# I am not you, atheism



## ohio_eric (Jul 16, 2008)

This is a really interesting read. 



> I don't believe in God, I guess, in any conventional terms, and I'm non-religious. But Jeezy Chreezy, the public face of atheism turns my stomach. It is an unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one's opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn't believe in. If someone was a political commentator, and operated the way Meyers, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens did, would anyone listen to them? No. As much as the success of the Ann Coulters of the world suggests otherwise, we largely understand that a basic level of decorum, mutual respect, and the assumption of good faith should under gird our national dialogue. Indeed, without these assumptions, the dialogue is not worth having.
> 
> But then there is atheism, where it is apparently the case that you can always come closer to righteousness by expressing still-greater contempt for those with which you don't agree. Now, this is all very strange; though growing, the atheist minority is stilled dwarfed in this country and in this world by the religious. And how can you possibly change people's minds if you're constantly ridiculing them? Doesn't make much sense.
> 
> ...



L'HÃ´te: I am not you, atheism.


----------



## SolNiger (Jul 16, 2008)

That's a very good read. As an agnostic I find Atheists self-righteous opinions extremely irritating.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Jul 16, 2008)

As an atheist, I find find your generalizations incredibly irritating.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2008)

NegaTiveXero said:


> As an atheist, I find find your generalizations incredibly irritating.



Agreed.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Jul 16, 2008)

The author brings up some good points, but for the most part, he is making sweeping generalizations based upon the action of a few, in much the same way militant atheists make sweeping generalizations based upon the actions of a few fundamentalists. I agree that such negative tactics are counterproductive. On the other hand, if someone is going to treat me with ridicule and scorn, they better be prepared to have me tear their silly little beliefs to shreds with my logic. Don't expect me to treat modern religion with any more respect than ancient mythology, since they are all just pretty stories with no factual basis.

I reject atheists who behave as if atheism is their religion. However, to suggest that one should sit by silently is to reject the brilliant teachings of Thomas Jefferson, and to lump Richard Dawkins is, quite frankly, insulting. Christopher Hitchens? Well, he is just proof that you don't have to be religious to be a neocon idiot.


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm a fan of Dawkins personally, I prefer people who are honest rather than pussy foot around, hence why I love his writing, and his views too. Pretty much the same way I think too.


----------



## auxioluck (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree that some atheists are like this. Mostly young atheists. But as most atheists I've met get older, they mature their ideas and agendas along with their mind. Many atheists can create a wonderful argument against religion, and I have seen many atheists win debates in religion with Christians by simply presenting science and their opinions in very calm, organized thoughts. The Christians are usually the ones that get upset. 

As an agnostic, I find experienced atheists to be very fascinating to talk to. Much like I find experienced christians, muslims, etc. fascinating to talk to. To be fair, I don't associate much with people younger than 20 anyway, so I manage to stay away from uneducated atheists. 

I find that a spiteful atheist is no different from a spiteful christian. If anyone is uneducated, the only defense they have is aggression, and the will to prove everyone wrong. 

I dunno, I understand this guy's point, but really, he needs to target someone more specific. Targeting atheists in general is like me saying that all guitar players are arrogant assholes. Fallacies abound.


----------



## DevourTheDamned (Jul 16, 2008)

makes sense, but then again, im not really an athiest, more of a Nihilist, somewhere between there and Humanism i think...its a good stable way of life :]
but i gotta say, i really do love having a go at the ignorance of christians. lol


----------



## Variant (Jul 16, 2008)

SolNiger said:


> That's a very good read. As an agnostic I find Atheists self-righteous opinions extremely irritating.



That's part of the reason why I concider myself a skeptic as opposed to an athiest. I don't _*completely*_ dismiss the distant possiblily of an alien creator(s), but I'm not really not into that maybe/maybe-not 50/50 (or even 80/20) camp that many agnostics dwell in.


----------



## Carrion (Jul 16, 2008)

SolNiger said:


> That's a very good read. As an agnostic I find Atheists self-righteous opinions extremely irritating.



What opinions do you speak of?


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree wholeheartedly with the topic. Noodles and the others who debased his opinion, you're missing the point. He's pointing out that he _doesn't_ want to be classed with those militant atheists. You say that he's making generalizations, but the point is that he doesn't believe in being generalized.

Lets face it here: forcing your opinions on others makes you a jackass. In today's social climate tolerance and respect are paramount to successfully coexisting with others. You're just as bad as a militant Christian if you somehow think you can _disprove_ the existence of a God, and try and force that on others. 

That's bad enough, but that just makes you an immature jerk for infringing on the rights of others. What makes you a downright bad _person_ is believing that other people are inferior to you because of their beliefs. This is where atheism fails: the majority opinion of them is that atheism is the "scientific" or "logical" or "intellectual" discourse. By believing that your religion (or lack thereof) is more logical than another, you're basically saying that the other religion's supporters are stupid or ignorant. That's prejudice, plain and simple. 

I'm not the most tolerant person by any means, but I understand that when I think prejudiced thoughts I'm endorsing hatred, and I try to improve. Some people are just stupid: the guys on Christian television specials raising money to convert poor Africans, the dumb atheists who took that "God challenge" on youtube where they _dared _God to smite them for blasphemy (who the fuck _dares_ God? This isn't third grade, dumbasses). They're stupid regardless of their religion, not because of it.

In my opinion, the main idea of religion is that it is _impossible to prove or disprove_. That's why there's a word called _faith._


----------



## Carrion (Jul 16, 2008)

"Lets face it here: forcing your opinions on others makes you a jackass." *Agreed, but where and how many cases of there of atheists forcing their opinions on people completely uninterested?*

"You're just as bad as a militant Christian if you somehow think you can disprove the existence of a God" *Why does discussing logic make you as bad as a militant Christian? Would you say this is accurate?*:

"If God is omniscient he must be knowing what he is going to do at some point of time (say one year later) in the future. Then he is powerless against changing it. Hence He cannot be omnipotent"

"What makes you a downright bad person is believing that other people are inferior to you because of their beliefs."* I've haven't met a single atheist who takes this position. I certainly don't believe Ken Miller is inferior. *

"This is where atheism fails: the majority opinion of them is that atheism is the "scientific" or "logical" or "intellectual" discourse. By believing that your religion (or lack thereof) is more logical than another, you're basically saying that the other religion's supporters are stupid or ignorant. That's prejudice, plain and simple." *How does this show the concept of atheism fails? Why believe in a being that has no proof or logical explanation? *

"the dumb atheists who took that "God challenge" on youtube where they dared God to smite them for blasphemy (who the fuck dares God? This isn't third grade, dumbasses). They're stupid regardless of their religion, not because of it." *I assume you are referring to the Blasphemy Challenge.*



*I will let Brian Flemming himself defend his program.*


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 16, 2008)

Nice find, Eric. I relate to him because I rejected Christianity on much the same grounds. Yet I still believe in God.

The militant ridicule people heap on things they don't agree with has little to do with faith or logic - it has to do with something darker, and uglier, inside the human heart.


----------



## Carrion (Jul 16, 2008)

I do agree though, the Youtube atheist movement is pretty ridiculous. A lot of videos are just based around ridicule of religion instead of true criticism.


----------



## noodles (Jul 16, 2008)

HammerAndSickle said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with the topic. Noodles and the others who debased his opinion, you're missing the point. He's pointing out that he _doesn't_ want to be classed with those militant atheists. You say that he's making generalizations, but the point is that he doesn't believe in being generalized.
> 
> Lets face it here: forcing your opinions on others makes you a jackass. In today's social climate tolerance and respect are paramount to successfully coexisting with others. You're just as bad as a militant Christian if you somehow think you can _disprove_ the existence of a God, and try and force that on others.
> 
> That's bad enough, but that just makes you an immature jerk for infringing on the rights of others. What makes you a downright bad _person_ is believing that other people are inferior to you because of their beliefs. This is where atheism fails: the majority opinion of them is that atheism is the "scientific" or "logical" or "intellectual" discourse. By believing that your religion (or lack thereof) is more logical than another, you're basically saying that the other religion's supporters are stupid or ignorant. That's prejudice, plain and simple.



I don't think I missed his point at all. He is guilty of making the same sweeping generalizations as the people he is accusing. I suggest that you go back and read my original post, as I stated that I agreed with several of his assertions.

