Why are there so many damn atheist posts around here?

[varkam]

As the self-appointed representative of the atheist delegation, I'll tell you why - or at least, insofar as my observations allow me to explain.

I've read a few posts here lately that have either bemoaned the surplus of unwashed heathens in the R/T forums of late or have genuinely asked why it is the case that atheists feel it necessary to post here. In support of such observations, four reasons are typically given. First, there is a group specifically for atheists and agnostics. Second, atheism has no bearing whatsoever on religion or theology. Third, I don't think that my beliefs should be allowed to be impugned on a forum that is supposed to cater to religious discussion. Finally, atheists are mean, evil people who are ugly and probably stink, too. Okay, I made that last one up. It was supposed to be funny so you would keep reading.

I will address each reason in turn.

There is a group specifically for atheists and agnostics

That is very true. This is a group where, as you might imagine, atheists and agnostics discuss issues directly related to atheism and agnosticism. Some here think that this is where we should restrict our discussion to. I have several objections to this proposal. First, as others have rightly pointed out, that is a group. Only members who have given money to DU are allowed to post there - which prevents many from being able to join in the atheist games that go on. In addition, mostly atheists and agnostics post there, which leads to fairly insular discussion. As I have noted previously, the reason that I frequent the R/T forums is for discussion on theological and philosophical matters with people who think differently than I. That is mightily difficult to accomplish if everyone accepts the same general premise that I do.

Further, as has been pointed out previously, there are groups for all the different religious denominations as well. If atheists are restricted from posting here, what gives members of other religious denominations the right to do so when they have their own groups? Which brings me to my next point:

Atheism has no bearing whatsoever on religion or theology

I hate to break it to you, but if you look at the word "atheism" you will see that, immediately following the "a" is "theism". There you have it. Case closed.

Okay, maybe that's not very convincing. On the surface, it would seem that atheism has little in common with any of the world religions. Most subscribe to the idea of a supreme being and all (at least as far as I am aware) subscribe to the idea of an afterlife. You have prayer beads and mega-churches, we have funnier bumper stickers.

It is my opinion, however, that atheism is directly related to any discussion of religion (insofar as a god/goddess/FSM) is concerned, as it is the position that holds "Dude, you are so totally wrong". Surely there are disagreements between members of different religious faiths in that one party will accuse the other of being "so totally wrong". Why not us as well? Many of us are very interested in theological matters (or else we wouldn't be coming to the R/T forums) and many of us are, indeed, respectful of other people's beliefs. If the mere presence of someone who disagrees with you is offensive, then I would like you to consider the following claim: you are too easily offended. Which brings me to my next point:

I don't think that my beliefs should be allowed to be impugned on a forum that is supposed to cater to religious discussion.

I agree that such statements as comparing faith in santa claus to faith in god or referring to religiosity as a mental illness are offensive, and I do not make such claims. I have done my best to be respectful to everyone I've had discussions with here since I joined (key words - done my best). As Bertrand Russell once said "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." Given that there is no way to prove or disprove god's existence, tempers will run high. Bombs will be thrown. Santa Claus will rear his ugly, bearded head.

But this is no way to have a discussion. If you call me names, I'm likely not to engage in philosophical discourse with you. I would expect the same from you. Finding common ground is key, not only for here, elsewhere as well. It's hard to find agreement on something if you're busy foaming at the mouth. Which brings me to my final point:

Atheists are mean, evil people who are ugly and probably stink, too.

Okay, I know I'm not the most handsome man on the face of the planet, but that's just uncalled for! I shower daily and I don't drink cute puppy blood.



All kidding aside, I love this place. I've spent many an hour here, often well into the night. I feel like I've learned a good deal from you kind folks. I know I think differently than many of you, but I don't want to think that my presence here is only being tolerated, and not welcomed. I, for one, sincerely appreciate the time many of you have taken the time to point out when I've stepped out of line or have tried to show me a new way of thinking about things and I can just hope that I've returned the favor from time to time.

Like I said, finding common ground is key. That's partly why I wanted to post this. We have families. We have friends and dead-end jobs. We have car insurance bills and we have vices, too. We have made mistakes in our lives, and will doubtless make more of them in the future. If you look close enough, you'll probably see more of yourself in others than you thought you might.

H. Jackson Brown, Jr. once wrote "Remember that everyone you meet is afraid of something, loves something and has lost something." Perhaps, if we can realize that we share so much, tempers won't run as high, fewer bombs will be thrown, and Santa Claus can take a well deserved break.

on edit: I realize that I didn't really address the question of why there are so many damn atheist posts here, but I got halfway through writing this post and forgot how it started.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I like that Brown quote! I also remember from something else,

and oddly I think it was from the ST:TNG episode in which Riker goes to the Klingon ship, a Klingon says "Do we not both have mothers? Family? Do we not bleed?" Maybe not the last line, but definitely something about how we all have mothers, and I've expanded that to "and we all eat; we all hope and dream and want the best for our friends and family" and so on.

I think you are spot on that athiests have a legitimate place in a discussion on religion/theology. If not, then I, as a straight white man, would be unable to express any views on feminism, africa-american issues, gay issues, nor to respond to or be in dialgoue with any religion that isn't my own, and as a Wisconsin native, I suppose I couldn't be allowed to discuss any city or state that wasn't my own, or that I hadn't at least lived in for some period of time.

This isn't the Christianity group; or the Jewish group; or the Hindu group; any more than it is the athiest group.

This is the place for all religions and lack thereof to come together to talk about matters of faith.

It is unfortunate that we have a critical mass of vicious assholes with their one-issue agendas (that is, "YOU FUCKING SUCK YOU FUCKING RELIGIOUS/ATHIEST RETARD FUCK!!!!!") from all sides who feel the need to spout their garbage here and crank down the level of conversation, but for the most part, we have had some pretty good discussions here, especially when the assholes have seemingly gone off elsewhere to spew their ignorant bile and leave the adults alone for a while.

And I know plenty of athiest, and hardly any of them stink, so take that back. :P

[DIKB]

19. One of my favorite

quotes on religion is a Star Trek TNG Klingon quote - "We killed our Gods long ago, we found them more trouble than they were worth."

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

30. I like Mel Brooks' 2000 year old man. "There's somthing bigger than Phil".

..after Phil is killed by a lightning strike.

[Lefty-Taylor]

2. It's important to be vigilant. Get this: I just went to a softball game ..

actually the Girls' Little League World Series here in lovely Portland, Oregon. My kids -- who my wife and I are raising to be atheists, although they're free to choose something different (they don't want to so far) -- and I had to listen to the girl players recite before the game the Little League pledge, which starts like this: "I trust in God ...."

Jesus Freakin' Christ! Does religion have to infiltrate everything? I called the league president, a smokey-voiced gal, and complained that I thought the God reference was alienating. She didn't give a shit. But I could tell she'd heard it before. Thankfully Portland has the fewest number (per capita) of believers in the supernatural of any major US city. Still, "God" finds its way onto the ballfield and has my nine- and six-year-olds rolling their eyes!

I won't even get into the patriotic crap that came next in the pledge!

[Tom Joad]

3. Only God knows why there are so many atheists

[papau]

4. A Religion/Theology forum discusses more than you're wrong - and stupid

but only rarely on DU.

No religious discussion on any religious topic can be started without it being hijacked into why do you not understand how wise I am, how much reasoning ability I have, in my decision to not believe in God.

Again atheism is the slant of DU - and not by accident - so most non-atheists - the 95% of the Democratic party that are believers in something, the 80% plus that are Christian, either avoid DU altogether or just post rarely in R/T.

Indeed the only reason I am posting is the fact that your tone was not in your face.

Good luck on finding non-atheists to discuss your points with in R/T - there are 4 or 5 that try to do so and as I recall TG has replied to your posts in the past.

As an aside, I'd gladly support any request to move the atheist Group up to Forum level - indeed that would be an intellectually honest move for DU.

[catbert836]

6. Bullshit.

No religious discussion on any religious topic can be started without it being hijacked into why do you not understand how wise I am, how much reasoning ability I have, in my decision to not believe in God.

Here's one thread that I do not notice any superior-sounding atheists on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=82695&mesg_id=82695

Here's another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x82635

And another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84065&mesg_id=84065

And, what the hell, one more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=83898&mesg_id=83898

You want to play this game? I could do it all day.

Again atheism is the slant of DU - and not by accident - so most non-atheists - the 95% of the Democratic party that are believers in something, the 80% plus that are Christian, either avoid DU altogether or just post rarely in R/T.

I seriously doubt that. It may seem that way if you only read this forum, but if that was the case then it would seem like all the theists on DU are Christians, with very few exceptions.

I would suspect that many Democrats avoid DU because of its quite leftward bent, far more so than most Democrats. And many DUers do not post in R/T because they are not interested in religion or theology, much less debating them. Are you going to say next that anti-religious bigotry on this board drives the faithful away from the Democratic Party?

Good luck on finding non-atheists to discuss your points with in R/T - there are 4 or 5 that try to do so and as I recall TG has replied to your posts in the past.

Many non-atheists regularly post here. There's me for one. You already mentioned TG, and there's also Southpaw and ayeshahaqqiqa, Maat, WIMR drops in here occasionally, and there's several others whose names I can't think of at the moment.

As an aside, I'd gladly support any request to move the atheist Group up to Forum level - indeed that would be an intellectually honest move for DU.

What you seem to want is an echo chamber- not a regular DU forum that encourages debate and discussion among different kinds of people. Good luck in your quest for that.

[papau]

9. back at ya - not one of your threads discusses a religious topic that

is specific to any set of beliefs and is something a prayer group of that faith might discuss.

It is almost all light People Mag level news story commenting or religious bashing with some folks providing a few facts without comment.

You say that you seriously doubt my comment "Again atheism is the slant of DU - and not by accident - so most non-atheists - the 95% of the Democratic party that are believers in something, the 80% plus that are Christian, either avoid DU altogether or just post rarely in R/T." and claim that it may "seem that way if you only read this forum".

OK - it seems that way in R/T - we seem to agree on that - and of course feel free to assert it is not that way in other forums - say like Science or GD?

And we agree that some wonderful folks that are not atheist do post regularly in R/T like TG and ayeshahaqqiqa, or occasionally post like Maat, and a few others.

But when I call for DU to move the atheist Group up to Forum level, you respond that would mean R/T would become an echo chamber, as if the religious need atheist disagreement on any and all theist topics in order to have a non-echo chamber discussion.

And you do not see the above position as condescending, arrogant, uniformed bullshit.

OK - enjoy the forum.

[catbert836]

23. ....

Not one of your threads discusses a religious topic that is specific to any set of beliefs and is something a prayer group of that faith might discuss

Here's exactly what you said, with emphasis added:

No religious discussion on any religious topic can be started without it being hijacked into why do you not understand how wise I am, how much reasoning ability I have, in my decision to not believe in God.

Since this is the Religion/Theology forum, EVERY thread concerns a religious topic. Therefore, you were claiming that EVERY thread in R/T ends up getting hijacked by those mean old atheists.

But when I call for DU to move the atheist Group up to Forum level, you respond that would mean R/T would become an echo chamber, as if the religious need atheist disagreement on any and all theist topics in order to have a non-echo chamber discussion.

