I believe in Atheism...

[AdminAssistant]

I'd just really like to hear Admin's take on it, how it can be so important that it usurps the place of true "good work".

My take? Um, ok.

First off, I'm about as bleeding-heart liberal as you can get. I'm pro-choice, a feminist, and, yes, pro-gay marriage. VERY pro-gay marriage. (These beliefs do not contradict with Christianity as I see it. Which is why I no longer identify with a church or denomination.) And I'm a bit insulted by the fact that you assumed I wouldn't be. As I said before, we (as in myself and others) fought against the gay marriage ban. When we got 20 something percent of the vote, we were all thrilled.

As to why it is such a hot topic? Well, that's a really lengthy discussion that gets into the family ideal, rural life, gender roles, etc. Neo-cons perceive it as a threat to their way of life. Perhaps they're using God as an excuse to justify their own fears about change. Who knows? I don't identify myself with those people, so I can't speak as to their justification against it.

[Jadedcarguy]

Even if someone was postulating that Cthulhu was the creator, ID still could never be tested. An intelligent designer would have to be above the very natural laws it created, or else it would be ruled by them. If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence. There would not be any observable, tangible evidence. You would not be able to measure it. What is it mass? How tall is it? What is its displacement?
Now, if it was a natural being, how could it create that which manipulates it, and how come we've never been able to measure it before?

(It wasn't purely accidental that I mentioned philosophy. I remember the other thread on this and your position and why you've arrived at it)

Well said. That's why it ain't science, kids!

[AFPheonix]

Even if someone was postulating that Cthulhu was the creator, ID still could never be tested. An intelligent designer would have to be above the very natural laws it created, or else it would be ruled by them. If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence. There would not be any observable, tangible evidence. You would not be able to measure it. What is it mass? How tall is it? What is its displacement?
Now, if it was a natural being, how could it create that which manipulates it, and how come we've never been able to measure it before?

(It wasn't purely accidental that I mentioned philosophy. I remember the other thread on this and your position and why you've arrived at it)

[Slytovhand]

JC (tee hee hee) and APF...

I'll just quickly point to this bit in mine:

no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention?

with appropriate re-emphasis...

As you pointed out APF(accidentally), I first came across ID in a philosophy class, when I was doing my degree in philosophy. Thus, when I was introduced to it, it was from that angle - and had absolutely nothing to do with the Christian right... other than just some vague references. So, my version of ID doesn't include anything to do with scriptures, books, holiness or otherwise. It is more the type that Einstein himself advocated! Along with a stack of other physicists, biologists, chemists etc across the planet, who figure that with all that went on, there was some sort of 'intention' involved, and thus, and 'intendor'. No comments on what that thing was like - other than being rational and logical... that's it folks.... It's been well written up by a guy called Paul Davies - who isn't christian (AFAIK) and thus has no desire to 'validate' the Bible - or any other holy book (and yes, I know - we've been down this line in the other thread. But we're talking about A-theism here... it hasn't defined what that Theos is like in any way shape or form.. which is why I brought it up). Evolution doesn't even enter into the discussion... (for the simple reason that *my* version of ID - as discussed on here - is about the basic principles of physics and chemistry. That the concept of 'time' is even real. That, even though the background temperature of space is about 1degree Kelvin, we still have radiation that interacts with other molecules and forces to give us heat - in just the right spot in the solar system from which those gases can be formed on a substantial surface which wasn't there but for the force of gravity, over billions of years... etc etc etc)

I totally agree with the point on keeping religion out of a lot of stuff - and that Christians are just as bad as Muslims. But that's because they are human.

And I also agree that anti-christian sentiment in the US is a real sticking point. No, really - it gets people stuck on what's really un-important to the world as a whole, rather than what actually needs to be done.

[Jadedcarguy]

Because teachers push on that and other hot-button issues because it keeps the masses from actually paying attention to the evil and corruption going on around them. Fortunately this time around fewer people are listening. There's still enough to be scary, unfortunately.
This is what happens when religion intertwines with politics. It corrupts the religious and sidelines them from their true purpose.

I know.

I'd just really like to hear Admin's take on it, how it can be so important that it usurps the place of true "good work".

I'd like to know why this OT verse is still valid, while "no mixed cloth, no shellfish, no Sunday work, no shaving for men, etc" are not.

[AFPheonix]

Why is gay marriage such a sticking point for Christians? Is it really that important? Nothing else in the world that would be a better use of your time? Feeding the hungry would be a start. Clothing the needy, sheltering the homeless. All good causes, but no. We're going to find two dudes a-livin' in a-sin and smack them over the head with the Bible while screeching "We do not approve!!"

