how authoritative was that?

Not even slightly.

Check back. As noted in my last sentence, I have given you numerous, real-life examples of atheists who demonstrably show that your belief in what atheists must believe [logically, if you like] is wrong. David Icke's lizard peopleare atheists, yet they firmly believe the world is being run by extra-terrestials who take lizard form on earth.

Logic isn't high on their priority list and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are lots of other examples of similar silliness among atheists.

You claim that atheists must accept logic to be atheist.

You are just wrong.


A semantic quibble. Once God and the spiritual world is dispensed with, all that is left is materialism/naturalism. When you refuse to give even slightly on points like this, I get discouraged thinking that we'll actually have a real discussion.

Please don't try to turn the main point into "a semantic quibble".

You have simply created a false dichotomy for yourself - there are lots more options than materialism/theism. Why do I need to keep giving you the same examples time and time again? Maybe if I use a different one each time? Psychics don't fall into either of your camps.

I'm glad you're starting to think like me though - that serious discussion is impossible.

I refuse to give on points like this because you are wrong.

Now, excuse me for believing, but I believe your real beef is with the materialists you mention above. Maybe you need to start a thread somewhere to discuss that subject?


The word "spiritual" deals with a dimension of reality that connects to a world that is beyond the natural world. When I use the world "spiritual" I am specifically referring to the existence of a spiritual world within which God, Satan, and their angels/demons exist.

Astrologers believe a spirit world exists and they are also atheists. They don't believe your angels/demons do. (Generally)


Fine - "some" do; many do not, and what's left is abiogenesis. Telling me that a percentage believes something else doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to divine creation is life from nothing.

Have you heard of the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory? While that one's a bit silly, there are lots of creation myths that people believe in. Why do you always limit yourself to two choices?


Too brief to be of any practical use in this discussion. Elaboration would be nice.

:lol:

That's a good one!

There's nothing to expand on. Atheism does not and cannot make any statement on morality. I can't exapnd on it, but I'll just say.....

Buddhists!

You can ask a humanist, a Buddhist, a materialist, a Rastafarian or an anarchist about morality, but they could all be atheists, so once again, you can only get personal opinion.

Again, if you want my personal opinion on morality, go ahead and ask.


That you can provide exceptions does not change the fact that my statements are generally true (which is what I said). Why you feel the need to try and argue against my list is a mystery - it's almost as if you're afraid to admit that I'm correct about anything.

Oh, come on!

I can prove you wrong and you're still right?

And I wouldn't say I'm arguing against your list, either. I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to point out that you're wrong and that you keep making the same error over and over. Look, I admit there are a lot of anti-theists around who give atheism a bad name and that you might be angry about that, but just as secular people don't generally blame the rest of christianity for Fred Phelps, you need to stop attacking atheism in general. Find out who you're mad at and attack them.

In the meantime, I don't want to just sit idly by while you stridently repeat the same mistakes.


I do not suggest that they are "requirements" in that an atheist HAS to believe the things I listed; from where I stand, the things I listed seem to be the logical beliefs an atheist must hold in the absence of a creator God. The issue isn't whether I'm 100% accurate in my list - my list was an attempt to show that atheists carry a number of common beliefs - despite the numerous exceptions you may be able to dream up.

You seem to be [inadvertently] agreeing with me here!

We both accept that atheists can believe lots of things with no evidence whatsoever, which is great. We've covered logic, so I do think this time you're getting there. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. No evidence, no morality, no nothing else.

The trouble is that I personally think the number of atheists who subscribe to the tenets you stated originally is an extremely small percentage of atheists. Accordingly, I repeat that what you really need to do is establish who you're attempting to attack and narrow the target quite a lot.

Hopefully, we can now leave this subject as Jozanny is quite right that she started the thread for a different purpose and this ain't it.

[Jozanny]

My feeling towards atheists is that they, just as often as believers, attempt to force their beliefs on you but substitute faith with reason.

I do not know about force, but my problem with the Judeo-Christian tradition is the story ultimately breaks down in linguistic failure, just as the explanation of particle physics does, and I do not see why a *loving* God would reward some of what it created, if it is indeed a reward, with unification to itself, or reunification--while the all those other souls stay separate in suffering just because they made the wrong choice. I love my neices and nephews. Should one of them become a murderer, it would certainly cause me pain, and would represent a wrong choice, but there is a difference between condemning an act and condemning a soul. The doctrines of monotheism are full of inherent contradictions in value, in this sense. Salvation is like a twelve step program with no rationale to it.

However, I believe what I really wanted from The Corner was to look at atheism as a social phenomena, rather than butting heads over the same old pro and con debates. I failed, obviously, to the extent that the pro and con continues.

And PS: I have no interest in *forcing* theists to rethink themselves, and indeed, do not want to debate them on doctrine, or Dawkins, because they wish to see what they want, and not understand what Dawkins means. The theists, Mr. V, are the ones who insist on continuing the hula-hoop games, actually, while I keep my distance and stay clear from most other threads in this sub-forum.

[The Atheist]

However, I believe what I really wanted from The Corner was to look at atheism as a social phenomena, rather than butting heads over the same old pro and con debates.

I think this is the same trouble that I've been discussing with Red - that there isn't a common thread for atheists to create any social dynamic. Lack of belief isn't binding and this is borne out by atheist websites and the like - getting atheists to agree on anything is worse tha herding cats.

[Jozanny]

I think this is the same trouble that I've been discussing with Red - that there isn't a common thread for atheists to create any social dynamic. Lack of belief isn't binding and this is borne out by atheist websites and the like - getting atheists to agree on anything is worse tha herding cats.

Yes, but I am not really interested in that, so much as I am in the rise of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens as public intellectuals who have a say in the media elite. I am a writer and would like to join in. I don't really care for the game you and Red play, and it is a game, but I don't think persuasion is the goal for either of you.

Me? I am just out to make money, but would rather earn it through what I care about rather than doing sickening stuff like *womens interest*. Cultural observation is one way I don't have to be cheap--but I cannot turn LN into a virtual community for freelancers to feed off each other. Maybe I should look into making my own freelance forum, with a domain and webmaster, trying to balance between the academic MFA graduate and commercial writers. It would probably be difficult for me, but hey.

[The Atheist]

Yes, but I am not really interested in that, so much as I am in the rise of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens as public intellectuals who have a say in the media elite. I am a writer and would like to join in. I don't really care for the game you and Red play, and it is a game, but I don't think persuasion is the goal for either of you.

I can see why you'd like to join that group - there's money in anti-religion right now.

As to myself, I don't seek to persuade anyone of anything either, which is why I won't debate Red's theology with him. I'm just making sure his strident postings of what atheists must believe don't get to stand unchallenged - because he's just wrong.

I don't even attack religion or christianity per se. While I enjoy poking fun at all theists, only fundies, biblical literalists and YECs get me going. When a doctrine needs to consider the entire body of known science as liars, imps of Satan or just plain wrong, I get fairly offended.


Me? I am just out to make money, but would rather earn it through what I care about rather than doing sickening stuff like *womens interest*. Cultural observation is one way I don't have to be cheap--but I cannot turn LN into a virtual community for freelancers to feed off each other. Maybe I should look into making my own freelance forum, with a domain and webmaster, trying to balance between the academic MFA graduate and commercial writers. It would probably be difficult for me, but hey.[/COLOR]

Starting forums is extremely hard work and probably fails most of the time. The bad news is that I just don't believe it's a good career move - either the forum or writing anti-theistic literature; too many others have done it now and unless you had something really new to say, selling is going to be nigh impossible.

Had you considered literary work dealing with disability rather than god? That's an area which doesn't get much coverage and you'd have the advantage of originality?

Just a thought.

[Redzeppelin]

Red.

This is nothing more than repetition of your previous points, which were all wrong.

None of it has any relevance whatsoever.

You have not "proved" anything, sir. You've merely stated again and again that I'm wrong as if there is no need to provide some sort of argument. I'm sometimes a little slow, so it would be nice if you would condescend to remind me as to how you've "proven" anything I've said wrong.



I shall state again: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Nothing more.

Defining what a philosophic position is does not completely delineate the various ramifications of that position. I have laid out some of the ramifications of being an atheist (as least as I see them) - ramifications that logically follow from a disbelief in divine beings. You cannot simply say "we are our definition and nothing else." It doesn't work that way - all ways of believing, all ways of "seeing" the world carry with them latent ramifications.



Until you reach the inescapable conclusion that what you said bears no relation to that simple statement of eight words, we are truly unable to make progress.

That would require you, my friend, to provide an "inescapable argument." I'm still waiting for that.


I must apologise for using the word "evidence", because my metaphorical use in that situation has clearly confused you. Evidence either way is not an essential trait for atheism. I was making a sly dig at the lack of evidence theists hold, not making any statement as to whether evidence is available, desirable or even necessary.


You didn't use it metaphorically; you used it sarcastically (hence the quotation marks). I'm not confused, sir - but if I am, it might be due to your imprecision with language. I responded quite clearly to what you said. I was making the point that atheists generally justify their decision as to the nonexistence of God by virtue of the lack of evidence to "prove" His existence. A good number of atheists that I've spoken to tend to be empiricists. My comments were aimed at the implied "evidence" that atheists often seem to think they possess for their world-view.


In what way is this relevant?

What I personally believe has no relevance to atheism or this discussion.

A simple note that atheists often find the Christian's "belief" in God insufficient - that such belief is misguided because of a lack of evidence; your comment ironically attests to the fact that all humans - Christian and atheist alike - draw conclusions based on what they believe to be true. You do not know me at all, and yet are willing to base your judgment on me on what you believe to be true. If you didn't understand that, and cannot see the relevance to the discussion, my apologies. I thought it was fairly obvious.



If you want to preach, preach away, but this train is completely irrelevant.

My brother, I haven't stepped within a mile of "preaching" yet. I do note that you haven't answered whether my belief is correct or not, though.


As far as I can tell, I don't think I've ever attacked christians on the basis of them having no evidence. I've certainly asked why they don't have any evidence, but I wouldn't say I've ever attacked people for it. And I was not judging you, I was passing a comment based on your demonstrated posting in this thread.

Fine - let me retract "attack" and substitute "criticize." Our "evidence" holds no more water for the unbeliever than theirs does for us. It's pretty even all around on the matter of "evidence."

Here's your statement:
"This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely."