This isn't about what the religious need. This is about the discussion of religious topics in the Religion/Theology forum, which DU rules state that all are free to participate in, regardless of belief or lack thereof. If you feel outnumbered, feel free to solicit more contributions from theists in the forum. Or don't participate in the forum at all, it's your choice. But do not try to stop others who disagree with you from participating. It's a free forum.

[neebob]

24. Atheism is the slant of DU?

That's rich. Even richer (and I might add offensive) is the suggestion that atheists are ruining DU for the nice folks who want to have religious discussions. There's one atheist group, and how many religious groups? And you dare to suggest turning the atheists' group into a forum.

Ya know, there's this handy little feature called the ignore button, and you can use it with as many atheists as you want. It may not make them go away, but it makes their words go away. And you can have your religious discussion without that annoying atheist disagreement. Bonus, you get an atheist-free DU experience - except that you still know we're here, of course, but you might get a more accurate sense of our numbers and the actual slant, if any.

[Maat]

25. Hi, Papau; thanks for the kind words (and I mean it)!

I think that maybe it would be a good idea to elevate the Atheists group to a forum level, along with a Believers' group.

If I'm brutally honest with myself, I would have to say that there are few threads in the R/T forum that don't make feel a bit belittled and sad. That said, I try to deal with my own ever-so-slightly defensive attitude (HeeHee). I "soldier on," so-to-speak, because I want to learn. I never get super-angry, or anything like that, though.

My beloved hubby of 24 years (we've been together 31 years) is an atheist, and, when he gets a bit belittling of believers (not aimed at me, but ..), I advise him to avoid certain buzzwords. Hubby then avoids those words, for the most part.

I'm just throwing out thoughts here.

I do truly appreciate some of the discussion I've had with atheists such as BMUS (Beam Me Up Scottie) and Zhade.

And, I've appreciated reading many of your posts; Ayeshahaqqiqa is great, and my heroine. She and I see things the same way for the most part. The most important belief that we (progressively-minded believers) share is that of honoring all spiritual paths (including lack thereof - of a defined path).

My core belief is that progressives of all stripes MUST band together to address the Religious Hardright (go to www.albertmohler.com or www.agapepress.org , for examples). It is critical for our country. Towards that end, I think that each of us should avoid provocative words that tend to incite anger in someone.

Just my two cents' worth.

[neebob]

26. And the atheists shouldn't retain their group because ...?

That does seem to be what you're suggesting. Correct me if I'm reading wrong.

[Maat]

40. Did I say that they shouldn't retain their group?

I'll check. I did not mean that; I was merely suggested that there be a forum that non-donors could access that could feel more comfortable (one for believers, one for non-believers).

But .. if most DUers are comfortable with the way things are, then they should continue as they are.

It is most curious to me that no one focused upon my central point: that DUers, both non-believer and believers should focus upon uniting to address the religious hardright.

The forum idea was just a more minor comment.

[neebob]

52. No, you said you think maybe it would be a good idea

to elevate the Atheists' group to a forum level, along with a Believers' group. The way I read that, the Atheists' group goes away in becoming a forum, and I'd have a huge problem with that. I don't mind if the believers get some new group, even one where they criticize and complain about atheists all the live long day. I'd be extremely disinclined to go there either way. But I strongly object to the Atheists' group becoming a forum.

[Maat]

60. I don't think that the Atheists' group should become a forum ..

in the sense that it should be eliminated, but perhaps it would be a good idea to have another forum or two (just an idea, but I will yield to others' preferences).

Maybe there's just not a forum on which I can discuss viewpoints with atheists, agnostics, and other believers - without reference to atheists and 'morality/immorality,''myths,' 'mental illness,' 'the Easter Bunny,' and 'Santa Claus.' Maybe I should continue to reduce my time spent over here - the regulars here have kind of defined how it will go - and it's just not going to be a forum that focuses upon reuniting progressive believers and non-believers in order to address religious extremism, as I had hoped.

Oh, well, take care!

[neebob]

74. Well, then you should propose something along the lines of

the "Progressive Believers' and Non-Believers' Working Group on Religious Extremism." I'd support that.

[Maat]

76. That might work.

Let me think on that!

Take care!

[salvorhardin]

53. Maat, I've said the same thing many times

Both believers and non-believers must work together on countering religious extremism, but whenever I've said it it's fallen on deaf ears.

[Maat]

59. May good things come to you for trying (n/t)!

[Finder]

28. Feeling "belittled" is the reason fundies started their own colleges...

like Liberty U, Patrick Henry, etc...

Theology is the study of religion and most theists in the US do not know or care about the theology or history behind the religion they were raised in.(except what they see in movies or hear in sermons) Many blame theological studies for their children becoming agnostic/non-religious.

I think feeling belittled is actually feeling betrayed once certain facts come to light. Rather than go on to study apologetics, many just want to close their eyes and ears to facts that shake preconceptions and scream persecution.

[Maat]

37. Well, I, for one, have never felt belittled because of 'facts'

asserted by an atheist or agnostic.

And, it would very ignorant and incorrect to state that I am not aware of the theology and history behind my faith; I have taken many classes in it.

I have NO desire to scream 'persecution,' nor do I close my eyes to anything that would shake any preconception.

Moreover, I was considered to be quite good at exercises in logic in law school, and quite able to separate 'fact' from 'belief.'

So, I don't believe what you said applies to me (and, I'm sure it wasn't aimed directly at me); in fact, I can't think of anyone to whom it applies.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Changing group status

That seems a little odd to me. So, in your plan, the atheists would not have a group but a forum. There would be no "more highly moderated" place they could go to be "safe"? Why do you want to take that away? Or are you suggesting that all the groups (Catholic, Jewish, etc) all be done away with and just have a believers and atheists forum?

In short, why is the current system flawed. There is a "dump all" place for non-donor level discussions of religion, theology, etc. Then there are groups for the individual sects/non-believers that is more highly moderated where you can discuss among like-minded. Seems to make sense to me. Unless you don't want to hear from us nasty atheists--then your plan makes sense.

[Maat]

38. I was just thinking it would be nice if those that weren't donors ..

had a special forum to go to; I'm not inclined to be critical of the current system.

[Maat]

41. I've never come even close (not one iota) to implying, or saying,

that atheists are 'nasty.'

That's just for your information, Goblinmonger.

I find the R/T forum enlightening when there is a thread like Zhade started several months ago, in which he just politely asked why I believed the way I did (and, other believers politely replied to his queries). We politely and considerately described our experiences and viewpoints. There were no put-downs of each other, and nary a word about 'Santa Claus' or 'the Easter Bunny' was mentioned.

I typically quickly leave threads in which thinly-veiled insults are being traded, or ones in which someone is trying to push the lack of logic, rationality, and critical thinking a believer allegedly exhibits. Moreover, I leave ones in which someone alleges that atheists are somehow less moral or worthy of respect. These threads do nothing for me, and are a complete waste of time.

That's just my opinion.

As I have said, I think that an R/T forum on a progressive board should focus upon uniting progressives in order to address the damage being done to this country by the religious right.

Have a nice day!

[Maat]

42. Here's the link I was looking for.

Here is a terrific example of how a thread in R/T should go.

Everyone, at least for the vast majority of the thread (there might have been an exception or two after I left), was very considerate, polite, and diligent, in terms of creating and maintaining a pleasant, beneficial exchange of viewpoints, perspectives, and experiences.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x43917 .

I grew intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally from that thread (got a significant understanding of different perspectives).

I also enjoy discussing some poison from the Religious Hardright, and seeing DUers differentiate between that and the beliefs we share.

[tbyg52]

45. If the only place named "atheist"

is in the pay-only part, I certainly agree. Well, I guess. Heck I'm not really familiar with the setup, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but I get the impression that this is the only public forum labeled "religion," (?) yet (apparently(?)) some atheists do not feel welcome/comfortable here? I certainly think we either need to be welcomed here or to have our own. Personally, I favor "welcomed here," now that I think of it--the alternative is a bit too much "separate but equal," maybe.

I am an atheist, but hadn't looked past the general stuff yet. BTW, just for general information, there was no decision involved on my part. I've been an atheist since I was old enough to know what it was, as my mind, it seems, is simply not made to accept a deity, at least any I've come across so far.

PS--I am a nice person who takes in stray dogs, and I do so have morals. ;-)

Edited to add a bunch more stuff in the first paragraph when I realized I should have read more replies before posting.

[Evoman]

49. Welcome to the forum.

[tbyg52]

90. Thanks!

I appreciate the friendliness at DU!

[catbert836]

48. Hi Maat!

Your point that all progressives, religious and non-religious, should band together to defeat the Christian Right is well taken. It is for that very reason that I oppose the concept of a second DU forum for atheists. If atheists and believers are to work together, it is first essential that they understand each other well. There are many misconceptions about atheists out there, for example, they don't have any morals. In the same way, many atheists have misconceptions about believers: that they are dumb sheep, for example. Although I've rarely seen either stereotype actually voiced on DU in general and this forum in particular, I still believe it is essential for believers and non-believers to communicate on different issues, so they can understand each other better, so to work together better in defeating the religious right.

I am aware that many believers feel insulted by some atheist statements, and likewise, that some atheists feel insulted by some believers' statements. This is why DU has two great functions, Alert and Ignore. I would strongly recommend that anyone who feels insulted by a statement from someone on the "other side" of the debate use one or both of them. My theory is that we would have a lot fewer flamewars here if people learned to use those two functions.

[Maat]

174. Well, you're right about that.

Just saw this.

I certainly can see your point about the idea of another forum, now.

And, I certainly agree that we can learn things from each other. I have certainly learned about many perspectives here.

I've never used 'Ignore' before; perhaps I should consider it - for some of us truly want to learn about different perspectives. Some appear just to want to argue ad nauseum in such a way that I find it pointless.

Thanks; I learned something.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Yeah

DU is 99% atheist. It is a horrible place for theists and Christians specifically. The persecution of the believer is heinous here.

Oh, yeah, I forgot :sarcasm:

R/T is a tough place. You can't get by spouting non-reflected bullshit. If you say something dumb, people will call you on it quickly. Like a pack of wild dogs. And that is theists and atheists alike. I am very careful in here because of that. I put a lot of thought into what my response is going to be and if I don't feel 100% about it, I hold off. Other forms talk about how brutal GD is, but I would put my money on R/T over GD in a cage match any day. THAT is why people don't post in R/T. Not because of the evil atheist take over, but because it is non-forgiving. Many of us like that. It keeps us on our toes. If it's not your bag of tea, then go to the echo chamber that has been set up for you. I do that a lot. Sometimes the A/A group is just a funner place to be than R/T so I post there. Then I come back to mix it up. Sometimes I open a can of whoopass, sometimes I get whooped.

And like catbert said, "bullshit."

[papau]

10. And back at you -the atheist posts are cut and pasted from atheist forums

with no checking to see if the asserted "facts" are anything more than either unproven or unprovable assertion, or made up blue smoke and mirrors that gets credible over time in the atheist mind because they have been asserted by atheists for a long time.

Past rebuttals by theists are never looked for or researched by the atheist poster - if you put a lot of thought in your posts I thought it might be fun to review them two of your posts with you:

Post 1. There is no empirical evidence that there is a god Period. It stops there. I have no "faith" about my "beliefs" in there being no god. There is no empirical evidence for that fact that there is a god. I don't have to prove the negative. You think there is a god? Then the burden is on you.