Excellent use of your time. Not.

Because teachers push on that and other hot-button issues because it keeps the masses from actually paying attention to the evil and corruption going on around them. Fortunately this time around fewer people are listening. There's still enough to be scary, unfortunately.
This is what happens when religion intertwines with politics. It corrupts the religious and sidelines them from their true purpose.

I'm still going to have to call out your Intelligent Design "theory", Slyt. It does not pass the test to be called science, so therefore it really cannot be discussed in terms of science, simply because it cannot be tested or measured. There may be "coincidences" as you call them, but I would probably chalk that up more to poor understanding of what research has already uncovered, and lack of discovery so far in those realms of science. Do not fear however, physics has entered a golden age thanks to Einstein, and it's growing by leaps and bounds. Biology also now that it has the base of Evolution to move off of and to tie its areas of study together.
At best it can be discussed in terms of philosophy, but not as science.

[Jadedcarguy]

Just chiming in on this point. The only thing Huckabee was ever able to accomplish was the 'covenant marriage'

I'm not talking about what he did do or what he's capable of doing, I merely stated what he wanted to do. He was very clear on this during his presidential campaign. He wanted to rewrite the Constitution to reflect Christian principles. Not OK. Not at all.

Yes, the gay marriage ban was passed while he was Governor. The ban passed with something like 70% of the vote. We were all thrilled to have gotten as much support against the ban as we did. Can't really blame him for that one, it's the overriding belief of many of the citizens there.

Why is gay marriage such a sticking point for Christians? Is it really that important? Nothing else in the world that would be a better use of your time? Feeding the hungry would be a start. Clothing the needy, sheltering the homeless. All good causes, but no. We're going to find two dudes a-livin' in a-sin and smack them over the head with the Bible while screeching "We do not approve!!"

Excellent use of your time. Not.

I'm not saying there aren't dangerous neo-Conservatives - but Huckabee is actually pretty harmless.

No, he's pretty harmful. He was a rallying point for fundies who thought like he did and wanted the same "Christian Nation" as he did. That is dangerous. Just look at the religious kooks making the news at McCain rallies. These people have calmed down some, imagine how rabid they'd be if the ticket was Huckabee/Palin.


Yeah, I just threw up in my mouth a bit too.

[AdminAssistant]

The Mike Huckabee's in our country want to instate Christian law

Just chiming in on this point. The only thing Huckabee was ever able to accomplish was the 'covenant marriage' - basically, before you get married you go through extensive counseling with a priest, then after the wedding, a divorce can only be granted in cases of abuse, fraud, etc. No 'irreconcilable differences' or anything like that. Yes, the gay marriage ban was passed while he was Governor. The ban passed with something like 70% of the vote. We were all thrilled to have gotten as much support against the ban as we did. Can't really blame him for that one, it's the overriding belief of many of the citizens there.

I'm not saying there aren't dangerous neo-Conservatives - but Huckabee is actually pretty harmless. The man's not smart enough to win any more elections. I can't even see him running for Senator...both of Arkansas Senator's have been Democrats for decades. Not likely. If McCain is elected he would be a possibility for a Cabinet position. Other than that, he'll probably stick to writing books and doing interviews for Fox News.

[Jadedcarguy]

JC (hmmm... nice appropriate initials )

I'll ignore that.

- so what about 'Intelligent Design Theory' - no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention? Or are you of the other opinions - either multiple universe, or the basic, that if this universe didn't work this way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it anyway...and we got lucky?

Not sure what ID has to do with atheism. But as far as that goes, I'm not a biologist, physicist, geologist, chemist or any other -ist that requires a degree.

I do read their work, though. When you look at from a naturalistic point of view standing on the shoulders of people who study this stuff for a living, they explain it very well. The ID advocates do not for one simple reason: they try to do science while having a presupposition that they are unwilling to discard when evidence clearly goes against it. That's not science. It's chocolate-coated horseshit. An intelligent designer is pure speculation based on some folks' inability to grasp the concept of life overcoming obstacles and challenges over billions of years to get to the rich variety we see today. When truly looked at in context and with a true understanding of the timeframe involved, it is not difficult to grasp. The problem is most people don't really understand just how long billions of years really is.

You will hear ID proponents speak of the Cambrian explosion as a "relatively short period of time". That period of time is more like 10 million years! 10 MILLION!! That dwarfs humanity's reign of about 250K years by 9,750,000 years. Think about that, and think about how much we have accomplished in the "eye-blink" that we've been here!!

