Log in

View Full Version : Atheism


rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 12:12 PM
The belief in nothing?


I know this probably isn't really serious, so I'll move this thread if need be. But seriously how stupid can people be? In the past few days I've heard a few people make the claim that atheists believe in nothing. Really? Ignorance these days, especially in this age with technology is saddening.

djura
April 16th, 2009, 12:29 PM
well, define nothing pls.

I'm an atheist, but I believe that if I put my hand in a bucket of concentrated acid, my fingers probably wont touch the bottom. I don't believe that the bucket is bottomless though.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 16th, 2009, 12:38 PM
It depends on whether you have a lack of belief, or a belief in a lack. I have the latter.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 12:43 PM
well, define nothing pls.

Good point. However I don't think I could define the nothing that other people use.

I'm an atheist, but I believe that if I put my hand in a bucket of concentrated acid, my fingers probably wont touch the bottom. I don't believe that the bucket is bottomless though.

Right on.

It depends on whether you have a lack of belief, or a belief in a lack. I have the latter.

Belief in a lack?

Tsar Phalanxia
April 16th, 2009, 12:53 PM
Of a God.

djura
April 16th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Don't believe in god, or rather believe in no god - so that's what rzm probably meant.
As for morality and other stuff that was dragged around in other posts, and that's somehow related to god, the lack of belief should mean lesser values, but I believe the opposite. May as it be, the simple facts of life point to conclusion that after we die, nothing happens, no heaven, no hell, no st. peter, no angles, satan, little retard demons flying around making squeaky noises or other retarded shit. I wish all the stuff existed though, and all of our lifes made seance ones they ware over, but... shit... they don't.
And if somehow, I'm wrong, and if I ever meet the little prick, I'll kick his lily ass for all it's worth.

woody23
April 16th, 2009, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure how many of us there are here that do believe in God, but I am one of them. I don't try to prove it. I don't claim to KNOW there is a God. I don't really even see God as the standard believer does.

It's actually quite complicated to understand, even for me, the guy that believes it.

However, holding that belief in God, does not make me ignorant, nor stupid. My closest friend is Atheist and I certainly relate more with him (on an intellectual level, not physical) than I do with any religious person.

I, too, am disappointed by the masses that assume Atheist means a 'belief in nothing'. I especially like the bucket analogy. Well put.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 16th, 2009, 03:08 PM
It is because to a lot of these people we are vermin, we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. These believers are horrible vile creatures of which I will have nothing to do with.

Daruko
April 16th, 2009, 03:20 PM
It is because to a lot of these people we are vermin, we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. These believers are horrible vile creatures of which I will have nothing to do with.
Goofy: Gay=/=Ghey

Tsar Phalanxia
April 16th, 2009, 03:23 PM
BELLOW THE GHEYS

Daruko
April 16th, 2009, 03:26 PM
BELLOW THE GHEYS
:D

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 03:30 PM
I remember one journal that asked, "Describe your relationship with God." I just put "He never writes, he never calls. Frankly, I think the guy is dead."

djura
April 16th, 2009, 03:33 PM
or he plays his ps3 all day, and trolls some forum in the evening

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 03:38 PM
and trolls some forum in the evening

:icon_lol:

Aaryk
April 16th, 2009, 03:38 PM
Ugh. I'm beyond tired of the, "You're an atheist so you're a nihilist," argument. How many times have I been told that, "If there's no God, then we're all just masses of particles and chance and one particle doing something to another particle is just physics, so murder and rape and incest is all just the random shuffling of particles and it means nothing!" Seriously?

I think this says more about the person proffering the argument than it really says about their views of me, but it's still obnoxious.

One of my friends is adamant that the Mormon church is the only church and I'll never forget the day I met him. He saw me reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris and he asked about it. I told him I'm an atheist and the first thing he said was, "So what...you just do whatever you want?" I said, "Yes in as much as I'm not accountable to anyone but myself; I make my own rules/commandments." He asked, "So, you just do drugs all the time and drink every night and don't care about anything?"

I'm not sure where I lost him there, but as I got to know him I found out that he is a man of incredibly weak character and he himself does drugs when he can and drinks all the time.

When I hear all the counter "arguments" for atheism, I find it just makes it easier to turn it all back on your "opponent."

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 03:42 PM
One of my friends is adamant that the Mormon church is the only church and I'll never forget the day I met him. He saw me reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris and he asked about it. I told him I'm an atheist and the first thing he said was, "So what...you just do whatever you want?" I said, "Yes in as much as I'm not accountable to anyone but myself; I make my own rules/commandments." He asked, "So, you just do drugs all the time and drink every night and don't care about anything?"




THIS! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'd be interested in figuring out where the fuck they get these crazy ideas about atheists....then I realize it's probably all due to religion. :icon_confused:

Tsar Phalanxia
April 16th, 2009, 03:47 PM
I'd guess I was probably more moral than the people who don't do bad things out of fear of death.

Aaryk
April 16th, 2009, 04:07 PM
THIS! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'd be interested in figuring out where the fuck they get these crazy ideas about atheists....then I realize it's probably all due to religion. :icon_confused:

It is due to the religion. I've heard it said that religion is a crutch and I think there's a valid argument for that, but the problem is not the crutch, it's that religion will convince a man that he's hobbled when he's not. A man who is strong and solid will be told that he can't do it without Jesus and he'll actually BELIEVE that. Suddenly, when Jesus is taken out of the picture, even temporarily, that crutch is gone and a man who should be able to stand on his own collapses because he's convinced himself he can't.

From that piont, it's just human nature to assume that everyone else is the same and that they too are unable to stand without that crutch.

This is the funny thing about someone who's had to think things through and discover ethics/morality for himself. I, for example, tend to have faith in people and think that everyone has potential for greatness in "spirit" and in thought because I've had to see myself that way. Someone who is a slave to religion has no choice but to view everyone else as fellow slaves.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 04:10 PM
It is due to the religion. I've heard it said that religion is a crutch and I think there's a valid argument for that, but the problem is not the crutch, it's that religion will convince a man that he's hobbled when he's not. A man who is strong and solid will be told that he can't do it without Jesus and he'll actually BELIEVE that. Suddenly, when Jesus is taken out of the picture, even temporarily, that crutch is gone and a man who should be able to stand on his own collapses because he's convinced himself he can't.



Right on.
With what you just said...do you agree with this statement. Even though believers claim to be strong (emotioally/mentally) do you feel that they are actually weaker in those areas?

woody23
April 16th, 2009, 04:12 PM
THIS! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'd be interested in figuring out where the fuck they get these crazy ideas about atheists....then I realize it's probably all due to religion. :icon_confused:

I'm not sure it's religion completely. Or religion 'alone' I guess is a better way to put it. As has been discussed, I was raised devout Mormon for the first 16 years of my life - then I started to think for myself - but I was never taught that Atheism is wrong or sinful or to hate Atheists. My mother, who I cannot even convince that gay marriage should be allowed, is even accepting of Atheism. At the same time, I have many Mormon friends that were raised by their parents that it is a Sin, just above or below the gheys, as previously pointed out.

I think it's probably from social pressures or assumptions created by people involved in religion, rather than the principle itself. Of course, that is probably true for most, if not all, of the downfalls of the major religions. That's a completely different debate though.

I'm not defending religion here at all, I just think it's fair to specify which part of the religion - the people or the 'doctrine' - is the blame for the hatred. Sadly, it's the people.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 04:15 PM
I'm not defending religion here at all, I just think it's fair to specify which part of the religion - the people or the 'doctrine' - is the blame for the hatred. Sadly, it's the people.

I believe it's both to be honest.
The doctrine was written by people, then years later the people take the doctrine and warp it to fit their little world...that's usually filled with hatred towards someone.

Kinda funny in a sad way.

woody23
April 16th, 2009, 04:18 PM
I can agree with that. Though I think some of the people writing the doctrine had some good intent in their hearts. Sadly, good intentions are not enough.

Aaryk
April 16th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Right on.
With what you just said...do you agree with this statement. Even though believers claim to be strong (emotioally/mentally) do you feel that they are actually weaker in those areas?

Ooh! I think you misunderstand me. I think that they are stronger than they give themselves credit. I think they devalue themselves and convince themselves they're weaker than they are. I see the potential for greatness in so many religious people with whom I associate; I just see them holding themselves back because they've let a pastor/minister/bishop/book convince them they're weak and that they can't do it (life? anything?) without Jesus.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Ooh! I think you misunderstand me.

Nah, not at all. I understand what you're saying. I wanted to get your opinion on the statement I made about religious people being weaker. I'm just curious, that's all.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 04:25 PM
I can agree with that. Though I think some of the people writing the doctrine had some good intent in their hearts. Sadly, good intentions are not enough.

Good intentions in their heart about controlling people? Cause that's basically the whole premise of religion. Control the masses...that and to give you hope for when you're dead.

Aaryk
April 16th, 2009, 04:36 PM
I'm not saying this is how it is, but to be fair, I'm not sure controlling people has to mean poor intentions.

For example, if five thousand years ago, pork was more likely to give disease/food poisoning than anything else that was commonly eaten, telling people "God commands against eating it" in order to protect them isn't evil, it's just a little cynical in assuming people wouldn't listen/understand/follow directions otherwise.

Seventeen-hundred years ago, the Nicene Creed was established at the behest of Constantine I. Yes, it established a huge list of bullshit regarding religion (the trinity, anyone?), but the intent was to establish a singular religion for the empire to create unity and keep it strong and solid for the people that made up it's population. It's result now is bullshit, but I'm not sure that makes for poor intentions.

woody23
April 16th, 2009, 04:45 PM
That was where I was going. I should have been more specific. I'm not saying it was the best way to go about it, but I honestly believe in the very beginnings (with the exception of Hubbard) they had good intentions. It panned out in a pretty fucked up way though, if you ask me. :icon_razz:

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 16th, 2009, 05:28 PM
I am insanly close to striaght edge but i am the scum on the bottem of the religious shoe.

rzm61
April 16th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Ima piece of shit no matter what way you look at it. :icon_lol:

woody23
April 16th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Not to me. I think you guys/girls/its/sinners are some of the most level headed intelligent people I've had discussions with in a long time. Granted, I work/hangout/go to the bar/share the same women/do everything except sleep with Aaryk, but even the rest of you are alright. ;)

Too bad you don't live in SLC, otherwise we'd have you out to our Sunday discussion group at the coffee shop.

DrM
April 17th, 2009, 04:48 AM
SLC? i dunno what that stands for...

Anyway, this is a good discussion u guys got broiling in yuse pots.

I would say you guys are correct, i have experienced lots of people in disbelieve of my religion (agnostic). They think that i abandoned religion because i was too lazy to use ethics, or because i was too ignorant. When really it was the opposite... (people think this, even in my own family! its quite creepy...) regardless, This is a huge mistake, i hold my morals above all else. and it was because i decided to research and learn about the religions that i lost faith in them. I personally savor knocking them back on their pompous asses everyonce in a while. Mostly by overwhelming them with my superior knowlege of their own faith, and by explaining my large ethical standards. The last part almost never works because sometimes people cannot wrap their heads around a self generating moral code, but the first one does. People tend to back off after that.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 04:55 AM
SLC? i dunno what that stands for...

SLC stands for Salt Lake City (Where woody23 and I both live).

As far as your observations DrM, the bit about knowing more about someone's faith than he/she does has always floored me. I don't know anyone that argues/discusses with me that knows more than I do. Ironically, ignorance and naivety seem to be what keeps faith alive. The thinkers manage to think their way right out of organized religion.

On the comedic side, my dad used to host religious discussions at his house when I was living there. I was agnostic at that time and completely inactive in religion, but he would commonly call me into the room to cite scripture to back his arguments even though he knew I didn't agree with anything he was discussing... :icon_lol:

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 03:07 PM
I have to agree. I tend to get into 'discussions' (which always end up as arguments from the other side) about religion with religious people a lot. My parents mostly. They can't seem to grasp why I dislike it because they are too afraid to think for themselves.