I don't understand how he can specifically name Richard Dawkins in support of his argument. The man is an evolutionary scientist. He makes his living by researching the development of species on this planet. A man like him doesn't go looking for conflict. Conflict finds him, in the form of an agenda that is trying to push creationism upon our schools and fundamentalists who harass hard working scientists. Rather than shy away from attack, he accepts invitations to be on talk shows. He gives interviews. He writes and publishes books. I don't see where he is forcing anyone to read his books.

The very problem with this country is we have all but lost the freedom to practice or not practice religion as we see fit. A fundamentalist view has worked hand in hand with our government. Rather than enjoying the right to rational discourse, we are expected to respect the irrational views of a small group of people who want to force their philosophy on others. As a father, I most certainly will _not_ stand by as the quiet, well behaved atheist while the religious right fights to teach _my child_ religion masked as science. Only _I_ have the right to determine what she will and will not learn about religion, from birth until the day she is eighteen. If that makes me a militant atheist of the bad sort, then I will settle for someone's hateful labor in exchange for being a good father and a free citizen. This is _not_ the country that was founded in the 1787.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you." --Thomas Jefferson


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 16, 2008)

There is a woman who wrote a very similar essay awhile back about Christianity, for the same reasons.

No Longer a Christian

These peoples' issue is not with what someone avows, but how the adherents of these thought/belief systems present their arguments. The public face of religion/atheism, if you will.

Doesn't mean all religious people are bad, doesn't mean all atheists are bad, doesn't even mean that anyone who publicly espouses religion or atheism is bad... just means how they're presented these days is not representative of their understanding of the best way to express human truth.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 16, 2008)

HammerAndSickle said:


> dares[/I] God? This isn't third grade, dumbasses)



To prove a point? I Don't see whats wrong with that. On top of it, they got a free book. I'd openly deny god for a free book. 

Though i am not one, i feel the militant atheists are a necessary evil to combat the whackjob fundamentalists, so the rest of us can live someplace in the middle.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

I'd rather see a more rational, humane middle ground, but...

Ken might have a point.


----------



## Nick (Jul 17, 2008)

i agree that there are a lot of said atheists out there who are just as he describes. however if he is going to do his research on youtube he may as well say that all guitarists are whiny little bitches who argue constantly amongst themselves like children because he looked at harmony central and saw lots of evidence of this.....


----------



## Naren (Jul 17, 2008)

Nick said:


> i agree that there are a lot of said atheists out there who are just as he describes. however if he is going to do his research on youtube he may as well say that all guitarists are whiny little bitches who argue constantly amongst themselves like children because he looked at harmony central and saw lots of evidence of this.....





YouTube is the worst place in the world to use as your source of info.

I could use YouTube as evidence that humanity is disgusting slime and should be annihilated off the face of the planet.


----------



## Jachop (Jul 17, 2008)

There's bad eggs everywhere. In religion and in atheism. If, however, he truly wishes to be as fair and balanced as he seems to want to be - ignoring the fact that many bad eggs is in the religious basket is a disaster and gives everything he said a subtle hint of pro-lifery.


----------



## Naren (Jul 17, 2008)

^What's wrong with pro-lifery?


----------



## Nick (Jul 17, 2008)

HammerAndSickle said:


> That's bad enough, but that just makes you an immature jerk for infringing on the rights of others. What makes you a downright bad _person_ is believing that other people are inferior to you because of their beliefs. This is where atheism fails: the majority opinion of them is that atheism is the "scientific" or "logical" or "intellectual" discourse. By believing that your religion (or lack thereof) is more logical than another, you're basically saying that the other religion's supporters are stupid or ignorant. That's prejudice, plain and simple.



I get what your saying but to me anyway beleif in god is completley ridiculous it comes across to me as insanity. People who believe things are there which they have no proof of are insane. If some guy came up and said a big fat man in a red suit landed his sled and raindeer in his garden last night, jumped out gave me a big sack of gifts and flew off shouting ho ho ho noone can say it didnt happen, unless they were there to see it not happen. To me a belief in god is based on the same logic. Why then is the guy who actually believes in santa called insane and the guy who believes in god is generally accepted as a logical individual in society. 

Theres also the issue that religious people can come off as just clinging to religion because they cant accept the fact that in the end no matter how good you were and what you did we are all going to the same place, the ground. A lot of atheists find religon to be a way of doing this  to that idea.

I could go on..... If people want to be religious im cool with it im not going to try and convert them but i do think they are crazy i wont lie about that.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

Nick said:


> i agree that there are a lot of said atheists out there who are just as he describes. however if he is going to do his research on youtube he may as well say that all guitarists are whiny little bitches who argue constantly amongst themselves like children because he looked at harmony central and saw lots of evidence of this.....


Good point, Nick.

But I think we can all see there's extremists on both sides. Like anything. For me, the whole discussion is largely irrelevant, as the motives for people to fight are usually just the thin veneer of justification for what is really ape behavior. Show Chimpanzee Group A Chimpanzee Group B, and voila! They fight. But we like to believe we do and say what we do because we care so much. Maybe some, but if we evolved from... I dunno, grasshoppers, we'd likely have much different ways of looking at disputes. No matter how "right" one side might be (or think they might be. )

And FTR, while I believe in God, I'm not insane. At least not legally speaking.


----------



## arktan (Jul 17, 2008)

Naren said:


> I could use YouTube as evidence that humanity is disgusting slime and should be annihilated off the face of the planet.



We need evidence for that?


Who is this guy anyway who wrote this article? It might aswell be a radical christian who tries to persuade non-extremistic people that atheists are generally evil.
This could work aswell for this woman who rejected christianity (just the other way around)
This just crossed my mind, especially such texts (be it against atheists or religious people) are to be taken with a grain of salt and with lots of caution because they sound so nice and balanced while the subconscious message is rather discriminating...





The Dark Wolf said:


> And FTR, while I believe in God, I'm not insane. At least not legally speaking.



Show me one person who is NOT insane  
we're all insane but some a bit errrrrr.... differently or errr.... more than others.... and the form of insanity which is the most common is considered "normal"


----------



## Nick (Jul 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Good point, Nick.
> 
> But I think we can all see there's extremists on both sides. Like anything. For me, the whole discussion is largely irrelevant, as the motives for people to fight are usually just the thin veneer of justification for what is really ape behavior. Show Chimpanzee Group A Chimpanzee Group B, and voila! They fight. But we like to believe we do and say what we do because we care so much. Maybe some, but if we evolved from... I dunno, grasshoppers, we'd likely have much different ways of looking at disputes. No matter how "right" one side might be (or think they might be. )
> 
> And FTR, while I believe in God, I'm not insane. At least not legally speaking.



true there is no point in the argument becuse there will never be a winner because you cannot disprove something which may or may not exist.

maybe we should just all be friends


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

Yay!

That's my philosophy, at any rate. Live and let live.


----------



## Nick (Jul 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> And FTR, while I believe in God, I'm not insane. At least not legally speaking.



Well thats my point really. People who are really strongly against religion are probably quite mistified and irritated that someone like you who is logical to them in general believes in god which they find totaly crazy?!? Its probably this irritation they feel that leads to the 'militant' atheists.

I have to say i agree to an extent but at the end of the day im going to act on it the same way as i would with someone who plays a fender guitar. i think they are crazy too, but im not going to go out and shout abuse at them about it.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jul 17, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> To prove a point? I Don't see whats wrong with that. On top of it, they got a free book. I'd openly deny god for a free book.
> 
> Though i am not one, i feel the militant atheists are a necessary evil to combat the whackjob fundamentalists, so the rest of us can live someplace in the middle.



Combating fanatics with fanaticism is never good. Everyone just ends up looking batshit crazy.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

Nick said:


> Well thats my point really. People who are really strongly against religion are probably quite mistified and irritated that someone like you


Why should they be irritated at what I believe? I'm not irritated at atheists or agnostics.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 17, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Combating fanatics with fanaticism is never good. Everyone just ends up looking batshit crazy.



I never said it was how it should be ideally. It just seems thats kinda how it is


----------



## hairychris (Jul 17, 2008)

It's a funny old argument and it seems like the person quoted by the OP needs to sort their definitions out.... I'm with Nick's view, on the whole, and would like to chuck a couple of things out:

1) Some atheists can be annoying and self-righteous, yes. But they never claim to have an answer for everything like their theist equivalents.

2) Atheism is not a positive belief. It's simply the lack of 'theism'. I suppose these militant atheists should really be called antitheists!

3) (A)gnosticism is to do with knowledge, (a)theism is to do with belief. I am an 'agnostic atheist' - I don't know whether there's a god or not, and therefore I don't believe in one. However the chances of this god, if it does exist, being the one describes by x prophet in y holy book is passing slim.

