I believe in Atheism...

[Slytovhand]

Yeps

But, I have actually thought a bit more about that, and the entire thread, especially in relation to both the 'BS' and 'this thread is an insult to me' bits...

It shows just how intrinsic our beliefs are to us, and our identity. Basically, what you believe is a large part of who you are. So, attack my beliefs - attack me (is the way it's seen). After all, just try changing your beliefs. (there are a couple of processes - and books - on the subject of not identifying with them, and not attaching to them).

[Boozy]

I think that should conclude the discussion on that particular tangent. I don't believe anyone meant to call anyone else names.

But this is nevertheless a good opportunity for a few reminders: Debate the point and not the poster. If you feel someone isn't doing that, please report the post.

Thanks guys. Carry on.

[Jadedcarguy]

This is part of a PM I sent to Slytovhand that he thought I ought to post in here.

I have a tendency to be very blunt and no-punches-pulled when it comes to topics like this, as I'm sure you've noticed.

You're right, the 'stupid' was misconstrued. My parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, some cousins, all still Xtian. I don't think they're stupid, I just think that they want the comfort that belief can bring(which is why it's so prevalent) and are unwilling to examine it critically. That certainly doesn't make them stupid.

Like I said, I can be very blunt and lack sensitivity to someone else's feelings when I call religion bullshit. Not trying to be a dick, but there ya go. I have pretty thick skin due to high school and the like not being my "best years", so I can easily forget that others may take offense. That being what it is, I will sometimes call someone an ass for doing what they do without thinking that it's a deep seated part of their identity. Not trying to be a dick, but again, there ya go.

Hopefully this will 'clear the air' somewhat. If anyone thought I was trying to be a jerk or piss others off, I wasn't and hopefully this explanation will help you see where I'm coming from.

[Slytovhand]

The 'stupid' comment came from:

It equates a completely different kind of belief and faith than religion is based on with calling someone stupid for having it. Two very different things.

and all that followed with :

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

.. and others.

So, hopefully, 'stupid' has been misconstrued....

The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that no one has the right not to be offended or insulted by someone else's viewpoint. Not you, not me, no one.

Well, this is very true. How one expresses that viewpoint. It seriously pisses me to hear Xtians deride any other religion (especially if they use terms like 'nonsense' or 'ridiculous'... pots & kettles anyone.???). Saying "I don't believe because..." is cool. Just labelling it as "crap" etc is emotive. Emotive isn't good

someone on the "other side" is going to call you an idiot

Yeah... but they're intending to be insulting, not hold a debate...

Start a thread about atheism, though, and I will be in it.

I thought we did...??

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism.

Actually, this thread started as definitions of words... it just ended up slightly skewed - though related. So, we kept going (as seemed appropriate). No one was being called silly (or even stupid) in relation to that re-defining.

If I went to a family reuninion, am I allowed to marvel at how everyone seems to be related to me?

Ah... but, you weren't invited to a family reunion... to recreate (ha!) the analogy, it'd be more like you just decided to go overseas (or different planet), ended up in someone's home, and then just happened to find all of the people there were your relatives.. and all of them just chose to be there at that time and place with no forethought or planning... or discussion with anybody else.

Closer to statistics, if you win lotto once, you think yourself lucky. If you happened to win it 10 times in a row, you'd be highly suspicious of the organisers. If lotto was only going to be drawn for those 10 times only, and you happen to win all 10 times - then what do you think??

The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace.

Not, apparently, true. There's this issue known as 'physics' which might take exception to some things... like square circles, my coffee instantaneously turning into a fish with no specific cause, etc. It's the physics of the universe I'm looking at with my ... 'belief'.

Which thus follows:

'Tis the one thing I find most amusing in 90% of the religions I know of...The same diety responsible for creating the whole universe...Is focusing their attention on one little world in it

Totally agree! I really don't understand all this personal god stuff. I do, however, believe that there is more to this universe than meets the eye (or scanner, or radar dish...). Some of that includes beings and entities that are willing to support our journey through this thing called 'life'... hopefully, as we humans are towards other beings (once we've got our shit together). Some choose to call them 'gods'... I'm a bit loathe to use that word.