I am just grateful that I can't even remember what it feels like to be afraid of that.

Dolores
April 17th, 2009, 04:21 PM
I have to agree. I tend to get into 'discussions' (which always end up as arguments from the other side) about religion with religious people a lot. My parents mostly. They can't seem to grasp why I dislike it because they are too afraid to think for themselves.

I am just grateful that I can't even remember what it feels like to be afraid of that.

I usually refuse to discuss religion, on the basis that it's personal

Saves me a lot of trouble and argument.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 04:29 PM
Isn't saying their religion made them that way the same as 'them' saying your lack of religion made you that way? Correct me if I'm wrong but this looks like people throwing rocks around in a glass house.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:05 PM
Isn't saying their religion made them that way the same as 'them' saying your lack of religion made you that way? Correct me if I'm wrong but this looks like people throwing rocks around in a glass house.

To a certain extent it may be because I'd be the first to say that my lack of belief is what made me who I am today, but the difference is I established the morals/ethics behind my lack of belief, so I shaped me. Too many devout people (sheeple?) are who they are because they've capitulated thought to be what someone else tells them to be. If I was an atheist because someone told me to be and if I asked him, "What do I believe and do now," and based my actions/life on that, I'd be just as guilty.

However, if I knew a religious person who decided she believed in God and even decided Jesus was the Christ, but didn't understand or believe in the idea of, say, taking the name of God in vain, so did so, then I'm cool with that. If that same person is brave enough to question the fact that God says gays are bad (which I'm not saying he does/doesn't) and decides that gay marriage is okay and supports that, then I support this individual.

If that same person questions that same thing and asks a pastor/minister/bishop and is told, "That's just how God believes and you're a sinner if you don't support that," and if this person then decides to blindly support an anti-gay-marriage stance even though she feels like she's betraying herself--now you've crossed the line into blind faith and that, I feel, is wrong.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:10 PM
To a certain extent it may be because I'd be the first to say that my lack of belief is what made me who I am today, but the difference is I established the morals/ethics behind my lack of belief, so I shaped me. Too many devout people (sheeple?) are who they are because they've capitulated thought to be what someone else tells them to be. If I was an atheist because someone told me to be and if I asked him, "What do I believe and do now," and based my actions/life on that, I'd be just as guilty.

However, if I knew a religious person who decided she believed in God and even decided Jesus was the Christ, but didn't understand or believe in the idea of, say, taking the name of God in vain, so did so, then I'm cool with that. If that same person is brave enough to question the fact that God says gays are bad (which I'm not saying he does/doesn't) and decides that gay marriage is okay and supports that, then I support this individual.

If that same person questions that same thing and asks a pastor/minister/bishop and is told, "That's just how God believes and you're a sinner if you don't support that," and if this person then decides to blindly support an anti-gay-marriage stance even though she feels like she's betraying herself--now you've crossed the line into blind faith and that, I feel, is wrong.


I will pursue this because it's interesting.

Please explain why you are so quick in almost a defensive way to always link ethics and morals to either a lack of religion or an attachment to religion. My problem understanding this is a person is a person and will (hopefully) allow themself to become who they will become. I sincerely fail to make the connection to ethics being shaped by beliefs. I do know a lot of religious people who determine what church to join based on ethics and morals they already have in place, not the other way around.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:21 PM
I will pursue this because it's interesting.

Please explain why you are so quick in almost a defensive way to always link ethics and morals to either a lack of religion or an attachment to religion. My problem understanding this is a person is a person and will (hopefully) allow themself to become who they will become. I sincerely fail to make the connection to ethics being shaped by beliefs. I do know a lot of religious people who determine what church to join based on ethics and morals they already have in place, not the other way around.

I'm sorry if I made myself misunderstandable. I don't mean to imply at all that morality or ethics come from a lack of belief--ever. Woody23, my best friend, is a believer and he's the last person I'd accuse of being immoral or bad in any way.

What I intend to say is lack of questioning leads to unhappiness or that ignoring doubt leads to misery. If you feel something is wrong, but you do it out of some sort of peer pressure, then you're betraying yourself and you can't be truely happy doing that. That's where the conversation witht he minister comes up. I mentioned that he said, "Because God says so," and that he expects that to be acceptable. If I feel in my soul that something is wrong, but I do it just because I'm told to, I can't help but be miserable.

I'll try to make this more about me and I'll make it less about hypothetical situations: When I was younger and was still Mormon, my parents got divorced. A few years after that, my seminary teacher gave a lesson on the evils of divorce and mentioned that anyone who was getting divorced was committing a sin. I asked him about that after class and I mentioned it was offensive because the two people I love most were divorced. He said, "God says it's wrong so they're bad people for doing that." He didn't care to ask why they divorced (because my dad was abusive to my mom), he didn't want to understand circumstance, he just wanted me to say, "Oh. Okay."

I've found that by listening to people's circumstances and understanding why they do something, I'm more likely to care about them and support them in their actions. Really, it's about love for yourself and for people. This is a concept that was always distant from me when I was religious and seems to easy to me now in my unbelief.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 05:28 PM
atheists who insist that their not believing (a form of belief) is better than somebody else's belief or demand proof for the existence of god when they cant prove the absence of god for the exact same reason (its a belief), or suggest that the religious persons values are some how inferior to there own based on how or where they got them and not on the behavior and actions of the person is a evangelical atheist,

you have a belief no different from any other belief and like the religious evangelicals you want to feel it is the right one and are trying to justify the belief you have chosen..

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:30 PM
I'm sorry if I made myself misunderstandable. I don't mean to imply at all that morality or ethics come from a lack of belief--ever. Woody23, my best friend, is a believer and he's the last person I'd accuse of being immoral or bad in any way.

What I intend to say is lack of questioning leads to unhappiness or that ignoring doubt leads to misery. If you feel something is wrong, but you do it out of some sort of peer pressure, then you're betraying yourself and you can't be truely happy doing that. That's where the conversation witht he minister comes up. I mentioned that he said, "Because God says so," and that he expects that to be acceptable. If I feel in my soul that something is wrong, but I do it just because I'm told to, I can't help but be miserable.

I'll try to make this more about me and I'll make it less about hypothetical situations: When I was younger and was still Mormon, my parents got divorced. A few years after that, my seminary teacher gave a lesson on the evils of divorce and mentioned that anyone who was getting divorced was committing a sin. I asked him about that after class and I mentioned it was offensive because the two people I love most were divorced. He said, "God says it's wrong so they're bad people for doing that." He didn't care to ask why they divorced (because my dad was abusive to my mom), he didn't want to understand circumstance, he just wanted me to say, "Oh. Okay."

I've found that by listening to people's circumstances and understanding why they do something, I'm more likely to care about them and support them in their actions. Really, it's about love for yourself and for people. This is a concept that was always distant from me when I was religious and seems to easy to me now in my unbelief.


Ok I can buy into the personal thing.

For this though,
What I intend to say is lack of questioning leads to unhappiness
citation needed. Unless again it is your personal take. I know many who if they lost this anchor would fall into an abyss of depression.

Is you 'unbelief' a verb? I ask because it comes across that way.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:34 PM
atheists who insist that their not believing (a form of belief) is better than somebody else's
belief or demand proof for the existence of god when they cant prove the absence of god for the exact same reason (its a belief), or suggest that the religious persons values are some how inferior to there own based on how or where they got them and not on the behavior and actions of the person is a evangelical atheist,

you have a belief no different from any other belief and like the religious evangelicals you want to feel it is the right one and are trying to justify the belief you have chosen..

I'm not trying to insist that belief is inferior. Not by any means. I'm don't even assume this is directed at me, but since the proof issue comes up. The question for the believer shouldn't neccessarily be one of proof. There is no proof of God and that's established. If there was, the atheist view wouldn't even exist. The question to ask in order to understand someone is this: Why do you believe (or not believe) what you do?

I mentioned previously that I'm more concerned with understanding people than with converting (de-converting?) people. By listening and understanding others, I find that I appreciate them and myself and refine my own beliefs about life accordingly.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:41 PM
Ok I can buy into the personal thing.

For this though,
What I intend to say is lack of questioning leads to unhappiness
citation needed. Unless again it is your personal take. I know many who if they lost this anchor would fall into an abyss of depression.

Is you 'unbelief' a verb? I ask because it comes across that way.

Unbelief is a noun. I just use it as a replacement for belief when referring to myself. I've talked to enough poeple who get confused when I talk about my belief, but can handle me talking about my unbelief. Go figure...

As far as the lack of questioning goes, I'm not talking about agnosticism when I say that. I'm talking about absolute capitulation of will regardless of personal opinion. That doesn't have to mean to God. If I'm with friends and my friends want to tie firecrackers to grasshoppers and I'm uncomfortable with that, I shouldn't do it. In the same vein, if I'm with co-religionists and they want to campaign to pass a law preventing abortion, but I feel abortion is a choice issue, I'm betraying myself if I go along with them just because they tell me that's what God wants.

I know and associate with many people for whom belief in God is important. I wouldn't want to take that away from them, but belief in God doesn't have to be followed by belief in the trinity, belief in the eucharist, belief in what does/doesn't constitute a curse word, belief in what you can or can't eat or belief in views on sexuality or fornication.

My point was intended to be this (and I think you touched on it): Everyone should find a religion (or a lack of religion) based on their beliefs (or unbeliefs ;)), they shouldn't necessarily modify their beliefs to match what their default religion is. Trust anyone who is searching for the truth, distrust anyone who claims to have found it.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:45 PM
Unbelief is a noun. I just use it as a replacement for belief when referring to myself. I've talked to enough poeple who get confused when I talk about my belief, but can handle me talking about my unbelief. Go figure...

As far as the lack of questioning goes, I'm not talking about agnosticism when I say that. I'm talking about absolute capitulation of will regardless of personal opinion. That doesn't have to mean to God. If I'm with friends and my friends want to tie firecrackers to grasshoppers and I'm uncomfortable with that, I shouldn't do it. In the same vein, if I'm with co-religionists and they want to campaign to pass a law preventing abortion, but I feel abortion is a choice issue, I'm betraying myself if I go along with them just because they tell me that's what God wants.

I know and associate with many people for whom belief in God is important. I wouldn't want to take that away from them, but belief in God doesn't have to be followed by belief in the trinity, belief in the eucharist, belief in what does/doesn't constitute a curse word, belief in what you can or can't eat or belief in views on sexuality or fornication.

My point was intended to be this (and I think you touched on it): Everyone should find a religion (or a lack of religion) based on their beliefs (or unbeliefs ;)), they shouldn't necessarily modify their beliefs to match what their default religion is. Trust anyone who is searching for the truth, distrust anyone who claims to have found it.

Or just accept and respect every persons choice to lead their own life and follow their own choices?

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 05:47 PM
I agree with Aaryk for the most part.

And I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but, what if you run into someone that holds their belief in God and his 'teachings' higher than any of their personal feelings.

If I am that person (and by the gods I'm not), then following my personal feelings on abortion and betraying what 'God' tells me would then be a betrayal of what I hold dear.

I think that is the point that is missed most often. I don't know if dogmatic belief is necessarily 'bad' for a person. If they truly believe that they cannot understand the bigger picture like God can, then their personal thoughts and feelings would not be as important. God's 'law' would override their judgments.

As far as this leading to unhappiness, I can vouch that it would for me and that it probably would for you (Aaryk) but I don't know if I can say that it would lead to unhappiness for all people, because their belief in following God's 'commandments' above their own humanistic feelings would bring them their sense of happiness.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Or just accept and respect every persons choice to lead their own life and follow their own choices?

