The Atheist Corner

[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!" ). 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.

[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.