The universe just happens to exist in such a way as to allow us to exist. No shit! If it weren't, then we wouldn't be here to whine about it.

You know, I've heard that line a few times over the years. And I just realised tonight how irrelvant it is... sure, it slightly alters the odds towards favouring life, but has no effect on the fact that the universe has it's physics, and they work.

[Jadedcarguy]

So far we've mainly said that the dictionary states one definition of atheism, but you've said you use a different one, as do most atheists. I do not believe a single person has used *any* derogatory terms towards your beliefs, all we've argued is how they should be classified.



Sorry, I know a few people who worship various gods you mentioned, and most of 'em more 'faithfully' than 90% of 'Christians'. Using insults to get attention is normally not a practice encouraged here, btw.

Actually, most dictionary definitions of atheism are pretty good, it's the ones that say we're 100% sure that I disagree with.

As far as your friends worshiping some of the gods on the list, I mentioned that some of them were still worshiped, didn't I? But from an atheist and Xtian perspective, none of them are real. Can we agree on that? Your friends can worship their cat for all I care. That's their prerogative.

To me, 'silly' and 'deluded' are insults...and saying someone who does not believe as you do requires insulting...*shrugs* That's one of the *MAIN* reasons I have very little respect for xtains. If they are the type of people you want to model your behavior after...

So then we agree that I didn't call anyone stupid? I don't think anyone who disagrees requires insulting. The list was posted in response to the misperception that I was only going after one god.

And no, I don't model my behavior after them. You won't catch me knocking on your door on Saturday trying to convince you of anything, nor voting on what you can or can't do in private and with whom.

Start a thread about atheism, though, and I will be in it.




-EDIT-


I've been thinking about this thread off and on this evening. The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that no one has the right not to be offended or insulted by someone else's viewpoint. Not you, not me, no one.

I have pointed out several times in this thread that I didn't come in here to offend any one or any belief system in particular, but I knew that because of the viewpoint I hold, it would offend someone. No escaping that. I have said that I think religion is silly, delusional, irrational even. I stand by those statements. If it pleases you, call me a heathen and tell me I'm going to Hell. It doesn't bother me. My derision of your beliefs(or your friends beliefs) is not a personal attack on you or your friends. It's my opinion.

Whether you pick Xtianity, atheism, Buddhism, Jainism(please don't, or at least agree to bathe), Hinduism, Judaism, Mithraism, or any other -ism or-anity, The Bears or the Packers, the Raiders or the Niners, Manchester United or Chelsea, someone on the "other side" is going to call you an idiot. Can you deal or are you going to cry?

Like I said, no one has the right not to be offended. I will respect your right to believe in any asinine thing you wish, but if I think it's silly or delusional, I won't respect the belief itself. That's life.

That being said, I think I'm done with this thread. Any further and it's going to turn into name calling and character assaults, and no one needs that. Good day.

[Evandril]

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism. I don't take it that way, but you want to take my pointing out the flaws in Xtianity or other religions as an insult? Why? Are you that thin skinned?

So far we've mainly said that the dictionary states one definition of atheism, but you've said you use a different one, as do most atheists. I do not believe a single person has used *any* derogatory terms towards your beliefs, all we've argued is how they should be classified.

Not intended to be. Look at the gods I listed. Most of them aren't believed in by anyone anymore, and the ones that are, well, Christians would say that they aren't real. Could I have used more tact? Sure, but then I wouldn't have gotten your attention.

Sorry, I know a few people who worship various gods you mentioned, and most of 'em more 'faithfully' than 90% of 'Christians'. Using insults to get attention is normally not a practice encouraged here, btw.

Quote the post where I called anyone who believed differently than me stupid. Please. I'd love to read it.

I have used the word silly. I may have even said deluded. I can't recall saying stupid, though. So please quote the post where I did.