Human accomplishments are starting to show dogma for what it really is, ancient belief that should have been abandoned as soon as we learned that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun. Slowly and surely science is pushing religion aside. Every discovery that contradicts Scripture takes one more little bite out of it. Notice how frothy the fundies get with every new fossil discovery that supports evolution? They rush to discredit it, and they do it poorly.

Really???? I dunno - how many christians in those groups are willing to suicide? (oh - sorry... yeah, point taken). But seriously, suicide bombings are a lot more a part of Islam, probably because there is something about dying while acting is far more holy... I don't think Xtianity has that (other than as martyrdom - and that's only for saints and holy men (nope - not even the women)..

When did I mention suicide bombings? Oh, right. I didn't.

But since you brought it up.............Christians don't suicide bomb because their holy book does not advocate jihad. It does however advocate killing your neighbors for all sorts of "crimes" which is what the more radical Christian sects have done from time to time. Abortion clinic bombings, shooting abortion doctors, killing your kids for blasphemy, killing or severely beating gays, the list goes on. The Mike Huckabee's in our country want to instate Christian law, which would be similar to sharia law in the ME. Do you want to be stoned to death for wearing polyester/cotton blend? Eating shellfish? Going to work on Sunday? Think about that while you ponder this comic.

Unfortunately these events hardly get any coverage at all, rarely more than local news material. Suspected Muslim activity however gets national if not international coverage due to the current ME situation. This is because of the undue respect Christianity has in the US. Criticizing religion, especially Christianity, in the US is taboo.

Until that ends we will continue to allow these groups to flourish unchecked, we will continue to retard our kids with ID garbage, and we will continue to push what was once the most advanced country in the world, what was once a beacon of discovery and science, back into the dark ages. We are smarter than that and it is up to every reasonable person to say "Enough is enough!"

[Slytovhand]

JC (hmmm... nice appropriate initials ) - so what about 'Intelligent Design Theory' - no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention? Or are you of the other opinions - either multiple universe, or the basic, that if this universe didn't work this way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it anyway...and we got lucky?

I'm thinking most of the 'issue' here is merely semantics. Pick your dictionary, people

There are Christians among us as we speak who believe the Gospel as strongly, if not more so, than the most devout Islamic jihadist believes the Qu'ran

Really???? I dunno - how many christians in those groups are willing to suicide? (oh - sorry... yeah, point taken). But seriously, suicide bombings are a lot more a part of Islam, probably because there is something about dying while acting is far more holy... I don't think Xtianity has that (other than as martyrdom - and that's only for saints and holy men (nope - not even the women)..

[Jadedcarguy]

Jadedcarguy...
Excellent! You've just said why atheism isn't a 'religion'... you haven't said why it isn't a 'belief'.. and hence my OP.

As you've neatly explained (I suspect without intending to), a religion and a belief are not the same thing, and that's what the 'confusion' is all about.

I did intend to explain it that way. My understanding of the way 'belief' is being used here is the same way religious belief works, that is to say that I believe it without anything other than faith to back it up. That is not why I'm an atheist. I consider my atheism to be more of an understanding of reality as opposed to any kind of belief, hence my tendency to refute the 'belief' argument.

If you want, we can go into Pascal's Wager (which boils down to - if God is omniscient, He knows that you're only playing the odds, rather than actually having faith... which apparently doesn't cut it!)

That's my understanding of it as well. If God is a real entity as described in Scripture, he can see right through that kind of BS.

BTW - yes, actually, christians living today have participated in crusades... just not the ones given that title! There are those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ as being their saviour, and will go out of their way to persecute and even execute non-christians - such as muslims. (is anyone on here really going to argue that there are a few christian fanatic nutjobs who saw a war going on in 'towelheadland' Iraq and thought to themselves that they need to go over and do 'Gods' work??) (besides, there's all those people who have reincarnated since the original crusades )

Absolutely. There are Christians among us as we speak who believe the Gospel as strongly, if not more so, than the most devout Islamic jihadist believes the Qu'ran. They see the most vile passages of the OT as a set of instructions that must be fulfilled before the return of Christ abd are perfectly willing to carry them out. Joel's Army is one. Watch Jesus Camp if you haven't already. Scary shit.

[Slytovhand]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.

Possibly... but that's only 1 interpretation of the term 'god',which from my experience in talking to other atheists, is what they always fall back on - the traditional arguments against god. Either 'He' exists, and allows evil to exist, in which case, he is not all good, or 'He' isn't omniscient... and all of those sorts of arguments.