Another way to look at it. Don't define my position based on yours. Your position takes faith to believe (i.e. that something exists when there is absolutely ZERO proof that thing really does exist). My position does not. Don't confuse atheism with a "disbelief" in god. That is just defining atheists from the theist position and, falsely, assumes that the existence of god is the given.

One more if you are statistically inclined. I am the null hypothesis. I don't have to have faith in the null hypothesis. Someone trying to disprove the null is the one that is taking a position.

and

Post 2. I have yet to see one theist on this site, or anywhere, honestly admit that they have a belief or faith in the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, dragons, Evoman's ass-god, Zeus, Mothra, Godzilla, Darth Vader, or any one of a million other fictional things. Sorry to go there, but none of the other examples are working. Do you really go around saying that the you have faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Do you really go around saying that you "believe" Santa Claus isn't real? I'm sure not.

Have you taken any statistics classes? Have you conducted statistical research? If so, how can you say that the null hypothesis is a belief? It isn't. It is the "steady state" if you want another synonym. It is what happens if that which you are researching has no effect. My master's thesis was regarding whether children learn environmental information from Captain Planet. My null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in acquisition of environmental knowledge between the group that watched the show and the control group that didn't. Please explain to me how that is a "belief." It isn't. The null hypothesis is the natural state. And, just cause I want to open another can of worms, it is the natural state just like babies are atheist. It takes indoctrination and society to learn the faith of theism.

NOW WHAT DID YOU SAY IN THE ABOVE?

You state that there is no empirical evidence and that belief requires faith - wow - that is a given that all agree with. You add that non-belief requires no belief, apparently because you have an answer to both the how and why of the start of the universe - we are not speaking of post big bang time - we are speaking of the start - the before the big bang and the next moment. You claim you defined a null hypothesis on creation/on God - sorry - you would not even get partial credit in the past - I do not know current standards for partial credit.

Then in the second response, after doing the comic book proof that God is silly, you take a Freshman Stat book lesson and proceed to teach the truth that a null hypothesis is what happens if that which you are researching has no effect, as if you if you have reviewed all that is or was, pre and post creation, and have stats that prove something.

Amazing. Indeed you have proven my statement that the DU R/T forum discusses little more than "you're wrong - and stupid"

Or as you said -

BULLSHIT.


As I said, those interested in Religion and religious topics that might be discussed in a prayer group meeting should avoid DU's R/T. At DU's R/T the atheist crowd wants to help the religious understand they are doing something stupid, and out of the goodness of their heart the atheist crowd will help the religious avoid an "echo" chamber where they might not hear that they are stupid.

[Random_Australian]

14. Bullshit. Cut and paste my left testicle!

I don't even go to other forums, but as an atheist I 'cut and paste'. Nice way to ignore the truth, mate.

I claim that your claim is complete and utter bullshit.

If you want to pull crap like that, you need to back it up.

I want an example of me copypasting, OR I want an apology.

Good day.

[Goblinmonger]

20. So much to say,

so little time. I'll go for the highlights.

the atheist posts are cut and pasted from atheist forums

Oh, yes, you are correct. None of the atheists on this forum actually think for themselves. We are all idiots without an ounce of free thought. All we can do is go to the same three sites and cut and paste. Do you really believe that? Do you really think that little of the atheists here? Do you have any examples where that happens "all the time" for just one person? I would be interested in seeing that.

You state that there is no empirical evidence and that belief requires faith - wow - that is a given that all agree with.

You would think that this would be universally accepted, but it isn't. I have to argue with people about this shit all the time.

You add that non-belief requires no belief, apparently because you have an answer to both the how and why of the start of the universe

So because of the origin of something, I have to have "faith" in it? I have a very beautiful hand-blown vase in front of me that I bought in Dallas. I have no idea how people create these fantastic works of art. And I never met the person that made it. I couldn't describe that person no the process used to create it. Does that mean that I have to have faith in the fact that it wasn't just shit out of god's asshole?

after doing the comic book proof that God is silly

That's not what I was doing. Just because I mentioned Godzilla doesn't mean it is the "comic book proof." And notice that neither you nor anyone else answered my query. Do you really go around saying that you have "faith" or "belief" that Godzilla isn't real? Do you? I don't think so. Yet you want to tell all atheists that they have "faith" and "belief" that god doesn't exist.

you take a Freshman Stat book lesson and proceed to teach the truth that a null hypothesis is what happens if that which you are researching has no effect, as if you if you have reviewed all that is or was, pre and post creation, and have stats that prove something

Two things:
1. It was a Freshman lesson because the person responding to my null hypothesis metaphor obviously didn't get it. Or didn't want to. So I dumbed it down. Nice jab, though. If you want to talk about the f-ratio analysis of my data for my paper, let me know. I'll have to quick skim it though since it was 12 years ago that I did the research.
2. I don't have to review everything to take the null hypothesis on god. There is no god. That is the null hypothesis. If you want to believe otherwise, YOU are the one that needs to do the stats to prove something, not I. See, you mock me for only knowing "Freshman" stats, but then you show a complete misunderstanding of what the null hypothesis actually is.

Indeed you have proven my statement that the DU R/T forum discusses little more than "you're wrong - and stupid"

If that is really what you saw in my post, then perhaps R/T isn't for you. I used multiple approaches to try and prove my point. I tried to discuss why I felt that my position was the null hypothesis and tried to convey that through stats examples, fiction analogies, and other methods. Yet all you saw was "you're wrong - and stupid" and responded with, ironically, a long version of "you're wrong - and stupid."

At DU's R/T the atheist crowd wants to help the religious understand they are doing something stupid,

No, not at all. The atheist crowd wants to discuss religion and its impact on society. Now, because of our position, part and parcel of that discussion would be me stating that I don't believe in gods. That might make you feel like I am saying you are stupid, but that might also be a classic case of projection on your part. I don't know.

out of the goodness of their heart the atheist crowd will help the religious avoid an "echo" chamber where they might not hear that they are stupid

If you want to discuss things that come up in your prayer group with people that will help you through that process, then go to one of the numerous groups set up for the numerous sects/religions. I won't go in there. None of us will (it makes me feel like I need to take a really hot shower :evilgrin: ). But if you want to discuss religion without just hearing "oh yes, I agree" then come into R/T. Isn't choice fantastic? You have multiple options for you based on your need. If I want to mix it up, I come in here. If I want to chat with like-minded people about religion without having to rebut you and the other usual suspects in here, I go to A/A where there are just atheists...and Grannie, but she plays nice everywhere so we let her in. She promised not to share the secret handshake or the address of the baby supplier for our blood orgies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Projection is such a sad thing to see - the infamous cut and paste

in the R/T forum was by none other than you. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=17952&mesg_id=17980
for how your article that you passed off as your own was shown to be paragraphs written by 2 or three other people. Caught red handed, you hummed and hawed, and tried to pretend you hadn't had the timer to include references, but had instead used copyrighted material without any attribution at all, and let people compliment you on it, still never telling them it was written by other people.

And now you accuse atheists of nicking their material from other forums. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[beam me up scottie]

178. Thanks for bringing that up, I had almost forgotten about that incident.

Astounding hypocrisy indeed.

[salvorhardin]

170. Papau, plagiarism is a serious charge

Unless you can prove it with links to the the posts that have been plagiarized then you need to withdraw your claim.

[Evoman]

13. Why don't you start a good theological discussion?

I promise you that I will behave, and I will do my best to call out other atheists on your religious thread. The only caveat is that you can't attack atheists or talk about conversion of atheists. That way you get what you want...a good theological discussion, and we can cut down on these flamewars.

In fact, I can probably discuss religion with you without you even realizing I'm an atheist if it doesn't come up. So I'm game...what do you want to talk about?

[varkam]

21. I debated whether or not to reply to your message.

I didn't know if there was anything that I could have to say that might help, seeing as how I'm pretty sure you missed the point I was trying to get across.

I've had many thought-provoking and insightful conversations here in the R/T forums. I've never told anyone that they were wrong. I've never told anyone that they were stupid. I feel that conversations here are quite often productive, however I suppose you are certainly entitled to feel differently.

I've never noticed that atheism is the "slant" of DU, but I suppose that's because I am one. I've noticed members of a variety of different faiths here. You say that a number of theists have stopped posting to DU or the R/T forums, presumably because of all the "christian bashing" that goes on here. For the record, there are a number of atheist posters, as well, who have stopped coming here because they found it too frustrating. In the past I have been told here that I can not have morals, that god still influences me, that I am less of a good person than your average theist, that life has no purpose for me, that I am afraid of an empty universe, and that my disbelief in god relies upon faith. I have not taken offense to these claims, but chalk them up to misunderstandings of my own position. Perhaps those who have stopped posting here, atheist and otherwise, have taken them as "bashing" and not as simple misunderstandings.

I've always tried to be respectful when I come here, papau. I have never intentionally taken a tone that is "in your face". I may make claims that you disagree with and that upset your sensibilities, but I have always done so in a respectful manner. That's not to say I haven't slipped up from time to time, but when I have behaved inappropriately, I have always tried to make amends - whether in public or private. If you think that there is something that I have posted that crosses the line, please bring it up to me. We can talk about it, and, if I am in the wrong, I will rightfully apologize. Aside from that, I would request that you not imply that my modus operandi is to make posts with an "in your face" tone.

Frankly, I only need one non-atheist to talk to at a given time. If there are 4 or 5 who are willing to discuss things with me without taking offense to my beliefs and without resorting to ad hominem attacks or strawmen arguments, then I welcome the conversation and the company.

Like I said, I think you missed the point of my post. I was hoping that my words might do some good in healing the rift that's developed here. I was hoping I might be able to do some good in furthering discussion and mutual understanding. From your words, it's pretty clear that it had anything but the intended effect. I wish that weren't the case, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. That's a funny post

the part about "dude you are so totally wrong". I have no problem with atheists and theists discussing things in R/T, and frankly I don't think anyone is "wrong" or "right" There is more than one concept of God out there, and more than one concept of God is often discussed in R/T. Personally, I think God is everything-all things created, following the laws of science, evolving, more than what we now know. What I usually see in R/T is a discussion of a God concept that is different than mine. Doesn't get me huffing and puffing angry-each person has their own perspective.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. I'm all for common ground and interesting discussions

I'm not so into the pat answers and disparaging remarks.

IOW, nothing to disagree with in your post. (Except the mean, evil part, but you know that).

[Evoman]

11. I have another reason

Without us this forum would quickly die. I mean, except for the catholic forum, the religious groups are DEAD. I don't get why people complain about us, either. Every single time I see a religious topic thats lacking in atheist/theist discussion, it sinks quickly. Look at Annces thread, or the thread about Marx and Engels...they quickly die. In fact, if I remember, I'm the only one who posted on Annces thread. And the topic I started, which was meant to be a serious, soul-searching type understanding thread about Atheist stories was hijacked by the usual bullshit. AND IT WASN'T THE ATHEISTS WHO HIJACKED THAT THREAD!

We also tend to forget that it takes two to flame wars. Enough of the "I'm being attacked" bullshit..everybody on here is responsible for the atmosphere, not one group or the other.