You asserted a "truth" - a "judgment" if you will - as to the contents of my heart and mind in terms of the motivations/intentions driving my arguments. You cannot know my intentions from my words - only God knows if I post to sincerely learn, or to simply aggravate people. I would never patronize you by telling you why I think you say what you do.


But as I said, the outraged paragraph is as good a way as any of avoiding the question.

Not even bothered 1/10th enough to even approach mildly miffed, let alone "outraged." You better check my diction again.



Then maybe you should ask those questions instead of making sweeping and incorrect statements about atheists and atheism.

You claimed atheism wasn't a belief system; I provided what seemed to me to be some of the ramifications of atheistic belief, which I think provide a sort of belief system.

Get over the fact that I made the list and please explain why they're wrong. (Providing exceptions, by the way, doesn't prove I'm wrong.) I don't get bothered by your sweeping generalizations about Christianity; I simply provide counter-arguments.


Just be aware that any opinions you get will be personal answers from individual atheists. I'll gladly answer those questions from my personal perspective as a rationalist/materialist, but if you want to sue my answers as a basis for any truth about atheism, you need to go back to my italicised eight words above. You need to realise that the next atheist who offers an opinion might be a Buddhist and his/her opinions will differ vastly from mine.

I'm already aware of what you say. Of course there will be variation, but overall, there should be some motifs that show up. It is not logically possible for each atheist - in the offering of his/her "personal perspective" - to offer a uniquely individual view of atheism that has nothing in common with other atheists. That should be obvious.


Yes, but fortunately, I was asking you to check out his opinion on atheism, which you'd have to admit, he's a bit of a poster bloke for. That he's ignorant of christianity doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid opinion on what atheism is - he is a professor, after all. I just thought that being a name you're familiar with, you might be inclined to accept his opinion that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods.

The major problem with your response is that it tries to squirm out from the reality that Dawkins' book is as much about what he finds to be problematic about Christianity/religion as it does with atheistic belief. The title The God Delusion pretty much attests to the fact that he's aiming his sights on religion (which he understands about as much as I understand biology). That he's a professor of biology makes him an expert in that area; in terms of theology and Christianity - he's barely made it out of 4th grade in that area.

If all Dawkins did was talk about atheism, his book probably would have disappeared without so much as a ripple.


Please read that sentence again yourself.

I did and by golly, it still sounds good to me!


It is lusciously ironic in its self-contradiction. Who on earth said atheists had to be logical? Sheesh, I gave you examples of several different types of atheists to whom logic is a dirty word.

Not really. We were quibbling over the word "must" and I indicated that my "must" is less a requirement than a logical necessity from where I'm standing.

For some atheists, you are certainly right. For most of the intellectual ones I encounter here, "logic" is often quoted as part of the justification for the rejection of a belief in God.




Not even slightly.

Check back. As noted in my last sentence, I have given you numerous, real-life examples of atheists who demonstrably show that your belief in what atheists must believe [logically, if you like] is wrong. David Icke's lizard peopleare atheists, yet they firmly believe the world is being run by extra-terrestials who take lizard form on earth.

You provided some exceptions to the rule. Exceptions don't disprove the rule - they tend to confirm it.


You claim that atheists must accept logic to be atheist.

Nope. I claimed that logically, once one rejects God, there exist a number of conclusions that it would seem reasonable to assume that atheists accept.


You are just wrong.

I'm sorry, sir, in the world I come from, nobody is "just wrong": people are "wrong" when their position/argument is proven to be faulty. Your claim of my position being "just wrong" simply tells me your opinion; it does not tell me why I should agree with you in that opinon (which is what a good argument is at least intended to do).



Please don't try to turn the main point into "a semantic quibble".

I'm not creating a semantic quibble: I'm identifying the one you were using.



You have simply created a false dichotomy for yourself - there are lots more options than materialism/theism. Why do I need to keep giving you the same examples time and time again? Maybe if I use a different one each time? Psychics don't fall into either of your camps.

I'm aware that my dichotomy is not inclusive; but it does pretty much lay out the two primary positions that exist in terms of our genesis. That there are other splinter factions that believe all kinds of strange things doesn't change the fact that - overall - the two main positions that exist in explaining the origins of the universe and life are either a god/God, or materialism. Putting on aliens or other silliness only moves the problem off of earth - but it doesn't change the root positions.



I'm glad you're starting to think like me though - that serious discussion is impossible.

But at least I'll take the time to explain to you why I disagree with you and why I think your position is wrong.


I refuse to give on points like this because you are wrong.

As I generally seem to be in conversations with you.


Now, excuse me for believing, but I believe your real beef is with the materialists you mention above. Maybe you need to start a thread somewhere to discuss that subject?

I have no "beef" with anybody here. I'm trying to learn something.

I'll pass on the new thread - I'm having too much fun in this one.




Astrologers believe a spirit world exists and they are also atheists. They don't believe your angels/demons do. (Generally)

Exceptions validate the rule.




Have you heard of the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory? While that one's a bit silly, there are lots of creation myths that people believe in. Why do you always limit yourself to two choices?

I'd rather not spend too much of my limited time on this earth investigating "silly" things - could you provide me with something more serious so that I feel that I get a proper return for my invested time?



There's nothing to expand on. Atheism does not and cannot make any statement on morality. I can't exapnd on it, but I'll just say.....

I never said atheists "made a statement" on morality. I asked for more clarification on your comment, which it appears you are unable to do; but why make comments that you lack the ability to explain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of discussion?



Again, if you want my personal opinion on morality, go ahead and ask.

Sure: what is the basis for moral behavior in the absence of a transcendant moral law?


I can prove you wrong and you're still right?

That remains to be seen. Trust me, if you "prove me wrong" and I see it, you'll be the first to know. God says I'm not allowed to be dishonest about such things.


And I wouldn't say I'm arguing against your list, either. I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to point out that you're wrong and that you keep making the same error over and over. Look, I admit there are a lot of anti-theists around who give atheism a bad name and that you might be angry about that, but just as secular people don't generally blame the rest of christianity for Fred Phelps, you need to stop attacking atheism in general. Find out who you're mad at and attack them.

Nope. Not angry. Bemused is probably a better word. I've not "attacked" atheism in any way, shape or form. Please provide evidence of said attacks and I will post haste offer a sincere apology for that is not my intention. Atheists are quite entitled to believe as they wish without interference from me. My only issue is when they say silly, misinformed and ignorant things about Christianity as if such things were fact. Now that's annoying.



In the meantime, I don't want to just sit idly by while you stridently repeat the same mistakes.

Then feel free to walk out of our conversation (yet again); nobody is forcing you to engage me.


We both accept that atheists can believe lots of things with no evidence whatsoever, which is great. We've covered logic, so I do think this time you're getting there. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. No evidence, no morality, no nothing else.

It's not that simple. But making it so does allow you to tell me I'm wrong. So I guess I see the advantage of taking a wildly narrow position as you have done.


The trouble is that I personally think the number of atheists who subscribe to the tenets you stated originally is an extremely small percentage of atheists. Accordingly, I repeat that what you really need to do is establish who you're attempting to attack and narrow the target quite a lot.

I'm not attacking anybody. I figured that the atheists in the thread could provide some understanding for me in terms of the basis of their beliefs. I cannot speak for all Christians, but I certainly wouldn't back out of a discussion as you seem to be doing by claiming that "all Christians believe in their own unique vision of God, and as such, I can give you no list of general, basic beliefs that most Christians subscribe to." That's absurd. There are certain beliefs that 90% of Christians can claim, and I would give you those with the caveat that there are certainly variations. You won't even give that - instead claiming that there are no general truisms for atheists - that there are no common threads. I find that idea stunning in its absurdity.


Hopefully, we can now leave this subject as Jozanny is quite right that she started the thread for a different purpose and this ain't it.

You are free to walk away when you wish. But understand that you've done little to defend your position beyond claim loudly how "just wrong" I am.

[The Atheist]

You have not "proved" anything, sir. You've merely stated again and again that I'm wrong as if there is no need to provide some sort of argument. I'm sometimes a little slow, so it would be nice if you would condescend to remind me as to how you've "proven" anything I've said wrong.

Please re-read my posts.

You have stated what "atheists must logically believe" and I have given concrete and real-world examples of why you are wrong.

I'm not going to repeat it all again.

I have not answered parts of your post which are irrelevant, already answered, or both.


That would require you, my friend, to provide an "inescapable argument." I'm still waiting for that.

Already done, re-read my posts.


My comments were aimed at the implied "evidence" that atheists often seem to think they possess for their world-view.

Some atheists, sure. Even including me, but it bears no relation to your statement that "all atheists must..."


You asserted a "truth" - a "judgment" if you will - as to the contents of my heart and mind in terms of the motivations/intentions driving my arguments. You cannot know my intentions from my words - only God knows if I post to sincerely learn, or to simply aggravate people. I would never patronize you by telling you why I think you say what you do.

Yet, that's exactly what you've done.

I provided quotes in previous posts to show precisely where you have said one thing and done another. It doesn't bother me in the least that you do it, but I won't let you off without noting it.


You claimed atheism wasn't a belief system; I provided what seemed to me to be some of the ramifications of atheistic belief, which I think provide a sort of belief system.

Get over the fact that I made the list and please explain why they're wrong. (Providing exceptions, by the way, doesn't prove I'm wrong.)

Sorry, but exceptions do indeed prove you wrong. That's exactly how it works.


I don't get bothered by your sweeping generalizations about Christianity; I simply provide counter-arguments.

Please show examples. I don't think I've done that at any stage.


The major problem with your response is that it tries to squirm out from the reality that Dawkins' book is as much about what he finds to be problematic about Christianity/religion as it does with atheistic belief.

Completely wrong. I'm no fan of Dawkins (who I usually refer to as Dorkins, by the way), so suggesting I'm squirming is absurd.

I used Dawkins as one example of what an atheist actuall is by self-description.


You provided some exceptions to the rule. Exceptions don't disprove the rule - they tend to confirm it.

Coming off your claims on logic, I wish you'd apply logic to this position.


I have no "beef" with anybody here. I'm trying to learn something.

Again, this statement does not gel with your position. I have attempted to teach you where you're going wrong and you refuse to listen, reverting immediately back to the same errors. The post I'm quoting is a perfect example.


I'll pass on the new thread - I'm having too much fun in this one.

A telling comment.


That remains to be seen. Trust me, if you "prove me wrong" and I see it, you'll be the first to know. God says I'm not allowed to be dishonest about such things.

