The Atheist Corner

[Jozanny]

I believe those of us who are mature non-believers need a thread of our own where we can dissect such things as the role of the church in American society and the like, as a minority in a sea of proselytizers, and so here it is. I am too tired and too busy to go into anything in depth right now, but one thing I'd like to post about, following Dawkins, is why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers, especially those of us who are non-believers in purportedly liberal societies.

[Walter]

Post away! No offense given to this Christian in a liberal society.

[Virgil]

Who says atheists aren't proselytizers too? ;)

[plainjane]

I have to agree with Walter, I am a Christian, and frankly I haven't met any atheists that were worried about "giving offense", but as Virgil mentions, they were too busy spreading the word and were not worried a bit about offending anyone.

Frankly it's immaterial to me what anyone believes as long as they don't try to rub my face in it, or call me uninformed or stupid for what I believe.

[Virgil]

I have to agree with Walter, I am a Christian, and frankly I haven't met any atheists that were worried about "giving offense", but as Virgil mentions, they were too busy spreading the word and were not worried a bit about offending anyone.

Frankly it's immaterial to me what anyone believes as long as they don't try to rub my face in it, or call me uninformed or stupid for what I believe.

Well said Jane. I agree entirely.

[JBI]

I think there is a difference between atheism and media atheism. Many atheists follow the Dawkinsian creed, and really are just as ignorant as some religious zealots. On the other hand, most atheists I know care nothing about any pompousness, and simply just don't believe in a deity.

[JCamilo]

I think atheist is fashionable, no? mer

[Jozanny]

I think there is a difference between atheism and media atheism. Many atheists follow the Dawkinsian creed, and really are just as ignorant as some religious zealots. On the other hand, most atheists I know care nothing about any pompousness, and simply just don't believe in a deity.

I am not sure what you mean by ignorant here. Rude and shallow individuals come in all stripes; if you mean less than educated, that is something else. Dawkins readily admits his primary onus is on Christianity (as would be mine) because we cannot know all theology or be experts on all types of religions.

Let me make a distinction: I do not mean, by use of the word *offense*, disparagement of a particular believer. What I do mean is, if I make observations on the basis of experience which may cause discomfort, those observations are more than likely to draw complaints--whereas, someone like myself might be expected to let an evangelical who is pontificating slide--which I normally do even if the hypothetical sermonizing might offend me. I see that as a double standard--at least when we are all in one virtual community together.

Hence, I think we non-believers should carve out a space for ourselves, and this I've done.

[Big Al]

Hence, I think we non-believers should carve out a space for ourselves, and this I've done.

It's funny because you made a thread for atheists, and the next several responses were from theists. I figured that I should break the trend.

[Walter]

What I do mean is, if I make observations on the basis of experience which may cause discomfort,

I'm waiting to hear the first thing yet that you have been afraid to utter all these years for fear of causing discomfort. I promise not to be uncomfortable.
Utter away!

[jgweed]

I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."

I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.

[Walter]

I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."

I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.

And I am waiting to hear some personal substance put on either of those propositions by the original poster, or you, instead of just echoing Dawkins' complaints.

I'll re-cite to you the example of a Christian who does NOT take offense at atheists, namely myself. Atheists and all they have to say are not a new phenomenon by any means. As far as I'm concerned it has all been heard before, through two millennia in fact, and is a tired worn-out topic. But carry on with your second-hand stories. I'm all ears.

[JCamilo]

I am not sure what you mean by ignorant here. Rude and shallow individuals come in all stripes; if you mean less than educated, that is something else. Dawkins readily admits his primary onus is on Christianity (as would be mine) because we cannot know all theology or be experts on all types of religions.

Let me make a distinction: I do not mean, by use of the word *offense*, disparagement of a particular believer. What I do mean is, if I make observations on the basis of experience which may cause discomfort, those observations are more than likely to draw complaints--whereas, someone like myself might be expected to let an evangelical who is pontificating slide--which I normally do even if the hypothetical sermonizing might offend me. I see that as a double standard--at least when we are all in one virtual community together.

Hence, I think we non-believers should carve out a space for ourselves, and this I've done.


I think he just means that Dawkins is a fanatical zealot that instead of worshiping God is worshiping the non-God. What makes Religiousity ignorance is the form it is used to impose beliefs and that is exactly what Dawkins was doing. He is out of his field (science) and stopped being a humanist like a certain Darwin, who damaged the belief in God more than Dawkins will ever do. It reminds me of atheism derived from communist states. It was a matter of creed and belief and not lack of it.
If there is a corner for atheists I propose the exclusion of Dawkins and that deists are allowed in.

[plainjane]

I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."

I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.
I think that road can go both ways, but as a Christian I have to say that I don't really understand why anyone would take offense at someone else's beliefs. I might wish the other person's beliefs were different, more on a line with my own, but really in the final analysis, it's no skin off of my nose what anyone believes, it is their prerogative to believe as they wish, as it is mine.

What you say is correct though and might be partially because sometimes some atheists are rather militant in their stance, so that is the believers automatic response to it. I know and agree that can go both ways too.

Being kind, one could say that both parties, the atheist and the believer only want the best for the other person, and egotistically believe that their way is the right way.
Or you could say they wish to dominate the other side.

As to your original question, I wonder if insecurity in one's self is the key to that reaction. Either an insecurity in thmeselves, or their beliefs, or as I said a simply militant/domineering attitude.

To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

But it's an awfully interesting puzzle all the same. :D

[curlyqlink]

as a Christian I have to say that I don't really understand why anyone would take offense at someone else's beliefs. I might wish the other person's beliefs were different, more on a line with my own, but really in the final analysis, it's no skin off of my nose what anyone believes, it is their prerogative to believe as they wish

If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe. It follows that the nature of this God is quintessentially important. How then can it be a matter of indifference when others deny God, or reject the true God in favor of false ones?

The idea of kinder, gentler religious belief is an admirable one but I don't see any logic behind it. The idea of religious tolerance isn't a theological concept-- it is a secular one, a practical compromise made necessary by the material advantages of trading, commerce with people from different cultures.

[Walter]

If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe. It follows that the nature of this God is quintessentially important. How then can it be a matter of indifference when others deny God, or reject the true God in favor of false ones?

That question has had its share of theological consideration through the years also, though I am far from informed enough, or presumptuous enough, to try to summarize it. There are answers on both sides which vary according to denomination, is I think the best way to put it.

Yours is one mainline view, which I certainly respect. There are others more aloof.

But please allow me to ask whether that is your own belief, or whether you are an atheist explaining to Christians how they ought to believe and behave. There is a considerable amount of that sort of advice that also arises in discussions such as these.


The idea of kinder, gentler religious belief is an admirable one but I don't see any logic behind it. The idea of religious tolerance isn't a theological concept-- it is a secular one, a practical compromise made necessary by the material advantages of trading, commerce with people from different cultures

I take my tolerance as Paul's admonition from the Bible, 1Cor13:1-13 I believe it is, the paean to love.

[plainjane]

If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe. It follows that the nature of this God is quintessentially important. How then can it be a matter of indifference when others deny God, or reject the true God in favor of false ones?

The idea of kinder, gentler religious belief is an admirable one but I don't see any logic behind it. The idea of religious tolerance isn't a theological concept-- it is a secular one, a practical compromise made necessary by the material advantages of trading, commerce with people from different cultures.
The Bible teaches that we cannot make someone believe. If Bible Truth is presented to a person, they either believe it, or don't, they study or they don't.
International Standard Version Matthew 10:14
If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet.
So if a Christian is following Bible instruction, they won't browbeat anyone to listen to them.



I take my tolerance as Paul's admonition from the Bible, 1Cor13:1-13 I believe it is, the paean to love.

Correct. :)

[curlyqlink]

So if a Christian is following Bible instruction, they won't browbeat anyone to listen to them.

History does not bear this out; quite the opposite in fact. Heresy was long a punishable offense, the trials carried out by ecclesiastical courts. There's a long, undeniable record of Bible-literate believers not merely brow-beating doubters and dissenters, but literally beating, torturing them into repentance and sending them off this mortal coil. Since these inquisitors believed in an all-powerful, perfect, good Creator, their logic was faultless. God-deniers were the opposite of good, and if their message spread, it would jeopardize souls. In fact, if a few passes with a red hot iron would convince an apostate to repent, they were really doing said apostate a favor. The method is cruel, but the logic is undeniable... if the premise is accepted, that is, the premise of a wise, just, one true God.

We now have mostly a kinder, gentler sort of religious belief. Greater tolerance is wonderful, I'm all for it. But the impetus for tolerance didn't come from a sudden theological reinterpretation of the Bible-- it came from considerations of practicality, secular, and mostly material, considerations


But please allow me to ask whether that is your own belief, or whether you are an atheist explaining to Christians how they ought to believe and behave.

I'm an atheist, but what bearing does that have on the question? It is a question of logic, and my beliefs therefore have nothing to do with it. Far be it from me from telling anyone how they ought to believe (how they ought to behave is a different matter!) ... I'm simply pointing out a logical inconsistency of the other side's position.

[jgweed]

"How then can it be a matter of indifference when others deny God, or reject the true God in favor of false ones?"

This sentence seems to explain why some believers have (forgivenly) "trespassed" in this thread. It also, I think, illustrates the difference between at least some and what seems to be the general attitude of atheists; the latter are far less passionate---even indifferent--- about what others choose to believe.

This tolerance may be the result of (and I know this is a generalisation) the habit of most atheists to subject ideas and opinions to rational criticism and analysis, the skeptical mode of thinking this engenders, and hence a certain openness to the suggestion they may be in error.

This seems to me to be the historical hallmark of a rational and (if I dare use the term) humanistic approach to finding truth, just as intolerance has been the defining quality of much of religious thought.

[plainjane]

History does not bear this out; quite the opposite in fact. Heresy was long a punishable offense, the trials carried out by ecclesiastical courts. There's a long, undeniable record of Bible-literate believers not merely brow-beating doubters and dissenters, but literally beating, torturing them into repentance and sending them off this mortal coil. Since these inquisitors believed in an all-powerful, perfect, good Creator, their logic was faultless. God-deniers were the opposite of good, and if their message spread, it would jeopardize souls. In fact, if a few passes with a red hot iron would convince an apostate to repent, they were really doing said apostate a favor. The method is cruel, but the logic is undeniable... if the premise is accepted, that is, the premise of a wise, just, one true God.

We now have mostly a kinder, gentler sort of religious belief. Greater tolerance is wonderful, I'm all for it. But the impetus for tolerance didn't come from a sudden theological reinterpretation of the Bible-- it came from considerations of practicality, secular, and mostly material, considerations

Agreed, history is rife with examples, the Spanish Inquisition, the Mexican Inquisition, but you will please note, I did not say Religions. I said the Bible. There is a parting of the ways between Religion and the Bible more times than anyone can count.
Some religions left the Bible in the dust hundreds of years ago.

[plainjane]

This sentence seems to explain why some believers have (forgivenly) "trespassed" in this thread.
:D Ahh, a Bible teaching.
Sorry, just couldn't help myself.

This tolerance may be the result of (and I know this is a generalisation) the habit of most atheists to subject ideas and opinions to rational criticism and analysis, the skeptical mode of thinking this engenders, and hence a certain openness to the suggestion they may be in error.

I think sometimes an atheist may be the most idealistic, I can't say I was ever an atheist, I was more agnostic and came late in life to Christianity. I always felt there was something, after all - to me it was logical that someone had to be running the show, so to speak, and it wasn't humans, we've certainly screwed up everything we've touched, so there had to be something more. One feature of the Bible is that humans are given Free Will to choose how we believe and act, but not forever, a reckoning will come.
Anyhow as I started out to say re: idealism, the most cynical of persons started out as an idealist and was horribly disappointed in some life experience and that is their reaction to that disappointment. Very natural, but self-defeating.

To say that believing in a higher power is irrational thing is illogical IMO. Something/someone is running the place.

JMO :)

[Big Al]

Anyhow as I started out to say re: idealism, the most cynical of persons started out as an idealist and was horribly disappointed in some life experience and that is their reaction to that disappointment. Very natural, but self-defeating.

Everybody has countless horrible disappointments and bad experiences in life, and yet how many people are actually cynics? I think that the cause of cynicism is probably much more complex.


To say that believing in a higher power is irrational thing is illogical IMO. Something/someone is running the place.

You're essentially asserting that theism is rational...Because you say so. That's not a very good reason.

[plainjane]

Everybody has countless horrible disappointments and bad experiences in life, and yet how many people are actually cynics? I think that the cause of cynicism is probably much more complex.



You're essentially asserting that theism is rational...Because you say so. That's not a very good reason.

Causes of cynicism are far more complex, I was boiling it down to what I consider the basic of basics.

No, not because I say so.
Because a house does not build itself, because a car does not run its parts down the assembly line and put itself together.
This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

[aabbcc]

To say that believing in a higher power is irrational thing is illogical, IMO. Something/someone is running the place.
It is logically possible that somebody is running the show.
However, that conclusion is, as far as I am aware, not logically necessary.

Only conclusion which is a logically necessary outcome from its premises is considered valid in formal logic. And even if you made a logically necessary conclusion, you must be well-aware of what precisely you have concluded and, even moreso, what you have not - watch the premises.

If you want to speak about which position is "logical" and which is "illogical", I am all for it - but, then, make it lege artis and write the full process of arriving to certain "logical" conclusion.

Concretely, I am not interested in whether G-d's existence is "logical", but rather in your statement that those who say that belief in higher power is irrational are being illogical when claiming that, I am interested in what is exactly logically flawed here that you mark it as "illogical"?

[Walter]

It sounds like this thread has veered rather far from its original intentions for atheists to talk about the repression of speech they feel in the society of Christians.

When the history of grievances against the Church enters the discussion then we are truly far removed from the original intent and out into deep waters where nothing will be resolved. And when the Inquisition enters the room I think even Dawkins departs, to the very best of my recollection having observed that enough already had been said about that matter and that he would rather talk about other things. And he did.

So, while I am still interested in hearing atheists talk about their own personal factual experiences where they have felt repressed in the company of Christians, I have faint hope we'll ever get around to that on the present course.

Accordingly, I have nothing else to say on this thread. Listening to atheists try to tell me with tired old arguments why I am wrong is finally just so boring. I have heard it all before, and enough times to convince me of the truth of Ecclesiastes, that there is nothing new under the sun.

Au revoir.

[aabbcc]

This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.
Ah, I love Aquinas' arguments. A beautiful example of an attempt to manipulate the logic.

There could be something that started the process, or there had to be something that started the process? What if the process we speak of is the one that never had a start and never will end, a cyclic one? Can you know and state as a fact that it is not?

What Aquinas is doing is indirectly assuming linearity of the process; which even though possible, is not necessary true, and he assumes that linearity based on the authority of G-d (whom he is trying to prove) who says that the process is linear and that once there was nothing (other than Him, of course) and now there are many things which caused one another, and He started the process. Sort of ad verecundiam, right?

[Big Al]

No, not because I say so.
Because a house does not build itself, because a car does not run its parts down the assembly line and put itself together.
This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

That's true that the universe did not spring out of thin air, as there is actually no air in space. But seriously, I don't like to veer into science into discussions such as these (that never ends well), but since you brought it up, the now-famous Miller-Urey experiments established that amino acids, the "building blocks of life," so to speak, can be produced from non-living matter, and numerous experiments conducted since then have fully supported the initial results. As far the universe is concerned, the big bang theory explains how matter came to be spread out into what we now know as the universe, but according to the law of conservation of mass and energy, we can establish that the matter which comprises the universe not only did not appear out of nothing, but in fact has always existed.

Now, to wander back into the realm of philosophy, you are engaging in something called special pleading. The universe needs a creator, the earth needs a creator, man needs a creater, etc. First, why do they need a creator, and second, why is your god exempt from this line of thinking?

[plainjane]

:lol:
Following your train of thought, I hesitate to call it logic, do we exist at all or are we only a figment of someone's/thing's imagination.
That argument can go all over the map, and as has been mentioned above, this thread is waaaay off topic.

Suffice it to say we are entitled to our opinions of what is logical or not.

Above referring to Anastasija's post.

[plainjane]

That's true that the universe did not spring out of thin air, as there is actually no air in space.

Figuratively speaking. :)


Oops. I just saw your edit.

Yup, sorry about that, typing at the same time. Hadn't seen your post.

[Big Al]

Oops, I just saw your edit. I'll wait for her to respond.

[Big Al]

Figuratively speaking. :)

I was being facetious with that comment, but you understand my central point, correct? The universe did not need to suddenly appear out of nothing any more than God did.

[aabbcc]

Following your train of thought, I hesitate to call it logic, do we exist at all or are we only a figment of someone's/thing's imagination.
I asked you a very simple question. I am not moving onto any next question until we have resolved why is illogical to say that belief in G-d is irrational.
You not only pretend to insult my knowledge of formal logic (and you are not following my train of thought, btw), but are also masquing the fact that you cannot answer my simple question?

Suffice it to say we are entitled to our opinions of what is logical or not.
Disagree.
Heavily disagree, in fact. What is logical is not dependant on "opinion" in any way.

[curlyqlink]

This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

And if God didn't need a creator, why not simply skip a step, and figure the universe didn't need one?

[plainjane]

I asked you a very simple question. I am not moving onto any next question until we have resolved why is illogical to say that belief in G-d is irrational.
You not only pretend to insult my knowledge of formal logic (and you are not following my train of thought, btw), but are also masquing the fact that you cannot answer my simple question?

Disagree.
Heavily disagree, in fact. What is logical is not dependant on "opinion" in any way.
Since neither of us are going to budge from our opinions, I do not wish to butt my head up against a brick wall. You are welcome to do as you wish, I will not respond. If you think I have insulted you, I apologize, that was not my intention, I have no way of knowing what your knowledge is, nor you mine.
I will simply follow the Bible injunction of, as quoted in an earlier post of mine.

International Standard Version Matthew 10:14
If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet.You are welcome to do the same.


I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

And if God didn't need a creator, why not simply skip a step, and figure the universe didn't need one?
The Bible says that God is and always was.
Only answer I can give you is Faith. You've either got or you don't.
:)

This thread has gone way off the tracks of it's originator, dare I say creator?
Whoops hit the wrong button.

I think we should allow the atheists say what they wish to say without comment. After all you are so shy and retiring. :lol:

[Big Al]

I thought theism was founded on logic? "Faith" is the bane of rational thinking.

Also, the "You won't change my mind and I won't change your mind, so let's not even bother" line of thinking is essentially the same as saying, "My beliefs are set in stone, and so I'm going to ignore your objections."

[aabbcc]

The Bible says that God is and always was.
Only answer I can give you is Faith. You've either got or you don't.
:)
Excellent! Now we perfectly agree, and understand, when you speak from the position of faith and not logic. If you put things this way, then we can peacefully co-exist, I can appreciate your choice and will have absolutely no problems with your lack of classical argumentation. :)

The problem arises if, and only if, you have pretensions to speak about G-d from the position of logic and start to speak in those terms. In that case, I do expect you to follow the rules and ways of the position you want to speak from. You know, sort of, "when in Rome, do as Romans do", because you are at the territory of another discipline where ad verecundiams of the kind "Bible says so" simply cannot pass. ;)

[Walter]

I think we have a working proof here that atheists have good strong voices, even in the presence of Christians. So now what was that original question that this thread was going to be about?

[Jozanny]

I'm waiting to hear the first thing yet that you have been afraid to utter all these years for fear of causing discomfort. I promise not to be uncomfortable.
Utter away!

I took some time to try to figure out how to answer your specific challenge Walter, and I haven't quite figured it out yet, but in another thread, I was leaning toward defining American Christianity as something else, in sympatico with Harold Bloom,to a degree:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2002/novdec/19.36.html


The American Religion's thesis was stated repetitively, even tediously, throughout. The religion that most Americans adhere to "masks itself as Protestant Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian." Bloom elaborated:

There are indeed millions of Christians in the United States, but most Americans who think they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion, a faith that is old among us and that comes in many guises and disguises, and that overdetermines much of our national life.

Let's say it got bumpy, despite my lack of intent to be deliberately divisive.

[NikolaiI]

There are many different ideas of what faith is. To me faith and logic are not in opposition at all. Logic is a part of the mental realm, faith is a part of the spiritual realm. There is no part of my faith which I would use, if it transcend, rather than conflict with, the logical. It comes down to ontology and language, if we look at it philosophically, and it comes down to symbols or feelings we can't express, if it comes down to sense-experience. So then, if in someone's intuition is in agreement with one's analytical reasoning, then to that person, their faith and logic aren't at odds.

I apologize if I have clumsily explained my idea.

While this is my own idea, I cannot bring myself to bring negative valuation of people who have other ideas, and yet I notice and feel the effects of negative association or energy, when I present my ideas and then am insulted or treated negatively.

[Jozanny]

I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."

I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.

Yours is the stronger imperative jg. I stand corrected.;)

Can some please remind me how to go Advanced -----> then multiple quote?

Thanks. Never mind, I found the icon.

[Big Al]

There are many different ideas of what faith is. To me faith and logic are not in opposition at all. Logic is a part of the mental realm, faith is a part of the spiritual realm. There is no part of my faith which I would use, if it transcend, rather than conflict with, the logical. It comes down to ontology and language, if we look at it philosophically, and it comes down to symbols or feelings we can't express, if it comes down to sense-experience. So then, if in someone's intuition is in agreement with one's analytical reasoning, then to that person, their faith and logic aren't at odds.


The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

Also, on a related train of thought, is there any logical reason to believe in a "spiritual realm?"

[Walter]

Jozanny, It's your thread, and for atheist discussion. So say what you wish. I'll do my best to be a quiet listener.

This is in reference to your post #40 to me. A few other posts slipped in between.

[aabbcc]

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

Jozanny, sorry. I promise to stick to the topic from now on. :)

[Virgil]

Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

[Big Al]

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.


I think I'm in love. :brow:


Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century; more people simply know better now. What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?

[Jozanny]

Jozanny, It's your thread, and for atheist discussion. So say what you wish. I'll do my best to be a quiet listener.

You read like a man of nice manner, thank you, but when it comes to LN I am a communist. I only started the thread.


Posted by aabbcc
Jozanny, sorry. I promise to stick to the topic from now on.

Nonsense. You go girl:thumbs_up

[Walter]

Lying low. :)

[Drkshadow03]

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.


I'm not sure faith necessarily acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments, rather it acts a different first principle. The problem in all these discussions is that ultimately you cannot prove or disprove G-d. So you're always playing language games and trying to one up your opponent on little things like whether the universe REQUIRES someone to have pushed the button, except this still doesn't DISPROVE Aquainas either. It only calls the SURETY of his argument into question not the POSSIBILITY that he may in fact be correct.

The Theist's argument generally fails when they try to find something that definitively proves G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist cannot disprove G-d either, so they're left with attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.

By the way, I looked at your profile. Are you really only 17? You're impressively smart.

[JBI]

I think on the subject of theism and logic/credibility comes from Tertullian (ca. 155 - ca. 220). He is the first person to separate philosophy from theology, by declaring that philosophy only accidentally comes to conclusions, whereas scripture gives definite answers. This may seem like a crazy illogical answer, yet when put into practice it makes perfect sense.

People want to know how to live their lives. They do not have time to read 3000 years of philosophy, and come up with conclusions based out of the inconclusive arguments of history. They want something that says, "do this, do that, and you will be a good person, and perhaps go to heaven." Most people don't have time to fret over whether it is true or not, and simply use it as a foundation of structure in their lives.

If somebody believes got to exist, and the scriptures to be true, and follows them to a point of personal satisfaction, then they are most likely going to be left with a calmer, more peaceful life, than some other people, who have no sense of meaning, and therefore suffer from an anxiety of identity, and lack of direction. Most people don't read philosophy. Most people just want to go to work, make some money, support their families, and enjoy their lives. Religion gives them the ability to do it very easily, and in some cases, allows them to become absolved of any guilt they have for a small price (often cash).

It makes no difference whether god exists or not from the perspective of the believer, because to him, he exists, and therefore his promises are true. With that in mind, the believer is able to enjoy his life the way he believes is right, and therefore be content with his successes, and at peace with his failures. Who cares if he is wrong, if he is happy.

I am an atheist, but that is a personal choice. I hold nothing against believers, as long as they don't knock on my door early, and come bringing pamphlets. In that case, I kindly tell them I am to busy helping to deliver the anti-Christ from my roommate's womb, and slam the door in their faces.

[Virgil]

I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century;
Are you saying that no one was rational in the qworld until the 20th century? That's pretty elitist and frankly when you have the reputation of Thomas Aquinas as a thinker I will bow to you.


more people simply know better now.
Correct. And in the future they may know even more than you that may alter the rational thought process from yours.


What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?
So it increases? That's what I'm saying. Why would that prove that your logic will be correct in the future?

[Jozanny]

The Theist's arguments generally fail when they try to find something definitively prove G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist's cannot disprove G-d either, so they're mostly left attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.

Yes, but what I wanted, and should have known better than to expect, was a corner where X number of like-minded non-believers could offer observations for further study. Bloom has done this already-- and I think, despite critical detraction of his thesis, that he is right, and Christianity in America has metastasized into something other than Reformation Christianity which came out of Europe.

I am trying to learn how to become my own Christopher Hitchens, so to speak, and make some money off of lay socio-cultural phenomena. I know that is a big bite, and an ambitious mouthful to swallow, but I always have an idea file.

One for disability articles, one for story ideas, one for mainstream pieces.

Like you, or JBI, perhaps-- I am not interested in the same old metaphysical tautology--but in what we can say on the basis of observation, which is not to say member theists can't pitch in.

[JCamilo]

Are you saying that no one was rational in the qworld until the 20th century? That's pretty elitist and frankly when you have the reputation of Thomas Aquinas as a thinker I will bow to you.

You are too nice, Virgil. Because frankly most of the arguments in this thread are childish pointless argumentantions. Just like. Aquinas, not logical? Hah, one of the most logicals thinkers humankind ever produced, anyone denying it is just unaware of what logical means (It does not means right, logic can be falalcious) or Voltaire, another king of logical argumentantion who was a deist. Or Bacon. Or, hey, there goes the progression of human reasoning.
But those people are born in a age of certain and not reasoning (which is not telling what is right, but measuing arguments) and have no idea about what they are talking about. If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

[JBI]

Which Bacon are you talking about? Roger or Francis (I assume one of the two).

[dzebra]

The religion that most Americans adhere to "masks itself as Protestant Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian." Bloom elaborated:

There are indeed millions of Christians in the United States, but most Americans who think they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion...

I think this holds a lot of truth.

[Jozanny]

But those people are born in a age of certain and not reasoning (which is not telling what is right, but measuing arguments) and have no idea about what they are talking about. If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

It has been a long day since I struggled with logic, but if I understand you correctly, the simple construct of a proper syllogism proves nothing, except that the person who created the syllogism is a successful user of logic.

I am not sure what you're getting at. In my Intro to Philosophy, there is an argument for God which goes:

If I can think of X, then X is possible and can exist.

So what? Logic is an attempt to make language function as a mathematical construct, and you can create all kinds of paradoxes, like Zeno's paradox of motion, which seemingly contains true contradictions.

It is a game which in no way advances Theism as an epistemological reality.

Belief and argument are not the same thing.

[RichardHresko]

I think I'm in love. :brow:



I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century; more people simply know better now. What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?

Actually, Aquinas' work is perfectly rational, even now. The major philosophical critics of Aquinas (starting with Ockham) have rarely, if ever, questioned his rationality, or logic. The issue has rather been one of certain premises upon which his logic was based. It is not an issue of our knowing anything 'better' now (whatever that may mean in this context) but instead our having decided that certain rules could be changed.

Specifically in the case of Ockham, he questioned the metaphysical necessity of 1) essences (which gave rise to nominalism), and 2) the existence of Aristotelian categories involving relations. The result was the conclusion that Aquinas' enterprise of forming a seamless joining of Aristotle and Christian doctrine was viewed as being impossible.

An analogy might be drawn in mathematics. Euclidean geometry is not irrational just because of the work of Lobachevsky and others in the 19th Century. Nor did Lobachevsky "know better" than Euclid did in the area of geometry. He changed the rule that mathematical space had to have zero curvature, and followed the consequences of that change.

One could argue that the better analogy in mathematics might be Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica's being undermined by Goedel. I leave that question open.