4) People who call themselves pure agnostics are trying to avoid the question.  'I don't know' is not a logical answer to the question 'do you believe in a god?'!!

Actually I've just read the quote from the OP again. It's bollocks. The author is confusing atheism as a concept with atheists as people. What religious believers don't tend to understand is that the only thing that can be said as being common to atheists is their lack of theism. There is no positive belief structure to atheism.

By positive I don't mean good, only active belief (I believe in god in the same way that I collect stamps as a hobby). You can use this lack of belief as a starting point for other things, but in itself it's nothing. I may not collect stamps but I do read books in the time that I spend not admiring the morning's post. 

And as for thinking that believers are crazy... well, look at the many unfounded claims of religions and ask if, taken out of the religious context, these claims could be taken seriously. As an answer to this just look at how believers of one religion look at the beliefs of people in another!


----------



## Nick (Jul 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Why should they be irritated at what I believe? I'm not irritated at atheists or agnostics.



Personally i dont understand why a rational individual would believe in something that to me is ridiculous and obviously untrue. But thats my opinion. The difference is that they cant live with it and want everyone to be like them. Whereas i dont really care as long as people keep it to themselves im happy with it.

A good way to put this is that its similar to agent smith and neo in the last matrix film (silly example but a good one lol) 

Smith knows that Neo knows he cant win the fight yet he keeps going and he cant understand why he would do this and as a result he gets pretty pissed of!


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Jul 17, 2008)

I dunno, maybe I was unqualified to make my statement earlier in the thread. For what it's worth, I was raised as a Catholic, but somewhere along the line I believed that it isn't true. Rarely have I seen Christian activists in my daily life forcing their beliefs on others, but I constantly see atheists doing such, at least around where I live.

To me, it's not a question of logic. Frankly, I think people who believe in a God because someone told them to are dumb. I also think people who _don't _believe in a God because someone told them to are equally or more stupid. I see the evidence for a God, and I also see the evidence that there isn't one. Make your decision based on evidence or belief. That's why I think children shouldn't be raised as religious: it should be a choice.

In any event, that video someone posted of the Blasphemy challenge loser infuriated me. He was on Fox news and I heard more loaded language from him than any other side  My god, that guy is such a loser. "Psychological torture"? Get over yourself. If you were religious, you would realize that you can't force someone to be religious. Even if you have militant parents that force you to worship daily and refuse to allow you to voice dissent, it's as easy as saying in your head "I don't believe this" and it has no power over you. _No one is afraid of Hell or Jesus._ The majority of the kids doing this challenge are 12-16, which is an age where you're smart enough to not need a freakin' Blasphemy cult leader to tell you you can disagree.

What most people don't understand on both sides of the fence is this (and it's my opinion, but I hold it to be the most _logical_ discourse): _the purpose of religion is not to create mythology and legend, it's to promote good values among humanity._ Jesus didn't die and ressurect himself. There is no elephant god with four hands (god I love hinduism ) Yahweh never visited Moses to deliver Tablets. Those are my beliefs. I defend religion because it teaches people to be kind, respectful, and loving to one another. It uses legends and parables to teach people how to coexist.

The logical argument to that is "atheists can be good people, we don't need a book or a church to tell us how to act". And I say "okay". That's why I don't hound atheists to convert, because in the end do what you want, it's your life. But when you attack religion for being "false", in the end you're just missing the point.


----------



## noodles (Jul 17, 2008)

Naren said:


> ^What's wrong with pro-lifery?



I don't think ANYONE should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I oppose it on the same grounds that I oppose the illegality of drugs: it takes the sovereign rights to the body out of the hands of people, and into the hands of the government.

Men should have no say in the matter. I cannot carry a growing fetus for nine months, forcing it out a tiny hole in my pelvis, taking imaginable physical toll on me, and then being stuck with a crying, demanding parasite. (I love kids, but that was to put it in perspective for the men.) At the very least, we should have REAL child support laws that make sense: laws that don't lampoon the men that are trying, and laws that crucify the irresponsible males (not men) who try to run away. Top that off with birth control, taught in every single fucking school in the country, and given away free to all who want it. If someone wants to talk to me about "pro-life", then it had better be a woman, distributing condoms and birth control pills, telling teenagers that masturbation is healthy, harassing dead beat dads, and lobbying for free health care for all children.

Even if it got to that point, I still have a hard time seeing "pro-life" as anything other than "anti-choice". Children should be seen as the beautiful thing they are, rather than punishment for following a biological impulse, and that will never happen as long as unplanned pregnancies are so high, and whackos on the right keep fostering a policy to keep that number up.



The Dark Wolf said:


> But I think we can all see there's extremists on both sides. Like anything. For me, the whole discussion is largely irrelevant, as the motives for people to fight are usually just the thin veneer of justification for what is really ape behavior. Show Chimpanzee Group A Chimpanzee Group B, and voila! They fight. But we like to believe we do and say what we do because we care so much. Maybe some, but if we evolved from... I dunno, grasshoppers, we'd likely have much different ways of looking at disputes. No matter how "right" one side might be (or think they might be. )



I find it ironic that only one side of the argument will see your point and agree wholeheartedly, since the other side will firmly exist that we have NOTHING in common with apes. 



hairychris said:


> 2) Atheism is not a positive belief. It's simply the lack of 'theism'. I suppose these militant atheists should really be called antitheists!



The word atheism originally meant just that: a-theism, or a lack of theism. It was a word uses by theists to paint non-believers in a negative light, which is why, to this day, many "atheists" refer to themselves as "free thinkers", just as Thomas Jefferson did.

I'm not afraid of a word, which is why I don't mind the label. The description fits, so be it. I agree, though, that anti-theism could be used to describe the minority that gives the whole a bad name.

Since I love irony in all forms, "atheist fundamentalists" would be my preferred term, since these are the people that are convinced that they are absolutely right. Evolution is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. God, or the lack thereof, is a theory. I am not going to make absolutely statements about theories. Now, the overwhelming scientific evidence points fairly conclusively to evolution, the Big Bang, and lack of a god, but I am open to someone proving to me tomorrow that a god does exist, and that he did wave his hands and create everything six thousand years ago. You're going to have to prove it to me with _real_ science, though. To me, that is what it means to be an atheist. You can be open-minded and a skeptic at the same time, without conflict, if you dedicate yourself to rational, scientific principals.

This is the same approach I take in my line of work. I'm a systems administrator, and when I fix a problem on one of my servers, the first thing I do is try to break it. Why? I'm testing my theory. I test my theory by trying to disprove it, in this case, by trying to reproduce the error I got before I changed things. I think taking things at initial face value is folly, since a simple reboot can clear the error without fixing the problem. Why should my view of life be any different.



HammerAndSickle said:


> I dunno, maybe I was unqualified to make my statement earlier in the thread. For what it's worth, I was raised as a Catholic, but somewhere along the line I believed that it isn't true. Rarely have I seen Christian activists in my daily life forcing their beliefs on others, but I constantly see atheists doing such, at least around where I live.



I was also raised Catholic, and I see Christian activists all the time. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door. Fundamentalists picket Planned Parenthood clinics. They fight to have creationism taught in science classes in our schools.

I do not walk up to Christians and try to tell them that they are wrong, so why do they accost me and try to tell me about Christ? Because their teachings tell them to do it! Jesus told his disciples to be a witness to people, to go forth and spread his teachings. If you're not out spreading "the good news", then you're not a good Christian. God wants you to be hot or cold, not lukewarm, or he will kick you out of heaven (spit you out of his mouth). I am amazed by how many Christians do not read the Bible, or they would know these things. The moderates that are easy to get along with are simply not good Christians, and the fundamentalists simply prove what a horrible, oppressive religion Christianity is.

Why do you think guys like Bob reject religion? He wants to believe in a god without baggage. He doesn't want to be tied to this ancient, barbaric beliefs. He wants to be free to believe in what he wants to believe, on his own terms. That is a belief that does not seek to violate the civil rights of others, and is therefore a belief I can find no fault in, regardless of what I believe or do not believe. The "militant atheists" that would accost or belittle Bob would get my full wrath, for they would be accomplishing nothing but the harassment of a peaceful man. In my experience, the militants, as Ken said, are simply going after the militants on the other side. "Fuck you non-believers!" "Yeah, well fuck you for believing in a myth!" Hey, let 'em have at it.