You seem to imply that I don't and you seem to be missing my point, but I can't state it any more clearly... :icon_cry:

You seem to want to believe that because I use the label Atheist to describe myself that I look down on believers and I don't. At all. I support being completely true to one's self. That's the most anyone can do.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:53 PM
I agree with Aaryk for the most part.

And I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but, what if you run into someone that holds their belief in God and his 'teachings' higher than any of their personal feelings.

If I am that person (and by the gods I'm not), then following my personal feelings on abortion and betraying what 'God' tells me would then be a betrayal of what I hold dear.

I think that is the point that is missed most often. I don't know if dogmatic belief is necessarily 'bad' for a person. If they truly believe that they cannot understand the bigger picture like God can, then their personal thoughts and feelings would not be as important. God's 'law' would override their judgments.

As far as this leading to unhappiness, I can vouch that it would for me and that it probably would for you (Aaryk) but I don't know if I can say that it would lead to unhappiness for all people, because their belief in following God's 'commandments' above their own humanistic feelings would bring them their sense of happiness.


Again I think what I think is wrong/right doesn't have to be tied to any religion, even the religion of atheism. I stand by what i think (notice the absence of belief) because I have determined what I think on my own by education and research.

rmw
April 17th, 2009, 05:53 PM
I support being completely true to one's self. That's the most anyone can do.

In which case, looking at Woody's argument, if one believes they are carrying out God's will, despite personal reservations or qualms, would they be true to themselves?

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 05:54 PM
I agree with Aaryk for the most part.

And I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but, what if you run into someone that holds their belief in God and his 'teachings' higher than any of their personal feelings.

If I am that person (and by the gods I'm not), then following my personal feelings on abortion and betraying what 'God' tells me would then be a betrayal of what I hold dear.

I think that is the point that is missed most often. I don't know if dogmatic belief is necessarily 'bad' for a person. If they truly believe that they cannot understand the bigger picture like God can, then their personal thoughts and feelings would not be as important. God's 'law' would override their judgments.

As far as this leading to unhappiness, I can vouch that it would for me and that it probably would for you (Aaryk) but I don't know if I can say that it would lead to unhappiness for all people, because their belief in following God's 'commandments' above their own humanistic feelings would bring them their sense of happiness.

I agree 100%. If someone's belief is that God knows best and that they should follow him completely, then they are just following their beliefs and understanding and that's waht I said I support.

Again, I'm not saying following the god you believe in is bad. I'm not.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:54 PM
You seem to imply that I don't and you seem to be missing my point, but I can't state it any more clearly... :icon_cry:

You seem to want to believe that because I use the label Atheist to describe myself that I look down on believers and I don't. At all. I support being completely true to one's self. That's the most anyone can do.

At last! The simple answer I knew was in there somewhere! :D

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 05:58 PM
this board tends to come off as obnoxious atheist and as a self identified man of faith (in his belief in an absence of deity) you are taking the flack for the attacks on religion even they are not all yours..

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 06:01 PM
Again I think what I think is wrong/right doesn't have to be tied to any religion, even the religion of atheism. I stand by what i think (notice the absence of belief) because I have determined what I think on my own by education and research.

By Hawking's Chair, man. That's what I've been saying. Absence of belief or belief itself is fine, but getting there by "[determining] what I thnk on my own by education and research" is what I'm advocating.

Too many people belong to a religion for the same reason they have a certain insurance provider: Because its' what my dad had. I'm not advocating changing religions, switching to doubt or switching to unbelief. What I'm saying is that I know Mormons that would be happy as Episcopalians or that I know Catholics that would be better served personally in Protestant beliefs. Shit, my own cousin calls herself an atheist, but she's just there because she's angry and religion, not because she's really thought it through. I think she'd be better served by Buddhism or some such thing.

Life is about the search, not about finding the treasure. All I'm doing is advocating the search.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 06:03 PM
this board tends to come off as obnoxious atheist and as a self identified man of faith (in his belief in an absence of deity) you are taking the flack for the attacks on religion even they are not all yours..

To whom are you referring. I'm not sure anyone is taking flack for anything. I think we're all just trying to understand each other here.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 06:04 PM
I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?

Point.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 06:14 PM
I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?

While I have to agree that, philosophically, the term atheist is null given that fact that I don't call myself an aunicornist or an afairyist, that doesn't necessarily have to mean that I should receive negative attention. Treating someone poorly or well simply because of a title is really just racism--should there be a new term? Faithism perhaps?

I mean really, can you honestly say that you think it's okay to be mean to me just because of how I identify myself?

This is the reason we post bus advertisements. To say that we're good, nice people just like you and we deserve to be seen and treated as such.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 06:16 PM
To whom are you referring. I'm not sure anyone is taking flack for anything. I think we're all just trying to understand each other here.

this started with some silly attack on religious people being less moral than atheist based on weak statistics,

when the conversation moved into your beliefs (at least the ones regarding people thinking for themselves) it became more sensible and more of a "trying to understand " conversation.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I don't think they really base themselves on what they are not. The only reason it's seen that way is because for so long in history the majority of the population have been believers in God.

Certainly, if the roles were reversed, and the majority had not believed in one, those that did would be considered to not believe the same as the majority of the population.

I don't know if 'not beliving in God' can be considered defining ones self on what you are not. I am a believer in God, but I am also not a non-believer. It can easily go both ways and at that point you are just arguing semantics.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:20 PM
So lets try an experiment. I'll start.

This exercise is designed to provide a platform to posit what it is you do believe.

I believe there are few things better than a summer day sitting on a riverbank with a cold beer fishing.

I believe one thing that is better than the above is nesting on the floor with my wife listening to soft music with a good bottle of wine.

Next.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 06:29 PM
So lets try an experiment. I'll start.

This exercise is designed to provide a platform to posit what it is you do believe.

I believe there are few things better than a summer day sitting on a riverbank with a cold beer fishing.

I believe one thing that is better than the above is nesting on the floor with my wife listening to soft music with a good bottle of wine.

Next.

Okay! I believe that God does not exist. I have a belief that God does not exist. What would you like me to call myself.

You see, this is the problem. You intend to show that because I believe video games are fun, that I'm a videogamer, but because I don't believe getting my teeth pulled is fun I'm not necessarily an atoothpullyist, but if I did refer to myself as such that would be reason to mock/ridicule me? I think not.

Let's do this. Do you consider yourself to be an agnostic?

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 06:29 PM
I believe that God exists.

I believe that sex feels good.

I believe that cutting my arm off will not feel good.

I also do not believe that cutting my arm off feels good.

Semantics.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 06:36 PM
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Okay! I believe that God does not exist. I have a belief that God does not exist. What would you like me to call myself.

You see, this is the problem. You intend to show that because I believe video games are fun, that I'm a videogamer, but because I don't believe getting my teeth pulled is fun I'm not necessarily an atoothpullyist, but if I did refer to myself as such that would be reason to mock/ridicule me? I think not.

Let's do this. Do you consider yourself to be an agnostic?


Huh?

I was very serious about the experiment. I did not ask you to talk about what you did not believe in. According to this logic my belief post indicates I am a wino fisherman. The truth is more along the lines that I am a guy who enjoys fishing, fine wine and spending time with my wife.

Agnostic? Believer? Atheist?
Sorry, N/A. None of your labels will have the slightest impact on who I am.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I believe that God exists.

I believe that sex feels good.

I believe that cutting my arm off will not feel good.

I also do not believe that cutting my arm off feels good.

Semantics.

Ever consider what language without semantics would be?

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 06:45 PM
unfortunately, we live in a world with a language full of semantics. Which is why I point out that just because something is phrased one way, does not mean they are identifying with what they are not.

All of that aside, since it seems to be too far beyond beind grasped, I'll stick with what Aaryk said:

Does it make it right for someone to treat me poorly just because of what I am not? Even if I identify as a non-believer in the internet, even though it's completely provable to exist (unlike the topic of discussio here) and should provide more room for riducule than the subject of a God, does that make it fair or just for someone to mistreat me based on that non-belief?

I am not white so is it okay for someone to put me at the back of the bus? I am not straight so is it okay if people drag me through the streets and call me a 'fag'? I am not male so is it okay for men to tell me I can't vote? I am not a theist, or Atheist, so is it okay for someone to mock me and treat me with disrespect?

I am NOT any of the things mentioned above, so do those groups have the right to mistreat me?

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:47 PM
unfortunately, we live in a world with a language full of semantics. Which is why I point out that just because something is phrased one way, does not mean they are identifying with what they are not.

All of that aside, since it seems to be too far beyond beind grasped, I'll stick with what Aaryk said:

Does it make it right for someone to treat me poorly just because of what I am not? Even if I identify as a non-believer in the internet, even though it's completely provable to exist (unlike the topic of discussio here) and should provide more room for riducule than the subject of a God, does that make it fair or just for someone to mistreat me based on that non-belief?

Please point out where I have treated anyone poorly or mistreated anyone.

KTHKSBAI

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 06:47 PM
The problem here is that I've already conceded the fact that Atheism is philosophically null as a term. Sam Harris has repeatedly made this observation and it isn't anything new--in fact, he made it at the American Atheists convention when he was asked to speak.

Here's the issue though: Were I religious, I would have support from others societally in the fact that I call myself Christian or Protestant or Roman Catholic or Mormon et al. As a non-believer, I find support in my views from... other non-believers? Oh yeah, but I can't find them because they're not allowed to call themselves that?

When I found I didn't believe, I felt I didn't have anyone. When I discovered other atheists, I found people like me and I didin't have to feel alone anymore. I fully support the term atheist regardless of what can be said negatively about it because it allows us to find each other. Otherwise, it's like herding cats. I support Richard Dawkins out campaign (outcampaign.com) because I couldn't find anyone and I felt alone--I'd like to help other people not have to feel that way.

Now, I have a reason, a belief by which to call myself an atheist (not an abeliefist) and you want to find a way to justify a reason to mock/mistreat me? Really? You want to try to prove to me that the way I view me is wrong? What does that say about you, man?

I think you may have just nullified any arguments you tried to make against me trying to claim that I'm judgemental...

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 06:49 PM
I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?


This is what sparked the argument about identifying with what you are not, rather than what you are.

I wasn't claiming you had.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:50 PM
The problem here is that I've already conceded the fact that Atheism is philosophically null as a term. Sam Harris has repeatedly made this observation and it isn't anything new--in fact, he made it at the American Atheists convention when he was asked to speak.

Here's the issue though: Were I religious, I would have support from others societally in the fact that I call myself Christian or Protestant or Roman Catholic or Mormon et al. As a non-believer, I find support in my views from... other non-believers? Oh yeah, but I can't find them because they're not allowed to call themselves that?

When I found I didn't believe, I felt I didn't have anyone. When I discovered other atheists, I found people like me and I didin't have to feel alone anymore. I fully support the term atheist regardless of what can be said negatively about it because it allows us to find each other. Otherwise, it's like herding cats. I support Richard Dawkins out campaign (outcampaign.com) because I couldn't find anyone and I felt alone--I'd like to help other people not have to feel that way.

Now, I have a reason, a belief by which to call myself an atheist (not an abeliefist) and you want to find a way to justify a reason to mock/mistreat me? Really? You want to try to prove to me that the way I view me is wrong? What does that say about you, man?

I think you may have just nullified any arguments you tried to make against me trying to claim that I'm judgemental...


Damn. I did all of that? I'm very good to have said all of that without having ever said any of it.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:53 PM
This is what sparked the argument about identifying with what you are not, rather than what you are.

I wasn't claiming you had.

And yet when I offered an exercise to describe what you are all I got was sarcasm and attacked.
Oh. Semantics. Got it.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 06:53 PM
I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?


to which you replied... Point.

perhaps I misunderstood your reply?

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 06:54 PM
to which you replied... Point.