All that being said, I do not believe that it is possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic alone since there is precisely this problem of uncertainty in the choice of allowable premises in logic, given that there seems to be no way to know which, if any, logical system should be given a privileged position.

[NikolaiI]

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

Also, on a related train of thought, is there any logical reason to believe in a "spiritual realm?"

Yes, there is.

You make a good point and present it well. I can first of all say that when I converted from an atheist to a theist, I went through different stages; perhaps the first was pantheist, then I decided I was something between pantheist and atheist, then I decided the labels didn't matter-- any of the four biggest ones; pantheist, atheist, deist, or theist, and now I say I am a theist because it is my philosophy. As I went on this path, there were lots of different sources for ideas that I drew from; Pascal, Descartes, Dostoevsky, Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, Buddhist masters and poets, and then people such as Sri Aurobindo.

I read someone else on here mention that a religious person might live a calmer, more peaceful life because of their faith, and this is closely related to an idea or belief I have; value in a peaceful searching for inner or spiritual truth or wisdom. When we work on our meditation to awaken physical and mental health or truth consciousness, or awaken awareness, and work on our inner tranquility, peace and faith, this is vital to perceiving the issues, and as we develop we also inrease our tools for understanding. Meditation is not simply concentration on the void, but it can also be practicing mantras, sort of practice for aware or awakend consciousness.

Your question as to the reason to search for a spiritual realm-- I've read desscriptions that might shed light; all our mental speculation and philosophy is good, but it can only go so far. For every mental evaluation there is its opposite, in the mental realm you can only have mental will, which is not as valuable as a deeper, spiritual will. Two examples on this; both involve a greater focus, a complete absorption in either 1) something like the Buddhist's "one-pointed" concentration, and 2) the Hindu and Christian meditation, where meditation is also one-pointed, but focused on God.

Lastly, the greatest of the thinkers for humankind have contributed to philosophy, in greater or lesser degrees, and in different capacities. Not all of them agree on labels, but a great many, some that I have mentioned, put forward faith-based or religious ideas. Not only Dawkins is to be admired.

So I don't mean to say that one should take it on faith and stop thinking. We should always think critically, solving problems is very important for consciousness; but also take in the value of faith-oriented art, philosophy, things of this nature.


Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

I just posted there, just as a place to jump in. I know you didn't say they were in conflict.

I can honestly admit that a great reason I am interested in spiritual matters and God is great authors, philosohpers, poets, aritsts, etc., have sparked my interest with their own contributions to philosophical trends. I take some inspiriation from well-known sources, and sources who are known for other things but passed over on their ideas about God, for instance perhaps, Dostoevsky.

I am not under the opinion that people before any certain date were not capable of contributing something that was centuries before their time. At the same time, I realize that there are always new ideas; any person with a good brain who reads the same authors I have, will undoubtedly have great thoughts passing them by, that they might not write down, but which capture the issue perfectly or very well.

Everyone has to study the issues from their own angle. One of the reasons for stating the importance of the quest, and the desire that it does not denegrate into anything less than philosophy, is that philosophy affects everything in our lives to some degree. One of the reasons for desiring to aim true is that we are here on a long path-- if we miss slightly in our original aim, over a long distance our distance from the "true" path increases as our progress increases, if this makes any sense. I can give an example or analogy if necessary.

I hope all this is somewhat within topic. Hope no one takes exception, too. Thank you for discussing these things, everybody.

[JCamilo]

It has been a long day since I struggled with logic, but if I understand you correctly, the simple construct of a proper syllogism proves nothing, except that the person who created the syllogism is a successful user of logic.

I am not sure what you're getting at. In my Intro to Philosophy, there is an argument for God which goes:

If I can think of X, then X is possible and can exist.

So what? Logic is an attempt to make language function as a mathematical construct, and you can create all kinds of paradoxes, like Zeno's paradox of motion, which seemingly contains true contradictions.

It is a game which in no way advances Theism as an epistemological reality.

Belief and argument are not the same thing.

Nowhere I talked about what makes truth or not, just pointing what is rather obivous and pointed here, how logic or reason can be used by deists argumentation and assuming an atheist is less ignorant than a deist just because lack or presence of faith is rather misleading.

JBI:

I was thinking of Francis. It is funny to think that he wrote about
the subject and he clearly not related it to ignorance. Voltaire also have one of his short stories dealing with the matter and also his positiong have little to do with Dawkins and his crusaders.

[Walter]

A citation for Bloom, please? Anyone?

I am always intrigued by the eagerness of atheists to step right up and define what Christianity is. It always seems to me to have at least a tinge of shaping up a nice straw man to have a swat at.
I could define atheist also, my way, but I'll forebear since I expect people here would shout 'foul!'
BTW 'metastasize' is such an endearing nice colorful warm fuzzy choice of word. My compliments!

That should hold me for a while.

[blazeofglory]

Atheism is a kind of infatuation and nothing else than that in point of fact if we delve into or go deeply to analyze it. It is a kind of opposition or reaction. It is a sheer antagonisms or aversion to theology.

It is an aftereffect and the idea of atheism was born out of aversive attitude to all those who relay on theological notions about the universe and the creator if it.

[Jozanny]

A citation for Bloom, please? Anyone?

I provided the url from which I took the text to quote. It's there Walter.;)

[Walter]

I provided the url from which I took the text to quote. It's there Walter.;)

Many thanks for the help.

Yup, found it 24 posts back.

However, I am one of the unwashed without access to the site. So I'll struggle along.

But thanks.

PS If the contention is simply that Christianity today is different from in Reformation times, I'm astounded and can only respond by saying "Duh."

[Hisnibs]

one thing I'd like to post about, following Dawkins, is why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers, especially those of us who are non-believers in purportedly liberal societies.

From my own experience it’s usually because it is ingrained in us from such a young age that we should show unquestionable respect, not necessarily just to people who are religious but in many generalised fashions, such as “respecting your elders”, etc.
I find this laughable even when I was a kid because from observing the way elders acted and spoke to each other I found many behaved far worse than children. A process of inquiry to the status quo inevitably arose not long after incidences like that. lol.

What was my personal experience in such matters with the pious? I was pretty much brought up in a weak-christian household where religion wasn’t really a major issue. The whole neighbourhood was like this to a more or lesser degree, so much so that having fisticuffs with anyone was really much of a rarity. It’s only now in (British) society that I am seeing a more apologetic stance being made now that a multi-cultural society is almost thrown on us that those in power seem to be causing all sorts of idiotic policies to avoid offending anyone of a religious background who has only recently settled here in the UK. This grates me no end.


those of us who are mature non-believers

especially those of us who are non-believers

Hence, I think we non-believers

If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers
I am an atheist / I hold nothing against believers

I don’t usually refer to myself as an atheist, but for the purposes of this thread I will do so. As an atheist I have many beliefs – I believe that humanity will always struggle and in this struggle we define not only ourselves but better ways of living in co-habitation with each other even when up against insurmountable odds, such as extremely evil aggressive political regimes that exist to exterminate, annihilate and destroy. I believe that if problems start with politics then politics, by definition, will also solve these problems. I believe in wisdom, especially the wisdom that does not get grounded into tenets or become dogmatic and not allow free thought in order for said wisdom to be debated for it to change through the ages.
I believe in science and due process of the courts to uphold fair justice. I believe in freedom, education, and the freedom of free, consented sexuality.

I believe in many things. However, none of them are religious in nature.

To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.

So what do I call myself? Well, a very handsome, charming man actually. lmao


To say that believing in a higher power is irrational thing is illogical IMO. Something/someone is running the place.

Because a house does not build itself, because a car does not run its parts down the assembly line and put itself together.
This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)



This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

Formation is not creation.

Where exactly is any evidence of any kind to show that anything that exists was created instead of being formed? Because all I see is formation. Were you created in a single step? Or were you formed from very simply beginnings and are thus still forming today as an adult that never stops forming until mortal death?

I see nothing within nature that could’ve been created. Mechanical human-made instruments and gadgets, etc. are designed and created by a human craftsman. I have yet to see anything of the natural world that has been “created,” certainly anything created by divine guidance.


I think we have a working proof here that atheists have good strong voices, even in the presence of Christians.

How incredibly patronizing.


If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

So what were Thomas or Agostine waiting for? They had their whole lifetime to do just that but obviously haven’t “proven without proof” the existence of god.


I am always intrigued by the eagerness of atheists to step right up and define what Christianity is. It always seems to me to have at least a tinge of shaping up a nice straw man to have a swat at.

I am utterly fascinated and amused by Christians who like to define atheists. It usually starts with “f-cking” and ends with “morons”.
When it comes to intolerant tones and the use of fallacious strawmen, I think christians have it hands down.


Atheism is a kind of infatuation and nothing else than that in point of fact if we delve into or go deeply to analyze it. It is a kind of opposition or reaction. It is a sheer antagonisms or aversion to theology.

It is an aftereffect and the idea of atheism was born out of aversive attitude to all those who relay on theological notions about the universe and the creator if it.

Yawn.

[Walter]

How incredibly patronizing.

Read the thread Mr. Superior! Or should I say the ****ing thread, since that is the kind of language you use.?
This is a thread that was started specifically for atheists to speak about ways in which they felt repressed from expressing themselves in the overwhelming presence of Christians in a liberal society.



I am utterly fascinated and amused by Christians who like to define atheists. It usually starts with “f-cking” and ends with “morons”.

And I think you will find absolutely none of that here from any Christian or non-Christian in sight. You are the only one behaving like a moron as far as I can see. Go shove it!

[Hisnibs]

Read the thread Mr. Superior! Or should I say the ****ing thread, since that is the kind of language you use.?

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.


This is a thread that was started specifically for atheists to speak about ways in which they felt repressed from expressing themselves in the overwhelming presence of Christians in a liberal society.

Ya, I know. And I was giving one of my experiences. You don't have a problem with that do you?


And I think you will find absolutely none of that here from any Christian or non-Christian in sight.

Well praise the good lord! My faith has been restored.


You are the only one behaving like a moron as far as I can see. Go shove it!

Touched a nerve did I? I'm sure I'll lose sleep over it.

[Jozanny]

I regret having started the thread, because I wanted to do some thinking out loud towards writing some things and penetrating certain markets, and doubt I'll be able to without getting zapped for pushing the envelope, so I'll forget about it.

Hisnibs, I am not a moderator, don't want to be either, but there is no need to use inflammatory language to antagonize other members. From what I understand, personalized language leads to the thread being closed--which at this point I don't mind. I was really looking for good objective takes, observations, not about whether a deity is or isn't, but what we can say about religion in the modern era.

[Hisnibs]

Hisnibs, I am not a moderator, don't want to be either, but there is no need to use inflammatory language to antagonize other members.

Walter misinterpreted the use of my words, and that's because he chose to. Such is the nature of those with a persecution complex.

[Mosca]

If no one minds me chiming in, and turning the discussion somewhat toward literature,

I find it puzzling, and interesting, that people find it necessary to write books stating the case for atheism. I would think that such a book would either not have an audience at all, or would be preaching to the choir (to malaprop an idiom [yes, I know]). Those who believe won't read the book (unless to find out what the opposition is thinking); those who doubt shouldn't read the book, because such a decision is personal; and those who don't believe don't need a book to reinforce their non-belief.

But, there the books are, and they are selling, so wth do I know, huh?

(edit) And I apologize in advance to hisnibs (cribbage term?) for defining the factions in degrees of belief; it is easier, and I believe somewhat customary (at least at this time).

[plainjane]

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.
There was no foul language on this thread till you entered, so perhaps you should think about your "clan".

The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)
So the world, universe, IOW animal, mineral, vegetable etc created themselves?

Oh, and while I'm here, I'd like to comment on the persons that type God out "g_d", the same poster spoke of pretentiousness of others, just like to mention that IMO that is the height of same.

[aabbcc]

To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.
You are actually right, but in sort of different way... "Non-believer" is not exactly the best term, but neither is "atheist", if you want to be precise.

There is a difference between the following:
1) I do not believe there is G-d.
2) I believe there is no G-d.

The former sentence is simpler than the latter since it is simply negatively correlated to that which it speaks of; the latter one is a positive statement and assumes a kind of belief, even though that belief is expressed negatively ("believe there is no" as opposed to "believe there is"). Technically, we call both positions to be "a-theist" ones without making an important distinction between them.

Technically, the position 1) is non-believer and atheist - it defines itself as negation of believer, and negating G-d makes it atheist. The position 2) is believer and atheist - it defines its position of negating G-d, which makes it atheist, by belief in the lack of G-d.

That being said, most of self-proclaimed atheists I have personally met are actually agnostics, but fail to differentiate the two.
Atheism, especially in its militant forms, is way more often a reactionist ideology (in lack of better term), which is based on "evident truth" that there is no G-d, the argumentation of which is, in most cases, not much better than the theist pseudo-argumentation (now some of you are going to tell me that it is impossible to argumentate the existence of G-d, and I will say, "Bravo! You finally get what I was saying in my previous posts which some people eisegised!" :lol:). Most of atheists take agnostic position, and out of the "lack of possibility to logically conclude whether there is G-d and verify His existence or lack thereof", which is an agnostic position, jump to deus ex machina 'conclusion' that, thus, there is no G-d, question resolved. :D So atheist in the principle denies the existence of G-d as transcendent and immanently necessary being, but cannot 'argumentate' such position any more than theist can argumentate his or her theism.

If you put things this way, atheism is as irrational as theism - the position "there is no G-d" which assumes "provability" and "argumentability" of itself would be rational, but just as I have never found a 'proof' of G-d's existence which was not logical fallacy or manipulation which may technically be not fallacious but still not a proof due to flawed premises or alike (you know, supposing linearity based on characteristics of that which you are only about to prove, and such), I have never found a proof there is no G-d. ;)

Whatever, not that I care. :D

[Jozanny]

PS to anyone: LitNet doesn't have Thomas Aquinas as a searchable text? Is that in the works? Time to Google.

[aabbcc]

Oh, and while I'm here, I'd like to comment on the persons that type God out "g_d", the same poster spoke of pretentiousness of others, just like to mention that IMO that is the height of same.
And you are entirely right. (I knew we would agree. :))

Atheism is a pretentious position, just as theism. Only agnosticism is, strictly speaking, neutral. Which is why I hurried to remove the "logic-approach" when I spotted it in your post (it was nothing personal) from the argument in general, because it favours none and leads nowhere.

[Mosca]

And you are entirely right. (I knew we would agree. :))

Atheism is a pretentious position, just as theism. Only agnosticism is, strictly speaking, neutral. Which is why I hurried to remove the "logic-approach" when I spotted it in your post (it was nothing personal) from the argument in general, because it favours none and leads nowhere.

I dunno about that. You kind of believe what you believe, don't you? If I look around and don't believe in god, and you look around and you do, and another person looks around and can't decide, how is any position more or less pretentious than another? I don't think that word really applies.

[Hisnibs]

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.

There was no foul language on this thread till you entered, so perhaps you should think about your "clan".

Why are people not getting this? How are you not seeing me quoting the derogative terms that people use when referring to atheists?


The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)

So the world, universe, IOW animal, mineral, vegetable etc created themselves?

No. I didn’t say that. Of all the observable, what can be seen is formation by way of some form of evolution. There’s nothing to suggest that anything is created by anything other than the forces of nature.
Planets don’t suddenly just jump into existence anymore than complex organisms (animals, humans, etc.). They form over time.


To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.

You are actually right, but in sort of different way... "Non-believer" is not exactly the best term, but neither is "atheist", if you want to be precise.

There is a difference between the following:
1) I do not believe there is G-d.
2) I believe there is no G-d.

The former sentence is simpler than the latter since it is simply negatively correlated to that which it speaks of; the latter one is a positive statement and assumes a kind of belief, even though that belief is expressed negatively ("believe there is no" as opposed to "believe there is"). Technically, we call both positions to be "a-theist" ones without making an important distinction between them.

Technically, the position 1) is non-believer and atheist - it defines itself as negation of believer, and negating G-d makes it atheist. The position 2) is believer and atheist - it defines its position of negating G-d, which makes it atheist, by belief in the lack of G-d.

That being said, most of self-proclaimed atheists I have personally met are actually agnostics, but fail to differentiate the two.
Atheism, especially in its militant forms, is way more often a reactionist ideology (in lack of better term), which is based on "evident truth" that there is no G-d, the argumentation of which is, in most cases, not much better than the theist pseudo-argumentation (now some of you are going to tell me that it is impossible to argumentate the existence of G-d, and I will say, "Bravo! You finally get what I was saying in my previous posts which some people eisegised!" ). Most of atheists take agnostic position, and out of the "lack of possibility to logically conclude whether there is G-d and verify His existence or lack thereof", which is an agnostic position, jump to deus ex machina 'conclusion' that, thus, there is no G-d, question resolved. So atheist in the principle denies the existence of G-d as transcendent and immanently necessary being, but cannot 'argumentate' such position any more than theist can argumentate his or her theism.

If you put things this way, atheism is as irrational as theism - the position "there is no G-d" which assumes "provability" and "argumentability" of itself would be rational, but just as I have never found a 'proof' of G-d's existence which was not logical fallacy or manipulation which may technically be not fallacious but still not a proof due to flawed premises or alike (you know, supposing linearity based on characteristics of that which you are only about to prove, and such), I have never found a proof there is no G-d.

Whatever, not that I care.

I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s folly (and quite unfair) to label someone something because they’re different and it’s different for someone to apply this label because of that. I can understand a lot of people who may have been raised into a theological worldview and have difficulty in comprehending the worldview of people who do not have a religion altogether.
I’ve got no problem with that really as I understand (especially having come from and de-converting from a religion that provided a metaphorical "bubble").

As I no longer follow any religion, I don't label myself in anyway in religious terms.

[Mosca]

Following on my post #68, I don't understand the need for a topic to discuss what someone doesn't believe in. If there is some history here that I, as a new member, am unaware of I apologize.

edit; ah, screw it. there's a decent argument going on, sorry to fall into the middle of it.

[aabbcc]

I dunno about that. You kind of believe what you believe, don't you? If I look around and don't believe in god, and you look around and you do, and another person looks around and can't decide, how is any position more or less pretentious than another? I don't think that word really applies.
Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

[Jozanny]

Following on my post #68, I don't understand the need for a topic to discuss what someone doesn't believe in. If there is some history here that I, as a new member, am unaware of I apologize.

edit; ah, screw it. there's a decent argument going on, sorry to fall into the middle of it.

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way. Religion is a faith in dictated prescription, and I don't really like any of them, although, following Joyce, I think Catholicism and Judaism have two of the most rational approaches to faith and belief in deism. Other sect doctrines are bad for my blood pressure.

I found Aquinas here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aquinas.htm

PS: Welcome to LN.

[aabbcc]

I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s folly (and quite unfair) to label someone something because they’re different and it’s different for someone to apply this label because of that. I can understand a lot of people who may have been raised into a theological worldview and have difficulty in comprehending the worldview of people who do not have a religion altogether.
I’ve got no problem with that really as I understand (especially having come from and de-converting from a religion that provided a metaphorical "bubble").

As I no longer follow any religion, I don't label myself in anyway in religious terms.
I understand that, perhaps I should have cleared that I was not replying directly to you, but merely used your post as "starting point" because you opened an important question, though you opened it with originally different intentions. :)

I think I understand what you are saying about labelling, and I actually agree on that.


Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way.
I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

[ThomasBernhard]

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

Frankly, although the logic behind your analysis of the terms is sound and consistent, I can't really agree with it, as it (or at least so it seems to me) differs from the common understanding of the words atheist and agnostic. Majority of people who call themselves atheists and who are described as such, do not take the position of asserting God's non-existence. Instead of this "strong atheism", which we apparently agree make little sense, most do no more than withold assent to the proposition "There is a god" (which I like to call "weak atheism"). And indeed for withholding assent there is no need for faith. Isn't this definiton more in line with the way words theist and atheists are commonly understood? I think so, because defining atheism as affirming the statement "There is no God" leaves us with very few atheists and a whole lot of agnostics who like to be identified as atheists.

Being just a matter of semantics, it's all probably of little importance, but still I think it's reasonable to keep our definitons as close to the common meaning as possible. That's just my two cents:)

[Jozanny]

I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

Perhaps we face the danger of too many isms, as I am not sure physics is naturalism.

About your post on the range between agnosticism and atheism, this is an interesting subject, as agnostics and atheists generally don't get along with each other, which at first glance seem surprising. People generally blur the line between the two without some study, but I am now firmly in the latter camp, and am nearly as hard an atheist as Dawkins. He rates himself as 7.5 for "no God exists."

I am about 7.

American Atheist has an interesting archive article which claims agnosticism can lead the way to hard atheism, but I am doubtful. Margaret Atwood is an agnostic. I've heard her talk about it--and the furtherest she seems willing to go is a succinct discomfort with "this fascination with Jesus Christ."

The main reason atheists don't get along with their weaker skeptics on the scale, is that agnostics are still willing to explore the possibility of supernatural existence, sometimes still searching.

I've stopped searching, and all I care to do, as a writer, is to say things about the human condition.

[aabbcc]

Perhaps we face the danger of too many isms, as I am not sure physics is naturalism.
By naturalism (in philosophy), I mean "the system of thought that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws".
By materialism, I consider the ontological position which claims that "the physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including phenomena such as thought, feeling, mind, will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena".

The two are, strictly speaking, not synonimous, but for the purposes of the thread they might as well be; still, physics as science is most definitely "naturalist". ;)
My point is that atheism, as I described it, is in no necessary correlation to naturalism or materialism (even though it more often than not atheists hold such views), as atheism as a position states one single thing ("There is no G-d.") and does not necessarily imply strictly materialist ontological position, as in the example of some Eastern philosophies / religions.


The main reason atheists don't get along with their weaker skeptics on the scale, is that agnostics are still willing to explore the possibility of supernatural existence, sometimes still searching.
Not necessarily willing to. There are a couple of variants of agnosticism... :D Before we get lost in them, basically, it is possible to be the so-called "apathetic agnostic", sort of "I do not really care, and do not really wish to explore, I believe neither and state neither, and now leave me alone" train of thought.

The main view is, I know, that agnosticism is a sort of "undecidedness" (does this word exist?). While some agnostics are undoubtedly in such a position, not all are. Some have decided that they will not decide at all, given the impossibility of 'proof', and deal with the subject no longer.

On the side note, "weaker skeptics", "stronger skeptics"... In this kind of discourse, what is the definition of a "skeptic"? :confused:

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Further posts containing personal remarks will be considered off-topic and deleted without further notice.
C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), insults (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=insult&searchmode=none), baiting (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bait&searchmode=none), trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), harassing (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=harass&searchmode=none), and or flaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming). If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain (http://www.albion.com/netiquette/) them or the rules to you.

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410)

[Mosca]

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way. Religion is a faith in dictated prescription, and I don't really like any of them, although, following Joyce, I think Catholicism and Judaism have two of the most rational approaches to faith and belief in deism. Other sect doctrines are bad for my blood pressure.

I found Aquinas here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aquinas.htm

PS: Welcome to LN.

I'm not sure atheism requires faith in there not being a god. I understand what you wrote, but the repeatability of the world working a certain way doesn't really require faith, it requires observation. On the other hand, if it did stop working in a repeatable way, then I would certainly get faith of a different sort!

[Jozanny]

I find it puzzling, and interesting, that people find it necessary to write books stating the case for atheism. I would think that such a book would either not have an audience at all, or would be preaching to the choir (to malaprop an idiom [yes, I know]). Those who believe won't read the book (unless to find out what the opposition is thinking); those who doubt shouldn't read the book, because such a decision is personal; and those who don't believe don't need a book to reinforce their non-belief.

I find this position highly objectionable. I am a writer. I write. I have published editorials about Catholicism and I have no problem whatsoever with modern evangelicals publishing about their doctrine. Whether I write about atheism, or cerebral palsy, or the disability movement, there is no one forcing you to join my fan base--which, admittedly, is small, but exists, and with my email address, rather immediate.

I also never posted I was going to write about atheism. Reread my opening posts.

[Mosca]

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I understand you better now, I think. Let me paraphrase it back to you, and see if we are now discussing the same thing. "The need to convince another of the certainty of your argument on the validity of something that is based on faith and belief is pretentious."

If that is what you meant, then I completely agree. There is no way that belief or non-belief in god can be arrived at other than as a personal search (understanding that the decision to accept or reject the faith [or lack of it] given to you by your parents is also a choice).

[jgweed]

Yet another position that can, and often is, taken by agnostics is that while they find no warrant for accepting the existence of God, they are not willing to conclude that there is no God.

This thread has certainly become so diffuse that discussion is very difficult, and it seems that in flurry to post, categorical statements are being made when, it seems to me, what is meant is something entirely different; there is a logical difference between saying "all X is Y" and "some X is Y," and the discussion would be furthered by making this distinction.There also seems to be a lack of clarity about what logic is, and what it contributes to an argument, an understanding of which seems to be prior to any discussion.
Regards to all,
John

[Jozanny]

Yet another position that can, and often is, taken by agnostics is that while they find no warrant for accepting the existence of God, they are not willing to conclude that there is no God.

This thread has certainly become so diffuse that discussion is very difficult, and it seems that in flurry to post, categorical statements are being made when, it seems to me, what is meant is something entirely different; there is a logical difference between saying "all X is Y" and "some X is Y," and the discussion would be furthered by making this distinction.There also seems to be a lack of clarity about what logic is, and what it contributes to an argument, an understanding of which seems to be prior to any discussion.
Regards to all,
John

The fault is mine jg. I should have had a position stated out in the opening rather than merely having a reaction to the deletion of a train of thought elsewhere.

I apologize for that, and will try to do better if an issue comes to light in the future, though I do appreciate that Anastasija and Richard put me onto a vague trail in search of an idea.

I'll shush now.:p

[Mosca]

I find this position highly objectionable. I am a writer. I write. I have published editorials about Catholicism and I have no problem whatsoever with modern evangelicals publishing about their doctrine. Whether I write about atheism, or cerebral palsy, or the disability movement, there is no one forcing you to join my fan base--which, admittedly, is small, but exists, and with my email address, rather immediate.

I also never posted I was going to write about atheism. Reread my opening posts.

I'm not sure you understood me. I'm not saying it's wrong, nor did I say anything about what you do, or what your intent was; I only said that it puzzles me personally, that I don't understand it. Take it on its face, don't read anything else into it. Rather than take offense, I would prefer that you explain it to me. My belief is that it says more about the readers than it does about the writers; I need no reason to write anything, but why would I read something that does not serve my needs? I either agree, disagree, or need to make up my mind without other influence, so why a book?

[jgweed]

My comments were directed at no one, Jozanny, but were merely about the discussion in general as I see it evolving, and I was offering some reminders that might improve it.

Aquinas's Summa Theologica is available, by the way, at Project Gutenburg in plain text.

Cheers,
John

[Jozanny]

I'm not sure you understood me. I'm not saying it's wrong, nor did I say anything about what you do, or what your intent was; I only said that it puzzles me personally, that I don't understand it. Take it on its face, don't read anything else into it. Rather than take offense, I would prefer that you explain it to me. My belief is that it says more about the readers than it does about the writers; I need no reason to write anything, but why would I read something that does not serve my needs? I either agree, disagree, or need to make up my mind without other influence, so why a book?

How in the world can you object to an atheist publishing on the subject of atheism? Do you object to Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa, which jg just mentioned? There are dozens of mega church pastors who publish feel good methodology books in the US, and they are rich. Do you believe in free speech? I read thinkers who do not suit my *needs*. I am sorry, but I find your objection nearly incomprehensible, and will leave it there.

Except to add, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens publish because they have something to say, and I applaud Hitchens in particular because he is not afraid to discuss historical fact to puncture so called sensitivity. I wish I could quote or paraphrase some of what he has published over the last year, but members feelings here are paramount over the American First Amendment, so I do not dare to try-- and rarely are they defending atheism. They *attack* American religious hypocrisy, among other things.

[Mosca]

How in the world can you object to an atheist publishing on the subject of atheism? Do you object to Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa, which jg just mentioned? There are dozens of mega church pastors who publish feel good methodology books in the US, and they are rich. Do you believe in free speech? I read thinkers who do not suit my *needs*. I am sorry, but I find your objection nearly incomprehensible, and will leave it there.