----------



## auxioluck (Jul 17, 2008)

noodles said:


> I don't think ANYONE should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I oppose it on the same grounds that I oppose the illegality of drugs: it takes the sovereign rights to the body out of the hands of people, and into the hands of the government.
> 
> Men should have no say in the matter. I cannot carry a growing fetus for nine months, forcing it out a tiny hole in my pelvis, taking imaginable physical toll on me, and then being stuck with a crying, demanding parasite. (I love kids, but that was to put it in perspective for the men.) At the very least, we should have REAL child support laws that make sense: laws that don't lampoon the men that are trying, and laws that crucify the irresponsible males (not men) who try to run away. Top that off with birth control, taught in every single fucking school in the country, and given away free to all who want it. If someone wants to talk to me about "pro-life", then it had better be a woman, distributing condoms and birth control pills, telling teenagers that masturbation is healthy, harassing dead beat dads, and lobbying for free health care for all children.



Very well said.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

noodles said:


> I find it ironic that only one side of the argument will see your point and agree wholeheartedly, since the other side will firmly exist that we have NOTHING in common with apes.



Maybe, Dave... but there's plenty of people who believe in God and who don't take the literal view of Genesis. You're kind of doing what you say the essay writer is doing - making sweeping generalizations.

And I think, personally, that plenty of atheists would tell me that it has nothing to do with some hidden, evolved motivation, and everything to do with how right and true they are. No different from religious zealots. 

But maybe not. Nick thinks my belief in God is ridiculous... (I have many reasons for belief in God. Some logical, some empirical, some personal. Einstein himself believed in God, and there is an _eminently_ logical, rational mind.  ) Yet I don't think his lack of belief in God is ridiculous. In fact, I respect his views and opinions, just like I hope he respects mine.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 17, 2008)

Urgh, I just wrote out an essay-length reply, and then firefox crashed and l lost it all. GAH!!! Instead I'll just say I'm a strong atheist and this website is good.

Ask the Atheist


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm not an atheist, and this website _is_ good. 

And! I love all my atheistic heathen buddies on here.


----------



## Naren (Jul 17, 2008)

noodles said:


> I don't think ANYONE should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. I oppose it on the same grounds that I oppose the illegality of drugs: it takes the sovereign rights to the body out of the hands of people, and into the hands of the government.
> 
> Men should have no say in the matter. I cannot carry a growing fetus for nine months, forcing it out a tiny hole in my pelvis, taking imaginable physical toll on me, and then being stuck with a crying, demanding parasite. (I love kids, but that was to put it in perspective for the men.) At the very least, we should have REAL child support laws that make sense: laws that don't lampoon the men that are trying, and laws that crucify the irresponsible males (not men) who try to run away. Top that off with birth control, taught in every single fucking school in the country, and given away free to all who want it. If someone wants to talk to me about "pro-life", then it had better be a woman, distributing condoms and birth control pills, telling teenagers that masturbation is healthy, harassing dead beat dads, and lobbying for free health care for all children.
> 
> Even if it got to that point, I still have a hard time seeing "pro-life" as anything other than "anti-choice". Children should be seen as the beautiful thing they are, rather than punishment for following a biological impulse, and that will never happen as long as unplanned pregnancies are so high, and whackos on the right keep fostering a policy to keep that number up.



Well, I disagree. I'm not gonna try to turn this thread into a pro-abortion or anti-abortion thing. 

I do not believe in the existence of God. I do not believe in anything spiritual or anything religious. But I do not think that abortion has anything to do with the woman's body. It has to do with another human being. People always use the term "foetus" to try to de-humanize it, but it is a human. And, you need both a man and a woman to make one. So, I believe abortion is killing. I won't say "murder" simply because the dictionary defines "murder" as killing someone illegally and abortion is currently legal. And I believe the man should have a say on the matter just as much as the woman. It may not be in his body, but he CAN'T have it in his body and it is just as much his child as hers.

Why do I as a very liberal person and a very non-religious person believe this? Because if my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't be here right now. And I would rather grow up in an orphanage than have been killed before birth.

I think anyone has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body when it comes to killing. Because, by that definition, I am a part of a woman's body (or technically "was").

And that's why I asked "What's wrong with pro-lifery?" I don't push my views on anyone. In fact, I never even mention what I believe regarding abortion unless asked. And I am against killing humans in any way. And I see abortion as more of a justification out of convenience.


----------



## noodles (Jul 17, 2008)

I stick by my point that it is easy to be pro-life when you are a man. Men don't have to go through pregnancy. Women do. 

Even if you look at adoption as the end result, that is nine months of morning sickness, sore feet, hormonal imbalance, weight gain, mood swings, stretching skin, sore breasts, bladder pressure, water retention, and weird food craving, just to name a few of the multitude of changes that undergo a pregnant woman's body. This all culminates in 6-18 hours of escalating pain. Pregnancy takes a permanent toll on a woman's body, and unless motherhood is her goal, it is a lot to ask a woman to do. Mothers complain about sagging breasts, stretch marks, weight gain, and a stretched vaginal opening that they can never completely recover from. A man cannot alleviate any of this. He cannot take any of it upon himself. It renders his opinion pretty moot.

If a fetus could live outside of a woman's body, then yes, it would be murder. However, it cannot. That's because it is not a human yet. It's a developing human. You don't see people having an abortion at six months, because it is no longer just a fetus. How can we ask a woman to put herself through this if she does not want to? Hell, we won't even re-institute the draft to fill a troop shortage during a war.

If one is going to argue the point that abortion is murder, then where do you draw the line? What if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? Is murder justified to spare woman's emotional well being? We won't put the rapist to death, so why put the fetus to death? How about incest? What about congenital birth defects? If the fetus has something that is going to result in permanent, severe mental retardation, do we condemn the parents to sacrifice the rest of their lives caring for little more than vegetable? What if the mother's life is at risk? How do you determine which life is more important, the baby or the mother?

How many homeless, starving people do we have in this world today? How many unwanted babies are left as wards of the state. Maybe we should clean up the problems we have before we add more.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 17, 2008)




----------



## JBroll (Jul 17, 2008)

Want to be pro-abortion? Not just pro-choice, pro-full-on-baby-killing? Work with public school failures for a month.

Jeff


----------



## Makelele (Jul 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Want to be pro-abortion? Not just pro-choice, pro-full-on-baby-killing? Work with public school failures for a month.
> 
> Jeff



I'd think I'd be considering post-natal abortion at that point.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jul 17, 2008)

I worked as a substitute teacher for almost two years and I'm still pro-life.


----------



## noodles (Jul 17, 2008)

I support the 186th trimester abortion of our president.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jul 17, 2008)

I support giving Bush a lovely ranch and library all his own on Pluto.


----------



## noodles (Jul 17, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> I support giving Bush a lovely ranch and library all his own on Pluto.



Do that, and within eight years, Pluto will have shifted orbit, crashing into Neptune, wrecking the layout of the entire outer solar system.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 17, 2008)

But it'll be the Democrat's fault...

Jeff


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Jul 17, 2008)

The best page in the Universe said:


> I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win. I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up. The only way I'd be "pro choice" is if it meant I could choose which babies I could abort, and only then if I could lift the age restriction to 80. I was at this mall the other day watching some shitty documentary when I came out of the theater and saw old people dancing to country music in the courtyard. I couldn't remember the last time I saw a group of people begging this hard to be aborted.



 Maddox rules in terms of politics.

Anyway, this has gone more than a little off-topic, I think. Unless we're aborting fetuses because of their religious beliefs.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jul 17, 2008)

SolNiger said:


> That's a very good read. As an agnostic I find Atheists self-righteous opinions extremely irritating.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 17, 2008)

As an autotheist I find agnostics' smug superiority complex and assumptions about my self-righteousness extremely irritating.

Jeff


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jul 17, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> To prove a point? I Don't see whats wrong with that. On top of it, they got a free book. I'd openly deny god for a free book.


----------



## Nick (Jul 18, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> But maybe not. Nick thinks my belief in God is ridiculous... (I have many reasons for belief in God. Some logical, some empirical, some personal. Einstein himself believed in God, and there is an _eminently_ logical, rational mind.  ) Yet I don't think his lack of belief in God is ridiculous. In fact, I respect his views and opinions, just like I hope he respects mine.



like i said, im cool with people believing what they want to if it enhances their life in some way then great .


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 18, 2008)

Nick said:


> like i said, im cool with people believing what they want to if it enhances their life in some way then great .



And that is the sum of wisdom, my friend.