Honestly, if you want theological discussions, nobody is fucking stopping you. Nobody. And if your thread isn't about converting atheists, and isn't particularly interesting to atheists, then it will die a quick death, because the only posts that theists respond to are the flame ones. But go ahead. Try anyways.

I don't get what the problem is here. When I get upset, I leave R/T for awhile. When I want to talk to theists again (and I do like talking to you guys, especially the ones who were so nice to me when I was really down), I come here. I've actually been thinking of leaving for a bit...especially after my honest thread was hijacked by the "why are you here" bullshit. And I was upset that nobody actually talked about what I wanted to talk about...what makes an atheist an atheist.

[hunter]

15. Oh my... there's a Catholic forum???

I didn't know.

Edited to add Catholic and Orthodox.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=275

Yep, that's me, Catholic and Orthodox, but mostly Catholic these last two decades, betwixt and between.

[beam me up scottie]

12. IMModerate calls this place The Arena.

He's a genius.

[Quantess]

16. I know why. Because questioning spirituality is human nature.

Even among churchgoers. They may not ever say it aloud, but there are many churchgoers who don't truly believe in their religion, I suspect. Maybe they question only some of their religion, maybe they question all of it.

Non-churchgoers who claim to "have" a religion, just to carry on the family tradition, or whatever, are even less likely to truly believe in the religion they casually maintain.

Then there are people like me, who were raised without any formal religion. Most likely, people like me will retain our non-religious status throughout life. But since spirituality is part of human nature, even people raised without formal religion are going to wonder about our spiritual origins, simply because that's what humans do.

Asking questions is liberal. The questioning of spirituality, sans conformity, is liberal. Since DU is a generally liberal forum, people expect to be able to openly question religion here.

People who openly question standard religion are typically labeled Atheist, even though they should rightly be called Agnostic.
I label myself an atheist sometimes, just to express distance from religious people, though I'm not atheist at all. I know there is some form of "god", but I'm comfortable in saying that I don't fully comprehend spirituality.

[Prophet 451]

17. I'm not an athiest

I'm religious. Specifically, I'm a Luciferian (devil-worshipper and no, it's not what you think). I work for a website called Beliefnet. As the name implies, it covers most aspects of belief and non-belief including athieism in both it's variants. Trust me, this place is nothing. Yes, some athiests are jerks about their beliefs, so are quite a few theists. Sadly, no spiritual position or lack thereof, seems to have the exclusive on assholes.

This place is actually pretty tame. Sure, some of the thiests can be overbearing at times but I've seen full-on flame wars that devolved into threats of violence, accusations of everything under the sun from idol worship to cannibalism to institutional child abuse, accusations that atheism is next to Nazism, attacks on Darwin and his discoveries that descended into racist taunting and impugning of the great man's motives, any number of accusations that Hitler was an atheist/Catholic/occultist (pick whichever postition you dislike more) and so on and so forth and all of them hate me (the atheists think I'm a nincompoop for being religious, the theists hate me because, well, I worship the devil). The "unwashed heathens" stuff is actually pretty mild by comparison.

Some people are jerks. Short of legislating pleasentness (something I'd actually oppose), there's not much that can be done about it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

142. Okay, I'll bite

what exactly is a Devil worshiper, and how is it different from what I probably think it is?

[OneBlueSky]

18. any discussion of religion in today's world must include . . .

discussion of the validity of religion itself . . .

given that, historically, religious beliefs (particularly of the fundamentalist stripe) have been responsible for the most horrendous kinds of human actions, the question of whether religion does more harm than good is a valid one . . . a necessary one, in fact . . .

as for my own beliefs, I pretty much subscribe to what Woody Guthrie once said while being questioned by a hospital admitting clerk . . .

Clerk: Religion?

Woody: All.

Clerk: Oh, Mr. Guthrie . . . I can 't put "All" on the form!

Woody: Then just put "None."

[Turn CO Blue]

22. One reason: The Mods throw everything in here.

That's why you see so many posts in "religion" -- because posters who are not members (who do not have stars) have to have their posts moved over into major forums, because they can't be put in the members-only forums.

So the Mods throw a lot of stuff in here, since they can't throw it in the Atheist forum.

[Hoping4Change]

27. According to Margret Atwood "atheism is a religion".

She made this observation in a talk with Bill Moyer's (Faith and Reason on PBS). Its a religion because like religion the main tenet of atheism is a belief: "God does not exist". Just like God's existence cannot be proved, his non-existence can't be proved, therefore both are beliefs.

[trotsky]

29. You can't prove the non-existence of unicorns, either.

Does the non-belief in unicorns constitute a belief in itself?

[Hoping4Change]

32. I maybe wrong but I don't think you can equate the two.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Why not?

Can you prove the existence of god? No. Can I prove the non-existence (I won't even get into the logical problems)? No. You want to equate my non-belief in god with a belief system based on faith.

Can you prove the existence of unicorns? No. Can I prove the non-existence? No. You don't want to equate your non-belief in unicorns with a belief system based on faith.

Seems pretty damn similar.

[Hoping4Change]

36. Tthe non existence of God cannot be proved, therefore to assert

God does not exist is indeed a belief system because you are making an assertion that can't be proved. The only way out is to be agnostic.

[Goblinmonger]

43. But I'm not making an assertion.

My position is the null hypothesis. The person saying that god really does exist is the one that is making the assertion and the one in need of faith to believe that god exists.

[Hoping4Change]

46. An atheist asserts that God does not exist.

f someone doesn't make that assertion, claiming he doesn't know one way or the other, he then is agnostic.

[Evoman]

47. Are you an atheist? Cuz I am. And I disagree with you.

Oh, and you "atheists have faith" people completely ruined my thread. Why don't you stop yourself from ruining this one, as well?

[Hoping4Change]

95. All like yourself on this thread who display such emotional

rancor at my mere quoting Atwood's distinction beteen atheism and agnostism, seem to prove her point that athesism is a religion. Below is Merrium-Webster's def of religion, note the 4th definition that religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

This definition clearly describes atheists like yourself in this thread.




Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. Would you describe advocating democracy as a religion?

Because that 'fits' definition 4 just as well as atheism. Where's the faith in atheism? It's absence of belief in gods. And it doesn't need ardor.

When I look up 'atheism' in my dictionary, it doesn't mention religion, but disbelief in gods. But when I look up 'Buddhism', 'Christianity', 'Hinduism', 'Islam' or 'Judaism', they are all described as religions.

[cosmik debris]

51. Atheists do not assert that there is no god

Atheist only assert that they do not believe. Well, sometimes they assert that people who define atheism in unflattering and self-serving ways are rude and insensitive. But you wouldn't do that would you.

You should know by now that an agnostic is one who doesn't know, an atheist is one who doesn't believe. See the difference?

If you insist on telling atheists what they believe and don't believe you will start a flame war like the one this weekend. Please don't do that.

[Hoping4Change]

97. The very word atheism comes from Greek and literally means

no god.

[Goblinmonger]

103. So where

in that literal translation, does it mention faith or belief?

See, the problem, which you are errently interpreting as religious vigor, is that we are sick of people telling us what we think or "believe." We try to tell people here what we think, but, like you, people just coming back with some variation of "no, that's not it, you believe/think this." That tends to piss a lot of us off and we have a short fuse. Can't you see that? Why can't you trust us when we tell you what is in our mind?

[Hoping4Change]

113. "[The more fervent atheists] have often enough shown a temper

which, psychologically considered, is indistinguishable from religious zeal".


"Varieties of religious experience, the" by William James, p54

[Goblinmonger]

117. Are we playing dueling quotations

and I didn't know. OK, here's mine

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. Then, we say, "Why does this happen?" It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us." Pat Robertson.

By applying you logic, since Pat says it, it must be true of all Christians.

On to the point(?) or your post: atheists should just shut up then when people mis-define them because if we don't those that mis-define us will tell us we are reacting because we are religious? I feel like a dog chasing my tail trying to get to the beginning of that circular reasoning.

[Hoping4Change]

129. My position is that atheism unlike agnosticism can be

dangerous for the reason stated by James. Look at the consequences of state legislated athesim under Stalin when incredibly beautiful churches, artistic masterpieces were destroyed.

[Goblinmonger]

131. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Seriously, are you reading some book titled, Theist Canards to Throw at Atheists?

NOBODY has killed in the name of atheism. NOBODY kills for a lack of belief.

I have tried to be nice, I really have, but the bigotry you are spouting is just out of hand. So agnostics are OK, but atheist, by definition, are dangerous. Yet the irony is that they are dangerous for a reason that YOU fucking define. Not the atheists. Actually, all the atheists on here are telling you that your definition of atheism is wrong, but yet YOU STILL FUCKING STICK TO IT AND NO SAY WE ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF IT.

In the words of the strawman from Oz, "If I only had a brain."

In case you didn't get it, you are putting forth the classic strawman. Oh, forget it, you will just "non"respond.

[Hoping4Change]

159. You gotta to be kidding when you state nobody has killed

in the name of atheism - read a history of the Khmer Rouge. The fact that you place atheism on such a high pedestal simply confirms Atwood's assertion. You seem to be believe that unlike any other ideology or faith, atheism is beyond fault. Atheism is an idea, period. Just like religions and ideologies are ideas. Ideas of any sort are only as benign as those who embrace them. If a person prone to zealotry gets attached to an idea watch out.

[Goblinmonger]

164. There are a couple problems there.

First, atheism is not a faith or ideology. You still haven't addressed that yet.

Second, the Khmer Rouge killed in the name of non-belief? Really? Where did you read that? Pat Robertson's history of the world. Pol Pot was a horrible communist dictator. No arguments. The problem is that most of society, still on a drunken high from McCarthyism, blames ALL of communisms problems on the minor tenet of no state religion. There has only been one country that was atheist by act of government. Can you name it? Hint: It wasn't Cambodia.

I always thought the Khmer Rouge was about rabid isolationism and the killing was due to forced labor, mismangement of resources, and killing political opponents.

Please show me how ANY of that means that Pol Pot killed in the name of no belief.

[beam me up scottie]

186. No, actually she prefers Reverend Neal, see my post #184

or use this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84487&mesg_id=84959

[trotsky]

133. How do you explain the destruction of competing religion's relics

and knowledge by Christians? Your logic would dictate that Christianity is equally dangerous.

[Hoping4Change]

147. I've never stated they weren't different.

Zealotry is dangerous. Any kind.

[trotsky]

161. Ah, but what IS different...

is that such religious institutions were banned under Stalin because they posed a threat to COMMUNISM, not atheism. There is nothing *in* atheism to "fight for" - it was the ideology of communism that was opposed to religion.

[Goblinmonger]

167. Did you mean to use the double negative there? n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

146. Uh oh

[Goblinmonger]

122. Secondly

I thought about letting this go, but I can't.

Why do you never answer the question that is put to you in response to your posts? Specifically, in this case, where is your wonderful literal translation of atheist from Greek to English is the word faith or belief?

[Hoping4Change]

98. An agnostic is not, as you state, someone who doesn't know.

An agnostic is someone who believes that "you cannot pronounce, as knowledge, anything you cannot demonstrate."