Best you have a chat with him forthwith.


My only issue is when they say silly, misinformed and ignorant things about Christianity as if such things were fact. Now that's annoying.

Provide examples, please.


But understand that you've done little to defend your position beyond claim loudly how "just wrong" I am.

No.

I have provided actual evidence.

I wanted to remove this from the rest of the post as it's a relevant question.


Sure: what is the basis for moral behavior in the absence of a transcendant moral law?

Realism.

[Redzeppelin]

You have stated what "atheists must logically believe" and I have given concrete and real-world examples of why you are wrong.

I understand that my listing is very general and certainly doesn't account for "all" atheists (and my original post does not indicate that "all atheists" must believe the tenants I listed); I think I made it clear that the list was my way of suggesting that among atheists there tend to be some shared views - and those shared views constitute a sort of "belief system." If I listed things that are totally inapplicable, then yes, I'm wrong. But none of the things I listed is in-and-of-itself wrong. What you've done is protest (rightly so) that those listed characteristics do not classify all atheists. Had you said that, I'd be agreeing with you. But, what you did was tell me that they're all wrong. That is not so - many atheists hold to the majority of things I listed. It would be correct for you to say that my list is not definitive in nature, but it's incorrect for you to deny any of it any validity whatsoever.

As well, my final paragraph in that post said this:

Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

My list does apply in a general way to a significant population of atheists. Are you willing to supply statistics to say that that is not so?



Some atheists, sure. Even including me, but it bears no relation to your statement that "all atheists must..."

I have checked my posts over carefully. Nowhere do I put those three words together. Perhaps you ought to read my posts.



I provided quotes in previous posts to show precisely where you have said one thing and done another. It doesn't bother me in the least that you do it, but I won't let you off without noting it.

Responding to your statement that atheism isn't a belief system does not contradict my stated intention to learn something here. I disagreed with your statement and provided the reasoning for my belief.




Sorry, but exceptions do indeed prove you wrong. That's exactly how it works.

You're correct. Faulty logic on my part.


Completely wrong. I'm no fan of Dawkins (who I usually refer to as Dorkins, by the way), so suggesting I'm squirming is absurd.

I used Dawkins as one example of what an atheist actuall is by self-description.

But your statement is still irrelevant because you said Dawkins is a sort of "defender" (my word, relax) of atheism - but the reality is that he has styled himself as a self-appointed critic of religion/Christianity.


Again, this statement does not gel with your position. I have attempted to teach you where you're going wrong and you refuse to listen, reverting immediately back to the same errors. The post I'm quoting is a perfect example.

My statement is consistent. You engaged me by arguing against my statement about atheism being a belief system. I responded to that challenge. I have allowed your points that there are exceptions to the "rules" (note the quotes, please) I listed; but those exceptions do not totally invalidate the criteria I listed as things that many atheists believe because those things I listed are generally consistent with at least a portion of atheists' view of the world.



A telling comment.

To you - who claims to know the contents of my heart - probably.


Best you have a chat with him forthwith.

I have been doing so all day.



Provide examples, please.

Virtually any statement made by hellzapoppin on the topic of religion should do nicely.



Realism.

*sigh*

Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

[The Atheist]

I understand that my listing is very general and certainly doesn't account for "all" atheists (and my original post does not indicate that "all atheists" must believe the tenants I listed);...

No, I'll grant you didn't say "all", however, that is irrelevant because your posts were unequivocal:


The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:


I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with.

"Require" and "must" doesn't leave anywhere for you to go on this other than an admission that you were wrong.


I think I made it clear that the list was my way of suggesting that among atheists there tend to be some shared views - and those shared views constitute a sort of "belief system."

Which is a re-statement of the previous error. The only thing common to atheists - even in general terms - is that they don't believe in gods.


If I listed things that are totally inapplicable, then yes, I'm wrong. But none of the things I listed is in-and-of-itself wrong.

I guess you can define "wrong" any way you like, but I'll stick with "incorrect".


What you've done is protest (rightly so) that those listed characteristics do not classify all atheists. Had you said that, I'd be agreeing with you.

Small steps.

:thumbs_up


But, what you did was tell me that they're all wrong. That is not so - many atheists hold to the majority of things I listed. It would be correct for you to say that my list is not definitive in nature, but it's incorrect for you to deny any of it any validity whatsoever.

Well, I can and do deny it has any validity.

I'll let you have a go, though.

You explain to me what common thread there is between me - a materialist/rationalist, a Buddhist monk, an astrologer, a Pagan and a psychic-believer, then we can look at it. Those others can be atheists, yet none of them are materialist or rational. If you can show me that materialist/rationalists are a majority of atheists, you will at least be able to claim most of 'em are. "Many" is irrelevant. Many people believe the moon landings were a hoax as well. Numbers confer no authority.

As well, my final paragraph in that post said this:


Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).

My list does apply in a general way to a significant population of atheists. Are you willing to supply statistics to say that that is not so?

No, I'd certainly agree that a [statistically] significant proportion of atheists think that way. Maybe as much as 10-15% of all atheists. As to asking me to supply stats, you have it back to front. You want to argue how many atheists think the way you think they do, the onus is on you to find out & tell us. I doubt any genuine figures are available, though. And if they are, good luck finding that on Google!

If you want to argue with the 10-15% of atheists who fit your criteria, go ahead and argue with them.


I have checked my posts over carefully. Nowhere do I put those three words together. Perhaps you ought to read my posts.

As you saw in my quotes above, I accept you didn't use those three words, but it also shows that my paraphrasing is correct.


Responding to your statement that atheism isn't a belief system does not contradict my stated intention to learn something here.

As long as you don't start coming out with unequivocal statements about what "atheists must logically believe", I can accept that. Now that you realise that there is no "atheists must logically believe" you could try asking questions which match your stated goal.


But your statement is still irrelevant because you said Dawkins is a sort of "defender" (my word, relax) of atheism - but the reality is that he has styled himself as a self-appointed critic of religion/Christianity.

Sure, but I only used him as an authority on the meaning of the word atheist. Just as if I were going to find a generally-acceptable version of what christians believe, I'd be seeking examples from across the christian spectrum, not just one bloke. Dawkins was just a name I knew you'd know, and I was right, so let's not worry about any other of his positions. While I agree with him on lots of things, I find him quite susceptible to his own illogicalities.


My statement is consistent. You engaged me by arguing against my statement about atheism being a belief system. I responded to that challenge. I have allowed your points that there are exceptions to the "rules" (note the quotes, please) I listed; but those exceptions do not totally invalidate the criteria I listed as things that many atheists believe because those things I listed are generally consistent with at least a portion of atheists' view of the world.

And it looks as though you've finally got it right - "a portion of atheists".

:thumbs_up


Virtually any statement made by hellzapoppin on the topic of religion should do nicely.

Sorry, I don't know him/her at all or recall seeing any posts. The best plan is maybe to address those points directly to that poster. One poster on a forum of 52,926 members isn't worth getting worked up about.


Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

Not in this thread.

We can do it by PM or those message-board things in CP if you like, or you can start a thread somewhere on "Secular morality" or some other such subject.

Send me a link if you do.

[Redzeppelin]

Which is a re-statement of the previous error. The only thing common to atheists - even in general terms - is that they don't believe in gods.

Fair enough. Though I will admit that my assumptions are based on the population that I'm most likely speaking to in this forum. Many of the strains of atheism you mention I'm not sure I've run into around here (Lit Net). So my error was in providing a list that seemed reasonable based upon the general themes I hear in posts by avowed atheists.



I guess you can define "wrong" any way you like, but I'll stick with "incorrect".

I'm only wrong if no atheists anywhere subscribe to the list I created. Since I did not indicate that all atheists believed the tenants I listed, I have not committed any serious error beyond oversimplifying and not allowing for the exceptions you have provided.




You explain to me what common thread there is between me - a materialist/rationalist, a Buddhist monk, an astrologer, a Pagan and a psychic-believer, then we can look at it. Those others can be atheists, yet none of them are materialist or rational. If you can show me that materialist/rationalists are a majority of atheists, you will at least be able to claim most of 'em are. "Many" is irrelevant. Many people believe the moon landings were a hoax as well. Numbers confer no authority.

Your final sentence is correct.

Let me ask you this: once God/gods disappear from the universe (as in atheism), then what are the various theories as to how we got here if they are not evolutionary in nature? Since you seem to be knowledgable on various strains of atheism, perhaps you could briefly run down the theories?

For example - Buddhism apparently doesn't even bother with the question as to where we came from. That bypasses an explanation, but doesn't expressly remove Buddhism from having to believe in evolution. It just means they won't answer the question (which is itself an answer).



No, I'd certainly agree that a [statistically] significant proportion of atheists think that way. Maybe as much as 10-15% of all atheists. As to asking me to supply stats, you have it back to front. You want to argue how many atheists think the way you think they do, the onus is on you to find out & tell us. I doubt any genuine figures are available, though. And if they are, good luck finding that on Google!

As I said above, I assumed a certain population based upon the context of this forum and the general tenor of comments I've observed from the atheists here. Trust me when I say that there are just as many generalizations about Christians here as there are of atheists.


If you want to argue with the 10-15% of atheists who fit your criteria, go ahead and argue with them.

Are you in that percentage?



As long as you don't start coming out with unequivocal statements about what "atheists must logically believe", I can accept that. Now that you realise that there is no "atheists must logically believe" you could try asking questions which match your stated goal.


I'm sorry you're so hung up on the use of "must logically." I made it clear earlier that that statement was my belief that in the absence of God that a few clear ramifications resulted that seemed (at least in my mind) to be necessary beliefs. I'm fine with you telling me that that isn't so - but I think I've made it clear multiple times what my statement meant.


And it looks as though you've finally got it right - "a portion of atheists".

Perhaps.


Sorry, I don't know him/her at all or recall seeing any posts. The best plan is maybe to address those points directly to that poster. One poster on a forum of 52,926 members isn't worth getting worked up about.

You asked for examples - his/hers are full of them. I didn't bring good old hellza up because I'm "worked up" - I brought him/her up because s/he perfectly provides innumerable silly generalizations and misconceptions about Christianity.




We can do it by PM or those message-board things in CP if you like, or you can start a thread somewhere on "Secular morality" or some other such subject.

Send me a link if you do.