----------



## Carrion (Jul 18, 2008)

JBroll said:


> As an autotheist I find agnostics' smug superiority complex and assumptions about my self-righteousness extremely irritating.
> 
> Jeff



As a pantheist I...


----------



## hairychris (Jul 18, 2008)

Does Apathist count?

If so, I'm there...!


----------



## noodles (Jul 18, 2008)

As a moderator, I find this thread derailing.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 18, 2008)

noodles said:


> As a moderator, I find this thread derailing.



As a derailer, I find this thread too moderate.

Jeff


----------



## Variant (Jul 18, 2008)

hairychris said:


> It's a funny old argument and it seems like the person quoted by the OP needs to sort their definitions out.... I'm with Nick's view, on the whole, and would like to chuck a couple of things out:
> 
> 1) Some atheists can be annoying and self-righteous, yes. But they never claim to have an answer for everything like their theist equivalents.
> 
> ...



This post is chock full of win! +rep to you sir.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> I could use YouTube as evidence that humanity is disgusting slime and should be annihilated off the face of the planet.



And such a conclusion wouldn't be wholly inaccurate.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 18, 2008)

JBroll said:


> As a derailer, I find this thread too moderate.
> 
> Jeff



 That was pretty funny.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 18, 2008)

noodles said:


> Men should have no say in the matter. I cannot carry a growing fetus for nine months, forcing it out a tiny hole in my pelvis, taking imaginable physical toll on me, and then being stuck with a crying, demanding parasite. (I love kids, but that was to put it in perspective for the men.) At the very least, we should have REAL child support laws that make sense: laws that don't lampoon the men that are trying, and laws that crucify the irresponsible males (not men) who try to run away. Top that off with birth control, taught in every single fucking school in the country, and given away free to all who want it. If someone wants to talk to me about "pro-life", then it had better be a woman, distributing condoms and birth control pills, telling teenagers that masturbation is healthy, harassing dead beat dads, and lobbying for free health care for all children.



You just summed up in one paragraph what I've been trying to word for years now.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Jul 18, 2008)

NegaTiveXero said:


> As an atheist, I find find your generalizations incredibly irritating.



And know you can fully understand what any christian feels like when they read the commentary directed at them (same can go for muslims).



White men fought in the civil war against those who beleived slavery was correct
White men were promenint on the underground railroad
People of Irish descent were treated as bad/worse than black americans at any point in history

Christians were persecuted by Roman Catholics, as well as the pagans
Muslims are, large majority, against inciting violence (being as it hurts several dozen/hunder of muslims, versus the 2-3 americans they kill)



I dont want an atheist president, I want an american president
I dont want a Christian speaker of the house, I want a rational speaker of the house
I dont want muslim nations, I want human nations.

A beleif in nothing, is still a beleif in itself.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 18, 2008)

A lack of belief isn't, on the other hand...

Jeff


----------



## Carrion (Jul 18, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> Christians were persecuted by Roman Catholics


----------



## Naren (Jul 19, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> People of Irish descent were treated as bad/worse than black americans at any point in history



Oh, yeah. Because Irish were turned into slaves and led around like cattle, were killed without any protest, had their women raped with no issues at all.

Maybe you're not familiar with American history. People of Irish descent were treated poorly, but not anywhere near as bad as the slaves.



newamerikangospel said:


> Christians were persecuted by Roman Catholics, as well as the pagans



 Uh... so, Christians were persecuted by Christians...? Maybe you mean protestants were persecuted by Roman Catholics? But, likewise, you can find cases where Roman Catholics were persecuted by protestants.


----------



## Celiak (Jul 19, 2008)

Religion and atheism are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims. I feel compelled to side with the atheists because of the way religion has treated me, but in no way agree with their philosophies.

I exist and the universe exists therefor I must conclude that something had to have happened for things to exist where logically nothing should have. I find it quite invigorating to think of but I seek my answers from physics rather than religion. Based on meager the evidence and data it is impossible to conclude that there is or isn't a god. Although if intelligent design did indeed occur then science and physics should be able to prove it. Unfortunately it is improbable that we will find this evidence anytime soon.

I am contented to gain any little understanding of the universe that I can in my lifetime and to try to keep an open mind to whatever the truth may be if the day ever comes that we find it.


----------



## Carrion (Jul 19, 2008)

"Religion and *atheism* are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims."

Atheism, at least weak atheism isn't a belief system. It's a negative position in which it is felt there isn't sufficient evidence to show there is a god, therefore there is no reason to conclude that there is one. Strong atheism on the other hand uses ideas like the conflict of omnipotence and omniscience to conclude that god is a logical impossibility.


----------



## Naren (Jul 19, 2008)

Celiak said:


> Religion and atheism are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims. I feel compelled to side with the atheists because of the way religion has treated me, but in no way agree with their philosophies.



Atheism doesn't expect you to believe anything. It's not a religion or a belief system. The "A" means "not" or "lack of." So, "Not a theist." A theist believes in the existance of a God or gods. An atheist is simply not a theist (and thus does not believe in the existance of God/gods).

"Religion and atheism are both silly" to you?  Okay, let me use the same line of logic. "It's silly to believe in anything. Believing in anything, whether it's the existence of God or the existence of food, expects you to think something exists. And thinking something exists or doesn't exist is silly."


----------



## forelander (Jul 19, 2008)

Naren said:


> "Religion and atheism are both silly" to you?  Okay, let me use the same line of logic. "It's silly to believe in anything. Believing in anything, whether it's the existence of God or the existence of food, expects you to think something exists. And thinking something exists or doesn't exist is silly."



There's strong empirical evidence to suggest the existence of food though, so it's not that silly.


----------



## hairychris (Jul 19, 2008)

Celiak said:


> Religion and atheism are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims. I feel compelled to side with the atheists because of the way religion has treated me, but in no way agree with their philosophies.
> 
> I exist and the universe exists therefor I must conclude that something had to have happened for things to exist where logically nothing should have. I find it quite invigorating to think of but I seek my answers from physics rather than religion. Based on meager the evidence and data it is impossible to conclude that there is or isn't a god. Although if intelligent design did indeed occur then science and physics should be able to prove it. Unfortunately it is improbable that we will find this evidence anytime soon.
> 
> I am contented to gain any little understanding of the universe that I can in my lifetime and to try to keep an open mind to whatever the truth may be if the day ever comes that we find it.



This is known as agnostic atheism. You don't know so you don't believe.

Join the club!


----------



## JBroll (Jul 19, 2008)

Celiak said:


> Religion and atheism are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims. I feel compelled to side with the atheists because of the way religion has treated me, but in no way agree with their philosophies.
> 
> I exist and the universe exists therefor I must conclude that something had to have happened for things to exist where logically nothing should have. I find it quite invigorating to think of but I seek my answers from physics rather than religion. Based on meager the evidence and data it is impossible to conclude that there is or isn't a god. Although if intelligent design did indeed occur then science and physics should be able to prove it. Unfortunately it is improbable that we will find this evidence anytime soon.
> 
> I am contented to gain any little understanding of the universe that I can in my lifetime and to try to keep an open mind to whatever the truth may be if the day ever comes that we find it.



Where are you pulling 'logically nothing should have [existed]' from? That's a pretty bold claim without much evidence behind it... 

Jeff


----------



## Celiak (Jul 20, 2008)

Indeed it is, I thought that when I was writing it. However, to me it seems logical to concluded that for nothing to exist nothing has to happen but for something to exist had to happen. That is circular logic though for all I know something could have always existed. As alien as that concept may be many things in physics don't follow what I would consider conventionally logical. Good catch.



Naren said:


> Atheism doesn't expect you to believe anything. It's not a religion or a belief system. The "A" means "not" or "lack of." So, "Not a theist." A theist believes in the existance of a God or gods. An atheist is simply not a theist (and thus does not believe in the existance of God/gods).
> 
> "Religion and atheism are both silly" to you?  Okay, let me use the same line of logic. "It's silly to believe in anything. Believing in anything, whether it's the existence of God or the existence of food, expects you to think something exists. And thinking something exists or doesn't exist is silly."



I'm going to have to agree with what Forlelander said on this. There is plenty of empirical evidence that food exists. It is not believing in something that I have an issue with, it is believing in something without any empirical evidence to support it.



Carrion said:


> "Religion and *atheism* are both silly to me, they both expect you to believe something with little empirical evidence to support their claims."
> 
> Atheism, at least weak atheism isn't a belief system. It's a negative position in which it is felt there isn't sufficient evidence to show there is a god, therefore there is no reason to conclude that there is one. Strong atheism on the other hand uses ideas like the conflict of omnipotence and omniscience to conclude that god is a logical impossibility.