[Goblinmonger]

104. So says Atwood.

Google it and you will get a shit load of different variations and interpretations.

But why can't you trust the agnostics and atheists on here to tell you what they think? There is no atheist nor agnostic dogma. We don't have a church telling us what to think. We are all on our own. As a result, we have different views (much like the legion of Christian sects). Take us at our word about our thoughts and you won't get the reactions you have on here.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Nice false dilemma, but I'm not falling for that fallacy.

1. An atheist doesn't need to assert jack. An atheist is A-THEIST, i.e. does not have a belief in any supernatural power, aka god. Some may say that god doesn't exist; some may not. But the only alternatives are not those that you listed.

2. I think I have said it many times before, but here's another. I am the null hypothesis. Same as if I said there was no such thing as a 50 inch tv. You could then show me that there are 50 inch tvs and I would reevaluate my position. There is no god because there is no evidence for him/her/it. If you wish to assert that there is, then the burden is on you, not me.

3. You still haven't answered the question originally posed. Do you go around saying that you are, in essence, "agnostic" about the existence of dragons/unicorns/other mythic creatures? Do you say to people that you have "faith" that Zeus does not exist? I don't think so. Why do you demand that of atheists?

[beam me up scottie]

65. Oh joy, just what we need, another "decider".

I didn't get the memo, who gave you permission to change the meaning of "atheism"?

[Random_Australian]

85. Oh really? Guess us atheists are just too dumb to know what we are. Let me

put it like this:

Take a Christian, with great faith in there God.

Then, let them look at the world and see that people believe in other religions with equal ferver.

Then, ask them to prove that they are right. If they do the sensible thing and say "I can't" - then by your definition they are agnostic.

Or in other words, you are most likely an agnostic.

You are not a religious person - stop impersonating one.


UNLESS, of course, there is something wrong with your definition... in that case, you are religious, and I am an atheist, and I do not assert that there is no God.

[Hoping4Change]

100. As stated above the word atheist which you claim describes your

position is from Greek and it means No God. The word itself is the assertion there is no god.


And as I stated above, all you atheists in a knot at my mere quoting Atwood's distinction between atheism and agnosticism, seem to prove her point that atheism is a religion. I expect to see such emotional rancor from fundie wingnuts but lo and behold atheists are all in a knot, in the throws of emotion. And in your case nothing more clearly illustrates that than your statement "You are not a religious person - stop impersonating one." That is close to delerious. Where have I made any dislosure of my position? Where have I impersonated a religious person? My posts have merely quoted Atwood's statement.


Below is Merriam-Webster's def of religion, note the 4th definition that religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

This definition clearly describes atheists like yourself in this thread.




Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[Goblinmonger]

105. Um, just a thought

but comparing atheists to right-wing religous fundamentalists isn't going to go very far in winning over many friends.







And it is kind of intolerant.







And unchristian.






And mean.






And a logical fallacy (ad hom).

[Hoping4Change]

110. It any athesit is going to react

emotioanlly i.e. not like me then that just proves my point. I stand by that comparison. Intellectual giants of athesism such as Voltaire, denounced emotional reactions, religion was dangerous because it encouraged irrationlity ie passion. A touchy atheist, as far as I am concerned, is someone who embraces atheism as a religion.

[trotsky]

115. So if an atheist calls your religion fairy tales,

and someone reacts emotionally, does that prove their point?

I find it fascinating you are so willing to antagonize your fellow liberals, and for what?

[Hoping4Change]

127. If someone reacts emotionally when his beliefs are

dismissed as fairy tales, then he proves himself to be irrational.

An emotional reaction doesn't prove beliefs are fairy tales it simply means that the person holding those beliefs is in the grip of emotion and need I say that being in the grip of emotion has its drawbacks.


And what's with the comment that I am antagonizing fellow liberals? If there is no religious component (ie irrational component) to athesim, why would atheists feel antagonized when the definition of atheism is being questioned?

[Goblinmonger]

128. Hey, hypocritical much?

If a theist reacts emotionally to their religion being compared to a fairy tale, then they are irrational.

If an atheist reacts emotionally to, well, um, anything, then they are exactly like the right-wing fundamentalist christians, and are clearly showing a belief/faith on a level of religous zealots.

Why the easy pass for the theists? Oh, never mind.

[Hoping4Change]

152. Irrational = fundie wingnuts. No difference, Just didn't want to

repeat myself. However in some ways I do have more distain for atheists who react emotionally because atheism distains the irrationality inherent in religious belief. I suppose I hold atheists to higher standards.

[Goblinmonger]

166. So, Oh Great King of Logic

You still have not answered the question,

Where, in your fine academic translation of atheism from Greek to English is there any hint, trace, or faint whiff of belief or faith. If my small, illogical atheist brain can remember that far back, your translation was "no god." Please explain, logically, how that translates into belief or faith.

Secondly, why are you not accepting of what other people tell you they are thinking? Why do you need to constantly tell them they are actually thinking something different?

[trotsky]

130. Hey, I know that logic!

It's straight from RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Yup, he argued that because liberals get angry with what he says, it proves he's right.

Does it make you proud to be using the same reasoning as Rush? Attacking fellow liberals and refusing to accept their definition of themselves? Way to go!

[Hoping4Change]

154. I would say you in fact are channeling Limbaugh because

there is nothing liberal about reacting emotionally when one's ideology is being scrutinized.

As for your statement that I should accept someone else's definition of themselves, I'm not questioning anyone's definition of themselves, I'm questioning the idea specially whether or not atheism is a religion.

[trotsky]

160. You just don't get it.

Atheism isn't an "ideology" any more than liking peanut butter is an ideology.

I'm just disgusted by the treatment of atheists by "liberals" such as yourself.

[Goblinmonger]

119. So you are at the ocean with a friend

and you find a shark near shore. The shark is minding his own business. Your friend starts poking the shark with a stick. Keeps doing it. Even though the shark tries to swim away, your friend stops that and pokes even more vigorously. Eventually the shark bites your friend. You shake your head and say, "Well, what do you expect from sharks."

[Hoping4Change]

156. You have hit the nail on the head. I couldn't say it better.

Your description of atheists as sharks is apt given that sharks are reactive and bite when provoked. Sharks have a kneejerk responses. When it comes to metaphysical questions, emotion is the worst possible thing. Its dangerous. Atheists can be as dangerous as any believer.

[trotsky]

163. But this isn't a reaction to metaphysical questions!

It's a reaction to being mislabeled and misdefined. The same as if someone defined YOU as a homosexual-hating, creationism-believing, bible literalist Christian. And then, despite your protests to the contrary, CONTINUED to refer to you as those things.

Don't you get it?

[beam me up scottie]

190. Not believing in gods is dangerous? Maybe to fundamentalists like yourself

The rest of the world has nothing to fear from people who lack belief in invisible deities.

[trotsky]

114. Why do you keep insisting on defining others?

I'm guessing you wouldn't do this for homosexuals or racial minorities - why is it OK to do with atheists?

Do you know what the word tolerance means?

[Hoping4Change]

157. Hm. People are here to interact. A prof of mine used to say

beware of people who pat you on the head. It seems to me that you would be more confortable if I patted people of their heads. I really don't understand the POV that people can't be questioned. What if you knew someone with low self esteem and thus defined themselves as useless, are you telling me that you wouldn't challenge that person's self definition?

[trotsky]

162. Interact, yes.

Narrowly defining others, and continuing to insult them because they won't yield to your definition of them is not interaction. This is not questioning, it's bullying and intolerance, and I and others are calling you on it.

[beam me up scottie]

187. She gets her inspiration from another christian bigot, Reverend Neal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84487&mesg_id=84959

[Random_Australian]

171. I shall have to stop bieng subtle, methinks. Apologies for not putting

this clearer the first time.

Simple IF-THEN series of statements.

IF atheism is a belief there is no God

AND one who does not assert that there is no God is not an atheist

THEN (By symmetry) A religious person who does not claim to have absolute proof/ perfect faith that the one they claim is God is the real one, then they are also agnostic. Which would make many very devout people not religious, but agnostic, which is clearly wrong.

Therefore the initial premise is wrong.

Therefore we don't need to reject the possibility that there is a God to be atheists.

However, there are people who are very inclusive agnostics who would have no trouble thinking that many devout people are actually agnostic. If this is like you, then I would urge you to read this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

For the definition of atheism used by atheists.

If you think that you are right, and the collective atheists are wrong, then you better have a very sound QED to back yourself up.

Finally, as for "You are not a religious person - stop impersonating one." you didn't seem to get it, I suggest reading it in context, and you will find that I neither think that, nor am I emotional about it. Sheesh.

Finally , cheap shots comparing groups to fundies is not conducive to proper discussion. Try not to be so antagonistic please.

If you wish to dispute the claim that you made cheap fundy comparisons, I back myself up with this quote of yours.

" expect to see such emotional rancor from fundie wingnuts but lo and behold atheists are all in a knot, in the throws of emotion."

And finally, No God is still closer to without than against - so it looks like my original point still stands.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

144. Isn't it all semantics about the word "belief"?

Because we all have belief systems, things we believe to be so but we can't prove.
And not about faith issues. Like I believe my superintendent is an honest man. But I can't prove it. Indeed, I don't even know him. But I've looked into his eyes and shaken his hand, and my belief is that he is honest. I could be wrong.

My personal belief system includes a higher power, while yours does not. But we all believe in something. Some of us have different litmus tests. You rely on logic and pattern while I rely more on intuition.

[neebob]

50. Okay, so you're an Atwoodist

because Margaret Atwood said atheism is a religion, and you believed it. AND you can't prove it's true. You just believe it, because she said so. Therefore, you have an Atwoodian faith. I dare say that's your religion.

[Hoping4Change]

158. I didn't say I "believed " Atwood. Statements like hers, just like

statements for and against the existence of God are to be considered, mulled over, reflected on. I don't need to belive in Atwood, it is enough to find her thought-provoking.

[Goblinmonger]

165. Yes you do

You believe in Atwood and all her tenets. You're an Atwoodian. Why don't you just admit it. Any your denial that you aren't is just proof that you are. Why can't you understand that?

[beam me up scottie]

179. And how are things at the Chapel of the Fucking Clueless?

Your deep seated need to redefine the beliefs of others is both ignorant and arrogant and is comparable to GWB's need to redefine the motivations of liberals who protest the war.

We hate you for your freedom.

[Prophet 451]

56. She's wrong

Athieism comes in two varities, what she's described is only "strong/positive" athieism. The far more common "weak/negative" athieism simply says "I do not believe in God". Strong/positive athieism is a belief (and before anyone asks, yes, so is believing in the non-existance of unicorns, we all adopt dozens of minor beliefs just to get through the day), weak/negative athieism is a lack of belief(s). The one simply makes a statement about the self, the other makes an inherantly unprovable statement about the universe.

[cosmik debris]

69. So you want to re-define atheism too.

Atheism comes in millions of varieties, not two. Although some atheists allow themselves to be lumped together for defensive purpose, millions more of us refuse to be labeled, categorized, packaged and processed. We are individuals who have no common link with other atheist except that theist disagree with all of us. Please do not tell us what we believe, think, or make statements about. Making generalizations about a group of people based on your misconceptions might be offensive to some.