To me, 'silly' and 'deluded' are insults...and saying someone who does not believe as you do requires insulting...*shrugs* That's one of the *MAIN* reasons I have very little respect for xtains. If they are the type of people you want to model your behavior after...

[Jadedcarguy]

.....



Nope - don't buy it! That entire 'bullshit' post was one massive piss-off session.

Not intended to be. Look at the gods I listed. Most of them aren't believed in by anyone anymore, and the ones that are, well, Christians would say that they aren't real. Could I have used more tact? Sure, but then I wouldn't have gotten your attention.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't believe, and there's no evidence to support", and quite another to say "What you believe is total bullshit... and you're stupid to believe such things" (which is also a term you used).

Quote the post where I called anyone who believed differently than me stupid. Please. I'd love to read it.

I have used the word silly. I may have even said deluded. I can't recall saying stupid, though. So please quote the post where I did.

No, this has nothing to do with questioning of one's faith - this has to do with blatantly insulting someone just because they hold a different belief to you. This thread is a debate and discussion - not an insult session.....

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism. I don't take it that way, but you want to take my pointing out the flaws in Xtianity or other religions as an insult? Why? Are you that thin skinned?

[Evandril]

'Tis the one thing I find most amusing in 90% of the religions I know of...The same diety responsible for creating the whole universe...Is focusing their attention on one little world in it

[Flyndaran]

The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace. (By life, I was talking about our type, btw...I've no clue about any other types it might be perfectly suited for )

There is the old saying that god must love nothing because he made so darn much of it. Stuff is actually the insignificant impurity in such an otherwise beautiful hard vacuum.

[Evandril]

If option A)... I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we'd have all this organised order.. as a one off. Winning lotto would have better odds than flipping a coin in comparison. And "It just is" doesn't add up to me... as Philip Davies said, there's something fishy going on.

The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace. (By life, I was talking about our type, btw...I've no clue about any other types it might be perfectly suited for )

[Flyndaran]

The universe just happens to exist in such a way as to allow us to exist. No shit! If it weren't, then we wouldn't be here to whine about it.

If I went to a family reuninion, am I allowed to marvel at how everyone seems to be related to me?

[Slytovhand]

Oh, for fuck sake.

Zeus? Bullshit. Apollo? Bullshit. Athena? Bullshit. <Insert Greek God Here>? Bullshit. Horus? Bullshit. Ra? Bullshit. Hathor? Bullshit. Sekhmet? Bullshit. Geb? Bullshit. Nut? Bullshit? Thoth? Bullshit. Sobek? Bullshit. <Insert Egyptian God Here>? Bullshit.

Vishnu? Bullshit. Zoroaster? Bullshit. Buddha? Bullshit. Thetans? Bullshit. Mithra? Bullshit. <Insert currently worshipped non-Christian God here>? Bullshit.

Baldr? Bullshit. Forseti? Bullshit. Höðr? Bullshit. Thor? Bullshit. <Insert Norse God here>? Bullshit. Atlacamani? Bullshit. Chantico? Bullshit. Cinteotl? Bullshit. <Insert Aztec God here>? Bullshit. Ah Peku? Bullshit. Hunab Ku? Bullshit. Balam? Bullshit. Ekchuah? Bullshit. Kinich Ahau? Bullshit. <Insert Mayan God here>? Bullshit.

Hachiman? Bullshit. Benzai? Bullshit. Jikoku? Bullshit. Hoderi? Bullshit. <Insert Japanese God here>? Bullshit.

Do I need to elaborate any further? The preceding list is only a small sliver of the gods who are/were believed in at one point in time or possibly now. Why should Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus garner any more respect when the evidence for their existence is as flimsy as the gods in the 'bullshit' list I just posted? Why?

.....

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

Nope - don't buy it! That entire 'bullshit' post was one massive piss-off session.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't believe, and there's no evidence to support", and quite another to say "What you believe is total bullshit... and you're stupid to believe such things" (which is also a term you used).

No, this has nothing to do with questioning of one's faith - this has to do with blatantly insulting someone just because they hold a different belief to you. This thread is a debate and discussion - not an insult session.....