Sadly all of the atheists I have met seem to conclude God is an impossibility. Quite militantly in fact. I have no problem with people that reject theism on the basis of little proof but don't discount the possibility for the same reason.



hairychris said:


> This is known as agnostic atheism. You don't know so you don't believe.
> 
> Join the club!



I've been told that before, but they just said I was agnostic. Though I am not really concerned with labels. But  for coming to the same conclusion as I.


----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

Atheism is the explicit belief there is no god. People that dont know either way are agnostic. Which is what most atheists fall under, they just dont know it.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

THAT SAME ARTICLE said:


> Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.



The definition you're working with states clearly 'as an explicit belief' before your definition, which is only part of your definition, so you really had no reason to quote that article, and most atheists do not in fact like that definition. The word (atheism - 'without theism') more easily supports the looser definition than your more restrictive one. Agnosticism means to not know, which as not as definite - the existence of a god is either unknown or unknowable, and to use your stricter level of inclusion on agnosticism's definition would mean that agnosticism would be believing in the 'unknowability' of theism, so you're being inconsistent with your standards.

Most people use atheism to mean a lack of belief in theism OR a belief in the falsehood of theism, and then differentiate between 'weak'/'negative'/'agnostic' atheist (the former) and 'strong'/'positive'/'gnostic' atheist (the latter); your definition is directly contrary to the standard and serves no purpose but to get people tripped up over words and not issues.

Jeff


----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

I just quoted wikipedia because it was quick and easy.

When it comes to believing in "God" (deities of some sort albeit one, many, etc), you either know for sure there is, know for sure there isnt, or have no idea. 

Obviously Atheists dont like that definition because it pigeon holes them, but thats the standard definition. I mean you could say that there for sure isnt 95 gods, but there could be/is a single omnipotent being that controls everything, but if you use the word "could" instead of "is" then you would be agnostic.

Anyone that says they dont know for sure is agnostic. Anyone that says there is a god, gods or divinities of some sort are theists (belief in any theism be it monotheism, polytheism, etc) and those that say there is no chance of any sort of divinity are atheists. You cant really stretch atheism to match agnostic since there is already a definition of agnostic. Its the "in between" so to speak. Its not like there is yes or no and you stretch either side to fit you, there is a gray area, its agnostic.

And yes it is all about words since that how you define you position. All the bases are covered. Yes, No, Maybe. You either dont know or you believe in some sort of deity, or you know for sure there isnt. Multiple choice, A, B, or C.

Like I said, most people that are atheists fall into the agnostic category, but they really dont know what agnostic means because they have been labeled as atheists by the mainstream and never heard the term agnostic. I thought I was atheist for a long time until someone sat down and explained it to me.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

You can also just lack a belief. You're missing that very important middle ground. That fits into none of the categories. It's not that I don't believe in a god because I don't know - the typical definitions of a god are to me inherently nonsensical so I don't fit into any of your categories, but lacking a belief in god is the defining characteristic of atheism.

I could just as easily turn around and say that agnostics are technically atheists because theism is a positive statement that they do not make.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 20, 2008)

Jeff -

You don't _always_ have to be right, bro. 

You guys are splitting hairs, now. I know... it's the internet. But still.


----------



## Naren (Jul 20, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Jeff -
> 
> You don't _always_ have to be right, bro.
> 
> You guys are splitting hairs, now. I know... it's the internet. But still.



But, this time, he _is_ right. 

Of course, I completely agree that they are splitting hairs. They are arguing about semantics and nothing more.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 20, 2008)

To be honest, Jeff usually is right. 

But it's vulgar to always put it in people's faces like that. 


And you have the same issue, Eric. 


*Insert lols here*


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

Naren said:


> But, this time, he _is_ right.
> 
> Of course, I completely agree that they are splitting hairs. They are arguing about semantics and nothing more.



Yes, but I'm splitting hairs *consistently* and he's not - these things must be done with care!







Jeff


----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Jeff -
> 
> You don't _always_ have to be right, bro.
> 
> You guys are splitting hairs, now. I know... it's the internet. But still.



Actually Im not splitting hairs. Im saying there is basically 3 options. You do, you dont or you dont know. Thats pretty straight forward.

Jeff is trying to split hairs and getting into the semantics debate by coming up with all these different middle grounds and shades of grey. 

I work with a guy that has his masters in theology and after a few conversations with him over the last 10+ years, it became pretty simple. I've also had conversations with some fairly high up Catholic clergy about this topic (wifes family is devout Catholic). They pretty much confirmed my thoughts on it. 

They have done a bunch of studies about this stuff and most atheists actually fall into the agnostic column. Thats the middle ground. Its a vast wide ranging middle ground, but thats the middle ground. How you want to sort it out inside of that middle ground is your business, but it still falls into the same middle ground.

Its like the gay marriage debate. People try to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Its marriage. People can come up with all kinds of weird terms for gay marriage, but its still a marriage. Two people agree to devote their lives to each other. 

Language is a slippery slope. Its not exact. People love to split hairs about it and twist a definition whatever way they can to support their conclusions. Look at lawyers, their main purpose in life it to twist definitions certain ways to support their claims. My point is very simple. You either know for sure there is, you know for sure there isnt, or you dont know for sure either way. When Huxley coined the phrase agnostic in 1876, that was his basic definition of the word. Its been bastardized since then, so has the term atheist.

Since people have warped the words so much over the years, there is another group called "Free Thinkers" that basically combines all the different non-knowing/non-believing groups under a single umbrella. So in their world you are either a theist or a free thinker. Talk about black and white.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

No, you're redefining my middle ground in a nonstandard (and nonsensical) way and trying to make the word atheist mean something that wouldn't follow directly from its translation. 

Also, consulting Catholics on anything but Catholicism is a mistake, and consulting them on Catholicism doesn't always work.

Jeff


----------



## daybean (Jul 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Yes, but I'm splitting hairs *consistently* and he's not - these things must be done with care!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




this should be your new avatar


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

Also, freethinkers can be theists - they just reject dogma, not necessarily theism. That term would also disclude people who reject theism for political reasons and not intellectual or moral reasons...

Jeff


----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> No, you're redefining my middle ground in a nonstandard (and nonsensical) way and trying to make the word atheist mean something that wouldn't follow directly from its translation.
> 
> Also, consulting Catholics on anything but Catholicism is a mistake, and consulting them on Catholicism doesn't always work.
> 
> Jeff



The middle ground I am going by is the middle ground defined by the person that coined the term. If your definition is different then fine, but you are the one splitting the hairs and twisting it to suit your needs.

Your point about Catholics is one of the problems with a lot of people these days. Myself, I try to talk to as many people as I can to get everyones point of view and make my own decision from there. There are plenty of Catholic scholars out there that have an open mind that are open to debate about this stuff in a respectable manner. I wont argue with them, I will ask questions, get responses, rebute and move on. Thats healthy debating and a healthy way to learn. To say people are nonsensical is not how people should debate and learn. "Oh your just looney, your opinion means nothing." If I run into someone I am asking questions with and they throw out the "looney" card so to speak, I will try to seek out someone else that wont be so narrow minded.

I would love to sit down with someone like the Dalai Lama and talk about his beliefs and Buddhism. That would be fantastic.

I grew up Lutheran and my Pastor had a helluva time with me during my confirmation classes because I questioned everything he said. He is now a very close friend that I talk to about this stuff all the time as well. I respected him very much because he was very open and honest about his view of religion, his faith, etc and didnt look down on me because my opinions differed.

I also read some of Dawkins work, I've read the old and new testaments a few dozens times, read through much or the Koran, Torah, etc. Religion is a very interesting study if you look at it from an agnostic point of view. Its a real good insight into how people think and their belief systems.

Now I realize that you will probably still say I am being nonsensical, and thats fine, I respect your point of view. To each his own. I am just going by the definitions as defined by the person that coined the term.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

My original point, again, is that you're allowing agnosticism to be inclusive but not allowing atheism to be similarly broad. Atheism doesn't mean "I believe that no gods exist" any more than agnosticism means "I don't think it is possible to answer the question of the existence of a god"; in fact, one can be both agnostic and atheist ('I do not know if a god exists, so while I do not have a belief either way I do definitely lack a belief in god' - which is not theistic, and therefore atheistic, but seems to be what you're trying to say isn't atheistic) by the standards set for agnosticism by Huxley and the direct translation of atheism.