Well, I assumed that an "Atheist Corner" would be the perfect place to get some clarity on atheists' ideas about things like the basis of morality, the existence of love, and the problem of free will. You mean this isn't the place for that?

[The Atheist]

Fair enough. Though I will admit that my assumptions are based on the population that I'm most likely speaking to in this forum.

Yep, those assumptions will kill you every time. But hey, we've fixed it, so that's great.


Let me ask you this: once God/gods disappear from the universe (as in atheism), then what are the various theories as to how we got here if they are not evolutionary in nature? Since you seem to be knowledgable on various strains of atheism, perhaps you could briefly run down the theories?

For example - Buddhism apparently doesn't even bother with the question as to where we came from. That bypasses an explanation, but doesn't expressly remove Buddhism from having to believe in evolution. It just means they won't answer the question (which is itself an answer).

There you go - self answered, people believe all sorts of things, including nothing.

Honestly, a lot of people just don't care and have no opinion, just like Buddhists. I gave you panspermia, which is a wider belief than you'd expect - although still a small minority - and as regards psychics, astrologers & Pagans, I wouldn't attempt to speak for them for two reasons. One, I don't know, and two, we've just seen the danger in making assumptions. Most psychic-believers I've ever seen make a statement about their theistic beliefs are atheists, but as to what they believe, I have no idea because they're as crazy as loons and I don't bother getting into discussions with them.

Quite a lot of people believe life came to earth via aliens, but I haven't ever delved into where the aliens came from.


As I said above, I assumed a certain population based upon the context of this forum and the general tenor of comments I've observed from the atheists here. Trust me when I say that there are just as many generalizations about Christians here as there are of atheists.

Sure there are, but it doesn't mean you should adopt the same tactic. I don't assume christians have any belief other than sharing the same god for that reason.


Are you in that percentage?

Almost certainly.


I'm sorry you're so hung up on the use of "must logically." I made it clear earlier that that statement was my belief that in the absence of God that a few clear ramifications resulted that seemed (at least in my mind) to be necessary beliefs. I'm fine with you telling me that that isn't so - but I think I've made it clear multiple times what my statement meant.

There's no hang-up involved. "Must logically believe" is an imperative - no room for equivocation, see. You just need to stop using it.


You asked for examples - his/hers are full of them. I didn't bring good old hellza up because I'm "worked up" - I brought him/her up because s/he perfectly provides innumerable silly generalizations and misconceptions about Christianity.

But playing the same game is just a living example of the tu quoque fallacy. Hardly worth it, is it?


Well, I assumed that an "Atheist Corner" would be the perfect place to get some clarity on atheists' ideas about things like the basis of morality, the existence of love, and the problem of free will. You mean this isn't the place for that?

Yes, I do mean that.

Jozanny stated what she wanted the thread to be about and what you're seeking isn't part of it, so accordingly that stuff is off-topic. What we've been discussing - what "atheist" means - is fair game (I think!) but if you really do want to discuss those questions, you ought to start a new thread. They're fairly dominant subjects and will just wipe the thread out if we get into them here, so it's reasonable to start a new thread. Doesn't cost anything and then Jo can hopefully mould the thread back into the shape she saw at the start.

If you're prepared to listen to answers, then I'll probably answer those questions on the basis of my opinions as a materialist/rationalist.

[Redzeppelin]

There you go - self answered, people believe all sorts of things, including nothing.

Honestly, a lot of people just don't care and have no opinion, just like Buddhists. I gave you panspermia, which is a wider belief than you'd expect - although still a small minority - and as regards psychics, astrologers & Pagans, I wouldn't attempt to speak for them for two reasons. One, I don't know, and two, we've just seen the danger in making assumptions. Most psychic-believers I've ever seen make a statement about their theistic beliefs are atheists, but as to what they believe, I have no idea because they're as crazy as loons and I don't bother getting into discussions with them.

But this merely bypasses the options. I'd like to know the other options beyond a divine creation and abiogenesis (life-from-nothing). Ultimately, we came from somewhere. Just because an atheist might decline to choose a position doesn't mean the positions don't exist. From where I'm standing it seems that there are two options - I'm happy to hear you provide the other options.


Sure there are, but it doesn't mean you should adopt the same tactic. I don't assume christians have any belief other than sharing the same god for that reason.

The difference between hellza and I is that he speaks as if he knows (when in reality his assertions of certainty are riddled with problems); I put out what seemed logical to me and have been asking you to show me how they are not so. You have provided some clarity, but by no means have you fully refuted the list as a reasonable general tally of what many atheists do believe.



There's no hang-up involved. "Must logically believe" is an imperative - no room for equivocation, see. You just need to stop using it.

In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I think my list makes sense. That it doesn't include all atheists only slightly lessens its validity.

The only thing I "need" to do in life is eat, drink, sleep and breathe. Pretty much all else is a "want."



But playing the same game is just a living example of the tu quoque fallacy. Hardly worth it, is it?

Already addressed above. I give you what I believe to be true and await your revision. Some of your answers help do that; others do not.



Jozanny stated what she wanted the thread to be about and what you're seeking isn't part of it, so accordingly that stuff is off-topic. What we've been discussing - what "atheist" means - is fair game (I think!) but if you really do want to discuss those questions, you ought to start a new thread. They're fairly dominant subjects and will just wipe the thread out if we get into them here, so it's reasonable to start a new thread. Doesn't cost anything and then Jo can hopefully mould the thread back into the shape she saw at the start.

Well, Jozanny doesn't rule this thread - and I've participated in many that went off on many tangents. If you're unwilling to do so, then fine, I can respect that. But why Jo thinks that this thread is supposed to operate by rules different than most of the others is odd to me. Only moderators get to lay down content injunctions.

And, ultimately, what atheist "means" is wrapped up in what an atheist believes - just as in the definition of Christian is bound up in what a Christian believes.

If you're prepared to listen to answers, then I'll probably answer those questions on the basis of my opinions as a materialist/rationalist.

The problem with your qualification is that even if I told you I was prepared to "listen," your comments towards me here have indicated that you don't think I'm honest about my questioning in the first place. That's a no-win situation for me.

[The Atheist]

But this merely bypasses the options. I'd like to know the other options beyond a divine creation and abiogenesis (life-from-nothing). Ultimately, we came from somewhere. Just because an atheist might decline to choose a position doesn't mean the positions don't exist. From where I'm standing it seems that there are two options - I'm happy to hear you provide the other options.

It's not a question of choosing positions, I just don't know what lots of people believe.

I guess there are several main ones:

God created everything 10,000 years ago
God created the universe and life evolved on earth separately
Panspermia - life was created spontaneously, everywhere it exists
Alien life forms of unexplained origin created us
The universe came into being and life evolved on earth

Is that what you're after?

(Just one thing, abiogenesis doesn't mean "life came from nothing".)


You have provided some clarity, but by no means have you fully refuted the list as a reasonable general tally of what many atheists do believe.

Well, I'm pretty sure I have, but you can choose how you see it.


In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I think my list makes sense. That it doesn't include all atheists only slightly lessens its validity.

Oh well, a bit of a retrograde step. I thought we were making progress for a while.


Well, Jozanny doesn't rule this thread - and I've participated in many that went off on many tangents. If you're unwilling to do so, then fine, I can respect that. But why Jo thinks that this thread is supposed to operate by rules different than most of the others is odd to me. Only moderators get to lay down content injunctions.

It's a thing called "manners" where I come from.

Certainly, Jo doesn't make the rules, but it seems pretty rude to me to take over a thread by multiple off-topic posting.


And, ultimately, what atheist "means" is wrapped up in what an atheist believes - just as in the definition of Christian is bound up in what a Christian believes.

Right back to square one. No matter, I can't say I didn't try.


The problem with your qualification is that even if I told you I was prepared to "listen," your comments towards me here have indicated that you don't think I'm honest about my questioning in the first place. That's a no-win situation for me.

And the previous paragraph to this one gives me a stronger impression than ever that I'm right about your honesty being at odds with your stated comments. You asked for clarification and made some blatant errors and I replied to you using actual and obvious examples of why you were wrong and tried to answer the questions you had.

But in the end, you haven't changed your position a millimetre.

That does it for me.

[Redzeppelin]

It's not a question of choosing positions, I just don't know what lots of people believe.

I guess there are several main ones:

God created everything 10,000 years ago
God created the universe and life evolved on earth separately
Panspermia - life was created spontaneously, everywhere it exists
Alien life forms of unexplained origin created us
The universe came into being and life evolved on earth

Is that what you're after?

All of which boil down to: God created the universe or it created itself. Option 1, 2, 4 are the former; option 3, 5 (and perhaps 4) are the latter.



Well, I'm pretty sure I have, but you can choose how you see it.

You're right: it could be that I can't see a good argument when presented with one; or, it could be that I haven't been presented with a good argument yet.



Oh well, a bit of a retrograde step. I thought we were making progress for a while.

Patronizing aside, I will not concede that my list is totally off-base.




It's a thing called "manners" where I come from.

Conversations take on a life of their own and wander around quite normally - even in conversations by "mannered" people. In fact, in many conversations, the type of outburst Jo gave earlier would not be considered "mannerly" but rather rude - as if a converstation is only about the person who started it. This is not a formal debate forum - the "Refs" are only here to make sure we obey the rules; going off on a tangent is allowed and perfectly normal in informal discussion.


Certainly, Jo doesn't make the rules, but it seems pretty rude to me to take over a thread by multiple off-topic posting.

"Take over a thread"? You and I are having a conversation. Those around us are free to ignore it and continue on with Jo's topic.



Right back to square one. No matter, I can't say I didn't try.

I would much rather you explain your disagreement than shake your head and condescend as if your position is crystal clear and you are relieved of the responsibility of explaining your disagreement. The former is effective debate; the latter is merely being patronizing.




And the previous paragraph to this one gives me a stronger impression than ever that I'm right about your honesty being at odds with your stated comments. You asked for clarification and made some blatant errors and I replied to you using actual and obvious examples of why you were wrong and tried to answer the questions you had.

You have only made it clear that there is a range of different views that atheists hold; what you've not done is invalidated the reality that many believe what I've stated; what you've not done is eliminated the logical reality that atheism is not a totally subjective belief-system. There are unifying themes throughout. That was the heart of the point I was trying to make.

[The Atheist]

The former is effective debate; the latter is merely being patronizing.

No, it is not being patronising.