Except to add, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens publish because they have something to say, and I applaud Hitchens in particular because he is not afraid to discuss historical fact to puncture so called sensitivity. I wish I could quote or paraphrase some of what he has published over the last year, but members feelings here are paramount over the American First Amendment, so I do not dare to try-- and rarely are they defending atheism. They *attack* American religious hypocrisy, among other things.

I'm not OBJECTING. I'm saying that I don't understand it, it is foreign to me. I don't understand the need to proselytize atheism. I believe folks can write and publish whatever the hell they want. Please don't yell at me for not understanding some things, and please don't confuse my lack of understanding with disagreeing.

In the US, a country where almost everyone is born into faith, a person almost always comes to atheism through a personal journey. It is my opinion that that is what make personal non-theistic belief so strong; people figure out the arguments for no god on their own. If they never get the urge to ask the question, then no book can help them; and if they do get the urge to ask the question, then they can find the answer that works for them (be it theism or non-theism) without a book. Belief and non belief, at its essence, is personal. The notion of being influenced on such an issue by what someone else has written; that is what I find puzzling.

[Jozanny]

I'm not OBJECTING. I'm saying that I don't understand it, it is foreign to me. I don't understand the need to proselytize atheism. I believe folks can write and publish whatever the hell they want. Please don't yell at me for not understanding some things, and please don't confuse my lack of understanding with disagreeing.

I will try this one last time, and then we'll see where this lands: You posted a story in the story thread about lute fishing. I don't ask myself why this reminiscence matters to you, because we are all shaped by divergent experiences.

By the same token, my experiences have led me to become a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate. I don't see why anyone would question my need to continue to branch out as an author and do critical pieces on religion and the rise of the modern atheist, if I choose to explore these issues.

Is this a fair enough assessment for you?

[kilted exile]

I am an atheist, but am no fan of Dawkins, Hitchens and the like. I have as much contempt for them as I do for the likes of Hagee.

For me religion is a personal thing, believe whatever you want if it helps you get through life Gods or bunny rabbits it doesnt matter to me - whatever floats your boat.

Myself though, I'm gonna continue looking at modern religions in the same way as I do the "dead" religions of ancient civilisations

[Jozanny]

I am an atheist, but am no fan of Dawkins, Hitchens and the like. I have as much contempt for them as I do for the likes of Hagee.

For me religion is a personal thing, believe whatever you want if it helps you get through life Gods or bunny rabbits it doesnt matter to me - whatever floats your boat.

Myself though, I'm gonna continue looking at modern religions in the same way as I do the "dead" religions of ancient civilisations

I hear you kilted but for me Hitchens is fun, and I have to respect anyone who gets paid for saying what I wish I could say--I don't always agree with Hitchens either, but he isn't just a polemicist. His introduction to Brave New World was more sympathetic to Huxley than I could manage.

I really don't like the ideological literature that splatted itself out of the 1930's, in part due to the love affair with and fear over the Soviets.

[Mosca]

I will try this one last time, and then we'll see where this lands: You posted a story in the story thread about lute fishing. I don't ask myself why this reminiscence matters to you, because we are all shaped by divergent experiences.

By the same token, my experiences have led me to become a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate. I don't see why anyone would question my need to continue to branch out as an author and do critical pieces on religion and the rise of the modern atheist, if I choose to explore these issues.

Is this a fair enough assessment for you?

I still think that we are somewhat at cross purposes, and it is probably my fault. I wasn't coming into the thread looking for an argument, but I did drop into the middle of one, and I wasn't clear in expressing myself. It's not so much why someone would write and publish such a work, but I don't understand why someone would read a book on what seems to me to be essentially a personal quest, the understanding of the nature of (no) god. I'm sorry that that upsets you so that you choose to strike out at me, but in the end that doesn't matter, I suppose.

I wrote the lutefisk story as a lark, and I posted it because I don't think it is good enough to publish, but I do think that it has some successful elements, and perhaps some people might enjoy some of it. And if they don't, well, they didn't have to pay for it, either.

I'm glad that you are a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate, though. How nice for you!

[Virgil]

So the thread is back! ;)

[Logos]

now now Virgil, don't poke the bees' nest! :hammer:



W a r n i n g

Further posts containing personal remarks will be considered off-topic and deleted without further notice.
C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), insults (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=insult&searchmode=none), baiting (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bait&searchmode=none), trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), harassing (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=harass&searchmode=none), and or flaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming). If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain (http://www.albion.com/netiquette/) them or the rules to you.

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410)

[mazHur]

I just dropped in to see what all this was about and having read just a few postings had to stop at this line (by kilted exile)

For me religion is a personal thing

I have also heard people say this often and wonder as to what could be regarded as ''personal''

Some other 'tangible things' regarded as 'personal' could be, for example,

marriage
human body
tobacco
etc

if these things are also 'personal' then why the registration formality in marriage;
why clothe our bodies?
why detest tobacco (not to speak of drugs)

Sure then there must be 'some limit' to being personal....governed by the society we live in, the people around.
A maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal''

I think we cannot be granted a blanket to say, do or cause to do anything under the mere excuse of it being ''personal''; there ofcourse be other factors regulating it as the mod is regulating this thread!

:)

[Jozanny]

now now Virgil, don't poke the bees' nest! :hammer:


"But he is innocent governor! Innocent I tell you!" (Character grasps chest wound while slumping behind the cow pen in grand gangster death scene...) "Innocent... (gasp)":lol::lol:

[kilted exile]

I just dropped in to see what all this was about and having read just a few postings had to stop at this line (by kilted exile)


I have also heard people say this often and wonder as to what could be regarded as ''personal''

Some other 'tangible things' regarded as 'personal' could be, for example,

marriage
human body
tobacco
etc

if these things are also 'personal' then why the registration formality in marriage;
why clothe our bodies?
why detest tobacco (not to speak of drugs)

Sure then there must be 'some limit' to being personal....governed by the society we live in, the people around.
A maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal''

I think we cannot be granted a blanket to say, do or cause to do anything under the mere excuse of it being ''personal''; there ofcourse be other factors regulating it as the mod is regulating this thread!

:)

Did I mention I'm anti-marriage? (did elsewhere I'm sure). I dont detest tobacco either, and regarding clothing if hot women want to wander around with no clothes on I aint gonna complain:lol: - ok being slightly facetious on the last poin but seriously if someone wants to wander about their house in the nude its no business of mine - just dont attempt to make me do the same Same with religion, believe in what you like, just dont expect me to agree with you.

Regarding the term "personal". Of course it is personal. It is a belief people come to by themselves. As a result, it should be kept to yourselves, if there is a all-powerful creator that wants me to believe in he/she/it, then they'll find some way to correct my thinking themselves without the need for any mortal to try and tell me the good news.

[Virgil]

"But he is innocent governor! Innocent I tell you!" (Character grasps chest wound while slumping behind the cow pen in grand gangster death scene...) "Innocent... (gasp)":lol::lol:

:lol: I am on this one. I'm just a bystander.

[Jozanny]

I think we're confusing personal belief with discourse in the public square, and in that sense, I read and listen to theologians, atheists and scholars like Harold Bloom, Richard Dawkins, Merton, Hitchens, and at some point I'd like to join the dialogue by publishing my own essays and articles.

Sure, faith or lack of it is personal, but Bill Moyers has public discussions of himself and his wife as Baptists, public discussions with agnostics like Atwood, and while goodness knows I don't publish posts and wouldn't try, I like public discourse to that end, my goal being I want to write some articles.

JBI called it media atheism; I'd go further--religion and atheism have a public component to them, and a social consequence which the media always examines in lesser or greater degrees of complexity.

When someone gets what I mean do give me a ring y'all.

[mazHur]

Did I mention I'm anti-marriage? (did elsewhere I'm sure). I dont detest tobacco either, and regarding clothing if hot women want to wander around with no clothes on I aint gonna complain:lol: - ok being slightly facetious on the last poin but seriously if someone wants to wander about their house in the nude its no business of mine - just dont attempt to make me do the same Same with religion, believe in what you like, just dont expect me to agree with you.

Regarding the term "personal". Of course it is personal. It is a belief people come to by themselves. As a result, it should be kept to yourselves, if there is a all-powerful creator that wants me to believe in he/she/it, then they'll find some way to correct my thinking themselves without the need for any mortal to try and tell me the good news.


If religion was a 'personal' matter and everybody gets stuck to his own 'belief', right or wrong, then how many religions on earth do we expect to have? Won't the number of religions would then equal the number of people on earth??
Religion is like any other subject taught in schools, colleges and universities. Like any other subject it also have its set rules and those who study it as a subject do keep its rules in view,,,that's imperative otherwise one cannot study any subject for that sake.

even if you won't like a hot wench walking nude on the street that doesn't mean others in the society wont get disturbed. It may also taken as indecent by many to roam about in your house naked when your kids etc are all around.
Even personal and private things have to be taken care of,,,,i agree but when ther is a chance of their being stolen, But who on earth can 'steal' such an intangible thing as ''religion'' unless you want to discard it on your own (keep it)

[kilted exile]

If religion was a 'personal' matter and everybody gets stuck to his own 'belief', right or wrong, then how many religions on earth do we expect to have? Won't the number of religions would then equal the number of people on earth??
Religion is like any other subject taught in schools, colleges and universities. Like any other subject it also have its set rules and those who study it as a subject do keep its rules in view,,,that's imperative otherwise one cannot study any subject for that sake.

even if you won't like a hot wench walking nude on the street that doesn't mean others in the society wont get disturbed. It may also taken as indecent by many to roam about in your house naked when your kids etc are all around.
Even personal and private things have to be taken care of,,,,i agree but when ther is a chance of their being stolen, But who on earth can 'steal' such an intangible thing as ''religion'' unless you want to discard it on your own (keep it)


One last post before I disappear for the night (have to up at 4 in the morning for work).

It doesnt matter to me one bit if there are as many religions as there are people on earth - why should it? like I said earlier, whatever floats yer boat.

Teaching religions at school should only be done as a means of better understanding other cultures, in this way if (despite it being incredibly unlikely) all organised religions fall apart into individual belief we can just teach cultural studies instead. If the teaching of religion in school is the best argument someone can think of for the existence of organised religion, then, well.....

It could only be considered indecent to wander around your house naked if you see something about the human body itself about objectionable. I dont. What I do in my own home is my business alone (with the proviso that the activity does not break the law of the land) Nobody has any right to tell me what I have to do in the sanctity of my home.

Why do people who dont believe in something have to protect it? Let those who believe protect it.

[mazHur]

Nobody has any right to tell me what I have to do in the sanctity of my home.

this is a very wide sweep!
you can wave your umbrella as long as it doesn't touch any body's nose!:)

[Jozanny]

Why do people who dont believe in something have to protect it? Let those who believe protect it.

Dawkins can defend himself better than I can, but he asks us to at least question why we can't dismantle it too--and the best voices do this without becoming too Chaucer-like.

[jgweed]

While society is assumed to have the right to regulate outward conduct for the preservation of order and the encouragement of the peaceful arts, this does not mean that it has a right to regulate matters of conscience or thinking--- those areas which we call "personal," and which are in a sense, inward conduct. Thus society (if not indeed climate) may demand that one goes about in public more or less clothed (and what about "nude beaches"?), but cannot tell us that we should consider nudity as "morally wrong."

The objection that "a maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal'" ignores that what is different about a maneater's act is not that it is in any way considered to be "personal" but that it is not done from choice, understanding, or will. A dog urinating in public is not reflecting anything personal, but follows instinct and nature; it is for that reason that we attach no censure or blame for it.
*****
In the world of ideas, I see no reason for anyone to avoid the contests of differing perspectives, still less to look askance at atheists (or any other "group" for that matter) presenting their viewpoint and providing arguments in support of it.
One may say that it is their right, or one may argue that an individual who must perforce make choices, should do so based on as much information as possible and not solely under the tutelage of situation, received opinion, or accident of birth. In this sense (now that I have read posts during composition) all ideas, or at least their expression, require "protection."

[mazHur]

Nudity is not 'immoral' in the literal sense but it is ofcourse 'conditional'.
One cannot move around 'nude' anywhere anytime he liked uncensored (like the dog peeing without his ''will' or instinct as it's called).
Don't you think humans too have instincts?? wholesale Nudity is not 'instinct' against hiccups or sneezing which are involuntary or instinctive
acts. All other acts, tangible or intangible , are governed by principles so are most involuntary acts are governed by some cultural rules of conduct.

Nudity on beaches may not be objectionable being a specified spot for bathing or a part of culture of a certain place. While at other places you cant even dream of bathing in the nude on the beaches!! Just have a look around the world,,,,it's bigger than anyone's home!

Searching God is like searching the sun by a lamp !

Thoughts cannot be stolen but they could be traded, given up, distorted, right or wrong. Who knows??

[RichardHresko]

It appears to me that there are three overall points that many (if not most) of the posts touch upon.

1) The issue of a right to a personal belief of one's own choice. Unless I missed something, nobody questions that people have an unalienable (or 'inalienable,' if you prefer) right of free conscience.

2) The right to freely express one's opinion. I can't imagine anyone belonging to a bulletin board like Literature Network who would seriously argue against this right.

3) The right to proselytize one's point of view. This is where things seem to get dicey. There are several issues packed in here. Not the least of which is the role of money in the media. Leaving that particular issue on the side (since it gets into the realm of politics), there is a question of when a person has the right to proselytize.

Clearly in the case of private organizations (such as this one) there is a right by those who have set up the organization to restrict such activity. Street corners are another matter, since in a free society we recognize the right to proselytize (within certain limits -- consider Sedition Acts during times of war).

If there is a conflict between society rules and one's private beliefs one has to make a choice. And morally I think it is reasonable to choose civil disobedience if one holds that one's beliefs are a greater good. That being said, one must also recognize, as Thoreau, Gandhi, and King did, that morally one is required to accept the penalty for civil disobedience as well.

[Jozanny]

It appears to me that there are three overall points that many (if not most) of the posts touch upon.

1) The issue of a right to a personal belief of one's own choice. Unless I missed something, nobody questions that people have an unalienable (or 'inalienable,' if you prefer) right of free conscience.

2) The right to freely express one's opinion. I can't imagine anyone belonging to a bulletin board like Literature Network who would seriously argue against this right.

3) The right to proselytize one's point of view. This is where things seem to get dicey. There are several issues packed in here. Not the least of which is the role of money in the media. Leaving that particular issue on the side (since it gets into the realm of politics), there is a question of when a person has the right to proselytize.

I am also thinking of trying to find my own slant on a piece about online communities and where the line is. I am afraid some might think badly of me if I admit that I've been in lots of chats (IRCs) and communities in 11 years, grown old with this technology and have done some things I am ashamed of,
but, I am always conscious of the fact that I am a minority.

I know no one can see that I am a minority, and that for all others know, I am a liar, or Ted Bundy in disguise--I'm not--but what I mean is my minority self-identification follows me, and I am always braced, fairly or not, for the tyranny of the majority to *muzzle* me.

This has nothing to do with atheism or religion directly--but it accounts for some things in my posture, my assumption that most of you are *normal* mothers, husbands, teens, students, and I'm not--and maybe that too is an invalid assumption on my part--but it explains part of me, and why I so highly value dissent and the right to voice it, as long as I do not violate community standards so much as to lose sight of the value of the message in the first place.

But this is why I prize Hitchens--he would never be afraid of board moderators, and no doubt would tell me "hey, Jo, if you want to write as I do then roll your dice, you know?" He conquered the fear of not being himself, and as such, carved out a platform.

I take vacations from what it takes to achieve that, and both want *normal* people to accept me as part of something, which LN represents, but want to push back against some of its conventions at the same time, want to be recognized as a minority with my difference by the suburban crowd.

What a mouthful:D:D.

[NikolaiI]

I am also thinking of trying to find my own slant on a piece about online communities and where the line is. I am afraid some might think badly of me if I admit that I've been in lots of chats (IRCs) and communities in 11 years, grown old with this technology and have done some things I am ashamed of,
but, I am always conscious of the fact that I am a minority.

I know no one can see that I am a minority, and that for all others know, I am a liar, or Ted Bundy in disguise--I'm not--but what I mean is my minority self-identification follows me, and I am always braced, fairly or not, for the tyranny of the majority to *muzzle* me.

This has nothing to do with atheism or religion directly--but it accounts for some things in my posture, my assumption that most of you are *normal* mothers, husbands, teens, students, and I'm not--and maybe that too is an invalid assumption on my part--but it explains part of me, and why I so highly value dissent and the right to voice it, as long as I do not violate community standards so much as to lose sight of the value of the message in the first place.

But this is why I prize Hitchens--he would never be afraid of board moderators, and no doubt would tell me "hey, Jo, if you want to write as I do then roll your dice, you know?" He conquered the fear of not being himself, and as such, carved out a platform.

I take vacations from what it takes to achieve that, and both want *normal* people to accept me as part of something, which LN represents, but want to push back against some of its conventions at the same time, want to be recognized as a minority with my difference by the suburban crowd.

What a mouthful:D:D.

I can tell you I for one will never try to interfere with your right to speak your opinions. I've never really had any problems with the moderators here--as far as online communities go, most are retarded; this is a good one. I've faced criticism I felt was negative and personal/insulting on here, but that might be anywhere you go. I don't see much of it, but the concept itself is so strange, being negative or insulting... on the internet or in person-- internet is different because for one these things are written, and also it is anonymous; it makes for an interesting mix.

I notice that you mention not forgetting the meaning of your message, and that's something I think about. If our message is peace, then we can't fight war to that end, can we? If people "mean well," they should be careful to check their words and intentions towards others.

[Big Al]

Wow, I spend two days at work away from this thread, and I come back to find four new pages of discussion. You guys all need busier jobs. ;)


I'm not sure faith necessarily acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments, rather it acts a different first principle. The problem in all these discussions is that ultimately you cannot prove or disprove G-d. So you're always playing language games and trying to one up your opponent on little things like whether the universe REQUIRES someone to have pushed the button, except this still doesn't DISPROVE Aquainas either. It only calls the SURETY of his argument into question not the POSSIBILITY that he may in fact be correct.

This is certainly true, and perhaps a trap into which I sometimes fall. However, I have never said to a theist that he or she was wrong, or that there is absolutely no god, and that is what bothers me about believers (not all but in general) since most theistic arguments do seem to be built on absolute knowledge: the universe had to start this way, everything is so complex that it had to be designed, and so on and so forth.


The Theist's argument generally fails when they try to find something that definitively proves G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist cannot disprove G-d either, so they're left with attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.

I would agree with that. It is probably a futile endeavor to try to convince somebody that their deepest beliefs are incorrect, and it is also surely an unnecessary one (because, really, why should I honestly care?), but when I see an argument I perceived to be flawed, I just can't help but chime in.


By the way, I looked at your profile. Are you really only 17? You're impressively smart.

I am indeed 17, and I greatly appreciate your compliments. Of course, I'm probably just copying arguments I've read elsewhere, but I appreciate it all the same.


Are you saying that no one was rational in the qworld until the 20th century? That's pretty elitist and frankly when you have the reputation of Thomas Aquinas as a thinker I will bow to you.

No, I am not. Are you asserting that there were no opponents to religion and theism and the arguments of Aquinas in the 12th century? I would find that hard to believe. Of course, they probably weren't able to widely circulate their criticisms, what with the church exercising an extraordinary amount of control and influence over society and executing so-called heretics and blasphemers.


Correct. And in the future they may know even more than you that may alter the rational thought process from yours.

Of course the problem with that is that I cannot think or argue with the knowledge of future generations; I can only think and argue with the knowledge of now, so to speak, which is how everybody functions. However, here is my central argument: rather than pointing out how my thinking might possibly, theoretically be disproved by a future, more intellectually advanced society, you should use the knowledge that you currently possess and try to point out specific flaws in my arguments. If you are unable to do that, I really don't see why I should consider other possibilities that don't make sense now, just in case they'll make sense later.


Actually, Aquinas' work is perfectly rational, even now. The major philosophical critics of Aquinas (starting with Ockham) have rarely, if ever, questioned his rationality, or logic. The issue has rather been one of certain premises upon which his logic was based. It is not an issue of our knowing anything 'better' now (whatever that may mean in this context) but instead our having decided that certain rules could be changed.

That is fair enough; obviously I made a mistake in stating that Aquinas was not logical. That being said, I would still assert that his proofs for the existence of God are very flawed, and don't hold up to scrutiny.


Yes, there is.

You make a good point and present it well. I can first of all say that when I converted from an atheist to a theist, I went through different stages; perhaps the first was pantheist, then I decided I was something between pantheist and atheist, then I decided the labels didn't matter-- any of the four biggest ones; pantheist, atheist, deist, or theist, and now I say I am a theist because it is my philosophy. As I went on this path, there were lots of different sources for ideas that I drew from; Pascal, Descartes, Dostoevsky, Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, Buddhist masters and poets, and then people such as Sri Aurobindo.

I read someone else on here mention that a religious person might live a calmer, more peaceful life because of their faith, and this is closely related to an idea or belief I have; value in a peaceful searching for inner or spiritual truth or wisdom. When we work on our meditation to awaken physical and mental health or truth consciousness, or awaken awareness, and work on our inner tranquility, peace and faith, this is vital to perceiving the issues, and as we develop we also inrease our tools for understanding. Meditation is not simply concentration on the void, but it can also be practicing mantras, sort of practice for aware or awakend consciousness.

Your question as to the reason to search for a spiritual realm-- I've read desscriptions that might shed light; all our mental speculation and philosophy is good, but it can only go so far. For every mental evaluation there is its opposite, in the mental realm you can only have mental will, which is not as valuable as a deeper, spiritual will. Two examples on this; both involve a greater focus, a complete absorption in either 1) something like the Buddhist's "one-pointed" concentration, and 2) the Hindu and Christian meditation, where meditation is also one-pointed, but focused on God.

Lastly, the greatest of the thinkers for humankind have contributed to philosophy, in greater or lesser degrees, and in different capacities. Not all of them agree on labels, but a great many, some that I have mentioned, put forward faith-based or religious ideas. Not only Dawkins is to be admired.

So I don't mean to say that one should take it on faith and stop thinking. We should always think critically, solving problems is very important for consciousness; but also take in the value of faith-oriented art, philosophy, things of this nature.

That is fair enough, and if I came on too argumentative I apologize. I don't actually have any problem with theism or theists, and as you pointed out some of the greatest thinkers and artists who ever lived had theistic philosophies. I just happen to believe that atheism is a much more logical point of view, and for me logic is the most important thing, while I have never felt any feelings which I would describe as spiritual.

Okay, now I'm caught up. Hopefully this thread won't get away from me again while I'm working the next few days.

[Jozanny]

I can tell you I for one will never try to interfere with your right to speak your opinions. I've never really had any problems with the moderators here--as far as online communities go, most are retarded; this is a good one. I've faced criticism I felt was negative and personal/insulting on here, but that might be anywhere you go. I don't see much of it, but the concept itself is so strange, being negative or insulting... on the internet or in person-- internet is different because for one these things are written, and also it is anonymous; it makes for an interesting mix.

About the negative and insulting Niko--sigh, my sister was the psych major, not me--but, I think most internet users have the best of intentions--not all, and there will be trolls anywhere, that is human nature. Sometimes it is a *fight* for the sake of a *fight*; been there, done that, and I am too old now and too ill to really roll out the dukes, and it is silly anyway, getting worked up on a board or e-list, but these things suck people in too. I am drifting, but detachment is easy in conception, harder in practice.

In any case, we'll all live and learn as long as we want to. Good night.

[aabbcc]

I believe most of us discussing here would agree that we do not have problems with the belief of others, in sense of the sole fact that they hold certain points of view that we do not.
However, there is an important question related to that belief, given that our lives are necessarily influenced by certain ways of the majority of an area we live in - to which extent is tolerable that the belief of others, particularly religious majority of an area one lives in, influences or interferes with one's functioning in that area as an atheist or religious minority, in an officially secular country, on all levels, from everyday life situations of demonstrating belief in public institutions to legal issues of, for example, majority RE in school.

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. ;))

[jgweed]

"What is the extent to which religious majority has the right to influence everyday life of religious minorities or atheists in officially secular countries?

This question was answered by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay "On Liberty." Although written in 1869, it seems even more important in today's world in which the "tyranny of the majority" is exercised in so manifold and in so subterranean ways. While the essay itself addresses the problem of "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual," The fourth chapter discusses the issue of religious tolerance:
http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

I suggest any discussion should consider carefully Mill's arguments, which seem to me to be definitive.
Regards,
John

[NikolaiI]

That is fair enough, and if I came on too argumentative I apologize. I don't actually have any problem with theism or theists, and as you pointed out some of the greatest thinkers and artists who ever lived had theistic philosophies. I just happen to believe that atheism is a much more logical point of view, and for me logic is the most important thing, while I have never felt any feelings which I would describe as spiritual.

Okay, now I'm caught up. Hopefully this thread won't get away from me again while I'm working the next few days.

No no, you didn't seem too argumentative at all. If I seem wary... well, anyway if one is too argumentative then they will not see anything beyond their own ideas, and to engage someone like this, they have to be willing to take down the argumentativeness a notch. Argumentation like this is like elitism. And-- one is argumentative because they have an idea, the only thing is the idea should speak for itself. Ideas are free for everyone, and true ideas are free to everyone, you can't deny people their ideas... erm...I guess to sum up is just over argumentation deadens any kind of discussion, and it cannot serve any purpose because it defeats itself.


About the negative and insulting Niko--sigh, my sister was the psych major, not me--but, I think most internet users have the best of intentions--not all, and there will be trolls anywhere, that is human nature. Sometimes it is a *fight* for the sake of a *fight*; been there, done that, and I am too old now and too ill to really roll out the dukes, and it is silly anyway, getting worked up on a board or e-list, but these things suck people in too. I am drifting, but detachment is easy in conception, harder in practice.

In any case, we'll all live and learn as long as we want to. Good night.

I'm not interested in fighting for the sake of a fight; it's not very much fun for me. I just wanted to give support for free exchange of ideas! If people get personal on here, it has a negative impact. I just want people to be able to discuss comfortably, their ideas, what they think is true; regardless of anything else, as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights to be heard.

And respect is necessary; to show respect even if one doesn't feel it... this is a very basic idea-- everyone desires respect, and so we should show others respect, even if only for ourselves. People who are disrespectful on here and worse are only showing their own ignorance of this basic idea.

[RichardHresko]

That is fair enough; obviously I made a mistake in stating that Aquinas was not logical. That being said, I would still assert that his proofs for the existence of God are very flawed, and don't hold up to scrutiny.

.

I am assuming that you are referring to the quinque viae as found in the summa theologiae, though there is another version in the summa contra gentiles.

You are welcome to assert that the proofs are flawed, but you haven't pointed out any flaws. The problems with the Five Ways generally come from a rejection of the Aristotelian metaphysical underpinnings and not with the arguments themselves.

So while I agree with you that the Five Ways do not succeed in proving God's existence I disagree strongly with your assertion about the internal structure of those arguments.

[RichardHresko]

But this is why I prize Hitchens--he would never be afraid of board moderators, and no doubt would tell me "hey, Jo, if you want to write as I do then roll your dice, you know?" He conquered the fear of not being himself, and as such, carved out a platform.

I take vacations from what it takes to achieve that, and both want *normal* people to accept me as part of something, which LN represents, but want to push back against some of its conventions at the same time, want to be recognized as a minority with my difference by the suburban crowd.

What a mouthful:D:D.

My difficulty with Hitchens is not with his positions, which I find interesting, but that his assertiveness pushes into the realm of aggression. While one may argue that his opponents are aggressive as well, I don't see that as being relevant. The optimal solution to the dilemma of being faced with a rabid dog is certainly not to bite him. A fruitful discussion requires respect from both parties, and if one feels one is not getting respect one should have the sense to end the discussion. My mother would no doubt have reminded Hitchens, "When you argue with a fool nobody will be able to tell the difference between you two."

I am not sure that wanting to push back against some of the conventions is desirable not because conventions need to be respected (many do not) but rather simply because it has a tendency to cause one to define oneself not on one's own terms but in an external way, by how others are.

[Jozanny]

I'm not interested in fighting for the sake of a fight; it's not very much fun for me. I just wanted to give support for free exchange of ideas! If people get personal on here, it has a negative impact. I just want people to be able to discuss comfortably, their ideas, what they think is true; regardless of anything else, as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights to be heard.