It is a point. Defining ones self by a negative will result in a negative.
Semantics.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Does it make it right for someone to treat me poorly just because of what I am not? if i "am not an atheist" and have a belief in god is it ok for you to assume i am a sheep or less moral or some how stupid because of it?

Even if I identify as a non-believer in the internet, even though it's completely provable to exist (unlike the topic of discussion here)the absence of god is still as unprovable as the existence, you and the religious are both true believers relying on faith
and should provide more room for riducule than the subject of a God, does that make it fair or just for someone to mistreat me based on that non-belief? no more fair than atheists mistreating and ridiculing the religious you are the same, relying on a faith in some unproven belief..

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 07:00 PM
It is a point. Defining ones self by a negative will result in a negative.
Semantics.

Not necessarily, man. It's sad that you think it's okay to say that.

Some atheists have tried taking titles that are positives and they're just as criticised for those. Daniel Dennett started the Brights movement because light sounded positive, but he was told he's calling everyone else dim. Atheists feel they're being rational and reasonable, so the terms rationalist and reasonist were both tried, but people said that those were mean as they had to see them selves as arationalists or areasonists by comparison.

Those terms (dim, arationalist, areasonalist) were not levied on them by us, but were claimed by them as a negative of what we were trying to claim ourselves to be. But we largely abandoned those terms to go back to atheist because we didn't want to hurt or offend them.

What's a free-thinker to do? (Or is that offensive as it terms someone else a non-free-thinker or a slaved thinker?)

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:01 PM
I am not Atheist. I believe in God, as I have said before. And I do concur with all of your statements. I was speaking from an outside point of view, none of those statements, except the very very last of my post, are true of me.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:02 PM
Not necessarily, man. It's sad that you think it's okay to say that.

Some atheists have tried taking titles that are positives and they're just as criticised for those. Daniel Dennett started the Brights movement because light sounded positive, but he was told he's calling everyone else dim. Atheists feel they're being rational and reasonable, so the terms rationalist and reasonist were both tried, but people said that those were mean as they had to see them selves as arationalists or areasonists by comparison.

Those terms (dim, arationalist, areasonalist) were not levied on them by us, but were claimed by them as a negative of what we were trying to claim ourselves to be. But we largely abandoned those terms to go back to atheist because we didn't want to hurt or offend them.

What's a free-thinker to do? (Or is that offensive as it terms someone else a non-free-thinker or a slaved thinker?)

So does Fred Phelps.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Man, if the best you have is a four word response to a well thought out reply, then this conversation has to be over. I'm here to talk to people in a friendly way and expand my own viewpoints, but you just seem to be here to argue and insult with as little effort as possible.

I see you trollin', I be hatin'.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:05 PM
My points are completely misunderstood.

Don't mistreat people based on what they believe or disbelieve. It's that simple. Identifying negatively or not, treat them with respect.

Every religion or belief system has it's assholes. The mormons have their polygamists, the muslims their radicals, they christians the same, the atheists too. Ignore them. They are NOT the majority.

I have to end my postings in this thread, as it seems to be a silly back and forth refusal to admit the other person has a point, on both sides.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:06 PM
I see you trollin', I be hatin'.

Am I trying to catch you ridin' dirty?

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn302/bartletta23/mp9.jpg

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Man, if the best you have is a four word response to a well thought out reply, then this conversation has to be over. I'm here to talk to people in a friendly way and expand my own viewpoints, but you just seem to be here to argue and insult with as little effort as possible.

I see you trollin', I be hatin'.

Incredible.
So at this point I should just say "OMG! I am so sorry! By your reposting the same thing over and over I am now converted to your way of thinking because of a well thought out repost."

In one post you proclaim that we should all think for ourselves and in this one you piss on me because I don't fall for groupthink.

I can certainly argue and sling shit all day but I really thought we were having a conversation. Either way, your choice.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:14 PM
My points are completely misunderstood.

Don't mistreat people based on what they believe or disbelieve. It's that simple. Identifying negatively or not, treat them with respect.

Every religion or belief system has it's assholes. The mormons have their polygamists, the muslims their radicals, they christians the same, the atheists too. Ignore them. They are NOT the majority.

I have to end my postings in this thread, as it seems to be a silly back and forth refusal to admit the other person has a point, on both sides.

Why is a ploygamist automatically an asshole?

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:16 PM
My points are completely misunderstood.

Don't mistreat people based on what they believe or disbelieve. It's that simple. Identifying negatively or not, treat them with respect.

Every religion or belief system has it's radicals. The mormons have their polygamists, the muslims their radicals, they christians the same, the atheists too. Ignore them. They are NOT the majority.

I have to end my postings in this thread, as it seems to be a silly back and forth refusal to admit the other person has a point, on both sides.

There, I fixed it. Assholes was, in fact, the wrong word for me to use. Now corrected.

/end posting.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Incredible.
So at this point I should just say "OMG! I am so sorry! By your reposting the same thing over and over I am now converted to your way of thinking because of a well thought out repost."

In one post you proclaim that we should all think for ourselves and in this one you piss on me because I don't fall for groupthink.

I can certainly argue and sling shit all day but I really thought we were having a conversation. Either way, your choice.

An apology for the, "I can't believe atheists are surprised at the fact they're mistreated. I mean, they deserve it for using a negative as a title," bit would be appreciated, yes. (Not an actual quote.)

That, however, is not what would cause me to stop responding. It's the fact that you seem willing to ignore everything I say in a post, no matter how long or thought out or heartfelt it may be and just point out little nothings to try to stir controversy. Yes, I'm sure Fred Phelps sees himself as the voice of reason, but I'm not speaking down on Fred Phelps am I? I'm not even saying believers are irrational (or arationalists). I'm not justifying speaking down on anyone. In fact, I'm asking that I NOT be spoken down to--a point you seem to disagree with because it's alright to treat people a certain way based on the title with which they refer to themselves as long as you disagree with that title.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Why is a ploygamist automatically an asshole?

there is no such thing as a good polygamist who is quiet and keeps to themselves, they are always up in your face pushing statistics about how the atheists and the other religions are immoral because they have more people in prison , the bastards

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:23 PM
There, I fixed it. Assholes was, in fact, the wrong word for me to use. Now corrected.

/end posting.

May I pursue this without seeming argumentative? Polygamists are excommunicated by the Mormon church when exposed. They simply practice what the church itself believes to be a true principal of the church but which was banned by the US as a tool of persecution against the Mormon church based on public pressure. Polgamy is as old as the human race. It is a lifestyle of choice or faith based on the perspective of the people practising it. Call it pologamy or a polyamarous relationship it iis the same. Once again a lifestyle choice seems to be attacked for no reason.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 07:23 PM
there is no such thing as a good polygamist who is quiet and keeps to themselves, they are always up in your face pushing statistics about how the atheists and the other religions are immoral because they have more people in prison , the bastards

I'm hurt and I'm not sure I appreciate the implication. I wasn't throwing prison statistics and I'm an atheist. Sarcasm can be a powerful tool, but in the wrong hands...

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:29 PM
An apology for the, "I can't believe atheists are surprised at the fact they're mistreated. I mean, they deserve it for using a negative as a title," bit would be appreciated, yes. (Not an actual quote.)

That, however, is not what would cause me to stop responding. It's the fact that you seem willing to ignore everything I say in a post, no matter how long or thought out or heartfelt it may be and just point out little nothings to try to stir controversy. Yes, I'm sure Fred Phelps sees himself as the voice of reason, but I'm not speaking down on Fred Phelps am I? I'm not even saying believers are irrational (or arationalists). I'm not justifying speaking down on anyone. In fact, I'm asking that I NOT be spoken down to--a point you seem to disagree with because it's alright to treat people a certain way based on the title with which they refer to themselves as long as you disagree with that title.


There will be no apology. If I felt the need to apologize for something like that then where would I stop? I have not mistreated you or talked down to you. I WAS MAKING A POINT ABOUT THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THINKING A THING IS RATIONAL. Hitler thought he was being rational.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:31 PM
May I pursue this without seeming argumentative? Polygamists are excommunicated by the Mormon church when exposed. They simply practice what the church itself believes to be a true principal of the church but which was banned by the US as a tool of persecution against the Mormon church based on public pressure. Polgamy is as old as the human race. It is a lifestyle of choice or faith based on the perspective of the people practising it. Call it pologamy or a polyamarous relationship it iis the same. Once again a lifestyle choice seems to be attacked for no reason.


I was pointing out how, around the globe, Mormons gain a bad rap because of the polygamist activists still claiming to be Mormon, when in fact they are not. Just as Muslims get a bad rap due to the activist suicide bombings, just as Catholics gain a bad rap because of the activist..er..pope (?) that claims condoms increase the risk of HIV (yes I do have reference).

I didn't mean that polygamists are bad people. I meant that every religion or belief system gets a bad rap for some of the radical activists in it.

That being said, some polygamists marry 12 year old girls when they are 40 and have sex with them, whether they want to or not. That does not make polygamists bad, it makes rape bad.

Some Muslims run themselves into buildings and blow up a group of people killing them. That doesn't make Muslims bad, it makes murderers bad.

Some Atheists are in-your-face people, telling you that your beliefs in God are stupid and wrong and that you are an uneducated swine for believing in him. That doesn't make Atheists bad, it makes those in-your-face people perhaps a bit disrespectful.

That was my only point.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:31 PM
there is no such thing as a good polygamist who is quiet and keeps to themselves, they are always up in your face pushing statistics about how the atheists and the other religions are immoral because they have more people in prison , the bastards

Had Woody talked about the ill treatment found at some compounds he would have posited a far more valid point. And yeah the stats thing was not well thought or well presented.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:32 PM
I was pointing out how, around the globe, Mormons gain a bad rap because of the polygamist activists still claiming to be Mormon, when in fact they are not. Just as Muslims get a bad rap due to the activist suicide bombings, just as Catholics gain a bad rap because of the activist..er..pope (?) that claims condoms increase the risk of HIV (yes I do have reference).

I didn't mean that polygamists are bad people. I meant that every religion or belief system gets a bad rap for some of the radical activists in it.

That being said, some polygamists marry 12 year old girls when they are 40 and have sex with them, whether they want to or not. That does not make polygamists bad, it makes rape bad.

Some Muslims run themselves into buildings and blow up a group of people killing them. That doesn't make Muslims bad, it makes murderers bad.

Some Atheists are in-your-face people, telling you that your beliefs in God are stupid and wrong and that you are an uneducated swine for believing in him. That doesn't make Atheists bad, it makes those in-your-face people perhaps a bit disrespectful.

That was my only point.

That was well posted.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Thank you. I apologize my previous posts were not as specific.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 07:42 PM
There will be no apology. If I felt the need to apologize for something like that then where would I stop? I have not mistreated you or talked down to you. I WAS MAKING A POINT ABOUT THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THINKING A THING IS RATIONAL. Hitler thought he was being rational.

But AGAIN, you're completely disregarding the point I was making in order to see what you want to see. Stop doing that if you'd like to continue. This conversation is not about who's rational and irrational. It's not about who's right and who's wrong. The conversation you and I have been having is about judging someone based on a title, or (if you'd prefer) condoning the mistreatment of a subsection of society based on a title you disagree with.

The point I was making is that atheists have tried other titles that aren't necessarily negatives in concept and they've still been treated the same way.

When it was said that atheists shouldn't be surprised at how they're treated because they accept the title of a negative, you agreed. I'm telling you I AM surprised. I don't deserve to be mistreated for any reason, but especially not because you've judged this book by his cover.

Here's the deal: Let's look at the term agnostic. Gnostic from the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. They're claiming the are without (a-) knowledge (-gnostic). That's a negative (without knowledge), but there's nothing wrong with that claim.

Now for athiest. I believe there is no god based on the philosophical and empirical claims bade about him/her/it. Because of what I do believe in that respect, I adopt the term a-theist. I have a standing believe that there is no god. There really is no better term.