It's the only possible response I have when I presented a definitive and demonstrably correct series of facts only to arrive back at:


... what you've not done is eliminated the logical reality that atheism is not a totally subjective belief-system.

See, I've utterly detroyed your assertion with concrete examples and you haven't changed the assertion one iota.

If you're unable to stand corrected on such a simple matter, it is 100% plain that any attempt at any other discussion is doomed before it starts. That's why I give up discussing subjects with you. The point of no return, I think they call it.

And here it is.

:)

[Bitterfly]

what you've not done is eliminated the logical reality that atheism is not a totally subjective belief-system.

Honestly, Redzeppelin, without wanting to sound too patronizing, I think you should travel a bit (out of the US?). You'll meet tons of people who are atheists without even thinking about it one second; and for whom atheism is not a belief system but just a lack of belief in God. It's as simple as that!
But I suppose it's flattering that you absolutely want it to be a consistent and coherent world-view! :D

Now, "totally subjective" is probably true. Even though I find that choice of words slightly bizarre.

[Redzeppelin]

No, it is not being patronising.

It's the only possible response I have when I presented a definitive and demonstrably correct series of facts only to arrive back at:

There are hundreds of possible responses. Yours tend to be the more patronizing choice. You're not required to agree with my perception of your attitude.


See, I've utterly detroyed your assertion with concrete examples and you haven't changed the assertion one iota.

My friend, you brought foward some valid points; "utterly destroyed" I'm not sure I would agree with (but you're free to persist in the belief that you have done so).


If you're unable to stand corrected on such a simple matter, it is 100% plain that any attempt at any other discussion is doomed before it starts. That's why I give up discussing subjects with you. The point of no return, I think they call it.

And here it is.

Fair enough. This lasted longer than I anticipated, so I guess that's a good thing.




Honestly, Redzeppelin, without wanting to sound too patronizing, I think you should travel a bit (out of the US?). You'll meet tons of people who are atheists without even thinking about it one second; and for whom atheism is not a belief system but just a lack of belief in God. It's as simple as that!
But I suppose it's flattering that you absolutely want it to be a consistent and coherent world-view! :D

Now, "totally subjective" is probably true. Even though I find that choice of words slightly bizarre.

Perhaps. I suppose I'm still leaning on the idea that something we do or do not believe in has ramifications that stretch out around us. From where I'm standing, if one says "There is no such being as God (or gods)," then it seems to me that a few realities about that person's view of the world would tend to be consistent - at least in some ways - with other people who believe similarly. If you're both telling me that that is untrue, and that each atheist has a totally unique set of views regarding the origin of humanity and the world, the origins and content of morality, the make-up of human nature and the definition of what death means, then I guess I'm wrong. I assume that's what both of you are telling me (TA - you're excused from responding, having already left this discussion)?

I do not "want" atheism to be a "consistent and coherent world view." I was simply suggesting that the claim that atheism doesn't comprise some consistent belief motifs is incorrect. The simple rejection of God/gods carries with it ramifications that I think are more common than the Atheist wishes to admit. Once a term can be defined in whatever way one wishes, it becomes a meaningless term.

Thanks for the recommendation to travel; I will extend to you a totally nonpatronizing invitation to visit a few good churches - you might be surprized by what you hear and find there.

[Bitterfly]

If you're both telling me that that is untrue, and that each atheist has a totally unique set of views regarding the origin of humanity and the world, the origins and content of morality, the make-up of human nature and the definition of what death means, then I guess I'm wrong. I assume that's what both of you are telling me (TA - you're excused from responding, having already left this discussion)?

I suppose we all do, actually, have a unique set of views, insofar as any human being's ideas can be held as unique, of course. Most of my friends are atheists - not because I choose them on that criterium, but because I know far more atheists than believers - and we all have subtly differing sets of views, which spring from our educations, acquaintances, experiences...
There's no Book of atheism, you know.;)


I do not "want" atheism to be a "consistent and coherent world view." I was simply suggesting that the claim that atheism doesn't comprise some consistent belief motifs is incorrect. The simple rejection of God/gods carries with it ramifications that I think are more common than the Atheist wishes to admit. Once a term can be defined in whatever way one wishes, it becomes a meaningless term.

Ok, I get what you mean this time, and of course there are ramifications. But you are now speaking of "belief motifs", which I find less generalizing and more relevant than your earlier evocation of a "belief system".



Thanks for the recommendation to travel; I will extend to you a totally nonpatronizing invitation to visit a few good churches - you might be surprized by what you hear and find there.

Hee hee:D Actually I love churches (especially architecturally-wise, admittedly). But the last time I spoke with a pastor, a few weeks ago, it was a frustrating experience: he told me I would burn in hell for my lack of belief, and his only answer to most of my questions was "well, God is omniscient and omnipotent, and his ways are mysterious"... Obviously he wasn't of the most modern school of theology, but still... sometimes I have the impression that IS only answer for believers, beneath all the rationalisation.

[Redzeppelin]

But the last time I spoke with a pastor, a few weeks ago, it was a frustrating experience: he told me I would burn in hell for my lack of belief, and his only answer to most of my questions was "well, God is omniscient and omnipotent, and his ways are mysterious"... Obviously he wasn't of the most modern school of theology, but still... sometimes I have the impression that IS only answer for believers, beneath all the rationalisation.

People don't "burn" for not believing in God so much as they do for the persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's attempts to convict the individual of his/her need of God. Hell is a chosen destination. I like the way one pastor put it: "You will have to climb over Jesus Christ to get into hell - he is that determined to stop you" (although neither he nor God will override your human free will). God will do everything in His power (short of violating your free will and violating the justice inherent in His character) to stop humans from making that terrible choice. Hell isn't a sentence - it is a granting of an individual's wish to rule his/her own life, rather than lay it at the feet of Him who created everything and best knows how our lives should be conducted.

And, I'm not sure I believe that hell is composed of fire and other tortures; being separated from the source of all Good in the universe should be painful enough.

The guy who spoke to you blew it. That's not how you show someone their need of God. Sorry you had to experience that.

[Jozanny]

That is, I believe, more in touch with an original intent of the thread, and raises some potentially interesting questions. See, I may have nothing against the belief of others and their right to conduct the matters of their private life in accordance with that belief, but I do oppose:

1) The fact that certain amount of money off the taxes we all pay in many officially secular countries is given to religious institutions (which does not mean only the religion of the majority).
If secularity is supposed to function on separation of Church and State, in which State shall not go against Church in sense of prohibiting its activities, but also not favour any religious institution, in sense of aiding it (esp. financially!), is this not violating it? Should not religious institutions be financially suppported strictly by their adherents?
Share your views on how this functions in your country.

2) The fact that, financially, religious institutions are again in some officially secular countries being given priviledges regarding taxes on property and being exempted from those. Again, financial favouring of religious institutions.

3) The fact that many officially secular countries teach Religious Education in public schools, in sense that RE is not a neutral teaching of world religions, but teaching the religion of the majority (or minority, if they organise it for themselves) for the religious majority, from the religious perspective, involving religious practice in those classes (prayers, for example), and religious symbols displayed in those classrooms (cross on the wall, for example).
Should not that kind of RE, even if it is often technically elective, be removed from public schools?

4) The fact that in some officially secular countries which teach RE as described in the point above the presence in those classes is nearly mandatory, or that those classes are intentionally put in the midst of the school day, which creates problem for young children who in some cases do not have guidance, supervision and organised activity instead of RE during that time? Speaking from my own personal example, whilst living in Croatia. The situation there is still the same. Which means that many parents who otherwise would not want their children to attend RE, still send their kids to RE because they fear that their children will be discriminated against by their colleagues on the grounds of religion (and/or nation, remember that I am speaking for Croatia, the territory of ex-Yu), because they worry something will happen to them (in case of young children) since they are not supervised during that time and may as well leave school, etc.

So yeah, officially, RE is not mandatory; but people are well 'blackmailed' to send their children to attend it (so you have 99% of kids who attend it, only half of whom are from religious families; in my class I was the only one who did not attend it). And I am pretty sure this happens in other countries as well, here in Italy it is not drastically different either.

5) The fact that teachers of that kind of RE in some secular countries are paid not by their religious institution, but by Ministry of Education, which is again financed by money from mine and everyone else's taxes.
Sorry, it is not alright that I finance them with my money.

6) The fact that religious symbols are still widely presented in some public schools in officially secular countries. You know, the picture of Pope, crucefices, that kind of things. (And it is not the case in which religious symbol is artistic heritage or part of the architecture of the building.) Seen with my own eyes, in three countries. Public schools, I repeat. Secular countries, I repeat. Cannot emphasise that enough.

7) The fact that in many secular countries there is open identification of nationality and religion (e.g. Italian=Catholic, in Croatia that is even worse, just two examples), in public speeches people make (I personally heard a speech as a child on some non-religious occassion, it went like this: "So I welcome you, as Italian and as Catholic..." :rolleyes:), public associations (press, etc), and so on.

8) The fact that many secular countries' laws are under the influence of religious viewpoint of a majority on certain issues (e.g. abortion, assisted suicide, you know, the usual set of controverse ethical dilemmas).
Take a look at this way. If somebody is religious and her religion forbids her to abort, fine, but why should her religion forbid me to abort, based on their teachings I do not even believe in? Just an example - I certainly do not want this to turn into thread on any of the ethical issues in specific. But that is the logic behind - the logic is "G-d is against that", ergo it must be forbidden by the law. If the logic were "It is a medical consensus that aborting at any point is a murder of a person", I would not have nearly as much problem about it as I would have if the logic were of religious nature. And many ethical dilemmas in our society, especially regarding bioethics, are exactly of religious nature, where religion has more to say than professionals in the field.

What do you think about it? What is the extent to which religious majority has the right to influence everyday life of religious minorities or atheists in officially secular countries?
(Jozanny, I hope this is more to a point, feel free to move it into different directions if you had principally something else in mind. ;))

I bring up most of aa's post again because it is relevant to my desire for social observation over and above the strident apologia for Christianity, which is the card Red and his adversaries keep playing, to score points more than to engage in reasonable debate, I suspect, which is why I am ignoring most of it.

aa brings up social contructs relevant to both Europe and America, and one that the US certainly doesn't solve through its separation doctrine--though I'd argue that it solves it culturally through turning materialism into a modern form of Christianity.

In addition to aa's acknowledged web which still exists between state and established orthodoxy, does the rise of the modern atheist as cultural critic simply lead to more polarization, or is something else occurring?