We're both going by Huxley's definition of agnosticism, but you're putting an unusual restriction on what atheism means (a restriction not supported by the historical context of atheism or the word's actual definition) for no apparent reason.

Jeff


----------



## Carrion (Jul 20, 2008)




----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Atheism doesn't mean "I believe that no gods exist" any more than agnosticism means "I don't think it is possible to answer the question of the existence of a god"; in fact, one can be both agnostic and atheist ('I do not know if a god exists, so while I do not have a belief either way I do definitely lack a belief in god' - which is not theistic, and therefore atheistic, but seems to be what you're trying to say isn't atheistic) by the standards set for agnosticism by Huxley and the direct translation of atheism.
> 
> We're both going by Huxley's definition of agnosticism, but you're putting an unusual restriction on what atheism means (a restriction not supported by the historical context of atheism or the word's actual definition) for no apparent reason.
> 
> Jeff



Actually the hard line definition of agnostic means that knowledge of god is unknowable. It is not possible to know if there is a god or not. 

From Huxley:

_"... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." _

_ "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God&#8217;s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."_

Now, I do agree that I am more conservative with the term atheist and a little more liberal with the term agnostic, but to me that is the more rational stance. If you have any doubt whatsoever in the existence of god, then you are agnostic. 

The problem with both terms is that once you become liberal with the meaning, they can overlap. But If you are hardline with either term, there is a lot of unanswered middle ground. To me the more rational stance is to err on the side of caution. 

Atheist = no god whatsoever
Agnostic = knowledge of god is unknowable
Theist = god exists

Now, to me unknowable is akin to doubt. So you can be more liberal with agnostic because unknowable and doubt are along the same lines. Its not possible to rationally believe in something, but yet still doubt it so the right and left side needs to stay right and left.

It seems to be thats more along the lines of what Huxley meant. At least in the stuff I have read in his writings on the topic. If you look at the second definition above from Huxleys writings you can see he is a bit more liberal with the term.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 20, 2008)

I would change, or add to, the definition of "agnostic."

Agnostic = knowledge of god/gods is either A) unknowable, or B) uncertain.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

DomitianX said:


> Now, to me unknowable is akin to doubt.



I misphrased things earlier, but this is where I disagree. It is no more doubting than it is affirming. It is stating the impossibility of either (but, consequentially, implying a lack of belief, leading us to... atheism!), and for the record most atheists I know do NOT fall under this. In fact, most atheists I know aren't too stupid to know what they believe, so you've made the mistake of trying to make a massive claim about 'most atheists' and making an illogical jump. No, wait, sorry, the two mistakes of a massive claim and an illogical jump, and using a nonstandard and counterintuitive definition of atheist. Erm, scratch that, the three mistakes of... I'll just come in again.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 20, 2008)

Jeff, you're... sort of getting the spirit.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jul 20, 2008)

> I don't believe in God, I guess, in any conventional terms, and I'm non-religious. But Jeezy Chreezy, the public face of atheism turns my stomach. It is an unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one's opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn't believe in.



Really? Dawkins never goes out of his way to offend. Hitchens and Meyers do, but only when it's funny. The recent cracker kerfuffle is a good example of this.



> If someone was a political commentator, and operated the way Meyers, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens did, would anyone listen to them? No. As much as the success of the Ann Coulters of the world suggests otherwise, we largely understand that a basic level of decorum, mutual respect, and the assumption of good faith should under gird our national dialogue. Indeed, without these assumptions, the dialogue is not worth having.



Politics is wholly different from science. Politics is all about value judgments, and indeed, someone who operated the way Meyers did about politics would be wholly wrong because politics is clearly _your opinion_ and you can not be sure about whether personal liberty or equality is more valuable the way you can be sure that the evidence points to evolution being the origin of species and a naturalistic universe. Besides that, this guy is once again overblowing the perceived negative attitude of the new atheists.



> But then there is atheism, where it is apparently the case that you can always come closer to righteousness by expressing still-greater contempt for those with which you don't agree. Now, this is all very strange; though growing, the atheist minority is stilled dwarfed in this country and in this world by the religious. And how can you possibly change people's minds if you're constantly ridiculing them? Doesn't make much sense.



Honestly, has this person ever read the God Delusion, God is Not Great, Letter to a Christian Nation, or anything? Far from being contemptuous, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are absolutely sympathetic to the common believer. Hitchens in particular compares the desire for religious belief with his former Trotskyism. On the other hand, Dawkins and Meyers in particular _do_ hold contempt for people like Dr. Egnor, an ID proponent who should clearly know better, but still persist in putting up straw men as well as employing pretty much every other logical fallacy in their quest to defeat "Darwinism". 



> But I suspect that it makes perfect sense. It makes sense because the goal of the new atheism has never been to convert. It has never been to include. It has never been to change minds. The ridicule is the goal; the contempt is the end; the sheer fun of sanctimony, self-righteousness and loathing are the purpose. Go to Youtube and look for all the young atheists proudly telling their webcams that Jesus is a lie and religion is a fantasy and God is a disease and on and on.... Do they really want to convince anyone? No. What they want is to feel that they are better than others. They want to insult for the joy of insulting. They want a sense of superiority, one I imagine is often denied in their lives, and by ridiculing something others find sacred, they find their method. This is classic adversary philosophy: I think this thing is true because in its being true it debases you and elevates me.
> 
> The new atheism has made its challenge, then. And here is my answer. I don't believe in God, in any meaningful way. I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew, or whatever else you will. In questions of public policy I feel religion has no place, and rational discourse has to rule. I don't want religious artifacts in the public square, I don't want creationism taught in public schools, and I don't want any religion privileged in any way by government. I am, in most every way that matters, a natural ally of atheism.
> 
> But atheism has expelled me. It has expelled me because it has in its heart contempt and loathing and fear of the other. So I reject it. I don't reject all atheists; many atheist are uninterested in ridiculing the religious-- they simply want to be left in peace, and not have religion forced on them or on the law. That, to me, is a principled atheism, and one I am happy to coexist with. But this new atheism, this anti-theism, has only contempt at its heart, and I reject it as thoroughly as it has rejected me.



If he wants to put forth (worthy) criticisms of the Hot Topic atheists, that's fine, but leave Dawkins, Hitchens, and Meyers out of it.

Besides that, on the Blasphemy Challenge: Sylvia Brown on CNN can effectively counter James Randi's arguments simply by stating "he's an atheist." If a prosecutor gets Richard Dawkins on the stand and asks him if his knowledge of evolution contributed to his unbelief, Dawkins would have to answer yes and would by doing so instantly lose the jury. Can you honestly say that there isn't a need for atheists to stop hiding in the corner?



Variant said:


> That's part of the reason why I concider myself a skeptic as opposed to an athiest. I don't completely dismiss the distant possiblily of an alien creator(s), but I'm not really not into that maybe/maybe-not 50/50 (or even 80/20) camp that many agnostics dwell in.



Honestly, does _anybody_ completely disavow the possibility of the existence of a supernatural creator? Let me explicitly quote Dawkins:

"Type 7: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.' ... I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I'll include it for symmetry with category 1 [I *know* there is a God]. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about faeries at the bottom of the garden."



HammerAndSickle said:


> Lets face it here: forcing your opinions on others makes you a jackass. In today's social climate tolerance and respect are paramount to successfully coexisting with others. You're just as bad as a militant Christian if you somehow think you can disprove the existence of a God, and try and force that on others.



Stop misrepresenting. No one, and I mean no one, believes that you can disprove the existence of a god. That being said, how is writing a book or posting a video of yourself taking the blasphemy challenge forcing your opinion on others? Or how is, during a discussion about religion, saying that you're an atheist? 



> That's bad enough, but that just makes you an immature jerk for infringing on the rights of others. What makes you a downright bad person is believing that other people are inferior to you because of their beliefs. This is where atheism fails: the majority opinion of them is that atheism is the "scientific" or "logical" or "intellectual" discourse. By believing that your religion (or lack thereof) is more logical than another, you're basically saying that the other religion's supporters are stupid or ignorant. That's prejudice, plain and simple.



Ignoring the argument from consequences (or rather, argument from hurting other people's feelings), you're equivocating atheism with religion (or lack thereof) in the sense that they're both things that take faith. You also assume the premise that atheism is _not_ more logical than theism. I object to all of those.



> In my opinion, the main idea of religion is that it is impossible to prove or disprove. That's why there's a word called faith.