But even if there was, your stance that you can condone the mistreatment of a group based on title (even if you're not actually mistreating them) is wrong.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 07:43 PM
An apology for the, "I can't believe atheists are surprised at the fact they're mistreated. I mean, they deserve it for using a negative as a title," bit would be appreciated, yes. (Not an actual quote.)


Not only is it not an actual quote... it misses the whole point of what I said. I didn't say anything about *deserve* or *should* or *it's OK* or anything else...

I always find it odd that atheists are surprised by the negative attention they get. What do you expect when you identify yourself based on what you are not, rather than what you are?

Reality is not based on what is fair or what should be, its based on the interactions of humans, hairless monkeys, evolved to survive on this planet... just, rational, thoughtful thinking is neither a prerequisite nor a common feature among humans. When interacting with humans, this is an important thing to keep in mind.

By all means identify yourself as an Atheist. To many people this will translate into the following:

Hi, I am the opposite of you. I think the stuff you consider very important is bullshit.

This may not be fair, but reality rarely is.

Identify yourself however you wish... but realize that people will make judgments based on that identification. If you don't like the judgements, choose a new way to identify yourself.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 07:51 PM
But AGAIN, you're completely disregarding the point I was making in order to see what you want to see. Stop doing that if you'd like to continue. This conversation is not about who's rational and irrational. It's not about who's right and who's wrong. The conversation you and I have been having is about judging someone based on a title, or (if you'd prefer) condoning the mistreatment of a subsection of society based on a title you disagree with.

The point I was making is that atheists have tried other titles that aren't necessarily negatives in concept and they've still been treated the same way.

When it was said that atheists shouldn't be surprised at how they're treated because they accept the title of a negative, you agreed. I'm telling you I AM surprised. I don't deserve to be mistreated for any reason, but especially not because you've judged this book by his cover.

Here's the deal: Let's look at the term agnostic. Gnostic from the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. They're claiming the are without (a-) knowledge (-gnostic). That's a negative (without knowledge), but there's nothing wrong with that claim.

Now for athiest. I believe there is no god based on the philosophical and empirical claims bade about him/her/it. Because of what I do believe in that respect, I adopt the term a-theist. I have a standing believe that there is no god. There really is no better term.

But even if there was, your stance that you can condone the mistreatment of a group based on title (even if you're not actually mistreating them) is wrong.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke


Firstly just because I acknowledge that some are mistreated because of a label certainly doesn't mean I condone it and please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Secondly it appears that your sole definination of your whole being is the fact that you don't believe in a god which in turn indicates that you may be playing rebel in a predominately Mormon community.

Perhaps try defining yourself as a person. Just another human being.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 07:53 PM
"The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded, condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignore, suppressed, repressed, robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual human being. The social engineers, statistician, psychologist, sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish it. the psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still, the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots.[...]

Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two snow flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two people are identical- and, indeed, the smallest sub-atomic particle, we are assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the next- every card-index system is a delusion. "Or, to put it more charitably," as Nietzsche says, "we are all better artists than we realize." It is easy to see that label "Jew" was a Damnation in Nazi Germany, but actually the label "Jew" is a Damnation anywhere, even where anti-Semitism does not exist. "He is a Jew," "He is a doctor," and "He is a poet" mean, to the card indexing centre of the cortex, that my experience with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted. At a party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action. Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed: "Oh, he's an advertising copywriter," "Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator." Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.

http://www.rawilson.com/whistlepiss.html

Yiuel
April 17th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Identify yourself however you wish... but realize that people will make judgments based on that identification. If you don't like the judgements, choose a new way to identify yourself.

Well, let us try this out with me, okay?

I happen to be metauniversalist. Yeah, that's how I identify my beliefs, I'm also the only one using that term. Rolling through the links I have with the Universe, I have found that whatever there is, if it doesn't have any link with the Universe, with the links that I have with it, there is no value in defining something beyond it, detached from it. If it has no effect on me, why bother implying its existence. If it does have one, it is there, and I'll be able to follow the chain of relations to it. To me, then, the outmost grouping is the grouping of all those links, which I call the Universe. Beyond it? Illogical, you're always part of it. Created? Illogical, either way you take the illogicality : if you want it created, who created the creator. Created itself, no. It simply is (though it can change).

That's what I believe. What do you have to say? How would you judge them?

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Well, let us try this out with me, okay?

I happen to be metauniversalist. Yeah, that's how I identify my beliefs, I'm also the only one using that term. Rolling through the links I have with the Universe, I have found that whatever there is, if it doesn't have any link with the Universe, with the links that I have with it, there is no value in defining something beyond it, detached from it. If it has no effect on me, why bother implying its existence. If it does have one, it is there, and I'll be able to follow the chain of relations to it. To me, then, the outmost grouping is the grouping of all those links, which I call the Universe. Beyond it? Illogical, you're always part of it. Created? Illogical, either way you take the illogicality : if you want it created, who created the creator. Created itself, no. It simply is (though it can change).

That's what I believe. What do you have to say? How would you judge them?

First reaction? A fluffy.
Second reading......yawn.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Well, let us try this out with me, okay?

I happen to be metauniversalist. Yeah, that's how I identify my beliefs, I'm also the only one using that term. Rolling through the links I have with the Universe, I have found that whatever there is, if it doesn't have any link with the Universe, with the links that I have with it, there is no value in defining something beyond it, detached from it. If it has no effect on me, why bother implying its existence. If it does have one, it is there, and I'll be able to follow the chain of relations to it. To me, then, the outmost grouping is the grouping of all those links, which I call the Universe. Beyond it? Illogical, you're always part of it. Created? Illogical, either way you take the illogicality : if you want it created, who created the creator. Created itself, no. It simply is (though it can change).

That's what I believe. What do you have to say? How would you judge them?

Me? I wouldn't judge them at all... or at least I try not to judge people based on such things. It's not always easy since it appears to be some pretty basic programming from the Ancient Human Beings.

I don't personally care what you call yourself... people will generally try to fit you in with what they know, believe or think... if they know/believe/think that atheists are crazy evil bastards, then that's how they'll treat them. If they know/believe/think that a metauniversalist is *insert something here* then that's how they'll treat them.

General Semantics

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 17th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Atheist
Teaching
humans
ethics
in
social
mechanics

ATHEISM

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Yiuel[/left];128489]Well, let us try this out with me, okay?
metauniversalist
I happen to be . Yeah, that's how I identify my beliefs, I'm also the only one using that term. Rolling through the links I have with the Universe, I have found that whatever there is, if it doesn't have any link with the Universe, with the links that I have with it, there is no value in defining something beyond it, detached from it. If it has no effect on me, why bother implying its existence. If it does have one, it is there, and I'll be able to follow the chain of relations to it. To me, then, the outmost grouping is the grouping of all those links, which I call the Universe. Beyond it? Illogical, you're always part of it. Created? Illogical, either way you take the illogicality : if you want it created, who created the creator. Created itself, no. It simply is (though it can change).

That's what I believe. What do you have to say? How would you judge them?

since i have been invited to judge, DO LESS DRUGS..

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 08:09 PM
since i have been invited to judge, DO LESS DRUGS..


GODDAMMIT

*cleans screen*

Warn a guy will ya?

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 08:11 PM
since i have been invited to judge, DO LESS DRUGS..

*dies*

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Firstly just because I acknowledge that some are mistreated because of a label certainly doesn't mean I condone it and please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Secondly it appears that your sole definination of your whole being is the fact that you don't believe in a god which in turn indicates that you may be playing rebel in a predominately Mormon community.

Perhaps try defining yourself as a person. Just another human being.

It's a shame you've just been breezing through my posts the the point that you assume that everything I am is "playing rebel in a predominately Mormon community." I mentioned previously that I lost belief before I identified as atheist. It was a long search and your implication (even if you italicize 'may') that it's less than that is pretty offensive.

You come in here barking about the fact that you hate people trying to convert other people and saying you dislike that people judge other people, yet you've made some pretty big calls against me without getting to know me and you're trying to get me to refer to myself in a different way. :icon_rolleyes:

Thanks for letting me break some of the monotony of the work day, but I'm ready to move on from this.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Thanks for letting me break some of the monotony of the work day, but I'm ready to move on from this.

That's a good idea... you don't want to start questioning your identity, its much better to run.

Daruko
April 17th, 2009, 09:14 PM
General Semantics
Haven't they beaten that out of yuo yet?

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 09:22 PM
That's a good idea... you don't want to start questioning your identity, its much better to run.

There's no problem with identity questioning. Learning about myself by discussing belief with others is the reason I post here. I just don't feel the other gentleman has anything impportant to say. Really, he just feels like a troll.

In fact, you feel a bit the same considering in this same thread I said that I absolutely believe in continuing to grow/questioning everything and you're saying I'm running rather than doing that?

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 09:31 PM
There's no problem with identity questioning. Learning about myself by discussing belief with others is the reason I post here. I just don't feel the other gentleman has anything impportant to say. Really, he just feels like a troll.

In fact, you feel a bit the same considering in this same thread I said that I absolutely believe in continuing to grow/questioning everything and you're saying I'm running rather than doing that?

I'm saying that the other poster made some observations which seem to make you uncomfortable, so it appears that you've labeled him a troll and disregarded what he said. At least, from here that's what it looks like.

fomenter
April 17th, 2009, 09:47 PM
I mentioned previously that I lost belief before I identified as atheist..
. and found a new belief you are no less religious than before

"Atheists feel they're being rational and reasonable,"
and they don't seem to get until they prove the absence of god they are still just defending a faith in a unproven belief just like you did as a Mormon

i have no interest in converting you from your faith in atheism, it is your claim that you "Learning about myself by discussing belief with others is the reason I post here." nothing wrong with having a faith, just don't call it more right or better than any other faith

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I'm saying that the other poster made some observations which seem to make you uncomfortable, so it appears that you've labeled him a troll and disregarded what he said. At least, from here that's what it looks like.

If only it were that easy. How about the fact that I have spent eight pages of this thread explaining my beliefs and where I come from and how I got here and each time someone chooses to pick the one sentence (or, part of a sentence) and criticize that one part absolutely out of context instead of actually carrying a conversation. When I still give credit and respond with five paragraphs worth of information, he again, gives a four word response by taking a part of something completely out of context (i.e. Fred Phelps). I can only do that for so long.

Add to that the fact that I'm not uncomfortable with the observation that I'm just an atheist to be a rebel in a Mormon society, but rather because of the fact that I'm the only atheist I know and I'm searching for someone/something to connect with, but everywhere I turn someone is judging or criticizing or...fuck it. So I try to explain why I carry the label openly and why I'm comfortable with it and why suggesting criticism of a person just because of a title is ridiculous and he retorts with, "It seems like you just want to call yourself an atheist to be a rebel in a Mormon society." I didn't say anything about Mormon society; the only thing I mentioned is that I have a friend who's Mormon and some family that is.

Sounds like someone's just lookin' to instigate obnoxiousness, hurt feelings or a fight. That's what denotes a troll.

Aaryk
April 17th, 2009, 10:03 PM
and found a new belief you are no less religious than before

and they don't seem to get until they prove the absence of god they are still just defending a faith in a unproven belief just like you did as a Mormon

i have no interest in converting you from your faith in atheism, it is your claim that you "Learning about myself by discussing belief with others is the reason I post here." nothing wrong with having a faith, just don't call it more right or better than any other faith

By Darwin, are you kidding me? I didn't. Are you even reading the same fucking thread I am?

I believe it was me that postd:
You seem to want to believe that because I use the label Atheist to describe myself that I look down on believers and I don't. At all. I support being completely true to one's self. That's the most anyone can do.