[The Atheist]

In addition to aa's acknowledged web which still exists between state and established orthodoxy, does the rise of the modern atheist as cultural critic simply lead to more polarization, or is something else occurring?

Good question!

I would expect secular humanism and christianity to be almost blood-brothers, but I find that moderate christians are far more likely to empathise with a YEC fundy than a secular humanist. That encourages me to think that the polarisation will only get worse and that we might eb actively encourgaing it.

There's a dangerous element in play in the creation of the divide between atheists and theists; that the atheist side is dominated by intellectuals. Intellectuals always attract antis for no other reason than their intellectuality. When the main voices of anti-theism are Dawkins, Dennett, Attenborough and other 20th century intellectuals, I think there's a genuine chance of turning people the wrong way. The same thing has happened with pseudoscience and alt medicine - as they have become more scientifically improbable, the number of people subscribing to various forms of them has increased.

In NZ, Australia, and I think UK, the only churches growing are the YEC/fundy ones. These churches ought to have died out with Galileo, yet they are the ones picking up new members.

Is it a case of "any publicity is good publicity" meaning that intellectuals standing up and rubbishing religion is actually driving the growth of the worst type of christianity?

That'd be rather ironic.

[mangueken]

I've been reading this thread here and there and I agree, Jozanny, with your last post. It provides a much more interesting debate to stick on the topic you originally raised. There is definitely a contradiction between supposedly secular public institutions and religious ones. I recently read an article (that I will have to search for and post later if anyone is interested) from Scientific American about a study of bio types that seem to favor religious / conservative or liberal / atheist views.
Ironic that there may be a natural cause to these views. You might also want to check out this link about another study related to evolution and belief : http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/10/acceptance_of_human_evolution.php?utm_source=sbhom epage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

I look forward to participating more in the thread if it sticks to the lines you set out. And I'll leave a question that I have been thinking over recently that will hopefully spark something you're interested in.
Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

[The Atheist]

Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

I hadn't noticed that. I've spoken to any number of christians who try to claim the universe is an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ignorance of any branch of science doesn't seem to slow the flow.

Great link, too, thanks.

I like this:


The main reason why people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive.

[mangueken]

I hadn't noticed that. I've spoken to any number of christians who try to claim the universe is an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ignorance of any branch of science doesn't seem to slow the flow. :

Yeah, but there is, by far, a more consistent attack on evolution. biologist are accused of things like shoddy scientific methods and being a cause for moral degeneration in a way that geologists, physicists and other sciences are not.
I find that most of the creationist arguments against evolution, no matter how "scientifically" they dress it up has much more to do with the implications of the mechanism of natural selection. It takes the specialness or "chosen" status away. I think for religious people that is the most disturbing thing. If I am not special than what reason do I exist?
Even though biologists use the same scientific method as other sciences the results of most others don't have such apparent philosophic or existentialist meaning in people's lives. Other sciences just don't lend themselves to these types of questions which can easily be translated into politics in our society.

I've started reading the book, Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'm still in the beginning but it covers a lot of the history of the creationists ideas and thinkers as well as answering specific attacks from the ID / creation side.

[The Atheist]

Yeah, but there is, by far, a more consistent attack on evolution.

Must be a US thing. YECs are a bit thicker on the ground there than elsewhere.


I think for religious people that is the most disturbing thing. If I am not special than what reason do I exist?

More importantly, only bible literalists dispute evolution anyway. The RCC and all mainstream churches accept that evolution occurred, so there's no trouble to their faith. Literalist religions insist that evolution is wrong, so they must make up arguments against it because if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong.

[Redzeppelin]

I bring up most of aa's post again because it is relevant to my desire for social observation over and above the strident apologia for Christianity, which is the card Red and his adversaries keep playing, to score points more than to engage in reasonable debate, I suspect, which is why I am ignoring most of it.

Oh please. Any apologetics that showed up here are a result of comments directed at me that required me to offer up some clarification.

I'm not sure the last time I participated in a thread where the initiating poster wanted to complain so much that the thread wasn't going to his/her liking. As I said earlier: you don't own this thread; you don't get to dictate its contents; you do not get to suggest where you think posters should go; and, you don't get to "preside" over the postings and then render your judgment as to who is really here to "debate" and who's here to "score points." How condescending of you. If you wish to have such authority and control, go start your own bulletin board debate site and have at it. Lit Net is already owned and run by someone else who is not you.

Question: why am I and my "adversaries" (uh, that would be you and Atheist, I guess) "playing" the same "cards"? Does that mean that you're merely trying to "score points" too? Shame on you for accusing me of what you (at least by your words) are doing as well!

[DapperDrake]

Nice :D there's nothing like a little heated debate.

I'm at work now but i'll be sure to come back and join in when I get home ;)

[DapperDrake]

People don't "burn" for not believing in God so much as they do for the persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's attempts to convict the individual of his/her need of God. Hell is a chosen destination. I like the way one pastor put it: "You will have to climb over Jesus Christ to get into hell - he is that determined to stop you" (although neither he nor God will override your human free will). God will do everything in His power (short of violating your free will and violating the justice inherent in His character) to stop humans from making that terrible choice. Hell isn't a sentence - it is a granting of an individual's wish to rule his/her own life, rather than lay it at the feet of Him who created everything and best knows how our lives should be conducted.

This isn't what my pastor told me when I was a church goer, the impression that I got was that ultimately God already knows who is saved and who isn't and basically won't do anything to try and reach those who aren't saved.
I'm sure I've not done what my pastor said justice but that's the sum of it. He's an evangelist btw but a pretty smart guy, he just finished his second degree and his theology library is impressive.


More importantly, only bible literalists dispute evolution anyway. The RCC and all mainstream churches accept that evolution occurred, so there's no trouble to their faith. Literalist religions insist that evolution is wrong, so they must make up arguments against it because if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong.

Well perhaps some churches take this view, the spread of approaches and beliefs is actually quite broad in Christianity. Of course each faction insists that they are right and that the others are all wrong :D To be honest I've not found a Christian who actually wants to express an opinion on evolution and its ramifications (if any) for the Christian faith.
My point is its not really as simple as bible literalists and non-literalists. Most recognise that the bible is not a literal document, full of metaphor and allegory, and at best gives (in a direct sense) only a vague and obscure picture of God and Christ. Few will actually say that though, most "handle" the issues by simply avoiding them and having faith.
Also, is it your assertion that " if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong." because that's not logical, or were you just echoing the beliefs of fundamental bible literalists?

I should say that I live in the UK, I've never met an overt bible literalist and I have in the past been members of evangelical churches, the largest of which had over 400 members and 4 pastors. For most Christians I've met theology and theological debate are almost taboo, you simply have faith or you don't. So arguments against literalist christian faith is pretty much irrelevant to Christianity in the UK (in my experiance).


Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

Well, I am not ignorant of science, my A-levels were Physics, Maths, and biology. I've also had a fair amount of experiance of the levels of scientific understanding of your average Christian (having been a Christian myself for a few years), so i'm possibly reasonably qualified to venture an opinion here.

Firstly, and this is a generalisation, Christians don't know much about science - at all, that is my experiance, I have asked plenty of Christians their opinions about scientific issues and to even bring up such issues usually gets you a slightly stung look and they pull back, if you probe their scientific knowlege its actually virtually not existant. I found this pretty frustrating you can imagine, an ex-athiest scientifically educated new Christain is going to want to discuss a lot of scientific and phiosophical issues :D

Why attack biology and not other areas of science? well its simply that to the general non-scientific public, of which Christians are a part, physics is a vague unknown which has no bearing on real life (not true but thats the perception) so it's harmless and irrelevant to the religion of your average Christian.
Biology is something we can all grasp though (mostly badly in my experiance) but we all see nature documentaries and medical documentaries and dramas - biology is much more a part of the public domain, and its more interesting because it's relevance to "us" (Joe public) is immediately apparent.
Also of course biology makes the most stunning and interesting claims and does so with the weakest of proofs (compared to math and physics), the theory of evolution is an obvious extention of our observation of nature but despite our growing understanding of genetics and the vast circumstancial evidence we sill can't really prove that it works. Plenty of room for peope who are largly ignorant of science to (rather foolishly) try and argue against it because it might, from a certain point of view, contradict something they believe in.

don't forget though it used to be the other way around :) it was physics that was being attacked, Galileo for example - but that was when physics was still theorising about things that were readily graspable by the layman and that had obvious impact on the theology of the day.

[Redzeppelin]

This isn't what my pastor told me when I was a church goer, the impression that I got was that ultimately God already knows who is saved and who isn't and basically won't do anything to try and reach those who aren't saved.
I'm sure I've not done what my pastor said justice but that's the sum of it. He's an evangelist btw but a pretty smart guy, he just finished his second degree and his theology library is impressive.

That's Calvinism and Calvinism is in direct conflict with the Bible. Paul says numerous times in the NT that we are to "choose" who we wish to serve; that we must make a "choice" to follow God. If such things have already been decided, the Bible is lying.

A close reading of the NT will tell us that God made the ultimate sacrifice - his Son Jesus Christ - to allow us all the ability to be saved and to be in heaven. Period. The crucifixion provides a blank check to anybody who wishes to accept the gift by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. That kind of sacrifice does not need to come from a God who has already decided who is to be saved and who is not.

I don't care how big the guy's library is - he's flat out wrong and he will be held accountable someday for the wrong way he has portrayed God and the gospel.

[DapperDrake]

yeah, but God already knows who is going to cash the cheque.

I remember a bit better what my pastor was saying now, it was something along the lines of there being people who just simply weren't destined to cash that cheque (continuing the metaphore) and that even if those people want to there is nothing they can do about it - they can go through the motions of trying to believe, going to church, accepting Jesus etc.. but that in their heart they simply aren't capable of accepting the gift. He was basing it on some part of the bible but I don't remember well enough to give detail.

I can see where he was coming from, its not as simple as cashing a cheque after all. you have to actually genuinely believe right? just saying that you accept and believe isn't enough. So there must be people who want to believe and go through the motions but can't actually really believe. To be honest I thought that was pretty harsh, after all, why would God create people who he know couldn't be saved?

I found that pretty striking which is probably why its stuck with me, after all If correct it surely means that many church goers are not "real" Christians who are saved. Which is frankly at once bizarre, scary and plausible.

Edit: I just looked up Calvinism and that sounds pretty much like it, though my pastor never said the word Calvinism.