And respect is necessary; to show respect even if one doesn't feel it... this is a very basic idea-- everyone desires respect, and so we should show others respect, even if only for ourselves. People who are disrespectful on here and worse are only showing their own ignorance of this basic idea.

Okay, I was simply trying to provide a nuanced view. Not all of us are grandmothers who enjoy church socials--and while trolling in and of itself is disruptive and none of us like it--the trolls themselves are also stigmatized by the label. Some people are angry and in pain and not as well educated as others, which is why I also think it leads to an over-reaction by the more well adjusted, and it certainly isn't unique to LitNet. I take the occasional cuss and vinegar in stride, and me isn't perfect either:), as we can all tell by my love of digression.

Back on point, or a few of them, even though I am not in best form right now:

1.Whether or not Aquinas' logical arguments remain sound to the present day, as Al and Richard debated, I am not grounded enough in Aristotlean logic to say, but the Vatican certainly continues to use classical Aristotlean argument to push back against liberalism, materialism, and state authority. Both my philosophy professor and Richard question whether this is a successful way to argue doctrine, let alone a god proof, but the Popes certainly seem beholden to a decent syllogism, and I'm interested in exploring this further.

2. Anastasija, excellent post on the continuing dialectic between church and state; I will come back to it, except to add it exists in the east as well, and not so harmoniously.

3. I went surfing and found some interesting articles by Austin Cline; some of what he says about belief and choice is interesting:


When an evangelist tells us that we have chosen to be atheists and that we are deliberately avoiding belief in a god, they are not entirely correct. It isn't true that one chooses to be an atheist. Atheism — especially if it is at all rational — is simply the inevitable conclusion from available information. I no more "choose" to disbelieve in gods than I "choose" to disbelieve in elves or than I "choose" to believe that there is a chair in my room. These beliefs and the absence thereof are not acts of will which I had to consciously take — they are, rather, conclusions which were necessary based upon the evidence at hand.

*****
On the other hand, when an atheist argues that a theist believes in a god simply because they want to, that isn't entirely correct either. A theist may wish it to be true that a god exist and this could certainly have an impact on how they look at the evidence. For this reason, the common complaint that theists are engaging in "wishful thinking" in their beliefs and examination of evidence may have some validity but not in the exact way that it's usually meant.

******
Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm

[kilted exile]

Dawkins can defend himself better than I can, but he asks us to at least question why we can't dismantle it too--and the best voices do this without becoming too Chaucer-like.

See this is my problem with Dawkins & his ilk. WHy do we want to dismantle it? what business is it of ours? I am very much of the live & let live opinion....

[Jozanny]

See this is my problem with Dawkins & his ilk. WHy do we want to dismantle it? what business is it of ours? I am very much of the live & let live opinion....

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

[Big Al]

I am assuming that you are referring to the quinque viae as found in the summa theologiae, though there is another version in the summa contra gentiles.

You are welcome to assert that the proofs are flawed, but you haven't pointed out any flaws. The problems with the Five Ways generally come from a rejection of the Aristotelian metaphysical underpinnings and not with the arguments themselves.

So while I agree with you that the Five Ways do not succeed in proving God's existence I disagree strongly with your assertion about the internal structure of those arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by the internal structure (you seem to be putting words into my mouth), but you essentially make my point for me here when you state that you agree that Aquinas was not actually able to prove God's existence. Here's my point: if somebody creates a line of reasoning that sets out to prove God's existence, but that reasoning is unsuccessful, then I would consider it flawed. It is as simple as that.

[RichardHresko]

I'm not sure what you mean by the internal structure (you seem to be putting words into my mouth), but you essentially make my point for me here when you state that you agree that Aquinas was not actually able to prove God's existence. Here's my point: if somebody creates a line of reasoning that sets out to prove God's existence, but that reasoning is unsuccessful, then I would consider it flawed. It is as simple as that.

No, you are conflating two very separate ideas. To say that the reasoning is flawed is to say that there is an error in it. To say that it is unsuccessful is to say that it does not achieve its purpose in convincing someone of its truth. While it is possible that the reason the reasoning is unconvincing is because it is flawed, it is not the only reason it may fail. I would argue that Aquinas's arguments fail to convince because we are unconvinced of the truth of the Aristotelian framework he used to produce his proof, not from any flaw in the reasoning.

[Jozanny]

I would argue that Aquinas's arguments fail to convince because we are unconvinced of the truth of the Aristotelian framework he used to produce his proof, not from any flaw in the reasoning.

Excuse me for interjecting, but I am trying to get a better grip on philosophical reasoning.

Do you mean by this that Aristotelian logic on its face is not sufficient to prove truth as self-evident?

[jgweed]

"As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism."

Very interesting, although it might at first glance appear to be an attempt at a psychological explanation of religious orientation, it also suggests that belief or non-belief in god has its foundation upon on what one chooses to accept as evidence, proof, or warranted argumentation. Moreover, this foundation can be dependent upon what one is ABLE (or ALLOWED) to choose.

Turning to Aquinas,it seems we should consider the framework of his writing, in which be begins by fairly presenting the opposite view, then his own view ("on the contrary) with his argument ("I answer that"), and lastly by presenting his replies to his opponent's objections. This strategy not only reflects the tradition and high quality of oral disputations of his time, but also his own attempt at presenting the "opposite side" in the best possible manner.
It is necessary to make the distinction between the logic in his arguments, and the premises it employs. In many cases, the latter are derived from accepted authority, and if one accepts the authority and his premises,or his definition of terms, then the conclusions follow in an almost faultless fashion.

We must certainly give Aquinas (and many of his contemporaries) credit for a thorough understanding of Aristotelian formal logic and its development during the scholastic period. Formal logic allows valid conclusions to be drawn from premises (assuming the rules be scrupulously followed) in the syllogism without regard to the truth of the premises themselves, which propositions must be established independently and prior to the actual deductive argument. I think it an important distinction to consider whether an argument is VALID and whether it is TRUE.

Regards,
John

[RichardHresko]

Excuse me for interjecting, but I am trying to get a better grip on philosophical reasoning.

Do you mean by this that Aristotelian logic on its face is not sufficient to prove truth as self-evident?

It is not the logic of Aristotle that causes the problem here, but rather the metaphysics. When one uses the logic correctly (which I believe Aquinas does consistently) then one is assured of a correct outcome IF (very, very big IF!!!) one's premises are correct.

Let me give an example.

One favorite Aristotelian logical tool is the syllogism, which has the form:
All A are B.
C is A.
Therefore C is B.

This form will give true results as long as the premises used are true (which logic can NOT guarantee).

Consider the following syllogism:

All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is immortal.

Here I have constructed a flawless syllogism, but because the first premise is false, the syllogism gives a false result and Socrates remains dead.

In my discussion of Aquinas I have maintatined the position that while his logical constructions are sound critics have questioned his premises. These premises include such ideas as the real existence of "essences." Therefore the problem shifts from the reasoning to the question of what reality is like, which is the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.

[kilted exile]

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

Yep but in order to get things to change from what you describe the target to attack is not religion, especially the abrahamic ones were there is a vast number of other followers of the religion that dont act in the ways described. It is cultural change & education required, not telling them they are believing in nonsense. you catch more flies with honey......

[The Atheist]

Some of us may want to see better human social constructs evolve. I may not be able to tell you what those constructs are, but when I see women in Africa dying in a fifth rate obstetrics clinic because of their husbands, I forgive myself for being just a wee little bit utopian, eager to dispense with patriarchy from which most contemporary theology stems, and willing, like some atheists, to advocate for change.

As Mill says in the chapter jgweed indicated: "Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter."

Excuse my late arrival to this thread! Looks like my kind of place - well started, Jozanny.

Just while the solipsysm is being worked out, I'll add a hail mary to this post.

You're speaking my language 100%.


Yep but in order to get things to change from what you describe the target to attack is not religion, especially the abrahamic ones were there is a vast number of other followers of the religion that dont act in the ways described. It is cultural change & education required, not telling them they are believing in nonsense. you catch more flies with honey......

The problem with this is that we've tried both ways and neither appears to have worked out too well - there is still a vast majority of believers in those Abrahamic religions.

Personally, I think the battle is lost as while people are leaving the christian churches in many parts of the world, they're as likely to develop an equally-unlikely belief - the growth in psychics has been exponential. Islam, on the other hand, continues to grow and expand. I bet there are some mullahs eyeing up 1 billion heathen Chinese!

I think we maybe need to accept that people want to believe in fairy tales - for god's sake, some people actually believe the Cottingley Fairies were/are real! How we deal with that to minimise the harm, I don't know.

[kilted exile]

I am quite happy for people to believe in fairy stories, none of my beeswax. I really dont get how someone wanting to believe in the cotingley fairies negatively impacts my life in any manner substantial anough for me to need them to stop.

[The Atheist]

I am quite happy for people to believe in fairy stories, none of my beeswax. I really dont get how someone wanting to believe in the cotingley fairies negatively impacts my life in any manner substantial anough for me to need them to stop.

Funnily enough, I've just been discussing this problem at an atheist forum.

An irrational belief allows other irrational beliefs to grow. Once people start believing in things for which no evidence exists, it's much easier to accept another one. I think that's a bad thing. This sums it up nicely:


We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

[kilted exile]

So what are we saying here "Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.";) I think it would make for an incredibly boring place to live.


Regarding the Sagan quote, I constantly see & am in contact with people who understand technology - the sparcity isnt really there as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are plenty that dont understand it, but I am far more concerned by the lack of people able to kick a perfect gary owen myself.....

[The Atheist]

So what are we saying here "Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.";) I think it would make for an incredibly boring place to live.

Boring?

The entire universe, a planet of almost infinite beauty and variety, space exploration of the solar system, medical and physics discoveries which astound and you think it's boring?

You are merely making a plea for magic, which I find a bit senseless. There's enough wonder for 100 lifetimes in the physical universe without making more up. Also, do note that fiction is every bit a part of the physical universe - I enjoy fiction immensely myself, but when people cannot tell the difference, the danger starts.



Regarding the Sagan quote, I constantly see & am in contact with people who understand technology - the sparcity isnt really there as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are plenty that dont understand it, but I am far more concerned by the lack of people able to kick a perfect gary owen myself.....

I'd be very interested to know what circles you move in, because I'm a recruiter of engineers and scientists internationally and it's a fact that there has been a worldwide shortage of technical expertise for several years.

Here's an example for you: I'm pretty technically-minded and many years ago used to enjoy taking cars to bits, fixing them and driving them until they needed fixing again. Nowadays, I wouldn't know where to start; most of the parts are designed for replacement rather than repair and I know of nobody - not even auto technicians - who would be able to diagnose and fix a car with a spanner & driver set alone, which is all one needed 25+ years ago.

Now, the garryowen - that's easy - lack of practice. I can still kick 'em with both feet.

:D

[jgweed]

Unfortunately, when ignorant and arrogant religious intolerance is allied with either political or military power, it can have a very harmful impact on one's life. One need only ask a twelve-year Iraqi on his way to school.

Perhaps less dramatic but just as pervasive is the tendency on the part of these same believers to interfere with education.Despite their "reasonableness" in asking for a fair hearing, for example, extreme creationists hope to substitute their religious dogma for scientific inquiry in public education;surely the thousands of gullibles lining up at the entrance of the Creationist Museum, are perpetuating another generation of ignorance lining up at the polls.

In the name of God, others are even now attempting to limit the circumstances under which abortions are legal, and the more radical of these see nothing wrong with bombing abortion clinics or ---in a deadly inconsistency with their principles--- taking the lives of those working there. In the name of God, still others are making every legislative effort to thwart stem-cell research which has so much promise.

When the palm leaf is substituted for the warhammer, only the means and not the ends have changed.

[kilted exile]

Boring?

The entire universe, a planet of almost infinite beauty and variety, space exploration of the solar system, medical and physics discoveries which astound and you think it's boring?

You are merely making a plea for magic, which I find a bit senseless. There's enough wonder for 100 lifetimes in the physical universe without making more up. Also, do note that fiction is every bit a part of the physical universe - I enjoy fiction immensely myself, but when people cannot tell the difference, the danger starts.

Not the world itself that'd be boring, but meeting people who all believe the same thing would bore me to tears. Some people want to get rid of different cultures and national identities. Not me, I love it - differences are what makes the world go round, I love it all



I'd be very interested to know what circles you move in, because I'm a recruiter of engineers and scientists internationally and it's a fact that there has been a worldwide shortage of technical expertise for several years.

Here's an example for you: I'm pretty technically-minded and many years ago used to enjoy taking cars to bits, fixing them and driving them until they needed fixing again. Nowadays, I wouldn't know where to start; most of the parts are designed for replacement rather than repair and I know of nobody - not even auto technicians - who would be able to diagnose and fix a car with a spanner & driver set alone, which is all one needed 25+ years ago.

Now, the garryowen - that's easy - lack of practice. I can still kick 'em with both feet.

:D

I am trained as an Environmental Engineering Technologist (specializing in Water & Wastewater) unlike the engineers & scientists who design the things we get to play with them and make them work. Currently I am outwith the field and work in Retail Management, on a daily basis I see people come into the store with some technical knowledge of the project they wish to complete, we assist with the extra information required.

Regarding your car analogy - that is because of the huge advancements in automotive technology, would you like your car to lack the electronic enhancements just so anyone with a spanner can take it apart?


On the more important matter of egg-chasing - dont suppose you know of some more kilted kiwis we could steal for the Scotland team:D

[The Atheist]

Unfortunately, when ignorant and arrogant religious intolerance is allied with either political or military power, it can have a very harmful impact on one's life. One need only ask a twelve-year Iraqi on his way to school.

Perhaps less dramatic but just as pervasive is the tendency on the part of these same believers to interfere with education.Despite their "reasonableness" in asking for a fair hearing, for example, extreme creationists hope to substitute their religious dogma for scientific inquiry in public education;surely the thousands of gullibles lining up at the entrance of the Creationist Museum, are perpetuating another generation of ignorance lining up at the polls.

In the name of God, others are even now attempting to limit the circumstances under which abortions are legal, and the more radical of these see nothing wrong with bombing abortion clinics or ---in a deadly inconsistency with their principles--- taking the lives of those working there. In the name of God, still others are making every legislative effort to thwart stem-cell research which has so much promise.

When the palm leaf is substituted for the warhammer, only the means and not the ends have changed.

Extremely well said!


On the more important matter of egg-chasing - dont suppose you know of some more kilted kiwis we could steal for the Scotland team:D

Haha! After Wales and Shane Howarth, I'd thought you guys were over that.

[Jozanny]

Cline's nicely schematic articles made me realize what I was looking for though, and that is more or less belief formation, rather than God or no God proofs--in terms of what theists and atheists really argue about, and whether secular humanism will continue to stand as an independent value.

[Mosca]

I think we maybe need to accept that people want to believe in fairy tales - for god's sake, some people actually believe the Cottingley Fairies were/are real! How we deal with that to minimise the harm, I don't know.

I bugged out on this whole thing because... well, never mind. But this is kind of my point. There are people who believe in angels. There are people who believe that Katrina was god's retribution for the sins of New Orleans. There are people who believe that other people can connect them to the dead, and it doesn't even help if you learn "cold reading" and use it on them... then they think that YOU can talk to the dead!

Trying to make sense to these people is like trying to talk to a wall that gets angry at you.

As much as I hate Dawkins' use of the term "brights", it reflects my view of the world, for lack of a better way to describe it. I can't understand (sorry Jozanny, there it is again; my lack of understanding) believing in fairy tales. At the same time, I can't hold any dislike for theists. Heck, I'm married to one. There are some deep thinkers among them, and calling them "unbright" does not serve them well.

The world changes one person at a time, and with however many billion of us there are now, that means slowly, and it also means probably not in enough time to help anyone break the chains of theism. If that way of thinking takes what is essentially a philosophical discussion and grounds it in reality (as we know it), maybe it should connect to reality every now and then. The real goal shouldn't be the destruction of theism, it should be making sure theism doesn't impede the progress generated by atheism. The rest should take care of itself.

[The Atheist]

The real goal shouldn't be the destruction of theism, it should be making sure theism doesn't impede the progress generated by atheism. The rest should take care of itself.

Really well put, right down to agreement on Dawkins and brights.

The only thing I'd change is to use "science" rather than "atheism" in the sentence quoted above.

[Jozanny]

(sorry Jozanny, there it is again; my lack of understanding)

I have a lack of understanding as well. If you wish to participate in the discussion then do, but if you are simply objecting to the fact that I started the thread, then there are plenty of threads in which I do not post.

I am interested in atheism as a topic because:

1. I started an article for atheist markets about Christianity and football.
2. There are atheists and presumably others who read skeptic publications.
3. I like stirring the pot to get ideas.
4. I have since gotten some
5. Since Austin Cline teaches courses in atheism, there is obviously a readership available for such material.
6. I cannot say why you would or would not read such material, that is a choice for you to make, but I also fail to see why you ask the question of why anyone else would.

That hinges on my ability to make a successful pitch to an editor. I am not addressing this line of thought again.

[Mosca]

I have a lack of understanding as well. If you wish to participate in the discussion then do, but if you are simply objecting to the fact that I started the thread, then there are plenty of threads in which I do not post.

I am interested in atheism as a topic because:

1. I started an article for atheist markets about Christianity and football.
2. There are atheists and presumably others who read skeptic publications.
3. I like stirring the pot to get ideas.
4. I have since gotten some
5. Since Austin Cline teaches courses in atheism, there is obviously a readership available for such material.
6. I cannot say why you would or would not read such material, that is a choice for you to make, but I also fail to see why you ask the question of why anyone else would.

That hinges on my ability to make a successful pitch to an editor. I am not addressing this line of thought again.

I bugged because my questions were going off in a different direction than the main thrust of the thread; you folks were having an interesting discussion that was better for me to read than to contribute to. When it came back around to a place where I thought I had something to add, I did so.

I ask them as honest questions, not as criticisms. When I say I don't understand, it doesn't mean I don't want answers; it means I DO want answers. You just gave them, for the first time, and I thank you.

I like the thread. If I didn't, I wouldn't have read it and written in it. I don't understand (sheesh, there it is again) why you got mad at me for asking an elementary question. But that is OK, because it forced me to think about what I asked, and made me refine it until I made it clear. I think you maybe thought it was more complicated than it was. It's not that I don't have any curiosity at all, after all.

Since this is a literary forum, I will say that an article about atheism and football might be very interesting, I think. The culture of Christianity is so deeply ingrained in that sport. I would read that, as an article about modern culture. I wonder if theism and atheism clash in the locker room? I know that the mainstream press certainly dances around that clash in the military.

Sometimes, though, the whole thing reminds me of Marquez' dilemma, should we choose the tyranny of the Liberals or the tyranny of the Conservatives? Of course, he solves it (fictionally) by having them sell out to each other....

[jgweed]

"The culture of Christianity is so deeply ingrained in that sport."

This brings to mind Arnold at Rugby, and the whole Victorian movement sometimes called "muscular Christianity." Hughes in Tom Brown's Schooldays exemplifies the fushion of Christianity with sport in public schools in England. Eventually it made its way across the pond and resulted in the YMCA.

[The Atheist]

"The culture of Christianity is so deeply ingrained in that sport."

Actually, it disappeared from rugby many years back, but has made a storming recovery over here with the influence of Polynesian players, who are almost exclusively christian.

[RichardHresko]

One thing that is very striking in this thread is the near perfect symmetry between the arguments for atheism and those for belief in God.

Both sides claim an inevitability that their side is correct, and base that on what they view as incontrovertible evidence.

Both sides tend to focus on what they believe to be the damage to society caused by the others' beliefs.

Both sides tend to see their opposite as in some way defective. In other words, both sides assume that they have indeed come to a correct and 'obvious' answer.

Also, what both sides neglect to acknowledge is that they are both derived not from an absolute truth but rather from a tradition.

Frankly I agree with J. S. Mill that it would impoverish us immensely to lose either the religious or the atheist traditions in our discourses. However I doubt sincerely that anyone has or can produce so much as a proof that a proof (that would be both logically valid and have premises that could not be legitimately questioned) for or against God's existence can be formulated.

[hellsapoppin]

"why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers"

You don't have to have any such fear, especially in the USA which believes in and practices disestablishment.

[Jozanny]

Frankly I agree with J. S. Mill that it would impoverish us immensely to lose either the religious or the atheist traditions in our discourses. However I doubt sincerely that anyone has or can produce so much as a proof that a proof (that would be both logically valid and have premises that could not be legitimately questioned) for or against God's existence can be formulated.

I do not think it is the end of history on the matter, however. It may never be possible to prove or disprove deity as an ontological reality, but even though I never took my doctorate, I think it is safe to say that I am an issue writer, in theory a revisionist too, and I keep looking for things I might get paid for outside of medical/disability activism and culture.

Not that anyone here cares:D, but I no longer submit material other than poetry, occasionally weaker fiction, for contributor copies. I stopped working for a few months because of xxx with public housing, and xxx with my four year old Quickie--and have I solved xxx? No, but this is where in anger I feel if Protestants really practiced what they preached, I would not always be fighting back against my country's unforgiving and punishing social system for the poor and the disabled like myself who matriculated up but fell back into the rabbit hole.

I know--I am posting about my own experience and that may breach etiquette, but stuff etiquette.

I agree with you though that after a bit of bush-whacking, the thread has an informative palette--but I've run dry on framing issues in such a way so that they do not cause indignation.

Hopefully there may be more fruitful fields to harvest in the future.

[The Atheist]

One thing that is very striking in this thread is the near perfect symmetry between the arguments for atheism and those for belief in God.

Odd you should see that, I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here.

I think the biggest thing you've missed, and I know this applies to almost all of the atheists I know - we are open to any and all evidence which leads to a different conclusion than "not god". I find that attitude extremely rare amongst theists.

Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well.


Both sides claim an inevitability that their side is correct, and base that on what they view as incontrovertible evidence.

Now I see your mistake.

I don't see atheists claiming inevitability of correctness, and in terms of incontrovertible evidence, I have never seen an atheist claiming evidence of their atheism, since it isn't something requiring evidence of any kind. Exactly the opposite in fact.

You appear to be indulging in the theists' favourite strawman of atheism.


Both sides tend to focus on what they believe to be the damage to society caused by the others' beliefs.

Godwin et al & see below.


Both sides tend to see their opposite as in some way defective. In other words, both sides assume that they have indeed come to a correct and 'obvious' answer.

See above.


Also, what both sides neglect to acknowledge is that they are both derived not from an absolute truth but rather from a tradition.

Again, this smacks of a simple strawman. Where does this happen? Can you show examples? You must know some peculiar atheists.


Frankly I agree with J. S. Mill that it would impoverish us immensely to lose either the religious or the atheist traditions in our discourses. However I doubt sincerely that anyone has or can produce so much as a proof that a proof (that would be both logically valid and have premises that could not be legitimately questioned) for or against God's existence can be formulated.

I'm personally all in favour of retaining religion and couldn't give two hoots about proof. The only problem I have with religion is when certain cults and sects choose to indulge in lying and abuse - creationists trying to have Genesis taught as fact, telling kids the Grand Canyon was formed 6000 years ago, not allowing children to have life-saving blood transfusions because it's an affront to their god, forcing women to wear burqa - those kind of things make my blood boil. I'm sorry, if you want to accuse me of putting the knife into the opposition, so be it. If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

I correspond with lots of christians whose brains and attitude I have immense respect for and I certainly accept that christianity does far more good than harm. (nowadays)

What I won't stand for is bible-literalist idiots who would shut the door on science to preserve their money-raking church congregations, oppressive societies and other human rights abuses in the name of a myth.

If that makes me a zealot, I'll gladly hold the torch for zealotry.

[Jozanny]

Odd you should see that, I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here.

Atheist: I think the problem with seeing strong atheist posts is that if strong atheists wrote them, they would be deleted. By way of example, even though I dislike all of Christianity, including Roman Catholicism, Mormonism is a particular U.S. brand, and I have been fairly amazed at its success, and most intellectually hostile to it, since my upper track history classes, where I did a term paper on Joseph Smith.

It is a rare and lucky feature writer--and I know of one or two--who can get away with deconstructing The Church of Latter Day Saints.

But believers get their feelings hurt and take on the role of *victim*, which is amazing, because to my mind, much of Smith's prophecy is about degradation and bigotry.

I am more zealous against religion than what you read here--but the problem lies in the forms of engagement we can apply. On boards like these, mocking doctrine leads to flaming leads to moderator admonishment and greater disciplinary measures.

Mainstream media will only allow a push back against mainstream established churches to a degree; magazines like DoubleTake, which allow more, as well as having been beautifully produced, fail, which is a shame. It was a fantastic product, a cut above the mindlessly boring literary journal, and yet willing to take more chances than inane commercial WI like Woman's Day. (WI =woman's interest markets).

I really need a community of published writers to engage with again, damn it. (Growls :crash:) But what can I do? I can't replace what I've lost, merely adapt, and LN certainly has diversity but not the professional class of authors who taught me so much.

In theory, censorship on the non-believer is decried, but in practice still rather effectively enforced, and that is not another way of saying I think flaming should be allowed, simply that examining anything in depth is nearly impossible in an almost universal-access public domain community like this.

[The Atheist]

Atheist: I think the problem with seeing strong atheist posts is that if strong atheists wrote them, they would be deleted.

Probably true - I know I can't keep it together for long.

:D


But believers get their feelings hurt and take on the role of *victim*, which is amazing, because to my mind, much of Smith's prophecy is about degradation and bigotry.

Couldn't agree more, and I know a couple of ex-Mormons who were traumatised by their time in the church.


I am more zealous against religion than what you read here--but the problem lies in the forms of engagement we can apply. On boards like these, mocking doctrine leads to flaming leads to moderator admonishment and greater disciplinary measures.

Correct, but then this is a board for a specific purpose and I think we should probably be glad to have your little corner to come and chat in now! The atheist v theist battle isn't a literature one, although I'd like to think the side I'm on is at least literate.


Mainstream media will only allow a push back against mainstream established churches to a degree; magazines like DoubleTake, which allow more, as well as having been beautifully produced, fail, which is a shame.

No surprise there - that's just ensuring you don't upset your largest market in USA. Even in heathen places like NZ, churches aren't attacked, but it's more to do with preserving other sacred cows than religion itself. In times where universal culturalism is seen as desirable, attacking the christian churches leaves the door open for attacks on islam and native culture and that's a definite no-no.

[Jozanny]

Correct, but then this is a board for a specific purpose and I think we should probably be glad to have your little corner to come and chat in now! The atheist v theist battle isn't a literature one, although I'd like to think the side I'm on is at least literate.

Ah, but it has philosophical implications that do spill over into literary engagement, which is a nice justification for not making the thread vanish:D.

Re:

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-documentary-to-be-shown-on-pbs.html

Here is the actual site (http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/).

Duh ;)

I saw parts of this series in the U.S. and would pay money to see it again; it was a very well done historical summary and had a thesis of its own brewing.

[The Atheist]

Looks an interesting one. Getting air time is the important thing.

Small steps...

[RichardHresko]

Odd you should see that, I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here.

I think the biggest thing you've missed, and I know this applies to almost all of the atheists I know - we are open to any and all evidence which leads to a different conclusion than "not god". I find that attitude extremely rare amongst theists.

Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well.



Now I see your mistake.

I don't see atheists claiming inevitability of correctness, and in terms of incontrovertible evidence, I have never seen an atheist claiming evidence of their atheism, since it isn't something requiring evidence of any kind. Exactly the opposite in fact.

You appear to be indulging in the theists' favourite strawman of atheism.



Godwin et al & see below.



See above.



Again, this smacks of a simple strawman. Where does this happen? Can you show examples? You must know some peculiar atheists.



I'm personally all in favour of retaining religion and couldn't give two hoots about proof. The only problem I have with religion is when certain cults and sects choose to indulge in lying and abuse - creationists trying to have Genesis taught as fact, telling kids the Grand Canyon was formed 6000 years ago, not allowing children to have life-saving blood transfusions because it's an affront to their god, forcing women to wear burqa - those kind of things make my blood boil. I'm sorry, if you want to accuse me of putting the knife into the opposition, so be it. If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

I correspond with lots of christians whose brains and attitude I have immense respect for and I certainly accept that christianity does far more good than harm. (nowadays)

What I won't stand for is bible-literalist idiots who would shut the door on science to preserve their money-raking church congregations, oppressive societies and other human rights abuses in the name of a myth.