Bleh.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 17th, 2009, 10:05 PM
So why are you trying to find other atheists? If atheism is simply that you don't believe in a God based on whatever evidence you've decided to base it on... why seek others to reinforce that point?

Why base "connecting" on what you are not? Why not base "connecting with someone" on what you are? On what you like? On what interests you?

Further, if you use the label openly to find people 'like' you... why are you upset/surprised/sad that the label works in the opposite way as well?

fomenter
April 18th, 2009, 12:32 AM
It is due to the religion. I've heard it said that religion is a crutch and I think there's a valid argument for that, but the problem is not the crutch, it's that religion will convince a man that he's hobbled when he's not. A man who is strong and solid will be told that he can't do it without Jesus and he'll actually BELIEVE that.
Suddenly, when Jesus is taken out of the picture, even temporarily, that crutch is gone and a man who should be able to stand on his own collapses because he's convinced himself he can't.
From that piont, it's just human nature to assume that everyone else is the same and that they too are unable to stand without that crutch.

This is the funny thing about someone who's had to think things through and discover ethics/morality for himself. I, for example, tend to have faith in people and think that everyone has potential for greatness in "spirit" and in thought because I've had to see myself that way. Someone who is a slave to religion has no choice but to view everyone else as fellow slaves.
lol are you.. i believe it was you that posted...

Daruko
April 18th, 2009, 07:03 AM
So why are you trying to find other atheists? If atheism is simply that you don't believe in a God based on whatever evidence you've decided to base it on... why seek others to reinforce that point?

Why base "connecting" on what you are not? Why not base "connecting with someone" on what you are? On what you like? On what interests you?

Further, if you use the label openly to find people 'like' you... why are you upset/surprised/sad that the label works in the opposite way as well?
You're more of an ass than yuo used to be Ratatosk. That's too bad.

GodofGoogle
April 18th, 2009, 04:46 PM
It's a shame you've just been breezing through my posts the the point that you assume that everything I am is "playing rebel in a predominately Mormon community." I mentioned previously that I lost belief before I identified as atheist. It was a long search and your implication (even if you italicize 'may') that it's less than that is pretty offensive.

You come in here barking about the fact that you hate people trying to convert other people and saying you dislike that people judge other people, yet you've made some pretty big calls against me without getting to know me and you're trying to get me to refer to myself in a different way. :icon_rolleyes:

Thanks for letting me break some of the monotony of the work day, but I'm ready to move on from this.

Wow. First I have nothing to convert people to.
Secondly none of what I posted was accusatory. It was observational. You scream I don't read your posts then you trample all over mine with the intent to put words in my mouth (not for the first time either) and decide to scream about how mean I am.
When you can come back for decent conversation without getting all butthurt let me know.

GodofGoogle
April 18th, 2009, 04:47 PM
You're more of an ass than yuo used to be Ratatosk. That's too bad.


Ahh. Still contributing I see. :icon_rolleyes:

GodofGoogle
April 18th, 2009, 04:54 PM
If only it were that easy. How about the fact that I have spent eight pages of this thread explaining my beliefs and where I come from and how I got here and each time someone chooses to pick the one sentence (or, part of a sentence) and criticize that one part absolutely out of context instead of actually carrying a conversation. When I still give credit and respond with five paragraphs worth of information, he again, gives a four word response by taking a part of something completely out of context (i.e. Fred Phelps). I can only do that for so long.

Add to that the fact that I'm not uncomfortable with the observation that I'm just an atheist to be a rebel in a Mormon society, but rather because of the fact that I'm the only atheist I know and I'm searching for someone/something to connect with, but everywhere I turn someone is judging or criticizing or...fuck it. So I try to explain why I carry the label openly and why I'm comfortable with it and why suggesting criticism of a person just because of a title is ridiculous and he retorts with, "It seems like you just want to call yourself an atheist to be a rebel in a Mormon society." I didn't say anything about Mormon society; the only thing I mentioned is that I have a friend who's Mormon and some family that is.

Sounds like someone's just lookin' to instigate obnoxiousness, hurt feelings or a fight. That's what denotes a troll.


Secondly it appears that your sole definination of your whole being is the fact that you don't believe in a god which in turn indicates that you may be playing rebel in a predominately Mormon community.

For the record.

terrorX
April 18th, 2009, 05:13 PM
It is because to a lot of these people we are vermin, we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. These believers are horrible vile creatures of which I will have nothing to do with.

Thats really not true. In my experiences I found believers to be loving of others and encouragers. If we were to meet an alien race of beings who honored The Deity, would you insult them and tell them they are full of it because I am an atheist? Lets face it, it is probable that at least 90% of intelligent life in the universe are believers...perhaps in the same theatre of religious experience as us...

fomenter
April 18th, 2009, 05:57 PM
It is because to a lot of these people we are vermin, we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. These believers are horrible vile creatures of which I will have nothing to do with.

that's funny if i remember correctly --- "to a lot of these people (coG members) we (pdr's) are vermin we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. "

Loki
April 18th, 2009, 09:12 PM
Thats really not true. In my experiences I found believers to be loving of others and encouragers. If we were to meet an alien race of beings who honored The Deity, would you insult them and tell them they are full of it because I am an atheist? Lets face it, it is probable that at least 90% of intelligent life in the universe are believers...perhaps in the same theatre of religious experience as us...

You've got a bit of a thing about the shape shifting lizard overlords, haven't you?

@formenter
"to a lot of these people (coG members) we (pdr's) are vermin we are below sinners to most, even bellow the Gheys to them. "

You think so? I'm a me. Not a Discordian, not a Pastafarian, not even a Googlist - just a me :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 18th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Thats really not true. In my experiences I found believers to be loving of others and encouragers. If we were to meet an alien race of beings who honored The Deity, would you insult them and tell them they are full of it because I am an atheist? Lets face it, it is probable that at least 90% of intelligent life in the universe are believers...perhaps in the same theatre of religious experience as us...

They appear loving to others and some are but not the all. You 90% is flawed majorly but I don't wanna get into it.

Dolores
April 19th, 2009, 01:07 AM
This is a great example of bad atheist behavior:

http://ianlarrymurphy.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-easter.html

What did that guy think he was accomplishing?

rzm61
April 19th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Or just a good example of rude pointless idiotic behavior.

rmw
April 19th, 2009, 01:48 AM
Or just a good example of rude pointless idiotic behavior.

Well, yes, but the guy was trying to make some sort of point about atheism (lost in the idiocy) by acting like a jackass, in a church, on a religious holiday.

GodofGoogle
April 19th, 2009, 01:47 PM
That guy just came across as a shrieking attention whore to me.

rmw
April 19th, 2009, 03:11 PM
That guy just came across as a shrieking attention whore to me.

Yeah, that too.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 20th, 2009, 03:56 PM
You're more of an ass than yuo used to be Ratatosk. That's too bad.

Nonsense. I am, always have been and always shall be an ass. What the fuck do you think 'Squirrel of Discord' references? It may seem like I'm more of an ass now than before... but that probably had much more to do with me actively censoring my assholish behavior because I figured you were worth keeping around.

Or did you forget that?

fomenter
April 20th, 2009, 05:17 PM
That guy just came across as a shrieking attention whore to me.

how most atheists come off most of the time

Perna de Pau
April 20th, 2009, 10:12 PM
and found a new belief you are no less religious than before

and they don't seem to get until they prove the absence of god they are still just defending a faith in a unproven belief just like you did as a Mormon

i have no interest in converting you from your faith in atheism, it is your claim that you "Learning about myself by discussing belief with others is the reason I post here." nothing wrong with having a faith, just don't call it more right or better than any other faith

If I am not mistaken this is the second time in this thread that you say that atheism is another religion/faith/belief.

It is not so. Not believing in a god is completely different from believing in a god. Most religious people - people who believe in a given god - do not believe in ancient Greek gods, or in Baal, or in Ahura Mazda, or in Quetzalcoatl. Not believing in these gods are not beliefs. Atheist just go one god further (I think Dawkins wrote that) and this is still not a belief.

My life is not more influenced by the fact that I do not believe in the christian god any more than by the fact I do not believe in the invisible pink unicorn and I am surprised that this seems do difficult to understand for those who believe in a god.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 12:21 AM
If I am not mistaken this is the second time in this thread that you say that atheism is another religion/faith/belief.

It is not so. Not believing in a god is completely different from believing in a god. Most religious people - people who believe in a given god - do not believe in ancient Greek gods, or in Baal, or in Ahura Mazda, or in Quetzalcoatl. Not believing in these gods are not beliefs. Atheist just go one god further (I think Dawkins wrote that) and this is still not a belief.

My life is not more influenced by the fact that I do not believe in the christian god any more than by the fact I do not believe in the invisible pink unicorn and I am surprised that this seems do difficult to understand for those who believe in a god.

"Not believing in a god is completely different from believing" how? definition of

belief =
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
show me the scientific evidence of the absence of god otherwise you are relying on

faith = something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs

your conviction is strong but without the above mentioned evidence it is

religion = a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I am surprised that this seems so difficult to understand for those who believe in a absence of god.


PS i have not stated whether i do or do not believe in god.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 12:22 AM
also "Not believing in these gods are not beliefs"

wut?

Tsar Phalanxia
April 21st, 2009, 09:06 AM
If I am not mistaken this is the second time in this thread that you say that atheism is another religion/faith/belief.

It is not so. Not believing in a god is completely different from believing in a god. Most religious people - people who believe in a given god - do not believe in ancient Greek gods, or in Baal, or in Ahura Mazda, or in Quetzalcoatl. Not believing in these gods are not beliefs. Atheist just go one god further (I think Dawkins wrote that) and this is still not a belief.

My life is not more influenced by the fact that I do not believe in the christian god any more than by the fact I do not believe in the invisible pink unicorn and I am surprised that this seems do difficult to understand for those who believe in a god.
Much, much win, particularly the Zoroastrian reference.
"Not believing in a god is completely different from believing" how? definition of

belief =
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
show me the scientific evidence of the absence of god otherwise you are relying on

faith = something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs

your conviction is strong but without the above mentioned evidence it is

religion = a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I am surprised that this seems so difficult to understand for those who believe in a absence of god.
QUOTE]

It depends on whether we have a lack of belief, or a belief in a lack.


[QUOTE]
PS i have not stated whether i do or do not believe in god.

Do you?

Perna de Pau
April 21st, 2009, 12:54 PM
"Not believing in a god is completely different from believing" how? definition of

belief =
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
show me the scientific evidence of the absence of god otherwise you are relying on

faith = something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs

your conviction is strong but without the above mentioned evidence it is

religion = a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I am surprised that this seems so difficult to understand for those who believe in a absence of god.


PS i have not stated whether i do or do not believe in god.

To begin with I never said I believed in the absence of god (that would be a belief). I say that I do not believe in the existence of god and this is not a belief in the same way as not believing in the existence of Osiris or Odin is not a belief.

Pretending that not believing is a belief is the same as pretending that not having a hobby is a hobby or that barefoot is a type of shoes.

It is evident that I do not pretend to prove that god does not exist. That is as irrelevant as proving that the invisible pink unicorn or Russell's tea pot do not exist.

This position is not a religion as it does not imply any personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices: a cause, principle, or a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 05:28 PM
To begin with I never said I believed in the absence of god (that would be a belief). I say that I do not believe in the existence of god and this is not a belief in the same way as not believing in the existence of Osiris or Odin is not a belief.

Pretending that not believing is a belief is the same as pretending that not having a hobby is a hobby or that barefoot is a type of shoes.

It is evident that I do not pretend to prove that god does not exist. That is as irrelevant as proving that the invisible pink unicorn or Russell's tea pot do not exist.