[teleios]

That's Calvinism and Calvinism is in direct conflict with the Bible. Paul says numerous times in the NT that we are to "choose" who we wish to serve; that we must make a "choice" to follow God. If such things have already been decided, the Bible is lying.
Just wanted to point out that not just Paul, but also Jesus talks about how we need to choose who we serve and some of the choices we have to make in life. I'm in complete agreement with you here.


yeah, but God already knows who is going to cash the cheque.
It'd be hard to have an omniscient God without Him knowing that as well (unless you hold that the future doesn't exist yet - which I don't agree with).

So... correct.


I remember a bit better what my pastor was saying now, it was something along the lines of there being people who just simply weren't destined to cash that cheque (continuing the metaphore) and that even if those people want to there is nothing they can do about it - they can go through the motions of trying to believe, going to church, accepting Jesus etc.. but that in their heart they simply aren't capable of accepting the gift. He was basing it on some part of the bible but I don't remember well enough to give detail.
There are people that God knows will not cash the check. Calling it destiny would be a misnomer; think of it another way. The government sends out $500 rebate checks to everyone in the country. Some people cash it. Some people dump it onto their desk and wait too long to cash it, rendering it void. Other people are just too lazy to cash it or don't really understand the value of money, so they don't even bother trying to cash it.

If someone truly tries to accept the gift, they will be able to. Period.

God knows who makes what choice. Just because He has that knowledge, doesn't mean He made you make the choice. Oh, the joy of being an eternal omniscient being! Personally, I'd be scared if I could understand God perfectly, and am glad little conundrums like this come up.

Your Pastor was undoubtedly quoting from Ephesians or Romans, taking it out of context with the rest of the bible.



I can see where he was coming from, its not as simple as cashing a cheque after all. you have to actually genuinely believe right? just saying that you accept and believe isn't enough. So there must be people who want to believe and go through the motions but can't actually really believe. To be honest I thought that was pretty harsh, after all, why would God create people who he know couldn't be saved?
Not so much that they can't, but that they don't really want to. Regarding your last statement, you will have a Calvinist answer it by quoting from Romans, saying God made some 'vessels' for honor, and some for dishonor, to show His glory. I agree wholeheartedly with you though.


I found that pretty striking which is probably why its stuck with me, after all If correct it surely means that many church goers are not "real" Christians who are saved. Which is frankly at once bizarre, scary and plausible.
I think we will be surprised by the number of non-church-goers we will see in heaven, as well as by the number of church-goers absent. (I'm not saying church isn't an important part of Christianity though!)


Edit: I just looked up Calvinism and that sounds pretty much like it, though my pastor never said the word Calvinism.
They like the word 'Reformed' nowadays. There are some among the Christian crowd that 'see red' when they hear the word calvinist, much like communism and the soviets back in Nixon's day.

As a final note, I have nothing against Calvinists, I merely disagree with some of their doctrine. One of my best friends is a Calvinist, and is always a source of many entertaining (and revealing) debates.

[The Atheist]

Well perhaps some churches take this view, the spread of approaches and beliefs is actually quite broad in Christianity. Of course each faction insists that they are right and that the others are all wrong :D

You know, the irony of that does make me laugh.

This goes back to the nub of this thread and the OP.

Surely cognitive dissonance at the very least is required to see that this is quite incompatible with the central concept of "one god".

Take a look at C S Lewis and his opinion that all extant and previous religions are merely misunderstood versions of the YHWH fantasy. This dovetails beautifully with Roman Catholicism, but very few other christian sects. Catholicism does the "self-exclusion" from god thing, which is quite universalist, so at least they get away from saying "UNBELIEVERS AND NON-CATHOLICS GO TO HELL!!11!!"

Now, take a look at Red's comments on Calvinism; "They are wrong". The end. There are also quite a number of churches around which claim the Catholic church is a minion of Satan.

But they all 100% correct in their theology, their reading of the bible, their treatment of god and their beliefs...

In the face of this, the amusement level for atheists rises to hysterical levels when we are - as often happens, including in this very thread - accused of claiming that science is absolute!


To be honest I've not found a Christian who actually wants to express an opinion on evolution and its ramifications (if any) for the Christian faith.

Crikey, you must go a really small church!

I've never found anything else. The vast majority, like the Pope and his crowd, accept that it happened and are busily looking for the hand of god in it. Other sects claim it's all complete lies and the earth was created ~6012 years ago. (Although the fundies around my way will admit to up to 10,000 years ago.)

An even better example is one you'll know all about - the dear old Anglicans. Rowan Williams ( a man I have enormous respect for, by the way ) and his mob are pretty well trusting of all major scientific belief that Rowan himself is in danger of becoming a full-on agnostic humanist. I also know heaps of Anglican scientists*, but no fundy ones.


My point is its not really as simple as bible literalists and non-literalists. Most recognise that the bible is not a literal document, full of metaphor and allegory, and at best gives (in a direct sense) only a vague and obscure picture of God and Christ. Few will actually say that though, most "handle" the issues by simply avoiding them and having faith.

I'm what you'd call an "activist" or "militant" atheist, although I don't like the latter term, it being a touch too militant for my pacifist/humanist nature, so I'm fully aware of the depth, breadth and height differences between almost all sects of the christian churches. Just an aside, but I'm even working on a database right now of the differences between the churches. Give it another month or so and it'll be up on my site. The differences between literalists and non-literalists again shows up what we both said above - they all believe their theology, even unto death!


Also, is it your assertion that " if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong." because that's not logical, or were you just echoing the beliefs of fundamental bible literalists?

Yeah, I did start that sentence with a "bible literalists" - obviously it only applies to literalists.

Again, Anglicans are an excellent example. I'm pretty sure Rowan himself made a statement that a christian need not even believe in the virgin birth? Catholics, of course, would still put you in the iron maiden for such heresy. That's as far from a fundy as it's possible to be without being an atheist.


I should say that I live in the UK, I've never met an overt bible literalist and I have in the past been members of evangelical churches, the largest of which had over 400 members and 4 pastors.

Yes, England is indeed the last bulwark against fundamentalism. It has a horrible hold here, unfortunately. Nowhere near as bad as USA, but there are two schools within 5km of my place that teach biblical literalism.


For most Christians I've met theology and theological debate are almost taboo, you simply have faith or you don't. So arguments against literalist christian faith is pretty much irrelevant to Christianity in the UK (in my experiance).

Again, I think this is a symptom of England, where a stated belief in god is likely to lead to severe taking of the Michael in almost any social situation.

I'm in agreement with many other atheists with experience of the British system who thinks that by miles the best safeguard against fundamentalism, zealotry and other kinds of religious abuse is to have a state religion and compulsory RE.

Long live The Queen! (No, I'm not a monarchist, but if you get rid of her, you can kiss goodbye to CoE)

*How many of them are Anglican to the extent that they are firm believers, and how many profess to be to partake in the enormous Commonwealth Anglican old boys' network, I don't know. I'm quite sure some fall into the latter group.

[DapperDrake]

Yes, England is indeed the last bulwark against fundamentalism. It has a horrible hold here, unfortunately. Nowhere near as bad as USA, but there are two schools within 5km of my place that teach biblical literalism.

I'm in agreement with many other atheists with experience of the British system who thinks that by miles the best safeguard against fundamentalism, zealotry and other kinds of religious abuse is to have a state religion and compulsory RE.


Don't get me wrong, it is a fundamentalist church, you just wouldn't know it unless you asked some of the senior members specific questions about the contentious fundamental issues. I mean, I'm looking at their website right now and in the questions answered section they say that dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago and that the "behemoth" in Job is a dinosaur.
Now to be honest I find that pretty hard to swallow. I'm guessing you don't get a lot more fundamental than that :)
Just in British churches I guess they're tired of arguing with the largely atheist population and so tend to keep quiet about those bits.

[The Atheist]

Don't get me wrong, it is a fundamentalist church, you just wouldn't know it unless you asked some of the senior members specific questions about the contentious fundamental issues. I mean, I'm looking at their website right now and in the questions answered section they say that dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago and that the "behemoth" in Job is a dinosaur.
Now to be honest I find that pretty hard to swallow. I'm guessing you don't get a lot more fundamental than that :)

I reckon!

Interesting that you clearly have a problem with it, then. Do those senior people know that you feel that way?


Just in British churches I guess they're tired of arguing with the largely atheist population and so tend to keep quiet about those bits.

Yes, but it can't simply be the level of secularism, because those numbers are higher elsewhere, yet the same disregard for religion doesn't happen to the same level as England. Might just be a function of the unique Pom ability to not take themselves too seriously.

[DapperDrake]

Oh yes, I made it clear to my pastor that I don't believe the bible is a literal document and that I believe evolution is the best theory to fit the evidence and many other things of that sort.
He didn't seem to mind too much, beyond mock grimaces, but its was plain that he disagreed with me - however he didn't try and convince me he was right, he didn't even discuss it really.

I haven't been to church or considered myself a Christian for nearly three years by the way. - I don't want to divert the thread to discussing myself but I thought I should point that out.

[mangueken]

Dapper,
here in the US the literalists and ID groups have been actively trying to get creation to be included in science classes. Recently, it looks like they had some success in Kansas by having the state laws redefine "science". My question about why do they pick on evolution and not the other sciences so much is really about this redefining of science.
There are many who try to equate the scientific work on evolution with belief. The fact is that even for all the holes that exist in evolutionary theory, scientist are able to explain many things through the scientific based work in exactly the same way that physicists do.
As an atheist, I don't care what people believe, I think it's a very personal question. If believers in whatever see contradictions between what science is able to explain and their own beliefs then it is their contradiction not mine. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be the least bit sad if evolution turned out to be completely wrong and a new scientific theory had to be adopted. I doubt that will happen but you never know.
I happen to live in the great state of Kentucky where the first (as far as I know in the US) museum based on Biblical creationism. In there, they show humans living at the same time as dinosaurs. I think it's great they have their own place. I also think they should teach creationism as much as they want at home and at Sunday school. But when they try to get creation taught in schools they force scientists and atheists to come out against them. I find it a great waste of time. It's against our constitution for one and it just isn't science.
If Christian creation can be taught in science class I guess the various Native American religious beginnings can also be taught. Soon every religion with a creation story will be allowed to be taught in science classes. I'm pretty positive that American fundamentalists haven't thought about that but what a can of worms it opens.
I have to admit that the ID portion of creationists have certainly become more sophisticated. Now I think it's time for scientists to up the ante and start working harder on their popular explanations as well as explaining that science and it's method has no fight with religion.