That's not your opinion. I'd venture as far as calling it a fact. However, based on this, I'll guess you haven't read the God Delusion either.

I'll give my spin on things. I find the idea of a personal god absolutely ludicrous. The existence of a deistic god is more reasonable, but still almost certainly wrong, even if you only base your argument on parsimony and the problem of infinite regress. I don't go out of my way promoting atheism. I have band stickers and pins on my backpack, but not even one evolve fish in sight. I don't have bumper stickers, I don't stand around passing out fliers. But if a Mormon comes and knocks on my door, I'll invite them in for a chat. If I see someone post something misleading or wrong (eg. evolution is unsupported by evidence), I'll correct them. Big fucking deal.



HammerAndSickle again said:


> My god, that guy is such a loser. "Psychological torture"? Get over yourself. If you were religious, you would realize that you can't force someone to be religious. Even if you have militant parents that force you to worship daily and refuse to allow you to voice dissent, it's as easy as saying in your head "I don't believe this" and it has no power over you. *No one is afraid of Hell or Jesus.*



Are you kidding me? I don't know how things are in Baltimore, but go here and listen to any of the deconversion stories. These people are fucking terrified of going to hell, that god is going to smite them, etc. If none of those episodes are free, I'll send them to you. Just e-mail me.



> Those are my beliefs. I defend religion because it teaches people to be kind, respectful, and loving to one another. It uses legends and parables to teach people how to coexist.



Does a piss poor job of it. Fags are going to hell and all that. Besides that, it's entirely unnecessary, as you said, though I think you're wrong in stating that the _purpose_ of religion is as a moral backbone. Good moral teaching with parables can be secular too, without relying on belief in Yahweh or whatever, and besides that, there's no evidence that religious people are more moral, and if anything, it goes the other way, although in my estimation that's almost certainly due to the fact that education is strongly correlated with irreligiosity, and education is obviously strongly correlated with being law abiding.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Jeff, you're... sort of getting the spirit.



Among his mistakes are a massive claim, an illogical jump, a nonstandard and counterintuitive definition of atheism, a massive claim... oh, balls. 

[action=JBroll]sits in the comfy chair and pouts.[/action]

Jeff


----------



## DomitianX (Jul 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I misphrased things earlier, but this is where I disagree. It is no more doubting than it is affirming. It is stating the impossibility of either (but, consequentially, implying a lack of belief, leading us to... atheism!), and for the record most atheists I know do NOT fall under this. In fact, most atheists I know aren't too stupid to know what they believe, so you've made the mistake of trying to make a massive claim about 'most atheists' and making an illogical jump. No, wait, sorry, the two mistakes of a massive claim and an illogical jump, and using a nonstandard and counterintuitive definition of atheist. Erm, scratch that, the three mistakes of... I'll just come in again.
> 
> Jeff



No I didnt make a mistake. Obviously according to your definitions I am guessing ALL the atheists you know dont fall into the agnostic category. MOST of the atheists I know do fall under the agnostic category according to the definitions of atheism found in most dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. 

I am very well aware that there are people out there that are trying to redefine the terms used, but, for example, there are also people out there that say its not stealing if its something small from your employer. No its probably not going to break the bank if you take that ream of paper from the office supply cabinet home for your inkjet, but its still stealing. There's a lot of people out there that say its not stealing, but it is.

The other problem with debates about religion is people are pretty quick to say you are *WRONG* when they dont agree with you. If you notice I never said you were wrong, never said you made a mistake or were "nonsensical". No one is ever wrong since none of it is provable either way. Its all opinion. But in true fashion to most religious debates I am flat our wrong, making a mistake in my opinion and being nonsensical. Oh well. I guess so.


----------



## Carrion (Jul 20, 2008)

"Stop misrepresenting. No one, and I mean no one, believes that you can disprove the existence of a god." - Jongpil Yun

I disagree. There are some people who use ideas like omniscience vs. omnipotence, problem of evil, ontology, etc. to disprove god's existence (Given that the definition of god is objective).


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

No, I did specifically say 'most' atheists, and if something directly contrary to what I said is obvious to you then it's time for a few checkups here and there. Also, there are multiple definitions of atheism in most dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the more widely used (and, again, well-supported by historical context and the translation of atheism) definition is the more inclusive 'lack of theism'.

Further, I think you're wrong when you say that it's not provable either way - it takes knowledge you don't have to state that nobody can know whether gods exist, so your position is no less fallacious than any other position requiring a positive affirmation.

I also said 'I disagree' and 'I believe' where appropriate and offered counterexamples to your argument instead of just flatly contradicting you with no substance, so playing the pussyfooting agnostic card won't help. The nonsensicality came as a result of excluding valid positions and holding double standards in the inclusivity of belief systems, and double standards are not a matter of personal taste. 

[action=JBroll]offers a quite large cookie of good faith.[/action]

Jeff


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jul 20, 2008)

Carrion said:


> "Stop misrepresenting. No one, and I mean no one, believes that you can disprove the existence of a god." - Jongpil Yun
> 
> I disagree. There are some people who use ideas like omniscience vs. omnipotence, problem of evil, ontology, etc. to disprove god's existence (Given that the definition of god is objective).



Omniscience vs omnipotence can only mean that God can not be both at the same time. Theodicy only means that God must be finite either in his power or benevolence. Ontology can go as far as making God unnecessary and immensely improbable, but no further as far as I know. You're saying god with respect only to the Judeo-Christian idea of god as omni-everything. Dawkins defines it in a for more defensible way:

To quote Dawkins, the God hypothesis is, "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." No mention of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, or any of that stuff.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 20, 2008)

Having omnipotence is nonsense without omniscience - if there is something not in your power to understand, there is something not in your power, so omnipotence brings about omniscience. Then if you decide that anything not omnipotent is unfit for being called a god, you have positive atheism following trivially.

Jeff


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jul 21, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Having omnipotence is nonsense without omniscience - if there is something not in your power to understand, there is something not in your power, so omnipotence brings about omniscience. Then if you decide that anything not omnipotent is unfit for being called a god, you have positive atheism following trivially.
> 
> Jeff



If you're right in that omnipotence necessarily implies omniscience, then omnipotence is contradictory in itself, because the problem goes like this (verse from Karen Owens):

'Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?'


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Jul 21, 2008)

You guys are all missing the point here. Since when is atheism about disproving the existence in god? It's about not believing in a higher power than yourself, I could give a fuck less about proving it, it's a belief system (or a lack thereof), thus it being called A-theism.

All this bullshit about proving or disproving god's existence isn't a religious thing, it's a scientific thing. Even a Christian would agree with me, they believe in god, they don't need proof, it's proof enough that they believe.

I don't fucking care if people don't believe what I believe, it's my belief. You can pray to whatever guy up in the clouds you want to, just let me do what I want, which is live my damn life without having to look over my shoulder like some all-knowing father figure is always watching me poop and jerk-off. I do what I want with my life (in respect to other people's privacy, space, belief, etc...), not what some book(s) written thousands of years ago tell(s) me to.

That is MY atheism.


----------



## hairychris (Jul 21, 2008)

The deal with belief is that there isn't a middle ground.... You believe in something or you don't. On the other hand, you can also know something or not, which, on a personal level, I class 'don't know' and 'can't know' as equivalent for argument's sake.

Example: Assuming that the big bang did happen, can we make any assumption about what there was 'outside' our universe? Did any higher power intervene? I say 'fuck knows' because it's so far outside my frame of reference that I can't make any decision on it. That's my level of 'gnosis', and my belief (or lack thereof) is a follow-on from that. 

Example 2: Does any power interfere in our universe? As our universe is an ordered place we should be able to tell when arbitrary changes are made. HOWEVER, if the higher power interferes in an ordered fashion how can we tell the difference between the higher power and our universe's nature?

Hmm. Never mind.

A comment on Huxley... Yes, I'm well aware that he coined the term with reference to gnosis - '(belief) through direct knowledge'. the problem that his definition has is the implication that because gnosis implies belief, the lack of gnosis allows you to say 'I don't know' in reference to _belief_ and well as _knowledge_.

EDIT: fwiw I spent years calling myself agnostic. Then I decided to do some research on it... What I believe (or don't) in hasn't actually changed, but the belief/knowledge definition discrepancy when you call yourself a pure agnostic made me change my label!


----------



## Se7enMeister (Jul 26, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> I dont want an atheist president, I want an american president


----------



## Pauly (Jul 27, 2008)

I just finished reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, pretty much the final nail in the coffin for me.


----------