This position is not a religion as it does not imply any personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices: a cause, principle, or a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

OK fair enough i went back and made a quick look at your posts and you have not made any claims believing god does not exist i will assume you are consistent in your absence of belief stance and have not made the same claims as the other guy who was claiming he believed there was no god.

there are two definitions of atheism the common and most used (the one being argued by the Mormon fellow) of "belief in lack" and the less common "lack of belief" which you have switched the topic to, so a more complete answer to your statement "If I am not mistaken this is the second time in this thread that you say that atheism is another religion/faith/belief.it is not so.

yes it is so, it is the most common definition and the one being used by the guy i was speaking to..

Aaryk
April 21st, 2009, 06:42 PM
OK fair enough i went back and made a quick look at your posts and you have not made any claims believing god does not exist i will assume you are consistent in your absence of belief stance and have not made the same claims as the other guy who was claiming he believed there was no god.

there are two definitions of atheism the common and most used (the one being argued by the Mormon fellow) of "belief in lack" and the less common "lack of belief" which you have switched the topic to, so a more complete answer to your statement "If I am not mistaken this is the second time in this thread that you say that atheism is another religion/faith/belief.it is not so.

yes it is so, it is the most common definition and the one being used by the guy i was speaking to...

It's amazing how you feel the need to try to play the semantics game. If I said, "I believe there are no unicorns," or if I said, "I lack belief in the existence of unicorns," there would be no difference, but you want to try to differentiate between, "I believe there are no gods," and, "I lack belief in the existence of gods."

Really it doesn't change anything. My values, ethics and morals didn't rise from my lack of belief, my disbelief arose from my examination of values, ethics and morals. I found them on my own rather than having them handed to me as the religion of my parents attempted to do. Which leads to one important fact: I am not Mormon. Please sir, stop claiming I am.

This leads to the following:

Religion:
-noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.get religion, Informal.
a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

None of those definitions apply to atheism (Well, maybe perhaps the idiomatic phrase as defined in 9b. I got religion when I adopted atheism. Yes, that is a joke. Sort of. I mean, it is. Maybe.)

Not all atheists believe the same things, so grouping them together as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, isn't valid. Granted, many--even most--atheists tend to be liberals and have pro-choice, pro-equality, pro-liberty views, but even that doesn't apply to all of us. Many of the new atheists believe in taking an evangelical stance on atheism, but, again, not all of us.

Your attempt to group all of us together only show your own need to cliqueify and stereo-type a group.

Daruko
April 21st, 2009, 07:15 PM
Lack of belief sounds more like agnosticism to me, being an agnostic myself.
Belief in a lack sounds like typical atheist dogma, which is why I often find atheists as full of shit as theists.
It seems like closet agnostics are calling themselves atheists in ITT.
Am I wrong?

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 07:15 PM
It's amazing how you feel the need to try to play the semantics game. If I said, "I believe there are no unicorns," or if I said, "I lack belief in the existence of unicorns," there would be no difference, but you want to try to differentiate between, "I believe there are no gods," and, "I lack belief in the existence of gods."

Really it doesn't change anything. My values, ethics and morals didn't rise from my lack of belief, my disbelief arose from my examination of values, ethics and morals. I found them on my own rather than having them handed to me as the religion of my parents attempted to do. Which leads to one important fact: I am not Mormon. Please sir, stop claiming I am.

This leads to the following:

Religion:
–noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of personsor sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7.religions, Archaic. religious rites.8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.


Not all atheists believe the same things, so grouping them together as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, isn't valid. Granted, many--even most--atheists tend to be liberals and have pro-choice, pro-equality views, but even that doesn't apply to all of us. Many of the new atheists believe in taking an evangelical stance on atheism, but, again, not all of us.

Your attempt to group all of us together only show your own need to cliquify and stereo-type a group.

there are two definitions of atheist "strong" (what you have defined yourself as ) believing there is no god which is indistinguishable from a religious belief (i wont argue it again no point if you don't get it) and "weak" the less common definition being claimed by perna which does not meet the definition of a religion, those are the only definitions of atheism, and all atheists will fall into one of the two groups

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 07:17 PM
Lack of belief sounds more like agnosticism to me, being an agnostic myself.
Belief in a lack sounds like typical atheist dogma, which is why I often find atheists as full of shit as theists.
It seems like closet agnostics are calling themselves atheists in ITT.
Am I wrong?

not exactly the same
agnostic 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

"Many of the new atheists believe in taking an evangelical stance on atheism"
which is why I often find atheists as full of shit as theists.

Aaryk
April 21st, 2009, 08:13 PM
there are two definitions of atheist "strong" (what you have defined yourself as ) believing there is no god which is indistinguishable from a religious belief (i wont argue it again no point if you don't get it) and "weak" the less common definition being claimed by perna which does not meet the definition of a religion, those are the only definitions of atheism, and all atheists will fall into one of the two groups

Let's just do this then: You consistently make the claim that atheists are just as obnoxious as theists because of their evangelicalism, yet here you are preaching to me about the errancy of my claims/beliefs and, by consequence, the superiority of your own. Human nature is to see your own claim as superior--if one saw another claim as superior, one would tend to take it. I can respect that your viewpoint is superior to you, but you seem to need to generalize a view about atheists (I can only assume your view is agnosticism even though you have only said you haven't revealed a belief in a god nor a lack of belief).

I would define myself as a strong atheist by definition--I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods, but I do make the strong assertion that, since there is no proof of such, there is no need to believe. That is all I claim. To make religion of that is ridiculous. You have made bold as the definition of religion, "something one believes in and follows devotedly" and "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." I don't follow atheism, I follow the ideas of humanism and largely of objectivism, but even those would typically be defined as philosophies, not religions and I'm not saying those are right, merely that they are right for me. And I don't make claims on the cause, nature, purpose of the universe based on my atheism; since I lack belief in God (in this case, the Judeo-Christian God), I don't believe the creation myth, so I choose to look elsewhere for the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. I don't necessarily believe in purpose, per se, and I use science to search for the cause and nature of things--not atheism.

Atheism is the definition of a certain view about one idea's existence. I was presented with a claim (i.e., there is a god and he is God) and I rejected it based on the evidence. I also reject the existence of ghosts based on the evidence even though a very large number of people (perhaps a majority?) believe in their existence in some form or another and I reject the idea that the stars determine anything about my existence/being even though many people believe in that. I am, strongly aghostic and strongly a-astrologic, but my strength of disbelief in those is no more a religion than my atheism is.

woody23
April 21st, 2009, 08:17 PM
"Many of the new atheists believe in taking an evangelical stance on atheism"
which is why I often find atheists as full of shit as theists.

Which is why I often find atheists/agnostics/theists just as full of shit as each other, and me.

It would be more accurately put to say 'which is why I always find evangelicals of all beliefs/non-beliefs/faiths/religions/blehs more annoying and full of shit than non-evangelicals.

If I were evangelical about my beliefs, I'd find myself full of shit too.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 08:27 PM
Which is why I often find atheists/agnostics/theists just as full of shit as each other, and me.

It would be more accurately put to say 'which is why I always find evangelicals of all beliefs/non-beliefs/faiths/religions/blehs more annoying and full of shit than non-evangelicals.

If I were evangelical about my beliefs, I'd find myself full of shit too.

well said lol

i was in the middle of writing a post pointing out the qualifiers most and often and the fact that the vocal and evangelical are almost by definition obnoxious but you said it well

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 08:39 PM
Let's just do this then: You consistently make the claim that atheists are just as obnoxious as theists because of their evangelicalism, yet here you are preaching to me about the errancy of my claims/beliefs and, by consequence, the superiority of your own. Human nature is to see your own claim as superior--if one saw another claim as superior, one would tend to take it. I can respect that your viewpoint is superior to you, but you seem to need to generalize a view about atheists (I can only assume your view is agnosticism even though you have only said you haven't revealed a belief in a god nor a lack of belief).


the only claim you have made in error is not recognizing your faith in atheism is religious, i have not said it was right or wrong or that you should not have it or that my views (unclaimed ) are better.
i think my generalizations are accurate, as pointed out above i use qualifiers and if i haven't i will retract the statement and add the words many, some, often or some other qualifiers to them..

sailor
April 21st, 2009, 08:39 PM
The belief in nothing?


I'm so sorry, I'm going to have to pull your atheist card for doubting that the belief in nothing and the belief in No God are not not the same thing.

:icon_eek:

Isn't this like one of those Ken Wilbur book titles brief history of everything
no i'm wrong, it's like how to believe in nothing & set yourself free.

either way this sounds suspiciously new agey. i won't have it.

Daruko
April 21st, 2009, 08:53 PM
Which is why I often find atheists/agnostics/theists just as full of shit as each other, and me.

It would be more accurately put to say 'which is why I always find evangelicals of all beliefs/non-beliefs/faiths/religions/blehs more annoying and full of shit than non-evangelicals.

If I were evangelical about my beliefs, I'd find myself full of shit too.
very nicely put
i think most ppl tend to conform the world to their view now and then
so we're all full of shit
and we like to spread our shit all over
and classify our shit into different types
so that we can all just roll around
and marvel in the myriad forms of it's wondrous appeal
ain't it great ;)

sailor
April 21st, 2009, 08:55 PM
very nicely put
i think most ppl tend to conform the world to their view now and then
so we're all full of shit
and we like to spread our shit all over
and classify our shit into different types
so that we can all just roll around
and marvel in the myriad forms of it's wondrous appeal
ain't it great ;)

yeah, but us theists are always smoking the good shit.

in fact we take the crap from everyone else and make it into rainbows.

and otha shit.

Aaryk
April 21st, 2009, 09:26 PM
the only claim you have made in error is not recognizing your faith in atheism is religious, i have not said it was right or wrong or that you should not have it or that my views (unclaimed ) are better.
i think my generalizations are accurate, as pointed out above i use qualifiers and if i haven't i will retract the statement and add the words many, some, often or some other qualifiers to them..

Yet you manage to disregard the two-thirds of my post that regarded this statement. Atheism is in no way religious, it's merely the rejection of the proposal that gods exist religion and philosophy follow. In the same vein, theism/deism is not religion, but Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism or belief in the Greek or Egyptian gods follows.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 10:42 PM
OK

I would define myself as a strong atheist by definition--I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods,
one or the other, Strong atheist you believe there is no god, or agnostic you don't deny the possibility but believe the reality is unknown ??
but I do make the strong assertion that, since there is no proof of such, there is no need to believe. That is all I claim. To make religion of that is ridiculous. this is different from your earlier claim that you believe there is no god i wont bother dissecting it much further because you don't really know what you believe or what it is called You have made bold as the definition of religion, "something one believes in and follows devotedly" and "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." I don't follow atheism, I follow the ideas of humanism and largely of objectivism, but even those would typically be defined as philosophies, not religions and I'm not saying those are right, merely that they are right for me. And I don't make claims on the cause, nature, purpose of the universe based on my atheism; since I lack belief in God weak atheism now (in this case, the Judeo-Christian God), I don't believe the creation myth, so I choose to look elsewhere for the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. I don't necessarily believe in purpose, per se, and I use science to search for the cause and nature of things--not atheism.

Atheism is the definition of a certain view about one idea's existence. I was presented with a claim (i.e., there is a god and he is God) and I rejected it based on the evidence. I also reject the existence of ghosts based on the evidence even though a very large number of people (perhaps a majority?) believe in their existence in some form or another and I reject the idea that the stars determine anything about my existence/being even though many people believe in that. I am, strongly aghostic and strongly a-astrologic, but my strength of disbelief in those is no more a religion than my atheism is. i can't even decipher this

woody23
April 21st, 2009, 10:47 PM
I think it's quite simple. He doesn't believe in astrology, but that's not a religion. He doesn't believe in God, that's not a religion. It may be a belief (here we go symantics again with the belief or non-belief) but it's nothing near a religion.