[beam me up scottie]

70. I don't think that was his intention.

Many people are unaware of how dissimilar atheists are and I think he was trying to explain the most common of the two varieties.

I share your views, I hate the label "atheist" and refused to use it for years.

However, now that the battle lines are drawn, when it comes to militant atheists, I've gone congo.

I usually just go with explaining the difference between weak/agnostic and strong atheism too, because expecting theists to absorb and appreciate all 32 flavors is a bit much.

[Prophet 451]

79. Correct me then

Admittedly, my phrasing was poor but so far as I can see, athieism falls into one of those two gereal "camps". If you're seeing some nuance that I've missed, explain it so I can be better informed next time.

[cosmik debris]

92. I realize that you were not trying to be offensive

And I was trying to politely warn you that your inadvertent stereotyping is offensive.

And I am really tired of being stuffed into a stereotype atheist mold. Atheist are NOT bound together by their beliefs. We are not a group unified by a common understanding or tenet. Grouping us by a characteristic we don't have (i.e. belief) is just wrong.

Atheists are not a group. They are people. They can't be divided into two camps unless you force them to wear labels given to them by someone else. That is the only common link that atheists have, the label given to them by people who disagree.

[Prophet 451]

173. OK, apologies all around?

I understand how annoying stereotyping can be. I'm not an athiest (as you probably guessed), I'm a Luciferian. Now, if I say "I worship the devil", the phrase is factually accurate but the image it presents (the stereotype) isn't. So, I'll apologise for teh stereotype.

[charlie]

72. To further muddy things

Atwood calls herself a "strict agnostic." Atheists are dogmatists, therefore a religion, while:

A strict agnostic says, you cannot pronounce, as knowledge, anything you cannot demonstrate. In other words if you're going to call it knowledge you have to be able to run an experiment on it that's repeatable. You can't run an experiment on whether God exists or not, therefore you can't say anything about it as knowledge. You can have a belief if you want to, or if that is what grabs you, if you were called in that direction, if you have a subjective experience of that kind, that would be your belief system. You just can't call it knowledge.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/print/faithandreason106_print.html

[Prophet 451]

80. That sounds like a contradiction in terms

How can you have a strict agnostic? That sounds a little like a fundementalist Episcopalian.

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. Correction. Santa is NOT ugly and bearded. Evidence herewith

Now Santas S/O on the other hand...MAN! Uglier than a hat full of bugs.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Oh, Santa

I'll give you three guesses what I want for Christmas and the first two don't count.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. That's the delivery person.

Please don't feed or harass the help. Ok, milk and cookies but NOTHING ELSE.

[Goblinmonger]

44. So by milk and cookies,

you are speaking metaphorically, right?

[Prophet 451]

57. Can I have her under my Xmas tree? n/t

[lvx35]

55. Don't those first points bother you? A-theist?

I mean, the fact that atheism contains "theism" (and the negating "a") and that you gravitate toward theists to discuss things? Doesn't it bother you to be in the same class as the "amoral" person in the morality forum, or the "asexual" person in the sexuality forum? Or rather, to put it more succintly, does it suprise you that you are viewed as antagonistic when you come to a forum declaring yourself to be against what the forum is by name about?

I have no problem with naturalistic or humanist ideas about the universe...I just see atheism associate with antagonism and derision of religion, which is not effective at enlightening people to anything at all, naturalist or spiritual. I have a lot of respect for people of your ilk who choose to identify themselves as brights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement
Instead of atheists, so they can focus on positive change instead of deriding others.

[varkam]

58. If you spend all your life with people...

..who believe the exact same things that you do, you don't tend to learn much new. As I've tried to make abundantly clear, I come here for learning and discussion. As I've said, and say again, I've always tried to be respectful towards other's beliefs. Like I said in the OP, if the mere presence of someone who believes differently offends you, you might be too easily offended.

I take it that the "morality" forum isn't a forum specifically for "moral" individuals, but rather for discussions focusing on morality. I take it the "sexuality" forum is not specifically for "sexual" people, but for discussions regarding sexuality. Likewise, I take it the religion forum is not specifically for religious individuals, but for discussions focusing on religion and / or theology.

I take it you think that atheism = anti-theism? They are two completely different things, BTW. One is a disbelief in god, whereas the other is the active belief that religion causes harm to humanity. I think you would do well to keep the two separate, as there are many people of non-belief who don't think that is the case.

I have a lot of respect for people of your ilk who choose to identify themselves as brights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement
Instead of atheists, so they can focus on positive change instead of deriding others.

I've tried all my life to do good things. I've tried to make the right decisions. I've tried to do right by others. I've tried to be active in causes that, I think, are to the benefit of humanity such as volunteering with Amnesty International.

I must of said this a hundred times now, but I've also tried so very hard to be respectful, here and elsewhere. But it is astonishingly difficult to do so when I'm told that I'm focused on the derision of others instead of working for positive change.

Thank you for your kind comments.

[lvx35]

61. Its about the FOCUS on theology.

And I am talking to you about terminology, and the attitude it describes. I am glad you've done good work in the world and I respect that. This is about how you choose to represent yourself. The point is that the focus of atheism is "theism", it is the core of the word - and I see this attitude reflected in atheists: an ongoing focus on that which they do NOT believe (which oft brings them to theology forums) rather than a focus on what they do believe; a naturalistic worldview. What I am saying is that if the naturalistic worldview were focused on, even if it was brought here to the theological setting, it would be bringing things forward in a big way that would be positive for all...while a focus on what is not believed is doomed to be somewhat antagonistic in nature.


edit; to clarify why this is, please bear in mind that God is not a theory, in the same sense that love is not a theory, it is something intangible which is experienced more deeply than thought ... trying to argue with a person in love about the wrongness of the-theory-that-love-exists is doomed do be a disappointment :(

[beam me up scottie]

63. What is this, Redefine Atheism Week? Atheism is not a religion.

FYI, I can't stand "Brights" and many atheists feel the same way. If they want to get all warm and fuzzy with other non-theists they can join the nearest UU, but trying to make atheism a religion is nothing but the wet dreams of new-agers with god-envy.

The focus of atheism is NOT theism, stop trying to change the meaning of the word.

And as far as your clarification, so what if I think your God-thing IS a theory?

If you're bored and want to rearrange the furniture, instead of telling atheists what to do, maybe you could change theism to focus on the God theory.

[lvx35]

66. New flesh for old ceremony...

...Oh wait, its you and me again. Old flesh for old ceremony. Its the ancient "lvx35-is-redefining-atheism" ritual argument. Let me put on my robes and grab my ceremonial implements.

FYI, I can't stand "Brights" and many atheists feel the same way. If they want to get all warm and fuzzy with other non-theists they can join the nearest UU, but trying to make atheism a religion is nothing but the wet dreams of new-agers with god-envy.

I've never heard of this group in my life until today, but I am convinced they would not form a religion....They just have this wacky idea about celebrating their own worldviews instead of fixating on others.

The focus of atheism is NOT theism, stop trying to change the meaning of the word.

Yes it IS. Atheism is disbelief, or non-belief in God. It is defined by what it does not believe. Look it up.

If you're bored and want to rearrange the furniture, instead of telling atheists what to do, maybe you could change theism to focus on the God theory.

Hey, that's a great idea...Hmm I wonder where I could focus on talking about God, on sharing my ideas with other and exploring our ideas about God...I know, how about a forum on religion and theology! That would SURELY be a safe place to discuss my religious beliefs with others!!!! :):):)

[beam me up scottie]

68. Sharing your ideas about God is discussion, redefining atheism isn't.

Why do theists in here spend so much time trying to tell atheists what they believe and don't?

Seems like a waste of the forum, and rather ironic considering how we're constantly being told that we won't let anyone talk about theology.


Atheism does not "focus" on theism, it is the lack of belief in gods.

You are confusing atheism and anti-theism, look it up.



The very name of the Brights is offensive, as many theists have told me, I'm surprised you're okay with it, being a not-Bright and all.

And yes, the Brights ARE forming a religion, atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is NOT a "worldview". I just hope people stop confusing them with atheists.




oops, forgot to add mr. smilie :)

This is a discussion, see?

It is possible.

[lvx35]

71. Oh BMUS. Stop it.

Atheism does not "focus" on theism, it is the lack of belief in gods.

exactly, its the lack of belief in Gods...which is nothing in itself, but when you look in the mirror and say "I am an atheist" you are defining yourself off of the belief in gods, namely the lack thereof, versus what you have, what you DO believe is true. What I'm talking about is the difference between saying "I am a woman" and saying "I am not a man". Its a big difference to focus on what you do believe vs. what you don't believe.

And don't give me that thing about you "not believing in anything", but rather knowing. You do NOT know anything with total certainty, you are human.

The very name of the Brights is offensive, as many theists have told me, I'm surprised you're okay with it being a not-Bright and all.

What, a bunch of people who want to illuminate me about the natural world, and the richness of natural explations of events is offensive? Not at all. The more deep my understand of the natural world is, the more my religion is enriched. Scientists, humanists, and naturalists SHOULD call themselves bright, they deserve the title...especially when they want to help share it with the rest of humanity.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Well, I thought it was a discussion. That's it. I'm sick of this. Listen,

because I'm only saying this one more time, I don't look in the mirror and say "I'm an atheist".

That only happens in your mind because you have absolutely no clue what it's like to be me.

Got it?

And furthermore, I never had to fucking even THINK about the invisible god thing until it was jammed in my face non stop by the holier than thou bigots who took over our government and are legion where I live and work.


I was BORN this way, I have always BEEN this way and I doubt I will ever sustain the kind of head injury that has caused other non-believers I know to become "saved".


So don't tell ME that I define myself in relation to whatever the popular myth of the century is.

Atheism, like Gobby says, is the null hypothesis, you people are the ones who add all kinds of artificial flavorings and preservatives.


So don't you dare preach to me about what I believe and don't, I have to suffer it at work, I will NOT do it here.

[lvx35]

75. What IS it like to be you?

Now that is something which I am sincerely interested in. Where is this place where you work where you are forced to profess belief?

And you were born in this state of being? What does that mean exactly? You believe that you were born into a physical world of physical phenomenon, but that your self, your innnermost conciousness is so separate from the universe around you that it is wildly innapropriate to refer to it as a "self" like you are a self?

I am not trying to argue. I want to understand, sincerely. Why don't you see the universe around you as being made of the same stuff and therefore having a self like you??? Doesn't that make sense?

[beam me up scottie]

77. We're all born unbelievers, I just never morphed into a believer.

I never moved from the default position.

And as far as where I work, I do believe you participated in a thread I started here last week about one of the supervisors I work with.

I am not "forced to profess belief" and I never said that I was.

I do, however, have to sport a logo that has a christian cross on it, I have to work underneath the christian flag, I have to try to not draw attention to myself when I don't join in the daily prayers, I have to listen to the managers and owner ridicule and malign the engineer who was brave enough to out himself at work, I am bombarded with christian propaganda on my desk, in my crib, where I eat lunch, and even where I piss, I have to listen to christian bigot redneck talk radio every morning, ALL morning, if you think that having to hear yourself described as a feminazi, a traitor and a terrorist, and having to listen to your gay friends being called much much worse by good christians five days a week isn't hell on earth, then you're not human.

