The Atheist Corner

[Jozanny]

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

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

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

[Jozanny]

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.

[Redzeppelin]

Red.

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

None of it has any relevance whatsoever.

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

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

Nothing more.

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

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

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

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

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

In what way is this relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read that sentence again yourself.

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

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

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

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

Not even slightly.

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

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

You claim that atheists must accept logic to be atheist.

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

You are just wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I generally seem to be in conversations with you.

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

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

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

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

Exceptions validate the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

Please re-read my posts.

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

I'm not going to repeat it all again.

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

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

Already done, re-read my posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A telling comment.

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

Best you have a chat with him forthwith.

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

Provide examples, please.

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

No.

I have provided actual evidence.

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

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

Realism.

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're correct. Faulty logic on my part.

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

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

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

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

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

A telling comment.

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

Best you have a chat with him forthwith.

I have been doing so all day.

Provide examples, please.

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

Realism.

*sigh*

Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

[The Atheist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small steps.

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

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

I'll let you have a go, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

Not in this thread.

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

Send me a link if you do.

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

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

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

Your final sentence is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you in that percentage?

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

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

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

Perhaps.

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

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

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

Send me a link if you do.

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

[The Atheist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you in that percentage?

Almost certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I do mean that.

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

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

I guess there are several main ones:

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

Is that what you're after?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That does it for me.

[Redzeppelin]

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

I guess there are several main ones:

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

Is that what you're after?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

No, it is not being patronising.

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

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

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

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

And here it is.

[Bitterfly]

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

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

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