But... you do nicely back up one of my original arguments - we are all atheists! I have a belief in a definition of 'god' that does not fit your description. Thus, if I took what you just said about 'god', then I too am an atheist!

There is nothing about some sort of creator that popped its/thier/his/her head up, made all of this, and then buggered of to do something more interesting.

See - that's what annoys me about this whole religion thing - the arrogance and ego of humans. If 'my' god doesn't seem to exist, then no god does... Why couldn't you as a human just have it wrong?? There is far more than 1 side to the coin.

Jadedcarguy...

Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things.

Excellent! You've just said why atheism isn't a 'religion'... you haven't said why it isn't a 'belief'.. and hence my OP.

As you've neatly explained (I suspect without intending to), a religion and a belief are not the same thing, and that's what the 'confusion' is all about.

If you want, we can go into Pascal's Wager (which boils down to - if God is omniscient, He knows that you're only playing the odds, rather than actually having faith... which apparently doesn't cut it!)

BTW - yes, actually, christians living today have participated in crusades... just not the ones given that title! There are those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ as being their saviour, and will go out of their way to persecute and even execute non-christians - such as muslims. (is anyone on here really going to argue that there are a few christian fanatic nutjobs who saw a war going on in 'towelheadland' Iraq and thought to themselves that they need to go over and do 'Gods' work??) (besides, there's all those people who have reincarnated since the original crusades )

[Jadedcarguy]

Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

No no no of course I don't believe that living Christians have done those things. However, Christians in the past most certainly have. My point was that it would be woefully inadequate to describe Christians in that manner as the behavior does not reflect most Christians, or any living today.

Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding.

I never claimed to. I was simply illustrating that I have been on both sides of religious belief.

True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural.

I wouldn't say that, either. Blanket statements usually backfire so I try to avoid them.

Many people, however do subscribe to some form of Pascal's Wager, which is this:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Basically saying it's best to believe because it can't hurt to do so. I say it can hurt, but I wont go into that here for reasons of length.

To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary. Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.



Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

Woot!!

Glad I could explain it in a manner that made sense.

[Sylvia727]

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. <snip> If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct.

Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

Thus giving you valuable insight into the beliefs of many Christians. Persons who believe in another version or denomination of Christianity, or another religion altogether, will have drastically different beliefs and reasons for holding them. Even a Christian from your old congregation might have reasons for their beliefs you never learned about. Two people can read the same novel and come up with two different interpretations. Neither makes the other less valid. Alice may feel that Bob's gushing presentation on the novel's use of the true power of love is absolute drivel, but she can't say with absolute authority that he didn't read some nuance or connotation into the text that she didn't.

Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding.

Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.

True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural.

Actually, my answer to that question [insert: about religion] is "none".

The only answer that I can see remains consistent. Good, this is coming together.

Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary. Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same.

Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

[Jadedcarguy]

Wow. I need to check the front page more often, I totally missed this thread.

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Quite right. Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things. What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

That's right. I went to church every Sunday for over a decade. I prayed, avoided "immoral" behavior, watched my language, and tried to be a "good" Christian. Then I started to pay attention to the world. My faith started to falter and dwindle for another decade and a half until one day I realized that it was gone. I could fill many pages with specific reasons for my lack of faith but they would fall on deaf ears so I wont waste our time with that.

I will tell you what I believe in, though. I believe in things that can be observed and verified. Science, astronomy, geology, and so forth are things I can believe because their "realness" can be demonstrated. I do not believe in things that require an undue amount of faith and hope. Personal saviors fall into the latter category, I'm afraid. Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.

In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same. Allow me to explain.

Religious beliefs require faith in religious doctrine. If you have no faith in a religious belief, then you don't believe it, simple as that. Atheism on the other hand does not require me to have faith. I look at the evidence for a god, and I look at the evidence for a lack thereof, and I come to a decision. There is no need for faith there.

If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake.

Actually, my answer to that question is "none". If I'm answering a questionnaire that asks about my religion, I have seen it listed as "atheist", "none", and "atheist/none". The only one that is correct is "none", since atheism is not a religion. I can't say that enough. Atheists don't have an established church. We don't formally meet to talk about no gods. We may informally go get coffee and discuss it, but that's not a church group. My thoughts, feelings and beliefs can be vastly different from another atheist, but neither one of us believes in any sort of god. In that we are the same, but it could be only that.

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. If that same child had never seen a horse before and they asked you what it was, if you told them "an animal without wings" you'd also be technically correct. You've also told them nothing. But it will do for "simplicity's sake."

If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct. I would also be giving a woefully inadequate description, but for simplicity's sake I'll just leave it at that.



Man, I can ramble on!!