[The Atheist]

I have to admit that the ID portion of creationists have certainly become more sophisticated. Now I think it's time for scientists to up the ante and start working harder on their popular explanations as well as explaining that science and it's method has no fight with religion.

Very good post.

I think that's what some scientists are trying to do, but it isn't easy going!

[DapperDrake]

Well so far as I know there is no evidence for creationism, and a lack of firm contradictory evidence is not evidence, although it is worth noting.

Science is about evidence, empirical evidence that is observable and reproducible. Theory only comes into play in science when there is relevant evidence - the theory is an attempt to explain the evidence and the goal is always to disprove the theory - the theory is set up as a target for other scientists to take pops at, if they come up with good contradictory evidence then a new or modified theory is made based on the new evidence.

With no actual evidence creationism has no place in science, never mind in a school which ought to be teaching those things which have the most evidence to support them (at least in a science class anyway).

Evolution is not a complete theory, we can't explain every aspect of how it works, we don't have infallible evidence, but we do have a wealth - an absolute tonne - of indirect and direct supporting evidence, hence the theory. Plus I don't think there is any competing scientific theory, which given all the evidence we have, is a pretty strong indicator that we're on the right track.

Now that's my opinion as an ex science student and that opinion did not change when I became a Christian.

However just because a theory has no scientific basis does not mean it is incorrect and this is where science and religion clash.
Science says objective evidence provides us with objective theories and that only objective theories are worth pursuing.
Religion says subjective evidence provides us with objective theories - religion is wrong. Actually the essence of religion is to turn the subjective into the objective through a mechanism called faith, this directly contradicts scientific method hence friction when religious folk and scientists get together and discuss theories.

[mangueken]

However just because a theory has no scientific basis does not mean it is incorrect and this is where science and religion clash.
Science says objective evidence provides us with objective theories and that only objective theories are worth pursuing.
Religion says subjective evidence provides us with objective theories - religion is wrong. Actually the essence of religion is to turn the subjective into the objective through a mechanism called faith, this directly contradicts scientific method hence friction when religious folk and scientists get together and discuss theories.

It's not that science arbitrarily decided only objective theories are worth pursuing. It's the only way the scientific method can work. Science has no tools to measure, define, quantify or study anything that is not objective. There really isn't much to be discussed between them.
As an atheist, I would like to see people depend less on the supernatural and more on the rational. At least in public policy. I'm really surprised to have to listen to religion be used as a cover for ignorance and intolerance.
I don't blame religion for all the ignorance and intolerance, don't get me wrong. Some ignorant and intolerant people would find another mechanism if religion didn't exist (social Darwinism, IQ tests for example). But as a social institution, religion and religious leaders do act in the public in a very ignorant / intolerant way.
I have to admit that I have a problem understanding how belief works for people who believe. I can see it's historical importance for the development of human society but to be in the 21st century with the same views as 2000 or more years ago is difficult for me.

[Hobbes]

I am an athiest, but I like the idea of religion. I just can't believe anything.
Atheism:
The composition of space is all breakable down to universal forces and strings of energy. The Universe is a system in itself where everything creates and breaks back down. etc.

Religion:
To follow Steven Kings Idea of Religion (Strange I agree) With God he puts a lot more emphasis on rude creation, intuition and less on influenced natural laws. A true Romantic apparently.

[The Atheist]

I am an athiest, but I like the idea of religion. I just can't believe anything.

That's fairly common, and I feel the same way myself - I think religion has some benefits for society. I just wish they'd stick to something like Unitarianism, where you get the social benefits without the dogma.

[Josef K]

Some good discussion here :)

<--- Militant Atheist

[The Atheist]

Some good discussion here :)

<--- Militant Atheist

Welcome to the forum!

Few posts already, looks like you've made yourself at home straight away.

:D

[Hisnibs]

It's not that science arbitrarily decided only objective theories are worth pursuing. It's the only way the scientific method can work. Science has no tools to measure, define, quantify or study anything that is not objective. There really isn't much to be discussed between them.

Not entirely in keeping with that sentiment, but that reminds me of something similar to two videos I have just watched with Sam Harris:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY

In other words, I think that if morality et al are subjective, science may very well be beginning to measure and quantify etc, non objective phenomena.

[mangueken]

Not entirely in keeping with that sentiment, but that reminds me of something similar to two videos I have just watched with Sam Harris:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY

In other words, I think that if morality et al are subjective, science may very well be beginning to measure and quantify etc, non objective phenomena.

Thanks for the links. I'll have to check out his books. While I agree with some of his overall sentiment it still needs to be backed up with the results from scientific study. I don't think it is impossible to measure subjective things, for example there are ways to indirectly measure pain relatively accurately. I do think the questions he raises interesting to discuss and debate openly in society even if it is only on a philosophical level.

[Hisnibs]

Thanks for the links. I'll have to check out his books. While I agree with some of his overall sentiment it still needs to be backed up with the results from scientific study. I don't think it is impossible to measure subjective things, for example there are ways to indirectly measure pain relatively accurately. I do think the questions he raises interesting to discuss and debate openly in society even if it is only on a philosophical level.

Why only on a philosophical level?

[mangueken]

Why only on a philosophical level?

I just meant that it is a worthwhile debate to have that doesn't need to wait for scientific evidence to explain the role of the mind in belief context.

[Hobbes]

That's fairly common, and I feel the same way myself - I think religion has some benefits for society. I just wish they'd stick to something like Unitarianism, where you get the social benefits without the dogma.

Amen to that

[Morden]

And R. I. P. too for the thread, it seems.

[Joreads]

I am not sure what bothers me most about religion (in my case catholic) it varies but as a woman what bothers me most is a bunch of men telling me what I can and can not do with my body. This has bothered me for some time I actully mentioned this once in school and was promply sent out of the room to office. The fact that there was no debate or answer to my problem also bothered me I guess that was when I began to waver.

[Virgil]

I am not sure what bothers me most about religion (in my case catholic) it varies but as a woman what bothers me most is a bunch of men telling me what I can and can not do with my body. This has bothered me for some time I actully mentioned this once in school and was promply sent out of the room to office. The fact that there was no debate or answer to my problem also bothered me I guess that was when I began to waver.

Why do you single out men? Are you saying there are no women who are against abortion? Are you saying that nuns are not against abortion. In my country, I find the most passionate people on the pro life side happen to be women. Of course the most passonate people on the abortion side happen to be women too.

[Joreads]

Why do you single out men? Are you saying there are no women who are against abortion? Are you saying that nuns are not against abortion. In my country, I find the most passionate people on the pro life side happen to be women. Of course the most passonate people on the abortion side happen to be women too.

You have a very valid point there which I never thought about until you mentioned it. But from where I sit men seem to run the church so I guess that is where that comes from, if the pope said abortion was OK I really think there would be little said by the nuns against it, but I may be way off base. I should clariy that I am niether pro abortion or pro life I have never been placed in the aweful position of having to make a decision like that, but if I were I wouldn't want the extra worry of upsetting the creator.

Virgil I just wanted to say your posts and thoughts always make me think outside of box I am in so thanks for that. In this case I may have been giving men a bad wrap. I will have to think about this a little more I think.

[Virgil]

Well, thanks Joreads. I tried to find the split between men and women on this issue and I couldn't find anything recent. The only one I found was that both men and women are equally either pro life or pro abortion. But you may find this wikipedia entry interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

[JBI]

It is interesting to note though, the number of men outspoken against abortion on the higher levels of society. The fact that a man can have a pro-choice, or pro-life opinion is puzzling, as the question of choice is not really a man's decision to make. But either way, Catholic dogma is rather adamant on the issue, which raises questions of whether one can be a catholic, while being pro-choice.

Either way though, there are perhaps more important issues, such as the catholic church saying no condoms, and no birth control of the sort, which is ridiculous. Condoms didn't exist in 0 AD, therefore it is silly to say god decrees that one cannot use a condom.

[Logos]

This thread was about Atheism; if it degenerates into abortion debate it will be closed, like so many others here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=197859

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16232

Please try to get back to the OP or it will be closed.

[Joreads]

Well, thanks Joreads. I tried to find the split between men and women on this issue and I couldn't find anything recent. The only one I found was that both men and women are equally either pro life or pro abortion. But you may find this wikipedia entry interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

Virgil thanks for that link it is a really interesting article. I never thought of abortion as being something that kept women in submission as is suggested I am going to do some more reading and research on the subject now.

JBI I think that you made my orginal point better then I did, it is not a man's decision to make in end the woman has the final and really only say. I will not get into the rights and wrongs of that we would be here all night. I also agree that there are a lot of other important issues such as birth control etc whether or not they are more important is another question altogether though.

[Virgil]

It is interesting to note though, the number of men outspoken against abortion on the higher levels of society. The fact that a man can have a pro-choice, or pro-life opinion is puzzling, as the question of choice is not really a man's decision to make.

Why is it puzzling? If abortion equals killing of innocence than why wouldn't anyone from any gender be passionate about it?

[Joreads]

Why is it puzzling? If abortion equals killing of innocence than why wouldn't anyone from any gender be passionate about it?

I agree with you here Virgil and I think that it should also be remembered that in most cases what ever decision is taken there is an emotional impact to the man involved in the situation as well and I think the in the debate of the issue that is sometimes lost or forgotten altogether. In fact I have been guilty of that myself.


Jo

[Jozanny]

I am not passionate about it, because I do not think human life is uniquely or even particularly exceptional. We kill each other daily, and on the far side of certain spectrums, there are Americans who believe that American lives are of more value than those lives in the Third World--which is as ludicrous as any Biblical exceptionalism.

The right wing screams at the top of its lungs, but they do precious little to help those like me, who suffer a poor quality of life because the system forces this on the disabled who have failed in matriculation or others really suffering from lack of resources.

Logos: I was going to ask it be closed awhile back--I partly blame myself for framing the issue poorly, so the powers that be will get no beef from me if you lock it. Apparently, some members think LN is an excellent place for the contention of wedge issues, and denigrate discussions accordingly. I am not blameless, and won't try to be, but I do come here mainly for the literary aspects of an issue--including atheism. It is a tough nut to chew, but if I find a better way to look at secular humanists, I will try again.