Pedersen... well, sort of - but then again... not!

The basic question comes back to how all this started. Was it by accident, was it 'designed', was it one of many versions and we're just the latest?

If option A)... I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we'd have all this organised order.. as a one off. Winning lotto would have better odds than flipping a coin in comparison. And "It just is" doesn't add up to me... as Philip Davies said, there's something fishy going on.

Option C)... that there have been numerous universes in existence, and this is just another model. Yeah, fair enough. Still leaves a fair bit for 'randomness', and I'm not sure I can believe in the idea that universal (multiversal?) physics changes each time a new universe is created.. that doesn't make a lot of sense... how do the laws of physics evolve as it were? Just because something doesn't work in one universe (or part of the universe) doesn't mean it's going to adapt.

So... option B)... we have this wonderful universe, with it's wonderful laws of physics that makes rational sense, that is predictable, and doesn't instantaneously implode on itself..and just happens to be life-conducive in a stable environment...if you wanted to design a universe, this is what you'd be doing. Sure, bad argument in and of itself, but I hope you get the idea. Now, I'm not using the term 'god' here.. only 'designer'. As I've mentioned before, nothing saying this isn't some lab experiment.

[Jadedcarguy]

The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong.

I'm giving my opinion. If you don't share it, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I am refuting points you have brought up that I disagree with. It's called debate.

So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore?

What? Where are you getting that?

I'm disagreeing with most religious doctrine, which last I checked was something you chose to believe. Left-handedness or race are not things you choose.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.

Even Richard Dawkins says there is room for doubt. Most atheists I know have said at one point or another that if good evidence for a deity were found/discovered/stumbled upon/handed down from on high then they would change their position. So far no good evidence or in most cases any evidence has surfaced.

One more time for those who have missed it. Atheists by and large do not insist beyond any doubt that there isn't a god. Most of them will allow for the possibility if evidence can be presented. Capiche?

Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why.

Almost as a rule, if a scientist is trying to prove any well established theory wrong, they likely have an agenda or their continued grants are dependent on proving the theory wrong.

That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right

Who told you that?

Science work, whether it's in biology, chemistry, physics, etc, starts with an idea, which is based on what you think is correct based on observation. This idea is called a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a well established explanation that uses known facts to explain a function, such as gravity, evolution, light rays, sound waves, and so on. A hypothesis can become a theory once it has been supported by research and/or experimentation, and new data and evidence is found that supports it.

.Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around.

Also wrong. You don't try to find out where it's wrong, you examine new evidence as it is processed or discovered and see if it fits the theory. If it does, great. If not, does it disprove it or take you in a new direction? Most likely the latter because as I said a theory is an explanation based on known facts. New facts usually don't disprove it, they just modify our understanding of it.

If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

This I agree with.

[Evandril]

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly.
Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit.

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

The first two statements do not support the third. The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong. As I've said, quite often, believe what you want, but don't tell ME how to believe. If you don't like the xtians doing it to you, then do not do it to others.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore? The statements were not directed at their beliefs, they were directed at the individuals themselves.

The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.?

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.

Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why. That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right...Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around. If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

[Jadedcarguy]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

Not trying to make agnostics sound wishy washy. Sorry if I gave that impression.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Uh, yeah. I knew that.

Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not?

Many religious people make a hobby out of taking insult to anything that doesn't tow their particular line. Look at the pointless outrage over the atheist adverts on the London bendy-buses. They quickly forget that they are a response to all the pro-Xtian ads that have been inside and outside of the buses for years, but now someone is saying something different, and they are all frothy over it. It's hypocrisy honed to an art form.

And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

If you hold a religious belief that works for you, run with it.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

I have been listening to Xtian criticism of atheism for quite a while and it's water off of a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I don't take insult unless they call me stupid. At that point the discussion is over.

True faith, no matter what flavor it is, is not swayed by a negative critique. If you are offended then your faith isn't all that strong to begin with. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just an observation.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

BTW, if you say Evolution and ID, you fail.