Aaryk
April 21st, 2009, 10:58 PM
one or the other, Strong atheist you believe there is no god, or agnostic you don't deny the possibility but believe the reality is unknown ?? this is different from your earlier claim that you believe there is no god

It's not that tough. Are you familiar with Richard Dawkins? The man commonly known as Darwin's Rottweiler? The man who's charity, The Richard Dawkins Foundation, is designed to promote atheism? The writer of the book The God Delusion? By your definitions, he's not an atheist, he's an agnostic, but I don't know a theist that would dare qualify him as such.

He made a scale in his aforementioned book ranging from 1 (I know there is a god/gods) to 7 (I know there are no gods) with 4 as absolutely in the middle with no push either way. He would qualify himself as a 6 (as would I) with the definition of (apprx), "I don't know there's no god in the same sense that I don't know there's no fairies, but the odds are so slim, it's fair to act as if there's no gods."

Don't try to act like I don't know what I don't believe. When I say I don't deny the possibility of a god/gods, I'm not talking about the Christian god whom I flat deny the existence of. I'm talking about a deistic or pantheistic view of god wherein there may be someone who snapped the universe into existence, but in no way interacts with mankind. Under such an idea, he will never present himself to us, so his existence is incidental--it doesn't matter. I don't believe that's the case, but to claim to know that's not the case is as foolish as claiming to know God does exist.

However, regardless of the possibility (which is different from a very, very low probability and no need/necessity), I believe there is no god/gods.

fomenter
April 21st, 2009, 11:34 PM
I think it's quite simple. He doesn't believe in astrology, but that's not a religion. He doesn't believe in God, that's not a religion. It may be a belief (here we go symantics again with the belief or non-belief) but it's nothing near a religion.

i am weary of arguing semantics, at this point he has, over how ever many pages this has gone on, been everything from a fundamentalist atheist claiming god absolutely does not exist to a agnostic and now a dawkins bright. belive what you want aaryk good luck..

as for me i believe it is all very ass-a-logical, in the kind of unsubstantiated belief way that requires no faith and yet i remain faithful to... religiously but dammit its not a religion for me...

sam the moderately wize
April 22nd, 2009, 10:59 AM
If you believe in anything, you are doing something wrong.

I can make a well-supported assumtion that, for instance, Obama is the president of the US. However, I do not believe that he is. I have enough evidence to support my assumption without a need for faith.

On the same token, neither to I believe the world exists, or that other people have minds. I consider it a challangable assumption.

Note 5th panel:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

djura
April 22nd, 2009, 12:07 PM
people believe certain things not because of evidence, but rather because of that "gut filling" some posses. This can be so strong, that some of us would rather disregard all evidence of opposing belief, than admit to be wrong. There is nothing anyone can do about this, it's just the way people are.
The truth is that no matter how hard religious people try to convince the rest of us that there is a god of some sort, or there is such thing as afterlife, it's just not plausible to prove this. No one ever died, went to heaven/hell, came back with any proof. No one ever spoke to god and proved it. It all comes down to "... and then god sad..." or "... the wicked shell pay..." kinda rhetorics.

Daruko
April 22nd, 2009, 03:01 PM
uh huh! Jesus came back after twee days! :icon_razz:

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
April 22nd, 2009, 06:06 PM
I don't think atheism per se is a belief... but it does seem to require a set of beliefs in order to move from an agnostic "I got no fucking clue" to atheist.

Particularly, one must believe in causality. One must believe that a neurological system evolved for survival on a small planet circling a medium sized star is appropriately capable of processing data about how the universe got here with any real reliability. One must believe that objective reality is not only something that can be observed... but observed with a large measure of trust in the authenticity of what is perceived being what is.

Based on my experiences, thus far in this life.... I am not a firm believer in any of those and thus it would be disingenuous for me to claim to be atheist.

djura
April 23rd, 2009, 09:54 AM
well, there are all kinds of atheists. there are those that believe that probability of existence for a higher being are < or eq to 0, and there are those that believe that such probability is >0, but religions got it wrong. There are those that don't care, and those that are angry with god, and choose to ignore religion for various reasons. In order to be a Darwinist one must embrace the probability of life evolving in a way that eventually lead to our existence, and nobody can be 100% certain of this.
There is a lot of gray area to cover when it comes to questions as big as this one, but that doesn't change the fact that this shouldn't affect the way humanity salves it's everyday problems.
I personally believe that we don't need him to tell us what to do, and especially what not to. This should be left to us, and no guideline such as bible or other "holly" books should determine the way we live our lifes.
The way we precive god, makes him a cheep date. He'll listen to your vinding about how hard the life is, but the seckond you invite him to stay over, he'll treat you with disrespect and call you funny names. T declare my self to be an atheist, not because I'm certain he doesn't exist (I've been wrong about much simpler things in the past), but rather because humanity made him look like somebodies spoiled little doughter. The truth of the matter is we have got things wrong, and I'm not talking christionas only - we as the human race fucked up our believes beyond repair, and are paying the price for it, not because god wishes so, but our own dumb ass selves. I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist, not because I'm sure of god doesnt exist, but I'm positive that no religion on Earth answeres any of the questions we might wont to ask him.

Al Farabi
April 27th, 2009, 01:26 AM
well, there are all kinds of atheists. there are those that believe that probability of existence for a higher being are < or eq to 0,

probability less than zero?

and there are those that believe that such probability is >0, but religions got it wrong.

It seems to me that if they think there is a chance, but not certainty are agnostics - they think it is possible but don't know.

There are those that don't care, and those that are angry with god, and choose to ignore religion for various reasons.

Disinterest is not the belief that there is no God. You also can't be an atheist who is angry at god. How can you be angry at someone you don't believe exists? Also, ignoring religion doesn't make you an atheist. Just because you ignore religion says nothing about your belief or lack thereof of a diety.

In order to be a Darwinist one must embrace the probability of life evolving in a way that eventually lead to our existence, and nobody can be 100% certain of this.

In other words you have to have a certain belief and faith that you are correct, even though you can't know for sure. I agree.


I personally believe that we don't need him to tell us what to do, and especially what not to. This should be left to us, and no guideline such as bible or other "holly" books should determine the way we live our lifes.
The way we precive god, makes him a cheep date. He'll listen to your vinding about how hard the life is, but the seckond you invite him to stay over, he'll treat you with disrespect and call you funny names.

I'm not even going to argue these points, just point point out that none of these things is grounds for disbelief. Lots of things exist that people don't need, and thinking that religion has got it wrong does not logically lead to thinking that there is no God.

T declare my self to be an atheist, not because I'm certain he doesn't exist (I've been wrong about much simpler things in the past), but rather because humanity made him look like somebodies spoiled little doughter.

So you think that we have it wrong, and therefore reject the idea itself? I think this is flawed logic.

The truth of the matter is we have got things wrong, and I'm not talking christionas only - we as the human race fucked up our believes beyond repair, and are paying the price for it, not because god wishes so, but our own dumb ass selves. I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist, not because I'm sure of god doesnt exist, but I'm positive that no religion on Earth answeres any of the questions we might wont to ask him.

I would say that you are not an atheist. You are agnostic. You are irreligious.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Unless you believe that there is no God (which is itself as much an act of faith as its opposite) you are not an atheist.

Daruko
April 27th, 2009, 01:54 AM
I keep saying this forum's got closet agnostics. What's so cool about atheism? What's wrong with admitting one's agnosticism? ;)

I'm razzing, but srsly, when you say "No, I am an atheist because I don't believe a god can exist, but... I don't really know either." That, to me, is agnosticism bogged down with a poorly scripted atheist expansion pack.

tagnostic
April 27th, 2009, 02:10 AM
boolean

atheism= !god
agnostic=404
diest=f(god)

Daruko
April 27th, 2009, 02:11 AM
boolean

atheism= !god
agnostic=404
diest=f(god)
NICE :icon_lol:

rmw
April 27th, 2009, 02:58 AM
Please tell me this isn't going to turn into another shouting match of "atheists/agnostics don't exist." Given the fact there are some grey areas in the labels of atheist and agnostic, your chances of finding someone who fits either label perfectly are pretty damned slim. For example, I have a friend who calls himself an atheist. But, he states if god were to show himself, then he would reconsider his position. So, is he an atheist or an agnostic?

Or, I don't know if god exists or not, but if he does, then his interaction with humankind is negligible and thus (non)existence is a moot point. [Note: this assumes god as a deity, rather than a force or part of nature. But that brings up an entirely new subject, which I'm not going to deal with at the moment.] So, does that mean I'm an agnostic, because I don't know if god exists? Or does it mean I'm atheistic, since I think that god's "personal" interaction and impact on humanity is zero?

tagnostic
April 27th, 2009, 03:05 AM
hehehe
relax rmw
it means that
people are trying
to communicate by
using "accepted" words
but first we all have to agree
on the definitions of those words
it can be a discussion if the ad hominems
are left to the totally ignorable Trolls and their
little cool aid drinking minions, it's all good :icon_razz:

Daruko
April 27th, 2009, 03:18 AM
I told ya I was razzin' rmw. :icon_razz:

It just amuses me that two people can be saying the same thing, and each categorizes that thing very differently.

I'm curious to see what happens when we try to pin down a distinction. How uncertain can an atheist be without being an agnostic?

Yaknow, I know a christian that kind of says, 'yeah I think the whole God-Jesus-Bible story sounds about right, but i don't really know. I just relate to the christian faith, so that's what I refer to.' Is he a christian, or an agnostic with a nostalgic attachment to the religion of his upbringing?

I think I personally am quite comfortable categorizing myself into many different systems or none at all, sometimes depending upon my mood. Sometimes, I'm thinking like an atheist and others I'm thinking like a genuine zen buddhist or a new age fluffy emo-pagan... okay maybe not that far...anymoar. I don't know... In some ways, I think it can be quite healthy to contradict oneself.

tagnostic
April 27th, 2009, 03:36 AM
when your not questioning
your dogmatic
when you are sure
your probably wrong

near as I can tell so far
No One Knows until its
too late too decide.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 27th, 2009, 09:05 AM
Agnostics are just atheists without balls

tagnostic
April 27th, 2009, 11:47 AM
athiests are agnostics
who that call a
theorem
fact

hehehehe

Tsar Phalanxia
April 27th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Touché. :icon_razz:

djura
April 27th, 2009, 04:22 PM
probability less than zero?


probability can be expressed trough negative numbers, at least mathematically.


It seems to me that if they think there is a chance, but not certainty are agnostics - they think it is possible but don't know.


Don't know, don't care.


Disinterest is not the belief that there is no God. You also can't be an atheist who is angry at god. How can you be angry at someone you don't believe exists? Also, ignoring religion doesn't make you an atheist. Just because you ignore religion says nothing about your belief or lack thereof of a diety.


Why not? Don't know if he exists, don't care to find out, but if he does exist, he's an ass.


I'm not even going to argue these points, just point point out that none of these things is grounds for disbelief. Lots of things exist that people don't need, and thinking that religion has got it wrong does not logically lead to thinking that there is no God.


Well, we tend to disagree here. First, most people I know, my self included, don't have issue with existence of god. This might be the truth, might not, a question impossible to answer by anyone. However, people define god trough religious dogma, and I'm positive that god in such form doesn't exist. By religious standards, this makes em an atheist. The real issue, however, lies in the fact that religions as such are created by man, and being one wary flawed creation it's almost impossible for any of dogma to be correct.


So you think that we have it wrong, and therefore reject the idea itself? I think this is flawed logic.


well, the idea it self is flawed, so I disregard the results that came out of it.


I would say that you are not an atheist. You are agnostic. You are irreligious.



Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Unless you believe that there is no God (which is itself as much an act of faith as its opposite) you are not an atheist.

Well, fine by me, just don't call me religious, and we can go grab a beer in the pub. :)

Daruko
April 27th, 2009, 04:48 PM
Well, fine by me, just don't call me religious, and we can go grab a beer in the pub. :)
TITCM