Oh, I could go on, but I'm sick of thinking about that place, I need my paycheck and hate myself for being such a whore.

Someday I may grow enough of a spine to tell the fuckers I work with and for exactly what I think of them and their brand of religion, but for now, I'm forced to suck it up.

[Evoman]

81. *hugs*

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm so lucky to be a scientist (evolutionary scientist) where most people are like me.

You are not a whore, and nobody here thinks you are.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Thanks.

I feel like one sometimes, though. I'm helping these people make money so that they can support * and his minions.

[salvorhardin]

82. Evoman's right

You're not a whore. You're not even a hypocrite. You're doing what you need to do to survive. You shouldn't have to do it in the environment you're in, but you don't have the power to change that right now.
:hug: :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

84. Thank you.

I needed that. :loveya:

[Random_Australian]

88. Whore? No, nothing of the sort dear Bmus!

Sounds like someone needs a hug!
:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:
                                                  :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
                              :loveya::pals::pals::pals::pals::hug::hug::hug::hug::pals::pals::pals::pals::loveya:
          :loveya::loveya::loveya::pals::pals::pals::hug::hug::hug:YOU ARE HERE:hug::hug::hug::pals::pals::pals::loveya::loveya::loveya:
                             :loveya::pals::pals::pals::pals::hug::hug::hug::hug::pals::pals::pals::pals::loveya:
                                                  :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[beam me up scottie]

180. Thanks for the hug, RA, although some days I think a baseball bat might

be better. :evilgrin:

[tbyg52]

89. Oh my gosh!

You have my sincere sympathy. The next time I see a church sign that (in essence) says I'm going to hell, or other things of that ilk here in the bible belt, I'll remind myself it could be worse. And, no, you are *not* a "whore."

Edited to add the I completely agree with you about the "default position."

:loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

181. Thanks!

I see you live in Texas so you have a good idea of what it's like.

Maybe we need to start an atheist underground for people like us who live in the bible belt.

[lvx35]

94. That is a tough situation as far as work goes...

And yeah, I remember that now I think. Which is interesting how that must effect you, because I live in a liberal town, and associate religion with my local buddhist ashram, and the fundies as some type of distant clowns that aren't really real, or are wierd oddities whenever they show up, cult members, not a powerful group.

[beam me up scottie]

188. I grew up in New England.

I never THOUGHT about religion, let alone had it forced down my throat. My friends didn't even ask me why I didn't go to church.

Fast forward to Bushco's Amerikkka and take a look at what the moral majority have done to this country and you can understand why people like me have become militant atheists.

Militant atheism is a reaction to militant theism, all we want is separation of church and state and to be left alone.

Liberal believers are no threat to us, quite the contrary, most of my friends and much of my family are liberal believers.

[kwassa]

109. We are not born unbelievers. Where do you work, geographically?

I don't ask you to out yourself at your company.

But .... I have never even met a company like the one you work for. I never have even heard of one like this. I've worked in a wide variety of industries, around the US.

Religion is never a proper discussion for a workplace, unless you work for a church. This is true in all the companies I have ever worked for.

While I have had co-workers that are devoutly observant, I have never even heard of a workplace like this.

[Goblinmonger]

123. What a wonderful irony, then

that Muslims are born to Muslim families, Christians to Christian families, Buddhists to Buddhists families, and so on.

Though, if I were god, I would make those that are born Muslim be born to Christian families and mix up the whole bit just for shits and giggles. But I'm kind of an ass like that.

[kwassa]

125. Gotta point?

I should know better.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Yeah, I thought is was pretty clear

and kind of witty.

If we aren't born atheists (i.e. unbelievers), then why don't some babies that are born to Muslims start giving their lives to Jesus when they are 2 and argue with their parents about Christ's status as son of god?

In case that still isn't clear, RELIGION IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, NOT SOMETHING WE ARE BORN WITH.

I would agree that there may be something hardwired in humans that leads us to try and explain the world around us and religion provides a simple, albeit far from reliable, means to answer those questions. That does not mean that we are born believers.

[kwassa]

134. We all believe in something when we can

the weakest argument posed is that unbelieving is a default position

since babies aren't capable of forming belief, being born an unbeliever IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.

Good use of caps, or what?

[Goblinmonger]

141. So, a little test

Pick the date at which you believe children can form beliefs.

If, at that magical age, nobody indoctrinated them in a religion. No discussion of god, nothing. Would the child magically form religious beliefs? No. So atheism would still be the default position. It takes the indoctrination of society to get them those beliefs.

[kwassa]

193. Prove it

goblinmonger:
"If, at that magical age, nobody indoctrinated them in a religion. No discussion of god, nothing. Would the child magically form religious beliefs? No."

Your assertion, prove it. This should be interesting.

[Goblinmonger]

195. We come back to the beginning

At that magical age, why do children magically espouse the religious views of their parents? Because the are indoctrinated to it. If they weren't indoctrinated, they may come up with their own explanations, but according to you, those explanations would have to be god as society defines it. Take my kids as an anecdote. My wife is agnostic and believes there is something supernatural but doesn't buy any of the current explanations. We didn't talk about god with them until much later. They had no concept, no clue. And actually, now see christianity as being quite silly. As an aside to that anecdote, neither of my kids knows that I am an atheist. I don't want to skew their view of the world and I don't want them to tell the wrong friend and lose that friend because of it (because that will happen, I am sure of it). I have neighbors that are good friends who would not be friends with my family if they knew I was a non-believer,

Take kids in your favorite little atheist bashing society, communist Soviet Union, Cambodia, or any of the others. When there is not religion in the society (which, arguably isn't the case), why didn't the kids start believing in god spontaneously? And which god do you suppose that would be.

[Finder]

145. An unanswered question=God...

which is why the fundies do not want their children learning about evolution, sex education, other religions, etc...

Many consider themselves Deists since we haven't found the answer to what caused the big bang yet.lol

[beam me up scottie]

176. Bullshit. Infants don't believe in gods, kwassa, stop pretending otherwise

Not believing in gods makes one an unbeliever.

[kwassa]

194. So? this is meaningless, as I pointed out.

This meme is used over and over again by some atheists as part as a proposition that being an atheist is the natural human state at birth.

If a baby can't form a belief, then it is pointless, as pointed out before.

[Goblinmonger]

196. So AGAIN

why don't babies, once able to form beliefs, form beliefs about the SAME GOD? Why do they mirror the beliefs of their parents at that point? Why does the son of the orthodox catholic two doors down talk about Jesus? Why doesn't he talk about Allah? Or Buddha? The answer is simple: Religion is a social construct.

[beam me up scottie]

177. I could give a fuck less where you've worked, kwassa. People like you are

the reason why atheists have to stay in the closet.

You must live a very sheltered life if this is the first time you've ever heard of a company like mine.

Google christian workplace and get a clue.

[beam me up scottie]

191. I suppose you've never heard of a small town like this, either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1910845

Wake up, kwassa, before your fellow christians turn this into the theocracy they've always wanted.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

148. You need to get out of there

it is going to eat you alive.

[beam me up scottie]

189. Thanks, T.Grannie.

But I was one paycheck away from being out on the street a year ago and I need to bank some cash if I'm going to make a break for it.

And there are a few good guys there, we keep each other from going postal.

[Random_Australian]

87. Just something as an aside.

"Scientists, humanists, and naturalists SHOULD call themselves bright"

Nope, we shouldn't. It is against the philosophy of science. True, it takes a very special mind, but allowing yourself to think of yourself as bright in a relative sense (Which, for reasons that I will supply if you ask, what we use) is something that you should not do.

See "Planet Vulcan" (As in, the historical prediction of the planet Vulcan)

[Finder]

93. I am a Bright and do not see the group as using bright as an adjective...

to describe intellect. The term is easy to remember and even those who do not approve of the name help to spread the word about the group.lol

There seems to be more Europeans than Americans among its members so there is less bickering about definitions and anger towards fundamentalism since their countries are not saturated with religion. Unlike the US where declaring yourself as an unbeliever could be detrimental socially and economically(as BMUS points out)it is a non-issue.

[Goblinmonger]

106. The name sounds stupid.

It sounds like a character from one of those horrible British kid's shows where they have some odd character the color of Kool-aid running around saying nonsense words.

I'm thinking of starting an atheist group called "Leave me alone you theocratic pricks." Not quite as catchy as "Bright" but it is to the point. :evilgrin:

[lvx35]

112. why don't you call yourself the nons?

you can sit around and share your non-belief, non-olympic skiing, non-mars travel, and non-drinking of tea on the surface of jupiter...In fact I believe there are so many things you could find that you don't do/believe in that you might just forever distract yourself from your lack of any affirmative ideas.

[Goblinmonger]

120. If I didn't know I was on a progressive site

I would think that response was one from a narrow-minded, bigotted, asshole. But since I am on DU, I will have to revauluate that initial reaction.

[lvx35]

135. Like calling the name of the brights stupid?

That's pretty progressive too.

[Goblinmonger]

139. That was a humorous bit.

It was a dig at a fellow atheist in the middle of atheist bashing. Obviously that was lost.

On edit: I also put the devil smiling thing in there which should have been a clue.

[cosmik debris]

121. Here is a suggestion

Why should we wear a label to distinguish us from theists. The theists already have a label for that purpose. Just call us "everybody else"

There are theists and there is everybody else.

[lvx35]

136. Isn't that still theistically focused?

Why should you be defined off theists at all? That's all I am saying.

[Random_Australian]

185. I was referring to the way the person I was responding to it was using it,

as an adjective.

[lvx35]

96. hehe. yes arrogance is a problem...

but I don't take it as being about intellect, and it sounds like its not supposed to be...But hell, its not that bad to describe yourself positivly, after all, everybody does it - look at Christians, the name means "little christs"...If that's not self flattery that has very little to do with reality I don't know what is! ;)

[Finder]

102. Correct, it isn't about intellect...

but describing oneself positively seems to be frowned upon lately for some reason. Whether it be regarding intellect, philosophy or social ideology or economics, high self-esteem is seen as arrogance or conceit or the all famous charge of elitism.

[lvx35]

111. I don't think the Republicans got that memo...

Or at least the one's at Fox News. Honestly, I would like to see more liberals and intellectuals toot their own horns, since morons seem to have no problem doing it.

[Finder]

118. Faux peeps are right wing authoritarians...

I do agree liberals and intellectuals should toot their own horns but...our side is the one that takes the term equality out of context and sometimes to the extreme in the name of political correctness it seems.

People should have equal rights and equal opportunities but fact is we are not all equal when it comes to ability and intellect. Too often our side frames its message in order not to offend rather than to say it like it is. That is one of the reasons the right wing has resonated with so many the past decade.

[lvx35]

137. DAMN well said sir. nt

[cosmik debris]

62. Please understand that the label "atheist" is not one we choose.

It was given to us by people who disagree with us. Many atheists consider it to be a mildly derogatory term with negative implications(like amoral). There are also many of us who don't believe that we deserved to be labeled at all. And many who don't want to be associated with any movement or group. Atheists are not an amorphous group. The only thing we have in common is that theists disagree with us.

Regarding this group, It is a religion and Theology group, but it is not exclusively PRO religion and Theology. If you don't have pro AND con all you get is an echo chamber.

