The Atheist Corner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

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:

W a r n i n g

Further posts containing personal remarks will be considered off-topic and deleted without further notice.

Quote:

---

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, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or 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 them or the rules to you.

---

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

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).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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!

So the thread is back! ;)

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.

Quote:

---

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, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or 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 them or the rules to you.

---

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here.

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)

Quote:

---

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!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

"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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

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.

Quote:

---

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!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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.

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."

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??

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

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. ;))

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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:

Quote:

---

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/atheismm...istsChoose.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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....