If that makes me a zealot, I'll gladly hold the torch for zealotry.

Part of the problem here is that I make a distinction between atheists and agnostics. Atheists are committed to a position that there is no god. So no, I am not using a strawman, since there is no reason to suppose that my observations on atheists would be applicable to agnostics.

However the characterization of a "confusion" of faith and evidence in line 7 of your quoted reply is a marvelous illustration of what I speaking of. The question is not of faith versus evidence at all, if we are to be precise. The true questions are what constitutes evidence, and what metaphysical tools we are to use to interpret that evidence. And yes science also has a metaphysics...

That there is a tendency for atheists to look at those who are religious as backward and harmful is illustrated by Mosca's post in this thread, published on 8/21, which you agreed with. Note also that your correction of atheism to science indicates that you realize that Mosca confused the two.

Finally, I will point out that my post can not fairly be characterized as being pro-theist any more than it is pro-atheist since I have taken the position that neither side does anything different than the other.

[jgweed]

"...I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here."

This should not be surprising. Let us say, generally, that Atheists are so because they ground their stance upon reason, science, and a historical perspective. And one of the hallmarks of this kind of humanism is a certain tentativeness about conclusions that precludes the very type of truth evidenced by many religions, and certainly avoids the use of fear or terror (physical as well as intellectual) in presenting their arguments.

One rides the El to work and sees dowdy women somewhat past middle-age approach with a handful of brightly-coloured tracts that offer you a chance for salvation in eighty words or less. No one has ever passed out a tract with the good news that God is dead.
Watching the sides of walls passing by the window, one sees mysterious and cryptic words, Timothy 22:10, scribbled in white paint. Mene, mene, etc. I have yet to see "Zarathustra, I,6."
Sitting at a sidewalk cafe, one sees across the street in the little triangle park, a man with a cheap bull-horn to his mouth and hears excerpts as traffic slows down:"of gold and silver have I none."
One answers a knock at the door and greets two scrubbed and well-dressed young men with earnest faces wanting to discuss religion with me. Religion, NOT the follies of it, mind you.

It may be that atheists have faith that, given a certain level of education and an individual's use of rational inquiry, others will come to their conclusion. For them, certainly, there is no "divine call" revealing a mission to preach or to convert, as there is no afterlife or heavenly reward at issue.

[Drkshadow03]

If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.


I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

[RichardHresko]

"...I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here."

This should not be surprising. Let us say, generally, that Atheists are so because they ground their stance upon reason, science, and a historical perspective. And one of the hallmarks of this kind of humanism is a certain tentativeness about conclusions that precludes the very type of truth evidenced by many religions, and certainly avoids the use of fear or terror (physical as well as intellectual) in presenting their arguments.

One rides the El to work and sees dowdy women somewhat past middle-age approach with a handful of brightly-coloured tracts that offer you a chance for salvation in eighty words or less. No one has ever passed out a tract with the good news that God is dead.
Watching the sides of walls passing by the window, one sees mysterious and cryptic words, Timothy 22:10, scribbled in white paint. Mene, mene, etc. I have yet to see "Zarathustra, I,6."
Sitting at a sidewalk cafe, one sees across the street in the little triangle park, a man with a cheap bull-horn to his mouth and hears excerpts as traffic slows down:"of gold and silver have I none."
One answers a knock at the door and greets two scrubbed and well-dressed young men with earnest faces wanting to discuss religion with me. Religion, NOT the follies of it, mind you.

It may be that atheists have faith that, given a certain level of education and an individual's use of rational inquiry, others will come to their conclusion. For them, certainly, there is no "divine call" revealing a mission to preach or to convert, as there is no afterlife or heavenly reward at issue.

I think that there is a subtle distinction between the epistemological use of materialism in science and the metaphysical use of materialism in atheism. Scientists focus on what can be said about the sensible (in the Platonic sense of the term) world. Science does not, and indeed can not, use its methods on that which is not Platonically sensible.

'Scientific' Atheism changes the epistemological position into a metaphysical one -- that nothing beyond the limits of the sensible is real. This is not science, nor truly based in science, but a failure to distinguish between epistemology and metaphysics.

Limiting ourselves to reflective people, I see the positions espoused by atheists to be no less rational or cognizant of history than those who come to the conclusion that there is a god -- nor any more so.

[Jozanny]

I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

The short answer is yes, but state ideology functions a good deal like theology--which is why Atheist was right to assert before that we're always going to have large groups of people adhering to something.

I am no expert on Orwell, but I think it is safe to say even Orwell would have been wary of the cult following which surrounds his work.

But rebels like myself are also damned, as no one can be an island unto themselves.

[RichardHresko]

But rebels like myself are also damned, as no one can be an island unto themselves.

That is perhaps true, but they also get the best lines! See Paradise Lost.

[jgweed]

I was unclear in my reference to science, and probably should have used the phrase "scientific methodology," primarily in the sense that science---even when it declares "laws"---always leaves open future discoveries or evidence that may alter its current findings.

This is not to say that some scientific evidence might not be used to refute religious claims made by some religious sects about scientific subjects and facts.

John

[RichardHresko]

I was unclear in my reference to science, and probably should have used the phrase "scientific methodology," primarily in the sense that science---even when it declares "laws"---always leaves open future discoveries or evidence that may alter its current findings.

This is not to say that some scientific evidence might not be used to refute religious claims made by some religious sects about scientific subjects and facts.

John

I concur on the ability of science to refute claims made by religious groups about scientific subjects and facts. You point out correctly by this that the religious side also confuses philosophical boundaries.

[dzebra]

If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

One way is by claiming infallibility in incomplete science, thus convincing people something is true when it possibly is not. Maybe that is not how it is intended, but that is how it's presented to the masses. So much of science is based on assumptions (or best guess we can come up with) that a significant portion of it cannot be claimed as truth, but merely as speculation.

[The Atheist]

Atheists are committed to a position that there is no god. So no, I am not using a strawman, since there is no reason to suppose that my observations on atheists would be applicable to agnostics.

Sorry, but that is the strawman.

I must say I do get a little tired of this, so let me note it for the purposes of this thread yet again:

Athiesm is in no way committed to a position that there is no god.

Atheism simply "does not believe" in god.

Strong atheists may assert "there is no god", but since none of them are participating in this discussion, it's probably meaningless to mention them.

I accept that some dictionaries state have the definition of atheist as "believes there is no god", but that is different to the facts and simply wrong. The presently-accepted definition of atheism, as used by atheists, is as given above - no belief in anything is necessary, simply a lack of belief in god/s.


However the characterization of a "confusion" of faith and evidence in line 7 of your quoted reply is a marvelous illustration of what I speaking of.

Nope, you've missed the point of what I was saying. I saaid that the meanings of the terms are often confused, not that they have any relationship to each other. That should have been quite clear from context, but hopefully, it's even clearer now.


That there is a tendency for atheists to look at those who are religious as backward and harmful is illustrated by Mosca's post in this thread, published on 8/21, which you agreed with.

Nope, I think you're seeing the opposite of what happens. I don't paint religion as backward and harmful, but I do like to highlight parts of religion which are harmful. If I saw groups of atheists behaving in harmful ways, I'd have a go at them too.


I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

You're quite right that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but it would be completely wrong to place any of their evil deeds at the door of atheism. That would be as silly as me putting the Holocaust at the door of the christianity since Hitler was a christian.


One way is by claiming infallibility in incomplete science, thus convincing people something is true when it possibly is not. Maybe that is not how it is intended, but that is how it's presented to the masses.

I don't believe this happens, so if you have evidence to the contrary, please show me where.

Given that science is presented to the masses via mass-media while scientists proclaim their findings in scientific journals, I suspect you ought to be blaming journalism rather than science.

[dzebra]

I don't believe this happens, so if you have evidence to the contrary, please show me where.


Walk into almost any college, high school, middle school, or elementary school classroom. That's where I've seen it.

[Drkshadow03]

You're quite right that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but it would be completely wrong to place any of their evil deeds at the door of atheism. That would be as silly as me putting the Holocaust at the door of the christianity since Hitler was a christian.

“Any of their deeds” you say? What about the part where they specifically killed and targeted religious people of various faiths? At least I am pretty sure Stalin did. What about the fact that severe restrictions were placed on religions of various sorts in both Communist Russia and Castro’s Cuba, but especially for me and mine, the Jews?

It seems pretty clear that the policies of the various Communist regimes, especially where their views on religion is concerned, including SOME of the atrocities that followed can in fact be blamed on their atheist stances.

[Jozanny]

It seems pretty clear that the policies of the various Communist regimes, especially where their views on religion is concerned, including SOME of the atrocities that followed can in fact be blamed on their atheist stances.

No, atheism is not an ideology, Communism and Fascism are. Stalin and Mao may have been godless (though I doubt this) but they believed in state power, as even some Christians do. Atheist may have mentioned this, and I recounted an experience with an e-list, but you put a group of atheists in a room and you don't really get anything more than you would across the spectrum of believers. Some atheists are smart and smarter than I am, some are dumb, some advocate for souls and spirits, which irritates me, some just like to flame. There is no creed. I am just a pissed off American crip, myself, and have no leader, am critical of Milton Friedman's free market fundamentalism and feel there is no pure economic and governing system and one needs to cherry pick but retain as much liberty as possible.

[Drkshadow03]

No, atheism is not an ideology, Communism and Fascism are. Stalin and Mao may have been godless (though I doubt this) but they believed in state power, as even some Christians do. Atheist may have mentioned this, and I recounted an experience with an e-list, but you put a group of atheists in a room and you don't really get anything more than you would across the spectrum of believers. Some atheists are smart and smarter than I am, some are dumb, some advocate for souls and spirits, which irritates me, some just like to flame. There is no creed. I am just a pissed off American crip, myself, and have no leader, am critical of Milton Friedman's free market fundamentalism and feel there is no pure economic and governing system and one needs to cherry pick but retain as much liberty as possible.

Jozanny, I'm not sure what to make of your response. I never said every atheist is secretly a Communist who is about to commit mass murder and restrict my religious freedom.

The original statement was "If theists can show ANY way ATHEISM/humanism does ANY harm at all, I'd love to see it." (caps mine for emphasis of key words).

It seems pretty clear that I did just that.

No one is saying Communism hasn't killed other people specifically in the name of Communism and for other reasons besides atheism, but on the particular issues I FOCUSED in on it seems pretty apparent that the treatment of religious folk in various Communist regimes is intimately attached to the Atheist beliefs of those regimes. Atheism when taken to an extreme (which would be downright religious intolerance) can cause harm. As someone who writes fantasy and sci-fi it doesn't take much imagination to speculate about a future society where atheists are the majority and engage in intolerance or downright repression of religious folk without being Communists and even keeping the trapping of liberal democracy in all other parts of life.

Interestingly enough you began the thread asking why do atheists need to respect theists or to put it closer to your actual words why they need fear giving offense to them. Well, what exactly do you mean by giving offense? What do you or other atheists plan to say that should given religious folks of any sort, not just extremists offense? And then based on how you answer that, what exact;y *is* religious intolerance exactly?

[Jozanny]

Jozanny, I'm not sure what to make of your response. I never said every atheist is secretly a Communist who is about to commit mass murder and restrict my religious freedom.

The original statement was "If theists can show ANY way ATHEISM/humanism does ANY harm at all, I'd love to see it." (caps mine for emphasis of key words).

It seems pretty clear that I did just that.

No one is saying Communism hasn't killed other people specifically in the name of Communism and for other reasons besides atheism, but on the particular issues I FOCUSED in on it seems pretty apparent that the treatment of religious folk in various Communist regimes is intimately attached to the Atheist beliefs of those regimes. Atheism when taken to an extreme (which would be downright religious intolerance) can cause harm. As someone who writes fantasy and sci-fi it doesn't take much imagination to speculate about a future society where atheists are the majority and engage in intolerance or downright repression of religious folk without being Communists and even keeping the trapping of liberal democracy in all other parts of life.

This doesn't make much sense. I am not an advocate for religious suppression and never indicated that I was. In another thread, I recalled an experience when I was in Rusk Institute. It was deleted, and in fairness, deleted not so much because of my post, but because a fight broke out, although I don't like using that word. Read my opening post with that deletion in mind, and then my reply to Richard about being a minority, which I am on a couple of fronts.


Interestingly enough you began the thread asking why do atheists need to respect theists or to put it closer to your actual words why they need fear giving offense to them. Well, what exactly do you mean by giving offense? What do you or other atheists plan to say that should given religious folks of any sort, not just extremists offense? And then based on how you answer that, what exact;y *is* religious intolerance exactly?

How can I provide an example of offense on a moderated board? Some skeptics would question whether Zionism was necessarily good for American and European interests, in hindsight, and I am conflicted about the issue myself. Take that as one example, but if you want any more specifics we can debate in private.

As to religious intolerance, you are smart enough to know where and how that still occurs.

[ShoutGrace]

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88jXRSv0Y4I), featuring Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, seems fit for this thread.

[Drkshadow03]

This doesn't make much sense. I am not an advocate for religious suppression and never indicated that I was. In another thread, I recalled an experience when I was in Rusk Institute. It was deleted, and in fairness, deleted not so much because of my post, but because a fight broke out, although I don't like using that word. Read my opening post with that deletion in mind, and then my reply to Richard about being a minority, which I am on a couple of fronts.

I am not saying you are an advocate for religious suppression or that atheists in general are advocates of such a position. I am not sure why you keep thinking I am talking specifically about you.

The question that The Atheist posed was simply has atheism ever caused harm at all to anyone. The atheism embodied in Communist regimes quite clearly has done so. The fact that they placed their faith so to speak in government or a particular political ideology is a complete non-issue to this discussion. It's the fact that they took their atheism to an extreme and saw religion as problematic and the enemy.



How can I provide an example of offense on a moderated board? Some skeptics would question whether Zionism was necessarily good for American and European interests, in hindsight, and I am conflicted about the issue myself. Take that as one example, but if you want any more specifics we can debate in private.

As to religious intolerance, you are smart enough to know where and how that still occurs.

Why did I have the strange feeling that bringing up Communism was somehow going to attract the dreaded "Z" word into this discussion. I really really don't want to discuss Zionism because it's an issue that CANNOT be discussed without driving passions up the wall or without getting political. I fail to see, however, how Zionism should have anything to do with atheism considering it is mostly a secular ethnic movement with a very small religious element and wing to it.

I wonder, though, if giving offense might not easily cross the line into intolerance. Intolerance need not take the form of actual physical violence or puerile name-calling. It seems far too easy in my mind to "critique" a religion and what you might find to be silly ideas of spirituality and G-d and engage in what by any definition of the word is a very blatant intolerance. The real question how do you not cross that line? Where do you even draw the line?

I'd love to see any atheist take up this challenge.

[RichardHresko]

Sorry, but that is the strawman.


(1)
Athiesm is in no way committed to a position that there is no god.

Atheism simply "does not believe" in god.

Strong atheists may assert "there is no god", but since none of them are participating in this discussion, it's probably meaningless to mention them.

I accept that some dictionaries state have the definition of atheist as "believes there is no god", but that is different to the facts and simply wrong. The presently-accepted definition of atheism, as used by atheists, is as given above - no belief in anything is necessary, simply a lack of belief in god/s.


(2)
Nope, you've missed the point of what I was saying. I saaid that the meanings of the terms are often confused, not that they have any relationship to each other. That should have been quite clear from context, but hopefully, it's even clearer now.


3)
Nope, I think you're seeing the opposite of what happens. I don't paint religion as backward and harmful, but I do like to highlight parts of religion which are harmful. If I saw groups of atheists behaving in harmful ways, I'd have a go at them too.



1) Let's use your definition of atheism then. My point, which was and is that there is no real distinction between theists and atheists in terms of how they conceptualize, still holds. In both cases we are dealing with 'mere' belief. Any attempt to portray one side as inherently more reasonable is thereby doomed to failure.

2) The implication was that there was a confusion on my side (which you seem to take to be theistic) between faith and evidence. The further implication was that atheists use evidence and theists use faith. But by your own definition atheism is a matter concerning belief, not evidence. And it is hardly clear whether the belief precedes or follows the selection and interpretation of the evidence, regardless of claims to the contrary.

3) When one selects evidence in order to "highlight" (your word) something as being harmful then one is indeed tending to look at the group as being harmful. Whether or not you would look at another group the same way is irrelevant to the argument.

[Jozanny]

The question that The Atheist posed was simply has atheism ever caused harm at all to anyone. The atheism embodied in Communist regimes quite clearly has done so. The fact that they placed their faith so to speak in government or a particular political ideology is a complete non-issue to this discussion. It's the fact that they took their atheism to an extreme and saw religion as problematic and the enemy.

I still think you are confusing two different things. The French Revolution was an extreme reaction against monarchy and the abuses under the notion of the king's body as a living metaphor. Religious belief and lack thereof had little to do with the Terror. The bolsheviks were swept into power under the same principle, and yes, they suppressed the church and were far more systemic than their earlier French counterparts--but they were implementing their brand of Marxism. Lenin or Stalin's disbelief in God is trivial and hardly trickles down to the Russian citizen whom they attempted to glorify in the most egaltarian terms.

Sure, belief, disbelief and politics make hot bedfellows, but lack of belief in God, or belief in God, in and of themselves as independent imperatives, are not causation of oppression. That comes from doctrine, whether ideological or theological. There is also no such thing as extreme atheism. The atheist has two choices as to how to frame the issue. Disbelief in theism, or the simple assertion that there is no god. The latter is a strong statement which cannot be proven, but it is not extreme.




Why did I have the strange feeling that bringing up Communism was somehow going to attract the dreaded "Z" word into this discussion. I really really don't want to discuss Zionism because it's an issue that CANNOT be discussed without driving passions up the wall or without getting political. I fail to see, however, how Zionism should have anything to do with atheism considering it is mostly a secular ethnic movement with a very small religious element and wing to it.

I question its secularism, but we can save this for another day, as I acknowledge it is an extremely complex issue and though I have historical readings behind me, I am not Marshall to your Truman.:D


I wonder, though, if giving offense might not easily cross the line into intolerance. Intolerance need not take the form of actual physical violence or puerile name-calling. It seems far too easy in my mind to "critique" a religion and what you might find to be silly ideas of spirituality and G-d and engage in what by any definition of the word is a very blatant intolerance. The real question how do you not cross that line? Where do you even draw the line?

I'd love to see any atheist take up this challenge.

I am going to ask you to rephrase this, because I am not sure what page we're on--however, mocking a doctrine, and a critical examination of doctrine are two separate things, though they can blur. I've heard otherwise sympathetic observers of the Mormon faith offer less than sterling praise for Smith, for instance.

[The Atheist]

Walk into almost any college, high school, middle school, or elementary school classroom. That's where I've seen it.

That's not even close. I asked for evidence of people claiming science is infallible and the above is your answer?


“Any of their deeds” you say? What about the part where they specifically killed and targeted religious people of various faiths? At least I am pretty sure Stalin did. What about the fact that severe restrictions were placed on religions of various sorts in both Communist Russia and Castro’s Cuba, but especially for me and mine, the Jews?

It seems pretty clear that the policies of the various Communist regimes, especially where their views on religion is concerned, including SOME of the atrocities that followed can in fact be blamed on their atheist stances.

No, you simply need to learn history.

The reason churches were oppressed was entirely to do with the possibility that another doctrine would exist contrary to communism/totalitarianism.

The atheism of the antagonists was not the reason for it. Even if you look at Iosef Stalin being violently disposed to the church, it was because of his anti-theism. The distinction is important.


1) Let's use your definition of atheism then. My point, which was and is that there is no real distinction between theists and atheists in terms of how they conceptualize, still holds. In both cases we are dealing with 'mere' belief. Any attempt to portray one side as inherently more reasonable is thereby doomed to failure.

In your eyes, that may well be the case, but to compare the two groups is simply comparing apples and grains of sand.


2) The implication was that there was a confusion on my side (which you seem to take to be theistic)...

Not at all. If you think I have, please point out where it happened, because I've checked back and I certainly never intimated it as far as I can tell.


...between faith and evidence. The further implication was that atheists use evidence and theists use faith. But by your own definition atheism is a matter concerning belief, not evidence. And it is hardly clear whether the belief precedes or follows the selection and interpretation of the evidence, regardless of claims to the contrary.

I find it odd that you don't grasp this point. Atheism sees no evidence. That's the evidence I mean - that to change from atheism to theism an atheist would need to see evidence. Atheism is a lack of evidence, belief is of no relevance to any part of atheism and to suggest so is just plain wrong. Conflating faith and evidence is dishonest.

(Edit: I'm not saying you are dishonest as I think you're just mistaken. It's a frequently-quoted piece of dishonesty usually promulgated by theists. Quite why they are so scared of their own faith that they must accuse atheists of having faith escapes me.)


3) When one selects evidence in order to "highlight" (your word) something as being harmful then one is indeed tending to look at the group as being harmful. Whether or not you would look at another group the same way is irrelevant to the argument.

To you maybe, but I value consitency of opinion. I will [and do] highlight any groups causing harm, whether they be theist, anarchist or racist.

[dzebra]

That's not even close. I asked for evidence of people claiming science is infallible and the above is your answer?


Are you're suggesting that doesn't happen, or are you just trying to brush it aside?

[The Atheist]

Are you're suggesting that doesn't happen, or are you just trying to brush it aside?

No, I'm sure it does happen, but I don't believe the practice is common.

[dzebra]

The best teachers I've ever had are the ones who never claim things with absolute certainty, and who always show all points of view on topics. I have the utmost respect for the open-minded. I've had a few of these, and I wish they were more common. But I don't want to get into too much of an aside.

[RichardHresko]

1)
Not at all. If you think I have, please point out where it happened, because I've checked back and I certainly never intimated it as far as I can tell.


2)
I find it odd that you don't grasp this point. Atheism sees no evidence. That's the evidence I mean - that to change from atheism to theism an atheist would need to see evidence. Atheism is a lack of evidence, belief is of no relevance to any part of atheism and to suggest so is just plain wrong.

3) Conflating faith and evidence is dishonest.

(Edit: I'm not saying you are dishonest as I think you're just mistaken. It's a frequently-quoted piece of dishonesty usually promulgated by theists. Quite why they are so scared of their own faith that they must accuse atheists of having faith escapes me.)


4)
To you maybe, but I value consitency of opinion. I will [and do] highlight any groups causing harm, whether they be theist, anarchist or racist.

1) In post #147 you wrote, "Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well." As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.

2) The problem here is that evidence has to be selected and interpreted to come to a conclusion. An atheist seeing no evidence is someone whose beliefs suggest the interpretation that there is no basis for the existence of a god given what facts are assembled. This is not fundamentally different from what theists do. As far as the idea that belief forms no basis for atheism I refer you back to your own definition.

3) To conflate two things is to say that they are the same when they are in fact different. That is not my position at all. My position is that faith (belief-system, weltanschauung, or whatever other term makes you comfortable) determines what one will accept as evidence. Once again my point is that the difference between atheists (even by your definition) and theists is merely one of belief system, and that they both function in pretty much the same ways.

It could well be that the issue is not one of dishonesty on either side but a failure to acknowledge that humans select and evaluate information based on pre-conceived notions. There is no possibility of knowledge without faith. (Here 'faith' is defined as the acceptance of something as true without direct experience of its truth. I am working with your definition of atheism, in the interest of both fairness and clarity you will work with my definition of faith.)

4) When one selects ("highlights" as you term it) one set of behaviors in a class and ignores others one might be consistent, but one has certainly exposed oneself to the charge of creating a biased sample. This illustrates my point that first comes the belief and then comes the evidence.

It strikes me that were one to apply the same procedure to "highlighting" a race that you apply to religionists the result would be virtually indistinguishable from racism. I'm not sure that 'consistency' would be a virtue.

[jgweed]

Can atheism do harm?

To answer that question in the affirmative, one must be able to point to aspects of the doctrine that its adherents would use to guide or encourage them in wrong-doing.

[This argument would further seem to require some proof of the assumption that there is agreement among atheists about the consequences of the non-existence of a deity, or that there is some unifying dogma in atheism in addition to the definition that atheists hold there is no god. On the contrarywe find a wealth of varying conclusions on the part of avowed atheists. Consider Bertrand Russell or Sartre who share that view, but would hardly agree upon its practical consequences (Sartre's Portrait of an Antisemite). I would also doubt that one could point to examples of their harming others.]

Again, to answer the question in the affirmative, one must be able to show that a person's atheism was THE defining characteristic, and that all significant actions were guided by that belief, and that some of these actions were "harmful."
Hitler, from all accounts, was very superstitious, and many of his actions were timed astrologically. One would not say, however, that his belief in astrology could be blamed for concentration camps.
Nor could one, as far as I know, point to a constructed argument on his part that because god did not exist, everyone must join the Nazi party and become an anti-semite. If one looks at the intellectual origins of Nazi antisemitism, one can point to many "Christian" writers (Father Jahn, for example).
Nor was it only theists who ended up in Hitler's death camps, which included gypsies, gays, unwary journalists and generals as well as catholic priests and Jews. When he murdered the leaders of the SA, was he guided by his atheistic doctrine, or by a desire to rid himself of rivals to his quest for power?
If we look for defining characteristics, in the sense I am using, would we not be more historically accurate to look for his motivation not completely in his atheism, but in his unthinking hatred for all sorts of groups and his infatuation with absolute power?

[RichardHresko]

Can atheism do harm?

To answer that question in the affirmative, one must be able to point to aspects of the doctrine that its adherents would use to guide or encourage them in wrong-doing.


This is well-expressed. However, there are two ambiguities present (which I feel are unavoidable).

The first is due to how we define an "-ism." Is it a mental construct or some kind of weighted average of beliefs associated with a name? If the former, who gets to play Noah Webster? If the latter, who is included -- those who self-identify, those who oppose, those who are merely interested, or some combination? The discussion between The Atheist and myself in this thread has involved this question.

As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?

The second ambiguity is deciding what constitutes "wrong-doing". This requires some agreement as to what constitutes a wrong, and also some hierarchy of wrongs and rights. Is right and wrong to be measureable in physical terms alone? That requires a metaphysical choice to accept that only sensible harm is 'real.'

[jgweed]

"Once again my point is that the difference between atheists (even by your definition) and theists is merely one of belief system, and that they both function in pretty much the same ways."

It certainly does seem that a major difference between the two is their understanding of what constitutes knowledge, and what kinds of arguments and evidence are acceptable. This fundamental opposition, however, seems to be somewhat different than relegating the difference to "merely one of belief system" or opinion. The ambiguity attached to "belief" as a descriptive term seems an equivocation.
Can one say, for example, that one believes 2+2=s 4, or that one believes that Illinois is north of Louisiana in the same way as one can say one believes in poltergeists or Papal Infallibility? Here the word "belief" does not seem to function in the same way.

It certainly seems true "that evidence has to be selected and interpreted to come to a conclusion." But does this mean as well that any or all interpretations (systems of beliefs) are in some sense more or less as equal as one's preference or vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

My point here is to suggest that "conflating" the two views into merely matters of opinion or belief seems to ignore or understate the fundamental and grounding differences between the two different perspectives, blurs the important distinction between knowledge and belief systems, and provides no clear and distinct manner by which one can choose either.

[jgweed]

We seem to find echoes and harmonies with each new post crossing one another almost simultaneously.

I certainly agree that one must be careful of "-isms." I think Wittgenstein's doctrine of "family resemblances" provides a solution. He argues that some members thought to be connected by a single feature common to every member in a class may actually turn out to be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and points to "games" or facial features within a family as illustrations. This doctrine is certainly applicable to any discussion of "isms."

"As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?"

This seems to imply that there is something outside (or "objective") of the interpretations by which one could judge whether there are misinterpretations. For example, that there is a "real" Christianity different from its many interpretations. We may be mislead in our thinking here by the linguistic necessity in the use of "interpretations (of)" into thinking that the object of interpretations actually exists. If this is so, then there could not be a misinterpretion, only yet another interpretation.
Cheers,
John

[Drkshadow03]

Okay, I erased my angrier original post where I accused people here of playing semantic games as I predicted would happen and "moving the goalpost." I might bring those charges back up later on. But for now:

What do you think are the differences between atheism and anti-theism? Basically concretely define those terms. Anyone feel free to answer.

[RichardHresko]

"Once again my point is that the difference between atheists (even by your definition) and theists is merely one of belief system, and that they both function in pretty much the same ways."

It certainly does seem that a major difference between the two is their understanding of what constitutes knowledge, and what kinds of arguments and evidence are acceptable. This fundamental opposition, however, seems to be somewhat different than relegating the difference to "merely one of belief system" or opinion. The ambiguity attached to "belief" as a descriptive term seems an equivocation.
Can one say, for example, that one believes 2+2=s 4, or that one believes that Illinois is north of Louisiana in the same way as one can say one believes in poltergeists or Papal Infallibility? Here the word "belief" does not seem to function in the same way.

It certainly seems true "that evidence has to be selected and interpreted to come to a conclusion." But does this mean as well that any or all interpretations (systems of beliefs) are in some sense more or less as equal as one's preference or vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

My point here is to suggest that "conflating" the two views into merely matters of opinion or belief seems to ignore or understate the fundamental and grounding differences between the two different perspectives, blurs the important distinction between knowledge and belief systems, and provides no clear and distinct manner by which one can choose either.

I addressed the matter of faith or belief a little earlier. One can "know" via direct experience. Without direct experience one only "believes" the claim of another. Thus it is conceivable that one can "know" poltergeists but only "believe" Illinois is north of Louisiana (if one has not actually travelled from one to the other).

I think that this means of distinction is far from blurred.

I do not ignore the grounding differences. I deny that they exist. Both positions start from a choice of metaphysics and then moves on to select and order the evidence accordingly. The question of what constitutes knowledge and evidence is determined by the choice of belief system, which is why I maintain that that is the fundamental difference.

Is the choice between a materialist or non-materialist metaphysics merely a matter of taste, like chocolate or vanilla, and that there is no superior metaphysics? I do not know. I know of no way one could tell whether one is superior to the other. At this time I believe that the answer to that is unknowable (which is an epistemological and not metaphysical statement -- obviously there may exist a difference).

I agree that this distinction, "provides no clear and distinct manner by which one can choose either." That is precisely the point. There is no a priori way to rank a materialist metaphysics relative to a non-materialistic one.

[RichardHresko]

We seem to find echoes and harmonies with each new post crossing one another almost simultaneously.

I certainly agree that one must be careful of "-isms." I think Wittgenstein's doctrine of "family resemblances" provides a solution. He argues that some members thought to be connected by a single feature common to every member in a class may actually turn out to be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and points to "games" or facial features within a family as illustrations. This doctrine is certainly applicable to any discussion of "isms."

"As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?"

This seems to imply that there is something outside (or "objective") of the interpretations by which one could judge whether there are misinterpretations. For example, that there is a "real" Christianity different from its many interpretations. We may be mislead in our thinking here by the linguistic necessity in the use of "interpretations (of)" into thinking that the object of interpretations actually exists. If this is so, then there could not be a misinterpretion, only yet another interpretation.
Cheers,
John

This seems to be evolving into a question of the reality of species (or, in a nod to my avatar, "essences") as opposed to mental constructs composed of individuals. But if we do not allow for the existence of a species is there any meaning to a question such as "Can atheism do harm?" Even if we restrict ourselves to an individual, how to we separate that individual from his or her "-ism" to make the judgment?

I am not sure Wittgenstein can help in this instance since there seems no way to surgically separate the person from the "-ism."

[Drkshadow03]

Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin. Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

Can atheism cause harm? Sure, the Communist regimes demonstrate the case. Playing semantic games of saying, "well, no one is atheism and the other is really anti-theism" is just that a cheap semantic game. No doubt a part of Communist opposition to religion comes from their desire to prevent conflicting loyalties to the state, but it's also painfully clear to anyone with the least bit of common sense and a brain that their militant atheism was an equal factor for their persecutions of religion. I think to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous.

Like I said it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to conceive of a future society where the majority are atheists (don't believe in G-d) who eventually engage in what The Atheist is calling anti-theism, the direct persecution of religious people or opposition to religion.

Furthermore, since the majority of atheists I've engaged with here, the so-called atheist four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, and crew, and the majority of atheists I've engaged with on the wider internet seem quite clearly to go far beyond the boundaries of "not just believing in G-d", but a thorough opposition to the belief in G-d, it would seem that a great deal of people going under the title of atheist are in fact really anti-theists and are using the wrong names. But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.

[The Atheist]

As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.


What do you think are the differences between atheism and anti-theism? Basically concretely define those terms. Anyone feel free to answer.

Yeah, I'll let you in on it, mostly because this next post is just flat-out wrong. Just read my reply and I'm sure you'll get it.


Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin. Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

No, that's completely wrong.

The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"

And anti-theist is actually a theist. An atheist anti-theist is an oxymoron. How can one hate what one does not believe in? Anti-theists who claim to be atheists are simply lying.


... but it's also painfully clear to anyone with the least bit of common sense and a brain that their militant atheism was an equal factor for their persecutions of religion. I think to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous.

I'm almost 50 years old and have been a lifelong student of religion, humanism and history. My father fought in WWII and I have a pretty good grasp on what Stalin was really about from a lifetime's reading on the subject as well as talking to people who were actually there when Stalin was conducting the purges. I've spoken with survivors of both Hitler and Stalin.

I'd also rate my common sense pretty highly and I have an extraordinarily high IQ. I'm a successful businessman and have a list of personal and work achievements which I believe are equal to almost anyone my age, and if I'm being immodest, better than most. I believe that I have dispalyed objectivity all of my life and I apply scepticism to my own beliefs more strongly than I apply it to the beliefs of others.

Strangely, despite your contention that only idiots would believe that atheism wasn't involved in Stalin's purges, I am almost 100% confident that his atheism - if he was ever an atheist, which I seriously doubt - played no part in any of his insane murder sprees.


Like I said it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to conceive of a future society where the majority are atheists (don't believe in G-d) who eventually engage in what The Atheist is calling anti-theism, the direct persecution of religious people or opposition to religion.

It saddens me to think that people out there really think this way. At least I'm comfortable that the feeling doesn't result from evidence which suggests is happening or will happen.


But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.

You're certainly entitled to retain that opinion.

Pity really, because a little more understanding on all sides would be helpful, and I generally find atheists to have minds which are open to new information.

[RichardHresko]

1)
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.


2)
The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"
.

1) You posted the following: "Atheism simply "does not believe" in god." You cast the definition in terms of belief, as I asserted.

2) My argument here is that your ordering is backwards. First comes the matter of what one believes and then one finds the reasons (or not). In other words the old proverb would be more correctly worded, "believing is seeing."

For one to "see" a reason as being persuasive in terms of its content (as opposed to the validity of its logical structure, which has already been discussed) the content has to conform to the types of information that one has pre-determined to be acceptable. Obviously this once again requires filtering and the danger of tautology emerges. This happens on both sides and in a very similar way. The religious-minded believe there is something corresponding to god and therefore see reasons to believe. Atheists do not believe in god and therefore see no reasons to believe.

The upshot of this is that there is nothing that distinguishes the theists and the atheists (by your definition) other than the non-rational starting points and the subsequent (non-rational) choices of what should constitute evidence. As far as rationality goes, there is nothing to choose between the two positions.

[JBI]

Atheism and anti-theism are very different. I personally am an atheist, because I cannot believe in god, without openly lying to myself. I am still of the belief that religion is a good thing, and an important aspect in the cultural heritage of the world. I don't consider myself a destroyer of religion at all, and often find myself encouraging a spiritual, or religious quality in people I meet.

Anti-theism is nothing like atheism, as it is a moral, and political belief, rather than a metaphysical one (or unbelief, as atheism is). It's like a square and a rectangle - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

[The Atheist]

The upshot of this is that there is nothing that distinguishes the theists and the atheists (by your definition) other than the non-rational starting points and the subsequent (non-rational) choices of what should constitute evidence. As far as rationality goes, there is nothing to choose between the two positions.

That's your opinion, to which you're most welcome.

I happen to think you're not only wrong, but demonstrably so, however, I think the discussion has now just turned to repitition and of little further value.


Atheism and anti-theism are very different. I personally am an atheist, because I cannot believe in god, without openly lying to myself. I am still of the belief that religion is a good thing, and an important aspect in the cultural heritage of the world. I don't consider myself a destroyer of religion at all, and often find myself encouraging a spiritual, or religious quality in people I meet.

Anti-theism is nothing like atheism, as it is a moral, and political belief, rather than a metaphysical one (or unbelief, as atheism is). It's like a square and a rectangle - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

Yep, well put.

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.



Yeah, I'll let you in on it, mostly because this next post is just flat-out wrong. Just read my reply and I'm sure you'll get it.



No, that's completely wrong.

The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"

And anti-theist is actually a theist. An atheist anti-theist is an oxymoron. How can one hate what one does not believe in? Anti-theists who claim to be atheists are simply lying.



I'm almost 50 years old and have been a lifelong student of religion, humanism and history. My father fought in WWII and I have a pretty good grasp on what Stalin was really about from a lifetime's reading on the subject as well as talking to people who were actually there when Stalin was conducting the purges. I've spoken with survivors of both Hitler and Stalin.

I'd also rate my common sense pretty highly and I have an extraordinarily high IQ. I'm a successful businessman and have a list of personal and work achievements which I believe are equal to almost anyone my age, and if I'm being immodest, better than most. I believe that I have dispalyed objectivity all of my life and I apply scepticism to my own beliefs more strongly than I apply it to the beliefs of others.

Strangely, despite your contention that only idiots would believe that atheism wasn't involved in Stalin's purges, I am almost 100% confident that his atheism - if he was ever an atheist, which I seriously doubt - played no part in any of his insane murder sprees.



It saddens me to think that people out there really think this way. At least I'm comfortable that the feeling doesn't result from evidence which suggests is happening or will happen.



You're certainly entitled to retain that opinion.

Pity really, because a little more understanding on all sides would be helpful, and I generally find atheists to have minds which are open to new information.


Anyway, your life history aside, I haven't actually disagreed with your points, at least not entirely. I just think there is more to it and I am interpreting the facts differently.

I should point out the only reason I tweaked your nose in my last comments is because I felt you tweaked mine first: "No, you simply need to learn history."

Having a minor in history during my undergrad certainly doesn't make me an expert on history, however, one of the first things you learn in formal academic training is that there is a lot room for interpretation in historical fact, especially when you start moving into the area of human motivations of historical figures or the implications and meaning of history.

One paper we had to write illustrates this point fairly well. We had to read Martyn Lyons's "Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution." We had to decide whether we agreed with Lyons's thesis and whether we thought Bonaporte by reestablishing authoritarian rule overturned the values of the revolution or whether he was the ultimate culmination of the Revolution's values and representative of them.

As for your definitions of atheism versus anti-theism can you provide a citation to any scholarly source which defines them the way you do? So far as I predicted in one of my first posts in this thread this has mostly disintegrated in arguments over definitions and semantics.

I consider myself extremely open-minded as well; I'm constantly rethinking my ideas. So if you're half as open-minded as you claim and really are interested in having more understanding perhaps you should consider why I am stating some of the viewpoints that I am, part of it comes from experience dealing with people who at least claim to be atheists who come off as being "unable to fall asleep at night because someone, somewhere, may have the audacity to believe in G-d or a higher power" (my own play on H.L. Mencken's infamous Puritan definition).

Now if you want to call these people anti-Theists be my guess. If you have yet another term from them, again I don't really care. I am NOT opposed to atheists; you don't have to believe in G-d. No skin off my back. I have plenty of friends that are atheists.

The reason I bring this up is this particular thread is sucking up a lot of my time and energy that I could be spending doing other more useful things like reading a book or learning Spanish or writing fiction, and I am not even sure what the hell we're arguing about anymore or more specifically for what reason we're arguing.

[The Atheist]

Having a minor in history during my undergrad certainly doesn't make me an expert on history, however, one of the first things you learn in formal academic training is that there is a lot room for interpretation in historical fact, especially when you start moving into the area of human motivations of historical figures or the implications and meaning of history.

Very good.

I am a little surprised that you chose the communist/atheist link then, as it's a fairly obvious myth. I get annoyed at it because I've seen the same argument for >30 years. It was nonsense in 1970 and it's still nonsense in 2008.


As for your definitions of atheism versus anti-theism can you provide a citation to any scholarly source which defines them the way you do?

So far as I predicted in one of my first posts in this thread this has mostly disintegrated in arguments over definitions and semantics.

It surprises me that you're still on this tack, because we've tried to be very specific for that very reason. Could you just mean that the definitions we're using just don't match yours?

I don't believe there's any semantic argument needed. Right or wrong, the subject I'm discussing involves the definitions as given.

If you're a student of history, you would be aware that the English language is in a constant state of flux and there are no scholarly sources which are unable to be negated by further scholarly sources. That said, the works of supposed scholarly atheists - the four horsemen mentioned earlier - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris & Hitchens, will cover me pretty well. The thing I don't like about "scholarly sources" is that it's just an appeal to authority and I speak for myself.

Given that the position of atheism is owned by atheists, I think anyone not an atheist attempting to describe atheism can only fall into the trap which gets many atheists - attempting to create a stereotype for all christianity. It just doesn't work. Just as christianity is what christians make, Masonic Lodges are what Freemasons make them, and atheism is what atheists make it.


... part of it comes from experience dealing with people who at least claim to be atheists who come off as being "unable to fall asleep at night because someone, somewhere, may have the audacity to believe in G-d or a higher power" (my own play on H.L. Mencken's infamous Puritan definition).

Certainly every school has its lunatics. The trouble is that by painting those people as represntative of atheism, you're going down the same track as if I tried to paint Samuel Berkowitz as representative of christianity.

To add to that, atheism isn't as movement, it doesn't have meetings (although some atheist groups do), it most certainly doesn't have a bible and it doesn't have any leaders or spokespeople. That the four horsemen are visible is entirely due to their own efforts, nobody voted Dawkins Chief Atheist and only very few people believe he is anyway. The number of atheists actively involved in "atheism" is incredibly tiny. In the UK, disbelief is around 40-50%, probably 40 million people. Yet the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins has a fan club of about 200.

I either go or used to go to several atheist forums and the number of militant atheists is even smaller. I get just as annoyed at them as you or anyone else does, I assure you! Every major disagreement I've had online (20,000 posts over many years) has been with a militant atheist.

By "militant atheist" I mean an atheist who is anti-religion, which is different to anti-theism. I trust you get the difference.


I am not even sure what the hell we're arguing about anymore or more specifically for what reason we're arguing.

Well, I can tell you that the reason I persevere is entirely to do with the subject in hand. Atheism comes with lots of baggage and almost all of that baggage has been handed to us by theists. For some reason, many theists are sufficiently scared of their own faith that they must attack atheism, which is odd. I never see philatelists attacking people who don't collect stamps, I never see sportspeople attacking lazy, fat people, and I don't think I've yet seen a smoker attacking non smokers, either.

I'm trying to lighten the load by changing a few misconceptions about what atheism actually is.

Some people will listen.

[Jozanny]

1) It could well be that the issue is not one of dishonesty on either side but a failure to acknowledge that humans select and evaluate information based on pre-conceived notions. There is no possibility of knowledge without faith. (Here 'faith' is defined as the acceptance of something as true without direct experience of its truth. I am working with your definition of atheism, in the interest of both fairness and clarity you will work with my definition of faith.)

I don't know if I am entirely confortable defining faith on this basis, although jgweed's rebuttal is stronger than anything I might add, I will still add, at this point, that we stray into the problem of defining epistemological aquisition. Is *knowing* how to use my joystick on my power chair the same thing as believing this figure called Christ is a manifestation of the Hebrew deity?

A couple of other things: My pathway to non-belief started when the characterization of the Judeo-Christian god began not to make much sense to me. I have read rational theists who rebut this by saying it is the fault of our limited understanding, but my reply would be you cannot have it both ways. If biblical authors were *divinely* inspired it seems they aspired to a curiously human persona: One who is insecure, demands attention, and seems to think killing pagans is perfectly acceptable because of their ignorance of who the "true" deity" is--but a few centuries later he comes down in human form and says "hey, only hypocrites who mouth niceties about me being the son of god will be stuck dead, aren't I merciful?"

Again, this doesn't make much sense to my ethical values, which is why I am anti-religious in terms of religions being human constructs. Yahweh and Jesus don't make much sense, but from there, neither does Allah, even though Allah and Yahweh are identical constructs--and neither do Hindu gods, or Isis.

So I reached atheism from the starting point that our gods are manifestly superlative human characters which cannot and do not exist or have powers, because, as Atheist said, there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Modern believers claim god speaks to them, but for me this is a dubious assertion. Emotions are survival mechanisms--feelings derived from them are complex and not fully understood, but as a writer I can aspire without seeing this as proof of a cosmic designer egging me along.

In my case, it is not a matter of simple labeling, in that as an anti-theist god is bad and as an atheist god *isn't*.

I find Drk's position of Communism being extreme atheism untenable, for reasons already stated, but again, atheism is not an ideology. There may be atheists who are zealous, and occasionally unpleasant, (Dawkins, Hitchens, me)--but being against religious doctrine is not being anti-god, even though critical examination of Yahweh and Jesus is certainly a negation of them as acceptable representations.

I agree with JBI, however, about the cultural significance of established religion on society, even though I would like to see religions themselves diminish.

[The Atheist]

Good timing at the Times!

The NYT today has this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?pagewanted=1&em)on the dilemma facing teachers and it has nothing to do with teachers claiming absolute proof, but the difficulty in changing minds which have been filled with literal Genesis.

[Drkshadow03]

Very good.

Certainly every school has its lunatics. The trouble is that by painting those people as represntative of atheism, you're going down the same track as if I tried to paint Samuel Berkowitz as representative of christianity.


One last point I want to make, I don't think I ever once painted atheism with some broad stroke; you and Jozanny seem to be confused on this point because you keep bringing it up. I never once said ALL atheists are this or that, nor did I ever say all atheists are represented by the lunatics.

[Jozanny]

Good timing at the Times!

The NYT today has this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?pagewanted=1&em)on the dilemma facing teachers and it has nothing to do with teachers claiming absolute proof, but the difficulty in changing minds which have been filled with literal Genesis.

More evidence of a world power's decline, in my estimation--and Drk is alarmed at the prospect of religious suppression through what he assumes is a Dawkins' zealotry.:argue:

[Drkshadow03]

More evidence of a world power's decline, in my estimation--and Drk is alarmed at the prospect of religious suppression through what he assumes is a Dawkins' zealotry.:argue:

Heh. Believe me I am far more concerned about the Christian fundies suppressing the teaching of Evolution actually. Plus I just saw the Jesus Camp documentary, what a creepy movie filled with such creepy people!

[Jozanny]

Heh. Believe me I am far more concerned about the Christian fundies suppressing the teaching of Evolution actually. Plus I just saw the Jesus Camp documentary, what a creepy movie filled with such creepy people!

Honestly, I don't want to view Jesus Camp. I don't need to feel despair becoming ever more deeply ingrained. I've read about it though and seen clips.:alien::bawling:

[The Atheist]

One last point I want to make, I don't think I ever once painted atheism with some broad stroke; ...

Can I direct you to your own post where you do exactly that?


Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin.

Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.

[Drkshadow03]

Can I direct you to your own post where you do exactly that?

I am editing my original reply because as I stated before I sort of just want out of this conversation.

You're right. It was a poor choice of words.

[Jozanny]

In my case, it is not a matter of simple labeling, in that as an anti-theist god is bad and as an atheist god *isn't*.

I find Drk's position of Communism being extreme atheism untenable, for reasons already stated, but again, atheism is not an ideology. There may be atheists who are zealous, and occasionally unpleasant, (Dawkins, Hitchens, me)--but being against religious doctrine is not being anti-god, even though critical examination of Yahweh and Jesus is certainly a negation of them as acceptable representations.

Let me refine myself by saying I agree that anti-theism is untenable, because if one declares that "God is bad," this doesn't leave one with much if that same God operates outside the constraints of natural law. If I see no evidence for divine benevolence, I also see no evidence for deliberate malevolence either.

My original point though, was that I got from A (believer) to B (atheist) by initially examining deity as a character and deciding deities operate a lot like spoiled kids who want better toys. The theology surrounding the Christ isn't as reducible, which perhaps accounts for its success, but the martyr complex is a known psychological phenomenon.

My question for Richard is this: If God isn't a super-attenuated projection of a human agency, then what is it?

Genesis declares that God created man in his own image--and I've always been struck by that--that the ancient Hebrews weren't the least bit suspicious that maybe they defined a deity in their image, instead.

[The Atheist]

Genesis declares that God created man in his own image--and I've always been struck by that--that the ancient Hebrews weren't the least bit suspicious that maybe they defined a deity in their image, instead.

“It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.”

Ludwig Feuerbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach)

And another quote which fits nicely into the discussion on faith:

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Bertrand Russell

[RichardHresko]

1)
I don't know if I am entirely confortable defining faith on this basis, although jgweed's rebuttal is stronger than anything I might add, I will still add, at this point, that we stray into the problem of defining epistemological aquisition. Is *knowing* how to use my joystick on my power chair the same thing as believing this figure called Christ is a manifestation of the Hebrew deity?

2)
A couple of other things: My pathway to non-belief started when the characterization of the Judeo-Christian god began not to make much sense to me. I have read rational theists who rebut this by saying it is the fault of our limited understanding, but my reply would be you cannot have it both ways. If biblical authors were *divinely* inspired it seems they aspired to a curiously human persona: One who is insecure, demands attention, and seems to think killing pagans is perfectly acceptable because of their ignorance of who the "true" deity" is--but a few centuries later he comes down in human form and says "hey, only hypocrites who mouth niceties about me being the son of god will be stuck dead, aren't I merciful?"

3)
So I reached atheism from the starting point that our gods are manifestly superlative human characters which cannot and do not exist or have powers, because, as Atheist said, there is absolutely no evidence for this.
.

These are well-thought out remarks. I will try to do them justice.

1) I deliberately put forth a definition of faith that I felt was value neutral. The difficulty with definitions of faith, such as Russell's quoted by someone else in the thread, is that it attempts to "stack the deck" instead of define the term.

I think 'faith' as I have defined it here is stripped to its barest essentials and does not require acceptance of anything intrinsically spiritual. The definition merely draws attention to the fact that a lot of what we claim to 'know' really relies on our believing what others tell us.

I would say, given the definition, that the experience of the joystick gives knowledge of it. The only way that acceptance of Jesus as the Hebrew deity would qualify as knowledge rather than faith is if one had personal experience of Jesus in that way. (I claim no such experience.) I will also point out that by this definition one does not know that one's parents are indeed one's parents for what I hope is an obvious biological reason.

2) I think you describe very well a process by which many of us come to a change in our view of the world. I would suggest that when something does not make much sense that this occurs not so much from a failure in logic but because the person does not find the position to be in tune with his or her feeling of how the world is. The logic comes later. As I said before this process is non-rational (which is very different from irrational!!!) and turns our minds in a new direction from which we seek our evidence.

3) The only problem with the point here is that I think that the most you can really say here is that there is no evidence for a god that is a superlative human character. This does not exclude the possibility that there is a god who is not a superlative human character.

Given that modification, I agree with you completely. A god who was simply a very powerful (or even infinitely powerful) human being is an untenable concept, given the other attributes a god would have to possess to be a god. Such a god fails on logical grounds. Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas also would agree on that position.

[RichardHresko]

My original point though, was that I got from A (believer) to B (atheist) by initially examining deity as a character and deciding deities operate a lot like spoiled kids who want better toys. The theology surrounding the Christ isn't as reducible, which perhaps accounts for its success, but the martyr complex is a known psychological phenomenon.

My question for Richard is this: If God isn't a super-attenuated projection of a human agency, then what is it?

Genesis declares that God created man in his own image--and I've always been struck by that--that the ancient Hebrews weren't the least bit suspicious that maybe they defined a deity in their image, instead.

That is the perfect question to ask in this discussion!

If god does exist, god can not possibly be a spoiled child, or even just a very powerful human. You are 100% right here, and if you like I would be able to draw on several Church Fathers who have constructed proofs of this very thing to show this. God is, in orthodox Christian theology, not of the same substance as his creation.

Orthodox thought also advises us that we can not know what god is. Our knowledge (in the sense of experience, as discussed earlier) is not of god in his essence but rather only of his activity ('energeia' in Greek). Much of Christian theology is based on this so-called via negativa, this knowing by knowing what is NOT true.

One problem that occurs when one considers the Fundamentalists is that they generally ignore all of both Jewish and Christian tradition in interpreting the Bible. Augustine 1600 years ago pointed out that the Bible has to be interpeted in terms of allegory, and Jewish scholars nearly 1000 years BEFORE Augustine said virtually the same thing. To be ignorant of one's tradition or even worse to reject it as irrelevant is something that is, to me, incomprehensible.

[Jozanny]

That is the perfect question to ask in this discussion!

If god does exist, god can not possibly be a spoiled child, or even just a very powerful human. You are 100% right here, and if you like I would be able to draw on several Church Fathers who have constructed proofs of this very thing to show this. God is, in orthodox Christian theology, not of the same substance as his creation.

Orthodox thought also advises us that we can not know what god is.

Fair enough. Richard, we may not agree, but I admire your ability to sustain an argument as well as you do. Keep trucking.

[Jozanny]

[deleted due to expressing frustration]

[mangueken]

Hi, thanks for starting such an interesting thread. I'm an atheist and to sum it up, gods are not part of my personal or public life. I don't believe in them or against them. I do, however have a problem when religions try to push their ways in my life. Unfortunately for those who would just like to have their own personal spiritual experience however they understand it, religious institutions often, very often, do try to force their beliefs on others.
I think there are some good things to read that may be interesting for everyone to read, one would be Mircea Eliade's The Sacred & The Profane, another might be the chapter in Brothers Karamazov where they have a debate on the role of religion in civil society (sorry I can't remember off the top of my head which part of the book that is, hopefully someone else can and informs us)

[blazeofglory]

You are absolutely right. As a matter of fact religions or subjects about religions should not be forced or imposed on any people. People should be at their options to reject or accept it according to their choice.

Particularly small kids were indoctrinated when they could not discriminate between good and bad and in their formative years whatever is imposed coercively will leave negative marks or influences on their later lives. We know schools of fundamentalism that produces fundamentalists in massive numbers. Is not it religions that instigated or motivated people to destroy the twin towers?

But still I am not an atheist nor speak against religions at all. All I mean to say is we must be liberally minded.

[The Atheist]

Is not it religions that instigated or motivated people to destroy the twin towers?

No.

Religion was perverted to motivate gullible young men into committing atrocity by claiming that heaven would favour their actions, but religion didn't instigate it in any way.

What religion is responsible for is creating a climate of general belief in fairies/gods/heavens which allow the perversions to flourish.

[mazHur]

No.

Religion was perverted to motivate gullible young men into committing atrocity by claiming that heaven would favour their actions, but religion didn't instigate it in any way.

What religion is responsible for is creating a climate of general belief in fairies/gods/heavens which allow the perversions to flourish.

Here I agree with the Atheist,,,,his deduction is fair enough.

The guys who blasted the twin towers were highly educated professional men raised/educated in the US. There is least reason to believe they were instigated by religion or anyone except by some cult having deadly political aims!

[Redzeppelin]

Blasting "religion" is a pretty easy thing to do because there are so many of them, with so many conflicting/contradicting views/beliefs that critics essentially create this massive target composed of all the worst of the world's religions and then they congragulated themselves for hitting a bullseye that they pretty much call the entire target.

You won't get any arguments from me defending radical Islam - or radical Christianity, for that matter. Every system of belief has its lunatic fringe (even atheists - consult the fallacy-ridden works of Hitchens, Dawkens, Harris, for example).

What these critics can't do is put out a system of belief that has had a flawless history. Even atheism has a checkered history (cf. Stalin's Russia, for one).

What I'd like to hear is how atheistic belief makes this world better, makes people better? Simply responding that eliminating religion will make people better only says that the absence of religion improves people - but does it? What can you offer by way of evidence, example, etc that dispensing with the belief in a spiritual world improves the lot of humanity here on this earth?

I'd be interested in reading about that - because generally what I read is lots of criticism of organized religion (criticism is pretty easy to do); what I rarely read are the positive aspects - on a personal, as well as social, level - of atheism.

[blazeofglory]

In fact all I mean to is religion is used as a tool for wrongful acts. When some people follow a religion irrationally and they choose to follow it word by word what is written in the book of religions or in scriptures it is likely to misguide people.

In some scriptures in Hinduism it is written that if a Suddra hears any Mantra his ears should be filled with lead.

We must therefore have an ideas of discrimination, that means we must say good from bad and that leads to knowledge.

But more often than not people choose to take religions like the way fundamentalists or fanatics do.

Religions need sifting or screening

[Pendragon]

In fact all I mean to is religion is used as a tool for wrongful acts. When some people follow a religion irrationally and they choose to follow it word by word what is written in the book of religions or in scriptures it is likely to misguide people.

In some scriptures in Hinduism it is written that if a Suddra hears any Mantra his ears should be filled with lead.

We must therefore have an ideas of discrimination, that means we must say good from bad and that leads to knowledge.

But more often than not people choose to take religions like the way fundamentalists or fanatics do.

Religions need sifting or screeningNot Religions, mon ami. Beliefs. What religion you follow has nothing to do with what you actually believe. People in these parts have been known to handle poisonous snakes in the name of Christianity but that doesn't mean I have to believe that.

[blazeofglory]

Not Religions, mon ami. Beliefs. What religion you follow has nothing to do with what you actually believe. People in these parts have been known to handle poisonous snakes in the name of Christianity but that doesn't mean I have to believe that.

Yes you are right, it is beliefs that sully our minds. But it is religions that breed beliefs as a matter of fact. There are schools of religions or ideologies that indoctrinate highly gullible innocents into fundamentalist ideas. As such I am at times very critical of religions, and as a matter if fact seeing that most religious people are doing something wrongful in the name of religions I have grown tired of religious beleifs.

I have read in newspapers that bishops and clergymen are homosexuals and and we are not unaware of the fact that there were cases of molestations and rapes in churuces and as such I can not easily digest the idea of religions.

[mazHur]

Yes you are right, it is beliefs that sully our minds. But it is religions that breed beliefs as a matter of fact. There are schools of religions or ideologies that indoctrinate highly gullible innocents into fundamentalist ideas. As such I am at times very critical of religions, and as a matter if fact seeing that most religious people are doing something wrongful in the name of religions I have grown tired of religious beleifs.

I have read in newspapers that bishops and clergymen are homosexuals and and we are not unaware of the fact that there were cases of molestations and rapes in churuces and as such I can not easily digest the idea of religions.


sorry, I can't stop laughing!

Man, what ''unusualities'' you are referring to are in no way related to religion, any religion,,,at their best, they are human conduct, socio-cultural impulses or simply rituals or orgies!:)

[Pendragon]

Yes you are right, it is beliefs that sully our minds. But it is religions that breed beliefs as a matter of fact. There are schools of religions or ideologies that indoctrinate highly gullible innocents into fundamentalist ideas. As such I am at times very critical of religions, and as a matter if fact seeing that most religious people are doing something wrongful in the name of religions I have grown tired of religious beleifs.

I have read in newspapers that bishops and clergymen are homosexuals and and we are not unaware of the fact that there were cases of molestations and rapes in churuces and as such I can not easily digest the idea of religions.
Do not be angry at me, dear friend, but ask yourself this: Is it any more wrong or right if molestations and rapes are happening to people without religion being at all involved? That some person could believe it OK to do this at all is overwhelming to any rational mind! But I follow court cases and you'd be amazed at the excuses given for such conduct!

God Bless

Pen

[Virgil]

The guys who blasted the twin towers were highly educated professional men raised/educated in the US.

That is flat out untrue. They were not raised or educated in the United States. I have never heard of such a thing and just looking up Atta will find that he was not:

Atta was born in Egypt in 1968 in a small town in the Nile delta. At the age of 10, he moved with his family to the Abdeen section of Cairo. Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, and went to Hamburg, Germany in 1992 to continue his studies at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, where he remained a student until fall 1999. In Hamburg, Atta became involved with the Al-Quds Mosque. At some point, he met Marwan al-Shehhi, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ziad Jarrah who all became part of the Hamburg Cell. Atta disappeared from Germany for periods of time, spending some time in Afghanistan, including several months in late 1999 and early 2000 when he met Osama bin Laden and other top Al-Qaeda leaders. Atta and the other Hamburg Cell members were recruited by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for the "planes operation" in the United States. Atta returned to Hamburg in February 2000, reported his passport stolen and obtained a clean passport.

In late March 2000, Atta began contacting flight schools in the United States, inquiring about training. Atta arrived together with Marwan al-Shehhi in June 2000. Both ended up in south Florida at Huffman Aviation where they entered the Accelerated Pilot Program. Atta and al-Shehhi obtained instrument ratings in November 2000, and continued training on simulators and flight training. Beginning in May 2001, Atta assisted with the arrival of the muscle hijackers. In July 2001, Atta traveled to Spain where he met with Binalshibh to exchange information and finalize the plot. In August, Atta traveled on surveillance flights to determine details on how the attacks could be carried out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

There is enough misinformation (frankly lies, though i am not acusing you mazhur of purposely lying) out there that we should at east get the facts right.

[mazHur]

[Virgil]In late March 2000, Atta began contacting flight schools in the United States, inquiring about training.



went to Hamburg, Germany in 1992 to continue his studies at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, where he remained a student until fall 1999.



Truly i had not read his biography and thought they were brought up in the US,,,,Even if that is incorrect you will note that he learnt flying in the US and got educated in a developed country like the EU! And that in fact should be quite enought to say that they learnt the 'art' at least from a country where they learnt it!

In any case I think the terrorists, particularly the one who bombed Twin Towers were not laymen but educated people.
For people like me it's rather impossible for me to seduce even my 'shadow' to walk in step with me day and night, I wonder as to what made those terrorists kill themselves and other innocent people? Certainly, it's not the thought of heaven as incorrectly alleged by commonace as they have enough pelf here for seeking pleasure on earth!
There is certainly something .mysterious' to all that is going on around us but we don't know. Everybody is just guessing on the basis of abstract foundations, abstract enemy and sketchy and classified reports.

[Virgil]

Taking flight lessons in the US hardly amounts to being educated in the US. Those are two different things.

[Nightshade]

A friendly mod note: Please reread the forum rules, and think before you post, thank you.

[blazeofglory]

More often than not I feel there is an air of fundamentalism in all religions. I personally do not feel belonging to any particular religion. Born into an orthodoxy Hindu Brahmanic family I was once a very devoted to God and all the deities mentioned in scriptures.

I really support the characters of all religions like Krishna, Buddha, Mohmed. What I am critical of the way fundamentalists try to distort religions.

Of course some episodes really touch me in every religions if not all.

But what really saddens me now is the way some fundamentallists trying indoctrinating the innocent into their modes of thinking.

[Cellar Door]

As agnostic, I do not feel tied to any particular religion, however in college I was a philosophy major and so have studied (academically, not spiritually; the distinction must be made) most religions of the world. I think it would be correct to say that as long as one's beliefs about the spiritual world are not physically hurting anyone, they must be accepted. In other words, people should do what it takes to make it through the day.

As a matter of funding and scholarships, I also managed to earn a college degree in psychology, so here is that spiel: People must feel connected to the world around them; no man is an island. Some choose to do this through religion, others through contact with nature. The route is not important, only that people manage to feel connected every day, otherwise psychological suffering (and possible illness) ensues.

[Bitterfly]

What I'd like to hear is how atheistic belief makes this world better, makes people better? Simply responding that eliminating religion will make people better only says that the absence of religion improves people - but does it? What can you offer by way of evidence, example, etc that dispensing with the belief in a spiritual world improves the lot of humanity here on this earth?
.

I'd say your answer is contained in what you wrote: believing that you'll be rewarded in another world may stop you from acting to improve humanity's lot on earth, no? :D More seriously, do you really have the impression that countries where the majority of inhabitants are believers behave in a better way on the world stage than agnostic/atheist ones? I think you'll easily find quite a few examples to disprove that. I think a religious mindcast was possibly a civilizing influence in the past, but is so no longer.

By the way, I'm a total atheist, because I simply cannot believe a God exists. I feel no hostility towards believers though (except when they themselves are agressive or try to impose what I consider to be intolerant ideas; I don't like those who believe that women are inferior, or who oppose abortion, for instance)- on the contrary they rather intrigue me, in the same way as most religions do.

[Redzeppelin]

I'd say your answer is contained in what you wrote: believing that you'll be rewarded in another world may stop you from acting to improve humanity's lot on earth, no? :D

Except that Christians know that that cop-out is not acceptable; the New Testament is rife with commands to take care of those around you - your family, your neighnors, your community. Eternal accountability reminds the Christian that just "sitting back and waiting" for the return of Christ is not OK.


More seriously, do you really have the impression that countries where the majority of inhabitants are believers behave in a better way on the world stage than agnostic/atheist ones? I think you'll easily find quite a few examples to disprove that. I think a religious mindcast was possibly a civilizing influence in the past, but is so no longer.

Once again, do you notice how your response does what most atheist responses do? That instead of answering my post you've merely turned it back around on Christians again, by asking a rhetorical question that points to the idea that I'm implying that a nation of believers "behaves in a better way." I've said no such thing. What I'm asking is for atheists to step up to the plate and - for a change - instead of harping on how religion has damaged the world, explain how atheism makes the world a better place. Christianity has done stupid, cruel things - yes: but it has also changed countless lives in positive ways.


By the way, I'm a total atheist, because I simply cannot believe a God exists. I feel no hostility towards believers though (except when they themselves are agressive or try to impose what I consider to be intolerant ideas; I don't like those who believe that women are inferior, or who oppose abortion, for instance)- on the contrary they rather intrigue me, in the same way as most religions do.

I agree with all you've said with one caveat: it is not always "imposing intolerant ideas" to tell people that God is real, that there are consequences for rejecting His offer of eternal life; remember - we believe this stuff is real, and we don't want to see anybody make choices that lead to eternal separation from God (something that no human on earth has yet to experience). Second, the Bible does not suggest that women are "inferior" to men or that they should be treated so. God may have a different idea about how we should relate to each other, but that relationship is not based in power (which is how all human relationships are perceived by).

[Bitterfly]

Except that Christians know that that cop-out is not acceptable; the New Testament is rife with commands to take care of those around you - your family, your neighnors, your community. Eternal accountability reminds the Christian that just "sitting back and waiting" for the return of Christ is not OK.
Agreed, and that's why the true Christians (or other believers, for that matter: one of the most charitable, tolerant people I met was a very devout Muslim woman) I know are exceedingly good people, full of good intentions (even if these can pave the way to hell, if I remember well :D). Maybe the (my?) problem is that there are not enough true believers? As you say, they should have "eternal accountability" in mind, but being only human, they don't always act that way.
So I wonder whether it isn't because the "rules" that believers should follow create so many high expectations that we're necessarily disappointed when they don't follow them.


Once again, do you notice how your response does what most atheist responses do? That instead of answering my post you've merely turned it back around on Christians again, by asking a rhetorical question that points to the idea that I'm implying that a nation of believers "behaves in a better way." I've said no such thing. What I'm asking is for atheists to step up to the plate and - for a change - instead of harping on how religion has damaged the world, explain how atheism makes the world a better place. Christianity has done stupid, cruel things - yes: but it has also changed countless lives in positive ways.

OK, sorry if my argumentation isn't rigorous enough, it's often the case!:lol:
I suppose what I meant was that atheists seem, in general, to be more tolerant of differences. That when you have a set of rules and interdictions to obey, you're going to be less open-minded. And I must confess that, to my mind, atheism goes with education: religion, nowadays, often seems to thrive in uneducated (poor) countries or milieux. And education, once again for me, encourages open-mindedness, which in turn seems to be the one thing to make the world a better place.
I don't think, however, that religion has damaged the world. If you reread my previous post, you'll see I admitted it probably had a civilizing influence - at a time when secular laws were perhaps not strong enough to protect the weakest (especially). Nowadays, in most Western countries at least, I don't see the need for religion.


I agree with all you've said with one caveat: it is not always "imposing intolerant ideas" to tell people that God is real, that there are consequences for rejecting His offer of eternal life; remember - we believe this stuff is real, and we don't want to see anybody make choices that lead to eternal separation from God (something that no human on earth has yet to experience). Second, the Bible does not suggest that women are "inferior" to men or that they should be treated so. God may have a different idea about how we should relate to each other, but that relationship is not based in power (which is how all human relationships are perceived by).

I have no problem with your first idea, and can understand wanting to convince people (I do the same thing :D). Then again, there are ways and ways of convincing people: nowadays, Christiansdo it pacifically enough, but that wasn't always the case. As for your second point, I certainly don't know the Bible well enough to argue with you convincingly but what I read in it does allows me to agree with you (up to a point: if women have to "submit" to their husbands, it does sort of imply they're inferior, no?).This said, too many people have used the Bible to defend sexist ideas... all those debates about the souls of women, or her association with the devil...

[absurda]

This discussion is endless. I don't know if I'm just shallow, but I really don't think that these labels matter. I'm not even sure if I am an agnostic! If your beliefs make you feel better, then I think you should stick to them, but remember that what is good for you is not necessarily good for others. However, most religions say that you should spread "God's word". That is the only aspect of religions that really bother me. Is it just a coincidence that the more people become religious, more money the Church gets? Let me be free to believe what I want, and spend my money as I wish!

[Pendragon]

This discussion is endless. I don't know if I'm just shallow, but I really don't think that these labels matter. I'm not even sure if I am an agnostic! If your beliefs make you feel better, then I think you should stick to them, but remember that what is good for you is not necessarily good for others. However, most religions say that you should spread "God's word". That is the only aspect of religions that really bother me. Is it just a coincidence that the more people become religious, more money the Church gets? Let me be free to believe what I want, and spend my money as I wish!Ther is a vast difference between "spreading God's Word" and trying to force it upon people. A True Christian shares his beliefs and allows others to make their own decision.

Everyone on this forum knows I disagree with homosexuality, yet I have dear friends who are gay. I do not shun them or daily shout "You are headed for hell!" Spread the Word doesn't mean to force people to do anything. If God is dealing with them to change, they will somehow!

God Bless

Pen

[mazHur]

I disagree with homosexuality, yet I have dear friends who are gay. I do not shun them or daily shout "You are headed for hell!"


Pen

isn't it bad company? to have rapport with,say. gays?

[mazHur]

This discussion is endless. I don't know if I'm just shallow, but I really don't think that these labels matter. I'm not even sure if I am an agnostic! If your beliefs make you feel better, then I think you should stick to them, but remember that what is good for you is not necessarily good for others. However, most religions say that you should spread "God's word". That is the only aspect of religions that really bother me. Is it just a coincidence that the more people become religious, more money the Church gets? Let me be free to believe what I want, and spend my money as I wish!

I think spreading God's word, not necessarily the Bible, is common to almost all religions. As for Christianity there have been missionaries since centuries and they greatly helped convert savage people into good humans, the same goes right for Islam and other religions. But, I don't think there is any compulsion on you to 'pay money' to the church,,,,otherwise there is no harm in donating a dime if you liked!:)

[Redzeppelin]

As you say, they should have "eternal accountability" in mind, but being only human, they don't always act that way.

Sad, but true - but whether we act like it or not, we will be held accountable, and according to the Bible, we will be held even more accountable than many others because we knew better. Kind of like the fact that cops who commit crimes are given stiffer penalties - because they knew the law and swore to uphold it.


So I wonder whether it isn't because the "rules" that believers should follow create so many high expectations that we're necessarily disappointed when they don't follow them.

Christianity isn't about following "rules" - it's about a relationship with the God who created the universe - a God who desires to be in relationship with His creatures, and a God who values us so much that He sacrificed Himself (in the form of Jesus Christ) to pay the penalty of sin that we could not have escaped on our own. Once a person knows Christ, obeying the "rules" becomes a pleasure - not a chore.




I suppose what I meant was that atheists seem, in general, to be more tolerant of differences.

Except those concerning religion - check out the vitriol from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al.




That when you have a set of rules and interdictions to obey, you're going to be less open-minded.

Except when it comes to religion and belief in God - then we're told that we're mentally unsound (cf. Freud's assessment of religion).

Atheists like to speak of the moral laws of God as if they are merely random restrictions, the only purpose of which is to cut down on our fun here on earth. This is patently wrong and shows a serious ignorance of human nature and the consequences of exercising our freedoms in whatever way we wish. If you think about it, what kind of world would we have if we honored the Golden Rule and if we actually kept the 10 commandments? Seriously, how can observing those rules make things worse (except that we don't get to indulge our lower natures as freely as we'd like)? How has sleeping with whomever we wish, lying, stealing, cursing, coveting that which isn't ours, etc helped us become better, happier people?

Being moral doesn't make you "narrow minded" anymore than not wanting to use drugs, booze or cigarettes makes you an ascetic.



And I must confess that, to my mind, atheism goes with education: religion, nowadays, often seems to thrive in uneducated (poor) countries or milieux. And education, once again for me, encourages open-mindedness, which in turn seems to be the one thing to make the world a better place.

Another stereotype. There are plenty of educated people who believe. Education is often a catalyst for people choosing (notice I said choosing) atheism because the theories that abound to explain our existence in the absence of God seem to make more sense to us (largely because we came up with them, and in the absence of God, what choice do we have in terms of explaining how we got here?). This is leftover stuff from the Enlightenment - science managed to explain some things that had erroneously been attributed to God, so we decided to push the argument all the way and decide that we've figured the universe out, and God isn't in it - because if He did exist, certainly we'd have seen Him [smart as we are] or He'd have bothered to prove His existence to us. Since He won't , He doesn't exist.




I don't think, however, that religion has damaged the world. If you reread my previous post, you'll see I admitted it probably had a civilizing influence - at a time when secular laws were perhaps not strong enough to protect the weakest (especially). Nowadays, in most Western countries at least, I don't see the need for religion.


Some of the most heinous atrocities in the world have been committed by ostensibly atheistic governments. The numbers are staggering. Communist Russia comes to mind as the most obvious example.



As for your second point, I certainly don't know the Bible well enough to argue with you convincingly but what I read in it does allows me to agree with you (up to a point: if women have to "submit" to their husbands, it does sort of imply they're inferior, no?).This said, too many people have used the Bible to defend sexist ideas... all those debates about the souls of women, or her association with the devil...

Ephesians chapter 5 says this:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Paul tells husbands and wives to submit to each other - but their submission is different. Wives are commanded to defer to their husbands' authority; our feminist culture recoils at that, but look at what the man is asked to do: he is asked to love his wife sacrificially, as Christ did. Christ gave his life for the church - we men are asked to do the same. Think about that: wives are commanded to defer to our authority (but only if we are loving them sacrificially); we are commanded to love sacrificially - do you know what that means? That means we are to love with no thought to what we get in return. That is no easier for a man than submitting to a man's authority is for a woman. We have more responsibility, but we're asked to pay the higher price. My principal makes more money and has more power than me, but he also pays a heavier price than I do when something goes wrong at my school. I may envy his power, but I don't want to deal with his responsibilities. Women may desire the authority that God gave men, but do they want to pay the same price?

Example: women pushed to be allowed to enter the combat portion of the military; well, they got their wish - which now means that if the draft ever gets reinstated, they'll have no legitimate argument to get excused from being drafted. Most of my female students seem less than excited with having this "privilege" of being equal with the boys. The Bible may give more authority to men, but this doesn't make us better or more important; it primarily means more gets asked of us in terms of the relationship.

[Jozanny]

As I created this thread to discuss the rise of secular atheism and its significance, if any, in the West, I am going to reorient this discussion along those lines, and refuse to get drawn into a never ending head game with forum believers in theism, and in fact received an interesting ethical issue in my Nightline email, which I will quote in part here:


Heartwrenching Debate

On one side are evangelical Christian missionaries campaigning against infanticide they claim is still widely in practice among some ancient tribes of Brazil. On the other side is the Brazilian government, which claims that the missionaries are exaggerating how many babies are killed in the name of religious conversion, and by doing so, assisting in the demise of the nation's ancient civilizations. ABC News correspondent Dan Harris takes a hard look at a delicate debate.

For those of you who want to keep making the case for God and your particular set of beliefs and faiths, you have plenty of other threads to do that in. Thank you for respecting the fact that I am after something else here and want to continue pursuing my motifs for future article ideas.

[Pendragon]

isn't it bad company? to have rapport with,say. gays?Why? Are they subhuman or something? If you feel they are wrong you can't help them by pretending they don't exist or by avoiding them. Practicing their sin would be wrong for one who feels it wrong and that isn't going to happen. But I can befriend them and will.

[absurda]

I have been to a Christian Church this month, and the minister said in other words: People who haven't found Christ will go to hell. Imagine the people you love in hell. If that's not what you want, then you have to do something.
Now, if I was a Christian who believed all the minister said, I would be desperatly trying to convince every family member and every friend to become Christian too!

[Bitterfly]

Sad, but true - but whether we act like it or not, we will be held accountable, and according to the Bible, we will be held even more accountable than many others because we knew better. Kind of like the fact that cops who commit crimes are given stiffer penalties - because they knew the law and swore to uphold it.

Are you sure about that? I do remember being told all infidels would go to hell, whether they had been good or not during their lifetimes. Maybe the Church is more tolerant now...
What I meant by the rules were things like the Ten Commandments. Seeing as most of them are now inscribed in "profane" law, I don't see why we need an set of religious rules to abide by - I don't find them necessary.


Except those concerning religion - check out the vitriol from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al.

A few atheists react like that, and probably because they're in a religious country. I know I would get rather het up if religion was allowed a greater say than science in my country. That said, I don't meet many vitriolic atheists... Those you have cited are exceptions more than rules, no?



Except when it comes to religion and belief in God - then we're told that we're mentally unsound (cf. Freud's assessment of religion).

I think you'd need to nuance that.


Atheists like to speak of the moral laws of God as if they are merely random restrictions, the only purpose of which is to cut down on our fun here on earth. This is patently wrong and shows a serious ignorance of human nature and the consequences of exercising our freedoms in whatever way we wish. If you think about it, what kind of world would we have if we honored the Golden Rule and if we actually kept the 10 commandments? Seriously, how can observing those rules make things worse (except that we don't get to indulge our lower natures as freely as we'd like)? How has sleeping with whomever we wish, lying, stealing, cursing, coveting that which isn't ours, etc helped us become better, happier people?
Being moral doesn't make you "narrow minded" anymore than not wanting to use drugs, booze or cigarettes makes you an ascetic.

I'm not sure all atheists think that way: Judeo-Christian laws seem to be at the foundation of our laws, and I think they were designed first to protect people, not to restrict their freedom. But, as I said above, are they really necessary now? Especially as they aren't incredibly subtle, are they? I'd say condemnation of adulterous women was perhaps a fine thing long ago (and then, I'm not even sure), but now we've reached a clearer understanding about causes of adultery, and can forgive it more easily, no?

And you mustn't forget atheists can have ethics and morals: I, for one, don't think murder is condonable. But I do think you're an ascetic if you don't use drugs, booze or fags! :D


Another stereotype. There are plenty of educated people who believe. Education is often a catalyst for people choosing (notice I said choosing) atheism because the theories that abound to explain our existence in the absence of God seem to make more sense to us (largely because we came up with them, and in the absence of God, what choice do we have in terms of explaining how we got here?). This is leftover stuff from the Enlightenment - science managed to explain some things that had erroneously been attributed to God, so we decided to push the argument all the way and decide that we've figured the universe out, and God isn't in it - because if He did exist, certainly we'd have seen Him [smart as we are] or He'd have bothered to prove His existence to us. Since He won't , He doesn't exist.

It might be a stereotype, but it often checks out: look at the most underdeveloped countries in the world, and you'll find that they're often the most religious.
And why consider atheism as the result of a choice? In my personal experience, it hasn't been that: I didn't choose not to believe in God, I just can't - and haven't been able to since the age of ten or thereabouts. Believing in God requires a leap of faith which I wasn't able to make. Afterwards, thinking about things made me certain a God could not exist, and what I read seemed to corroborate that.


Some of the most heinous atrocities in the world have been committed by ostensibly atheistic governments. The numbers are staggering. Communist Russia comes to mind as the most obvious example.

Communism is an ideology that needs to be separated from atheism. The nazis and fascists - as well as the collaborationist regime in France - put priests in concentration camps, yet I hear nobody putting their crimes on the account of atheism.


Women may desire the authority that God gave men, but do they want to pay the same price?

Erm... yes? Because having responsibilities means being an adult? And not a perpetual minor? Your argument reminds me of how Victorians (among others) considered women: as charming little things to be protected for their own good - if they could not be give civic responsibilities, it was to spare their great emotiveness. :)


Example: women pushed to be allowed to enter the combat portion of the military; well, they got their wish - which now means that if the draft ever gets reinstated, they'll have no legitimate argument to get excused from being drafted. Most of my female students seem less than excited with having this "privilege" of being equal with the boys. The Bible may give more authority to men, but this doesn't make us better or more important; it primarily means more gets asked of us in terms of the relationship.

So those who have greater authority are not more important? Are you sure of yourself there?? Isn't your principal "more important" than you are?
As or women not being happy about drafted, I don't consider that to be relevant: lots of men haven't felt very enthusiastic, in history and nowadays, about military service. If women want to be considered equal, they need to have equal duties (and rights, of course).

[Cellar Door]

Quote:
Heartwrenching Debate

On one side are evangelical Christian missionaries campaigning against infanticide they claim is still widely in practice among some ancient tribes of Brazil. On the other side is the Brazilian government, which claims that the missionaries are exaggerating how many babies are killed in the name of religious conversion, and by doing so, assisting in the demise of the nation's ancient civilizations. ABC News correspondent Dan Harris takes a hard look at a delicate debate.

Jozanny, I am interested in this, but have some questions: why is infanticide occurring within the context of these civilizations? The quote is unclear (at least to me) what it has to do with religious conversion. If you would please expand or send me a link where I could read the article, I would like to discuss this rather than a tedious, never-ending diatribe on why one should/should not believe in anything.

[Redzeppelin]

As I created this thread to discuss the rise of secular atheism and its significance, if any, in the West, I am going to reorient this discussion along those lines, and refuse to get drawn into a never ending head game with forum believers in theism, and in fact received an interesting ethical issue in my Nightline email, which I will quote in part here:

For those of you who want to keep making the case for God and your particular set of beliefs and faiths, you have plenty of other threads to do that in. Thank you for respecting the fact that I am after something else here and want to continue pursuing my motifs for future article ideas.[/B]

The last time I checked the forum guidelines, I don't recall reading anywhere that thread initiators could dictate the contents of the thread they started. Any participant is free to redirect the discussion, but I don't recall that the thread initiator has the authority to direct participants to post elsewhere. Let me know if I skipped over that in my reading by quoting the forum rules that support your above quoted statements.

I myself did not show up here to defend God - I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system. I'm still waiting for it.


Are you sure about that? I do remember being told all infidels would go to hell, whether they had been good or not during their lifetimes. Maybe the Church is more tolerant now...
What I meant by the rules were things like the Ten Commandments. Seeing as most of them are now inscribed in "profane" law, I don't see why we need an set of religious rules to abide by - I don't find them necessary.

Hell is a choosen destination - not an assigned destination.

I don't know what "religious" rules are. God did not give us "religious rules" - He left us guidelines by which to lead happier, more fulfilling lives.



A few atheists react like that, and probably because they're in a religious country. I know I would get rather het up if religion was allowed a greater say than science in my country. That said, I don't meet many vitriolic atheists... Those you have cited are exceptions more than rules, no?

I find the number of atheists who can control themselves and have a reasoned discussion (like yourself) without being condescending and/or insulting in this forum to be in the minority.


I think you'd need to nuance that.

In subtle cases, a belief in God is likened to a childish belief in things like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy (see above comment); in more extreme cases, belief in God is attributed to ignorance; finally, some people (Freud, Dawkins) equate such belief with mental illness.




I'm not sure all atheists think that way: Judeo-Christian laws seem to be at the foundation of our laws, and I think they were designed first to protect people, not to restrict their freedom. But, as I said above, are they really necessary now? Especially as they aren't incredibly subtle, are they? I'd say condemnation of adulterous women was perhaps a fine thing long ago (and then, I'm not even sure), but now we've reached a clearer understanding about causes of adultery, and can forgive it more easily, no?

How can prohibitions against murder, stealing and adultery not be "necessary"?

And, a standard atheist tactic in condeming Bible morality is to pull stuff from the Old Testament. If you'll recall, Jesus did not advocate the application of Mosaic Law when the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought before him (cf. John, ch. 8). The Jewish cultural laws from Leviticus are not currently binding. OT law must be filtered through the NT revision of law and grace.


And you mustn't forget atheists can have ethics and morals: I, for one, don't think murder is condonable. But I do think you're an ascetic if you don't use drugs, booze or fags! :D

Of course atheists can have ethics and morals - but upon what are they based that you could point to as being solid and not prone to alteration?




It might be a stereotype, but it often checks out: look at the most underdeveloped countries in the world, and you'll find that they're often the most religious.

Like I said above...

Do you know why this is so? One reason is this: people who live in underdeveloped countries never lose touch with their needs; their lives are at the mercy of much more than those of us who can be relatively "self-sufficient" in developed countries. People who know their helplessness and their weakness tend to see their need for God much more clearly than those of us who live in relative comfort, with plenty of money and resources to shield us from hunger, fear, exposure, etc. It may be more that than education level that drives uneducated people in 3rd world countries to embrace religion. We who have everything have a hard time seeing our need for God; but - wait until that chronic, fatal disease strikes, or we lose our job - no matter how much money and education we have, we often - when faced with our mortality and weaknesses, turn to God.


And why consider atheism as the result of a choice? In my personal experience, it hasn't been that: I didn't choose not to believe in God, I just can't - and haven't been able to since the age of ten or thereabouts. Believing in God requires a leap of faith which I wasn't able to make. Afterwards, thinking about things made me certain a God could not exist, and what I read seemed to corroborate that.

If you look at the astronomical odds that exist for abiogenesis (roughtly 10 to the 33,000th power to one odds) to have occurred, you would see that believing in that requires just as much faith as believing in God.




Communism is an ideology that needs to be separated from atheism. The nazis and fascists - as well as the collaborationist regime in France - put priests in concentration camps, yet I hear nobody putting their crimes on the account of atheism.

But Communism is different from fascism - because it was the attempt to create a government that was fully secular in nature - a government that prohibited religious teaching and belief.




Erm... yes? Because having responsibilities means being an adult? And not a perpetual minor? Your argument reminds me of how Victorians (among others) considered women: as charming little things to be protected for their own good - if they could not be give civic responsibilities, it was to spare their great emotiveness. :)


You are creating a straw man in order to make me appear a chauvanist and I don't like it; I said nothing of the sort. Nothing I said could be construed to say that women are incapable of being responsible beings; I made the point that the leadership given to the male comes with a responsibility that is not given to the female. That doesn't mean she doesn't have equally important responsibilities. I'm suggesting that the authority given to the male comes with a serious price tag. It's not just free power to wield as we will.


So those who have greater authority are not more important? Are you sure of yourself there?? Isn't your principal "more important" than you are?

Straw man #2 - I did not say anything like that. I said that the authority given males comes with a responsibility that balances out that "power."

My principal is equally important as I in the education of children: I cannot do my job without him doing his, and he cannot do his without me doing mine.


As or women not being happy about drafted, I don't consider that to be relevant: lots of men haven't felt very enthusiastic, in history and nowadays, about military service. If women want to be considered equal, they need to have equal duties (and rights, of course).

It's relevant because it illustrates the flipside of demanding equality: once you get the same power, you get asked to pay the same price. Think about some of the young ladies you know around the 18-26 age - perhaps some you are related to: how do you think they would feel being drafted and sent to Iraq or Afganistan? How would you feel watching that?

The point I'm trying to make is that our sensitivity to making sure that men and women are "equal" in all ways creates situations that I find to be less than desireable - and I'd love to hear how many women really like the idea of being eligible for the draft - especially women who wish to talk about how they can do everything just as good as a man (but would laugh at a man saying the same thing to them).

[Jozanny]

Cellar,

I am going to ask the moderators to close the thread and see if they would be willing to grant my request. My *white whale* was something else here, and not really an argument about belief in a deity or lack thereof--and the Christians quoting the NT are offending me. They have 20 other threads to quote Paul's letters, but hey, they have the perfect right to drown out everyone else and other thought processes. I am better off going to a secular atheist forum. Once *they* turn the U.S. into a theocracy they will have destroyed my country, and I am just a disabled woman they are busy trying to kill through the system anyway. They're winning.

[Pendragon]

Cellar,

I am going to ask the moderators to close the thread and see if they would be willing to grant my request. My *white whale* was something else here, and not really an argument about belief in a deity or lack thereof--and the Christians quoting the NT are offending me. They have 20 other threads to quote Paul's letters, but hey, they have the perfect right to drown out everyone else and other thought processes. I am better off going to a secular atheist forum. Once *they* turn the U.S. into a theocracy they will have destroyed my country, and I am just a disabled woman they are busy trying to kill through the system anyway. They're winning.And if you lock your thread, it will mean that people have won over you again. Make your points, but expect arguments. And as long as you are not being abused verbally, you will show strength even in your disability. I am a disabled Minister, so I sympathize.

Others may see quotations from especially Hitchens, as frontal attacks.

God Bless

Pen.

[Bitterfly]

Jozanny, pretty please about using the corner? Nobody was actually there, I think, when we got into the argument; plus redzeppelin is hardly a bible-thumpin' pagan-smasher.:D

I think atheism isn't a belief system; why: because all atheists seem to have elaborated their own value system. It's not because we all don't believe in God that we're all going to believe in the same values! I'm always a little surprised when all atheists are lumped together. But it's not because I don't believe in God that I don't have a value system. As you seem to be interested :p I'll explain it to you: it's probably not very different from yours (as in, i don't approve of murder, for instance), and it was undoubtedly influenced by the Judeo-Christian education I received. But it's also based on books that I've read, both fictional and philosophical; on my environment and what happened to me in my life; and on the questions I ask myself amost unceasingly. My value system has a few bases that don't change, but it evolves as I grow older and (hopefully!) in maturity?

About what you said on the subject of hell, I read yesterday, when researching religious joy,that interpretations of the Beatitudes seemed to say that faith didn't count as much as "good behaviour" to get into heaven, so perhaps you're right. i suppose there are different interpretations, no?


I don't know what "religious" rules are. God did not give us "religious rules" - He left us guidelines by which to lead happier, more fulfilling lives.

Ok, what about thou shalt no worship false idols. Isn't that a rule? Aren't the commandments rules?



In subtle cases, a belief in God is likened to a childish belief in things like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy (see above comment); in more extreme cases, belief in God is attributed to ignorance; finally, some people (Freud, Dawkins) equate such belief with mental illness.

Please could you refer me to the passage where Freud says that. I'm not familiar with his writings on religion (seriously). Furthermore, people who liken belief in a God to belief in the tooth fairy are probably carrying logical reasoning one step too far (as in, if you can believe in one thing that's irrational, why not believe in all the others). I don't happen to agree with them, having some good Christian friends whom I consider as intelligent and sophisticated.


How can prohibitions against murder, stealing and adultery not be "necessary"?

I knew I wasn't clear when I wrote that!! :p
I meant that religious injunctions not to murder etc didn't seem necessary anymore because we have "profane" laws which uphold the same ideas.


And, a standard atheist tactic in condeming Bible morality is to pull stuff from the Old Testament. If you'll recall, Jesus did not advocate the application of Mosaic Law when the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought before him (cf. John, ch. 8). The Jewish cultural laws from Leviticus are not currently binding. OT law must be filtered through the NT revision of law and grace.

True, true, true. But why do we pull stuff from the OT? Because it's there, for one thing!! And as far as I know, Biblical interpretation hasn't thrown it out with the dishwater. You'll often hear Christians quoting from it themselves, when defending (often rather intolerant) ideas. I know Jesus was open-minded; I think he was probably one of the first advocates for women.



Of course atheists can have ethics and morals - but upon what are they based that you could point to as being solid and not prone to alteration?

See above. And I think it's rather a good thing that our ideas (or rather my ideas, I can't speak for all atheists) are "prone to alteration": only fools do not change, aye? :)


Do you know why this is so? One reason is this: people who live in underdeveloped countries never lose touch with their needs; their lives are at the mercy of much more than those of us who can be relatively "self-sufficient" in developed countries. People who know their helplessness and their weakness tend to see their need for God much more clearly than those of us who live in relative comfort, with plenty of money and resources to shield us from hunger, fear, exposure, etc. It may be more that than education level that drives uneducated people in 3rd world countries to embrace religion. We who have everything have a hard time seeing our need for God; but - wait until that chronic, fatal disease strikes, or we lose our job - no matter how much money and education we have, we often - when faced with our mortality and weaknesses, turn to God.

Agreed - but it does make religion seem somewhat of a crutch. If you believe in God only because you're vulnerable and need to feel that there is order in this world, even if it's invisible to you...well...that sounds like myth-making to me (inventing reasons for phenomena you don't understand).


If you look at the astronomical odds that exist for abiogenesis (roughtly 10 to the 33,000th power to one odds) to have occurred, you would see that believing in that requires just as much faith as believing in God.

Thanks, I learnt a new word! :thumbs_up
This said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved - it's therefore easier to believe like someone like me that something that will never be proved (even if I am aware that science evolves, and often ends up calling into question theories that are considered foolproof).



But Communism is different from fascism - because it was the attempt to create a government that was fully secular in nature - a government that prohibited religious teaching and belief.

Ah, but didn't the communists try to wipe out ALL ideas that differed from their own ideology? I think religion was just one of the things they tried to snuff out. My point is that their crimes are not to be put on the account of atheism, but simply of communist ideas taken to an extreme.


You are creating a straw man in order to make me appear a chauvanist and I don't like it; I said nothing of the sort. Nothing I said could be construed to say that women are incapable of being responsible beings; I made the point that the leadership given to the male comes with a responsibility that is not given to the female. That doesn't mean she doesn't have equally important responsibilities. I'm suggesting that the authority given to the male comes with a serious price tag. It's not just free power to wield as we will.

I am happy that you dont like being pinpointed as a male chauvinist!! :D
What I still disagree with you about is that I don't see why you defend males' right to wield power/authority. Even if it comes with a price. Even if it's not to be used freely. Women have as much right to authority as them, and that's where I find the Bible sexist (by the way, this reminds me of the way women authors were seen: as unnatural or somehow deviant, because wielding authority!).


It's relevant because it illustrates the flipside of demanding equality: once you get the same power, you get asked to pay the same price. Think about some of the young ladies you know around the 18-26 age - perhaps some you are related to: how do you think they would feel being drafted and sent to Iraq or Afganistan? How would you feel watching that?

Hey, I'm one of them!:banana:And I've always defended female draft. This doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the fact that the fmale body is more vulnerable than the male's; but I just think they ought to be given suitable tasks.

[togre]

JThis said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved

Really? Please define what it means for something to be proved scientifically and then please supply evidence that abiogenesis has indeed met these standard levels of proof.

[Pendragon]

Really? Please define what it means for something to be proved scientifically and then please supply evidence that abiogenesis has indeed met these standard levels of proof.Second the motion!

[Bitterfly]

I must bow to popular demand. :p
As I said, I only learnt this word today, and you made me go and read about it! As it's late and I'm a little tired, and have no scientific training anyway, I will not venture to explain it to you myself, but will refer you to the (apparently trustworthy) article in Wikipedia on the subject (which I didn't totally understand, for that matter!!)

Now, on to define what "it means for something to be scientifically proved"... I don't know, I seem to trust clever people who spend their lives studying molecules or proteins more than I trust the people who wrote the Bible - they were possibly clever, but who knows, and especially they lived at a time when scientific progress was still in its first stages. I'm aware that science progresses by trial and error, and that we can presume that discovereries that are made nowadays may be one day revealed to be slightly erroneous - but I still trust scientists, and do not consider myself enough of an expert on the subject to cast doubt on what they assert.

[togre]

Thank you for your candor.

I only wish that those in who you trust were worthy of the confidence/faith you have in them.

[NikolaiI]

Jozanny, I hope you will forgive me for joining in even though it's not what you originally wanted, but I see an opportunity to share some hopefully useful ideas about God. First of all, Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion. Devotees of Krishna or Vaishnavas are also monotheistic. Lord Jesus Christ said in the Bible that to love God fully and wholly is the most important commandment. This being said, we may pass over this comment sometimes, but it is really one that would require more than a lifetime to understand. What is a life that is meant to be in worship of God? Vaishnavism comes in here so mercifully and explains: it is to meditate always on God.

Now having said this, I wish you to know I am not trying to speak for all theists. Not all have the same idea of God. However I realize that nothing I've said will probably convince any atheist so far, so I'd just like to say one thing about God. Many people have so many different ideas about God. First of all, it is not irrational to believe in God. God is a higher power, a higher force; even nature is a higher force than us! Some atheists might think there is no higher force than themselves, or than humanity, but I must disagree with this. So God is hidden from us. But we know that before we get to God, we get to reality-- since God is the source of reality.

It is worldwide and has been known since the dawn of philosophy that there are different levels of understanding. God for some is impersonal, for others is personal. God is actually identical to truth, and in precisely the same way, everyone sees Him through their own filters. God is the source of reality, the source of all that exists. Belief in the Absolute is not based on irrationality or need, although we do, in fact, need God in our lives...

Buddhist masters were not wrong. Vaishnava acaryas were not wrong. Christian saints and mystics and philosophers were not all wrong. We are infinitesimal in comparison to God. It's worldwide and has been known for millenia that there are different levels of understanding. No one has a monopoly on truth, yet truth exists in some parts in every path. Free inquiry is necessary for freedom. An environment which, if not nurturing is at least accepting of all perspectives, is absolutely necessary for any kind of sanity in community. Atheists as well as theists must be equally welcome. What can I say simply but that I was atheist, at one time, and now I am theist? They are the same, that is; I did not change my standards to become a theist, I simply realized that I was part of this matrix, this reality, playing my role and following the rules; an infinitesmial part of the Supreme Whole. First I learned the different approaches and ontologies and methodoliges of different religions and philosophies. Interested, I studied Buddhism. There are different levels of understanding. Buddha or God is a relative term; we exist as infinitesmial, fragmental parts and parcels of the Whole. It's said in scriptures, Buddha is identical to the cosmos, and that Buddha is identical to the realm of reality, and yet some Buddhists are perfectly well-allowed to think that Buddha doesn't exist or be atheist. In truth Buddha is teacher, similar to guru; one and many at the same time.

In the different levels of understanding; you have on one end ignorance, and at the other liberation. Buddha is the source of the dharma, or teachings. Jesus Christ said to live in love of God, that that is most important. If Christ is accepted as God, then this is the highest goal of life, the reason for living and the purpose of life. Lord Caitanya lived as a perfect example of this life, and taught also that the purpose of life was self-realization, and awakening this love of God. The highest state of any is love of God.

Now, Lord Caitanya taught that God had attributes; actually, gunanirguna, all auspicious qualities; as Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya before him also taught. I am not forcing this on anyone, however. I believe that I should not try to change people from their own course. But whether God has qualities or not, many people believe Him to be the source of reality, whether named or not, it is the spiritual source and force. Our existence is rooted in the source, our existence is rooted in reality. Reality is invisible, is it not? Yet this is our source. And it's said or understood that one of God's forms is the universe, or is reality. So I do not believe in Hell other than extreme suffering, everything I believe in is what I've learned or reasoned out to be true.

[blazeofglory]

Questions why we are born and why we will die have no menaings at all.

[RichardHresko]

One of the basic problems in the attempt at a dialogue between non-believers and believers is the issue of evidence. 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.

While I will not attempt to speak for Jozanny, it would be understandable for someone to be frustrated and irritated to hear chapter and verse quoted when it is perfectly clear to both parties that without the establishment of authority the quotes are mere words.

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

[togre]

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

Yet wouldn't the identifying of a "problem in one's own life", identifying a (presumably) positive solution and evaluating a belief system on how well it responds to such a test be expressions of a belief system rather than anything approaching objective examination of one?

I recognize how having "chapter and verse" quoted does not bolster a truth-claim if one doesn't accept the authority of the source of said quotes. Yet, as a Christian, I believe (and am convinced that the Bible teaches) that both the truth-claims and the source (the Bible) are self-authenticating--they have the inherant ability to convince people of their veracity (I can state that more strongly, but that would side-track us into the definition of "faith").

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

[billyjack]

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

nicely said. however, i dont think this is limited to just religious people. this faith you speak of is basically "knowing IT in your bones." once this knowledge is felt the means, ie the book, can be disgarded--being that the book served as the stairs to get you to the top, the goal. Needing to go back down the steps (quote scripture) to justify your being at the top is redundant. as if you need proof of how you reached the top

[Redzeppelin]

I think atheism isn't a belief system; why: because all atheists seem to have elaborated their own value system. It's not because we all don't believe in God that we're all going to believe in the same values! I'm always a little surprised when all atheists are lumped together. But it's not because I don't believe in God that I don't have a value system. As you seem to be interested :p I'll explain it to you: it's probably not very different from yours (as in, i don't approve of murder, for instance), and it was undoubtedly influenced by the Judeo-Christian education I received. But it's also based on books that I've read, both fictional and philosophical; on my environment and what happened to me in my life; and on the questions I ask myself amost unceasingly. My value system has a few bases that don't change, but it evolves as I grow older and (hopefully!) in maturity?

Atheism is not necessarily a unified system of belief (in that it has tenents that are universally acknowledged) but it is a system of belief in that it poses a configuration of the universe that - like Christianity - cannot ultimately be proven, if followed to its logical conclusion. In that way, atheism requires just as much subjective choice (and a certain degree of faith) as any religious system of belief.


About what you said on the subject of hell, I read yesterday, when researching religious joy,that interpretations of the Beatitudes seemed to say that faith didn't count as much as "good behaviour" to get into heaven, so perhaps you're right. i suppose there are different interpretations, no?

The relationship between faith and works is tricky: works cannot get you into heaven; that said, your behavior still counts. Most theologians would say that a person who has faith in Christ will want to behave in a way that is consistent with his/her beliefs. The works come from the faith - not necessarily vice versa (but not impossible, either).




Ok, what about thou shalt no worship false idols. Isn't that a rule? Aren't the commandments rules?

They are "commands" because God wishes to be clear that these behaviors are dangerous because they will take the believer away from Him (God), and to separate from God is to head towards spiritual stagnation, and death. You are free to ignore the rules, but they exist because we need to know what kinds of things are harmful to us.



Please could you refer me to the passage where Freud says that. I'm not familiar with his writings on religion (seriously). Furthermore, people who liken belief in a God to belief in the tooth fairy are probably carrying logical reasoning one step too far (as in, if you can believe in one thing that's irrational, why not believe in all the others). I don't happen to agree with them, having some good Christian friends whom I consider as intelligent and sophisticated.

Here's what Wiki says:
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) gave explanations of the genesis of religion in his various writings. In Totem and Taboo, he applied the idea of the Oedipus complex (involving unresolved sexual feelings of, for example, a son toward his mother and hostility toward his father) and postulated its emergence in the primordial stage of human development.

In Moses and Monotheism, Freud reconstructed biblical history in accordance with his general theory. His ideas were also developed in The Future of an Illusion. When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.

Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself.





I knew I wasn't clear when I wrote that!! :p
I meant that religious injunctions not to murder etc didn't seem necessary anymore because we have "profane" laws which uphold the same ideas.

But all law has as its basis morality - hence the significance of religious moral guidelines.



True, true, true. But why do we pull stuff from the OT? Because it's there, for one thing!! And as far as I know, Biblical interpretation hasn't thrown it out with the dishwater.

Right - but Christians understand that the NT revises the OT - Christ's substitutionary death eliminates the law's condemnation of us; the OT system of "earning" salvation was eliminated in favor of the salvation brought about by grace. OT laws are not voided if they deal with morality - but obeying them without a relationship with God will not save one.



You'll often hear Christians quoting from it themselves, when defending (often rather intolerant) ideas. I know Jesus was open-minded; I think he was probably one of the first advocates for women.

All of the Bible can be misquoted or quoted out of context. The Devil attempted to use scripture against Christ when he tempted him in the wilderness.

Jesus did not see gender - he saw souls.




See above. And I think it's rather a good thing that our ideas (or rather my ideas, I can't speak for all atheists) are "prone to alteration": only fools do not change, aye? :)

To an extent, change is good; but, some things ought not be alterable because of changing fads and whims. Moral law shoud be built of firmer stuff than simple majority agreement - because majorities can be wrong (cf. European/American attitudes towards Africans in the 17-19th centuries.




Agreed - but it does make religion seem somewhat of a crutch. If you believe in God only because you're vulnerable and need to feel that there is order in this world, even if it's invisible to you...well...that sounds like myth-making to me (inventing reasons for phenomena you don't understand).

"Crutches" are bad things if you don't need them; when you do need them, they are very valuable things. I didn't say you "only" believe in God because life is difficult; what I said was that many people whose lives are in danger or unstable find their need of God to be more obvious; those of us living comfortably and with plenty of money still have a need of God (perhaps a more serious one by very nature of our belief that we're taking care of ourselves just fine, thank you).



Thanks, I learnt a new word! :thumbs_up
This said, abiogenesis as you call it has been scientifically proved - it's therefore easier to believe like someone like me that something that will never be proved (even if I am aware that science evolves, and often ends up calling into question theories that are considered foolproof).


Abiogenesis (life from non-life) has not been "proved." That fact is the chief stumbling block to evolution's explanation of our origins.



Ah, but didn't the communists try to wipe out ALL ideas that differed from their own ideology? I think religion was just one of the things they tried to snuff out. My point is that their crimes are not to be put on the account of atheism, but simply of communist ideas taken to an extreme.

But regardless of what they tried to destroy, they still had as their foundation an atheistic world-view.



I am happy that you dont like being pinpointed as a male chauvinist!! :D
What I still disagree with you about is that I don't see why you defend males' right to wield power/authority. Even if it comes with a price. Even if it's not to be used freely. Women have as much right to authority as them, and that's where I find the Bible sexist (by the way, this reminds me of the way women authors were seen: as unnatural or somehow deviant, because wielding authority!).

The advocation of male authority was only within the marriage relationship. And, it goes without saying that the man had to wield his authority in a godly way (i.e. he had to be loving his wife sacrificially); any man who isn't loving his wife sacrificially has no right to demand his wife's submission. Women are entitled to whatever authority they wish to have - and you are not required to buy into the Bible's admonishment for women to submit to husbands and husbands to love sacrificially. BUT: if the designer of men and women suggested a certain arrangement, isn't He most qualified to know what arrangement works best for His creatures? We may not like the arrangement, but we did not create the human being from the ground up (pun intended); since the Bible makes it clear that God desires to give us good things, why would He create a random arrangement that had no basis on logic or reality? I assume that God's commands are not for His own good, but for our own good.



Hey, I'm one of them!:banana:And I've always defended female draft. This doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the fact that the fmale body is more vulnerable than the male's; but I just think they ought to be given suitable tasks.

But even that is sexist, isn't it? How do we define "suitable" tasks for female soldiers?


redzeppelin is hardly a bible-thumpin' pagan-smasher.:D

Thank you, by the way, for this. Very charitable of you. :)

[Jozanny]

While I will not attempt to speak for Jozanny, it would be understandable for someone to be frustrated and irritated to hear chapter and verse quoted when it is perfectly clear to both parties that without the establishment of authority the quotes are mere words.

A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.

What I really did not want to see happen was the snake chasing its tail in terms of the back and forth over belief and lack of belief. I was looking for other parameters, which I should have posted more clearly in the starter post, but did not.

Let me mention a few things which I do not think have been truly touched upon in the thread, or if they have, only in passing:

1. The partisan divide: This may be an increasingly troubling problem in the States, with its long tradition of post-Puritan religious plurality. An us versus them mindset may not serve us well, particular in light of the fact that the *center* in the US is increasingly drowned out through polarization. Evangelical Christianity and the secular majority butt heads as part of the culture wars which have rent the country since the 60's. In the 40's, it seems to me Americans were held together by a more civic unity which we might want to recapture, because we only have to look at the harm done in nations where intolerance between various faiths and sects leads to riots, loss of life, and civil instability.

2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

And that is two--my frustration actually stems from the business of submitting articles aspect, and for that I apologize. This forum is more playpen than the kind of writing support network I would give my right arm for. It may at times be a charming playpen, where yes, more studied betters may have assisted me in learning something--but few issues have given me decent topics to field queries so I can return to earning my living, and that is really what I'm after--bread and butter ideas.

However, by all means, let's return to the snake eating itself. There must be some reason the debate is like a perpetual motion machine.

[RichardHresko]

Yet wouldn't the identifying of a "problem in one's own life", identifying a (presumably) positive solution and evaluating a belief system on how well it responds to such a test be expressions of a belief system rather than anything approaching objective examination of one?

I recognize how having "chapter and verse" quoted does not bolster a truth-claim if one doesn't accept the authority of the source of said quotes. Yet, as a Christian, I believe (and am convinced that the Bible teaches) that both the truth-claims and the source (the Bible) are self-authenticating--they have the inherant ability to convince people of their veracity (I can state that more strongly, but that would side-track us into the definition of "faith").

I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.

These are good points.

As to the first, I think that there is no other way to objectively determine the efficacy of religious practice than by seeing whether it in fact aids the person cope with life. My position is that the question of something as fundamental as God's existence is unprovable (as is God's non-existence). Simply put, none of the major proofs for God's existence (ontological, cosmological, teleological, experiential) succeed in leading one inescably to the conclusion that God exists. The main argument for the non-existence of God (roughly speaking, that the world's condition precludes a Being deserving of worship) can also be shown to have weak points (known technically as 'theodicies') so the situation is a draw.

As to the second point, there are a number of problems. First and foremost is the issue of persuasion versus veracity. Needless to say these two things are not identical. An appeal to the convincing power of the Scriptures does nothing to show veracity of same.

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.


What I really did not want to see happen was the snake chasing its tail in terms of the back and forth over belief and lack of belief. I was looking for other parameters, which I should have posted more clearly in the starter post, but did not.

Let me mention a few things which I do not think have been truly touched upon in the thread, or if they have, only in passing:

1. The partisan divide: This may be an increasingly troubling problem in the States, with its long tradition of post-Puritan religious plurality. An us versus them mindset may not serve us well, particular in light of the fact that the *center* in the US is increasingly drowned out through polarization. Evangelical Christianity and the secular majority butt heads as part of the culture wars which have rent the country since the 60's. In the 40's, it seems to me Americans were held together by a more civic unity which we might want to recapture, because we only have to look at the harm done in nations where intolerance between various faiths and sects leads to riots, loss of life, and civil instability.

2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

And that is two--my frustration actually stems from the business of submitting articles aspect, and for that I apologize. This forum is more playpen than the kind of writing support network I would give my right arm for. It may at times be a charming playpen, where yes, more studied betters may have assisted me in learning something--but few issues have given me decent topics to field queries so I can return to earning my living, and that is really what I'm after--bread and butter ideas.

However, by all means, let's return to the snake eating itself. There must be some reason the debate is like a perpetual motion machine.

I will point out that the 1940s was also a time when Jim Crow still ruled the land, being discovered to be homosexual could land you in jail or worse, and being a Communist or even sympathetic to other political systems barred you from work. During the 1940s people were incarcerated for being Japanese during a war with Japan. Contraception was illegal for unmarried women in most states, as of course was reproductive freedom. In some ways the 40s were too quiet.

I will also point out that it was the churches that were among the leaders in the abolitionist movement, and religious leaders (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) who spearheaded the civil rights movement.

George Kaufmann remarked that satire was what closed on Saturday night.

[The Atheist]

I myself did not show up here to defend God - I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system. I'm still waiting for it.

You will be waiting a very long time. As tediously explained, it isn't a belief system.


2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.

I would have thought it's an un-American attribute - taking the mickey being more British. Maybe that's what's needed? The UK has a proud history of taking the mickey out of religion, from Chaucer to Father Ted, Brits have enjoyed poking fun at religion. It's only in the last few years, led by Canucks with South Park that Americans have gotten in on the act.

Plus, Maher's derision is well overdue after the bucket of vomit, lies and misquotes served up by Ben Stein.

I'm looking forward to it!

[Redzeppelin]

You will be waiting a very long time. As tediously explained, it isn't a belief system.


Are you engaging me, sir? Anytime I try to engage you, you simply tell me how ignorant I am and then disconnect from the dialogue. I will give you better:

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).

[Virgil]

Everything is a belief system.