[lvx35]

67. Its a bad label.

In my opinion. I mean, if you believe in a naturalist worldview without a need for supernatural explanations, that's fine...But I think you should focus on that naturalistic worldview rather than the worldview yours goes against...Most good systems of belief do that. I mean, though relativity went against Newtonian physics, it was not called "aNewtonian physics", it was called relativity: Focusing on what something is rather than what it is not seems powerful to me.

regarding your second point, I would disagree. A great deal of debate occurs within theology, as in any field; you don't need people to disagree with the core tenets of a belief to have rich debate.

[salvorhardin]

78. Some misconceptions in your post

Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one. We're sort of stuck with the word because we're defined in relation to the majority. The majority does the defining.

Relativity does not go against Newtonian physics. It is a more generalized treatment of physics than Newtonian physics, but it does not render Newtonian physics incorrect.

[lvx35]

99. It renders them incomplete.

or rather renders them incorrect at certain scales or degrees of accuracy...But that's not so much the point...Make the metaphor about smoking, let atheists be non-smokers. non-smoking is not a behavior, its a lack of a behavior...Which is all fine or good until being a non-smoker starts to define you, which is silly...That's what I'm talking about here.

[cosmik debris]

91. I Don't

"believe in a naturalist worldview without a need for supernatural explanations"

How many times does this have to be said. I Don't Believe. Why do you assume that atheists are united by their belief or world view. We do not have a common belief. We do not share a world view. We do not agree on any statement except the statement "I do not believe."

Theists have given us a negative label and you complain that we are negative in our focus because we have a negative label. We are a diverse group, not a stereotype. If you argue that our stereotype is negative, you are right, but our stereotype is not a correct representation of our group. Please, look past the stereotype and see the people.

[lvx35]

101. I see the people just fine...its the "group" that bothers me.

We do not agree on any statement except the statement "I do not believe."

EXACTLY, that's why you piss me off. its all contained in that statement, no stereotyping of individuals is necessary. Do you have ANY knowledge about the world you believe to be true? I can't tell, because all you define yourself off of hear is what you do NOT believe in. Its like walking around saying "I do not believe Plato is correct" so people try to feel out what you DO think is correct, but theres nothing there, just your disbelief in Plato's correctness. You offer nothing to discourse in doing this.

Now I'm not saying that you DON'T have a lot to offer, I'm sure most atheists do...For instance, maybe you DON'T believe in a literal account of genesis BECAUSE naturalistic explanations fit the evidence better. Good! Why not share those naturalistic explanations you DO believe in, instead of bringing attention to what you don't believe in by refering to yourself as an atheist?

[cosmik debris]

116. I can't help you there.

I refer to myself as an atheist because that is the label given to me. I refer to myself as a white person because that is the label given to me. Actually my skin is pink, beige, and freckled. But I have been labeled white. I am sorry you are frustrated by my inability to live up to your label, but I can't.

[lvx35]

138. WEll being white or freckled is black is fine...

...its defining yourself as non-white or non-black that would bother me.

[cosmik debris]

140. And if you labeled me as a non black

I would find bothersome. So you should understand why I find it bothersome to be labeled as an atheist. But you seem compelled to do just that.

[lvx35]

143. No! I've been mistunderstood.

I would like to refer to you by something else....Are you perhaps a naturalist? Scientist? Artist? I'll bet you are something like that. I would like to see the term atheist fall out of use entirely!

[cosmik debris]

149. I'm sorry I misunderstood you

But I am still sticking with "everyone else"

[lvx35]

151. why?

Its like: what kind of food do you like? Italian, or something else? And you just identify your favorite food as "something else". Why not say what you like instead of what you don't like? If you would say you were a scientist or naturalist or anything it could be reconciled with many people's spiritual beliefs, but defining yourself only as not possessing those beliefs makes reconciliation and growth impossible.

[cosmik debris]

153. Maybe for you, but not for me. n/t

I don't require your paradigm for growth or reconciliation. And the more I hear of it the less I like it. I think I will just stay what I am and reject labels as often as I can get away with it.

[lvx35]

155. Fine, but don't call me theist in the future.

I declare my belief in deity to be beyond 'theism' now, it has exploded beyond all labels too. So there.

[Goblinmonger]

132. So let me get this straight

Atheists piss you off because our position is overly simple and we can't be stereotyped.

Well excuse the fuck out of me.

[Random_Australian]

86. "a" means without, not against. Just thought I would clear that up.

The other two seem to be covering things well.

[Hoping4Change]

150. ""atheism" as being without god-belief" is linguistically invalid.

"The word "atheism" is a direct cognate -- in fact, it is a transliteration -- of the Classical Greek word atheos (here, written with English letters). Its meaning, as demonstrated in the writings of Aeschylus and Diogenese Laertius, is best expressed as: "one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws." (See Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.20).

In Greek the article "a" can certainly mean "without" or "lacking" in the passive sense and when related to passive verbs, but in the case of the Greek noun atheos "a" conveys the active sense of "reversal of essence" or "opposite of condition" or "inversion of meaning." Hence, in this case, it means the bipolar opposite of its root-word theos. If "theism" is the belief that deities exist, then "atheism" is the belief that no-deities exist. Please note the place of the negation particle: when applied to nouns it should always be linked with the object, not an implied predicate; that which is believed IN is being negated, not the act of believing which is implied in the noun. In other words, and as a matter of simple Greek grammar, an atheos is one who denies the existence of a specific deity or of deities in general. Since "atheism" and "atheist" are derived from this noun, their meaning in English should follow suit. It is, hence, a misunderstanding of Greek morphology for the act of believing to be negated by the linguistic particle "a."

This analysis is supported by the word's usage in Greek literature. Essentially, it is rarely (if ever) used of a simple failure to acknowledge deities; rather, it is almost always found in the active sense of direct opposition to such beliefs, or (most often) a particular expression of such beliefs. For example, when used of Christians by Roman authorities and other Greek writers (and it was) it generally referenced their active denial of the deities of other religions ... a practice for which early Christians were labeled "atheists" by their political and religious opponents. It didn't matter that such Christians held theistic beliefs regarding their own deity, what mattered was their refusal to be ecumenical and at least passively accept the existence of other deities. Their refusal to do this -- their active denial of the existence of other gods and, particularly, their refusal to at least offer the nominal sacrifice to the deity of the Roman Emperor -- got them branded as "atheists." As a penalty for such a serious breach of cultural and political etiquette, these early Christians were sometimes severely persecuted.

While atheists will assert their identity however they wish, their analysis of the construction of the word "atheism" as being simply a passive "without god-belief" is linguistically invalid. True, the sense of passive negation is, indeed, one which the particle "a" can convey; however, that particular sense is foreign to the grammar and historical usage of the noun atheos."


http://www.errantskeptics.org/AtheismMng.htm

[Random_Australian]

172. I prefer accurate meaning to linguistic rules. This accentuation allows

people to understand atheists more easily.

[beam me up scottie]

184. ROFLMAO!!! Your cut and paste is from an article by REVEREND Neal.

Let's have a little looky at what else the creator of The Jesus Seminar has to say on his website:

The Errant Skeptics Research Institute
A collection of writings, quotes, and debates regarding God, Jesus Christ, Bible, Christian apologetics, theology, church, atheism, skepticism, The Jesus Seminar, G.A. Wells, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, evolution, theistic-evolution, eugenics, the Kansas State School Board evolution ruling, and historical quotes by the Founding Fathers regarding America's relationship with God. Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, William Provine.


Over the last several years believers on the Internet have been subjected to many and various specious arguments by hyper-skeptics challenging the central tenets of the Christian Faith, and even going so far as to deny the very existence of Jesus. Their arguments, for the most part, are little more than smoke and mirrors, which theologians label " pettifogging."

Many well-meaning Christians, out of their love for the Lord, have gently responded to these individuals attempting to display the reason for the hope that is within them. Rarely have these believers realized they are walking into a diabolically conceived trap. While on the surface the hyper-skeptics appear to be interested in engaging in reasonable debate, such is not their actual intention. Rather, their intention is to subtly lure a believer into a logical trap from which most Christians have difficulty extracting themselves. While the walls of this trap are logically and theologically errant, they are expressed in such a way as to appear sound. The unstated intention of this activity is to convert Christians into atheists, hence atheistic evangelism.

The purpose of this website is to expose these hyper-skeptics, their errant methodologies, erroneous arguments, and amateur sources.

Awww, how sweet, he even has a message for you:

Attention Christian soldiers:

We are aware that there are many more Christians who have tangled with these and other errant hyper-skeptics. We covet your input, comments, experiences, evidences or articles which might be of help in the further building and maintenance of this website. To our brothers and sisters in Christ, do not become weary in well-doing, but like all good soldiers, put on the whole armor of God. We salute you!

Gee, I hope you won't be too offended if I disagree with you and the good reverend, although I'm sure you're both experts in your own minds.

:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

192. It was a cut and paste, but you see the whole "put quote marks each side"

makes the need for such silly things as sourcing things irrelevant. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

64. Nice try, varkam, but as usual, this has turned into a pissing match

by people who, instead of trying to make this forum into what they want it to be, prefer to blame one group for all they think is wrong with it.

All the efforts by atheists to try to keep the dialog civil and not demeaning to believers apparently counts for nothing.

I have yet to see one of the whiners come to the defense of an atheist who is being provoked and/or insulted by one of their own.

Yet we see atheists taking each other to task all the time when one of us steps over the line.


Just more of that wonderful theist/deist tolerance we're so used to seeing in the * administration and the religious zealots who installed it.


Yeah, it's the atheists in the world who are responsible for everything that's wrong, because we're so negative. :eyes:

[kwassa]

107. Pot, kettle, black.

BMUS:
"All the efforts by atheists to try to keep the dialog civil and not demeaning to believers apparently counts for nothing."

Thanks!

I needed a good laugh.

[Goblinmonger]

124. Since I know BMUS is usually on at night,

Where specifically in this threat have atheists been demeaning to believers? Then, look for the times that believers have been demeaning to atheists such as telling them what they "really" believe.

[beam me up scottie]

182. I see you've gotten no answer from kwassa. What a shock.

How many atheists have told him that he's too stupid to know what he believes?

When it comes to telling others what they believe or don't, his record speaks for itself.

We hate him for his freedom.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

183. Dude, the thread I started, which was very tame and meant to

foster understanding, was hijacked by "tolerant" christians and the mods had to lock it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

108. Well, Vark...

I agree with one thing. Without some atheists to keep the pot stirred, we'd die on R/T. Still safer here than GD, though. That place doesn't always make a lot of sense.

What I like about R/T is that even in the middle of the day, reading and commenting on this stuff I get a nice buzz...memories of late nights in dorm lounges. We didn't solve it then and we won't solve it now, but by God (pardon the expression) it's fun to try!

[Jamastiene]

197. With so many groups/forums dedicated to

Liberal Christians and Atheists/Agnostics, etc., I wonder what the purpose of the R/T forum is. I have only come here once or twice lately and it seems to me that this forum is like a fight club of sorts. I tend to read and move on mostly when I am here. I can talk to my fellow Atheist, Agnostic, or Liberal Christian friends elsewhere, but here I just see a bunch of flames. It's hot in here.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

198. I'm going to lock this

at the request of the OP.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator