If I was to attack atheism would you take it as a personal attack?

[qb]

The thread this was posted in is now locked, and I wanted to respond.

If you attack atheism by saying its wrong, stupid, sinful ... because it's an offense to god - whatever, I don't take it personally.

What I take personally are quotes in the news like "they need to do something about the child molesters, rapists, murderers and atheists messing up our society." That's not an exact quote, but I have seen similar statements printed in the paper from time to time.

I also take it personally when George H.W. Bush says atheists shouldn't be considered American citizens, when Bill Clinton says "Freedom of religion" does not mean "Freedom from religion", and when any politician slurs the character of atheists to win points with their religious constituency.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. wrong and sinful are kind of personal statements

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. But as someone who doesn't believe in sin,

if someone tells me I'm sinful, I don't take it personally -- rather I take it as an indication of their feelings. If someone says I'm wrong, I take it as an opportunity for self-examination. If someone says I'm evil, immoral, dishonest, etc. -- those I would take personally.

[Az]

14. Well that is

what sin implies. Immorality. Against god. Etc.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Those are two different things

"Well that is what sin implies. Immorality. Against god. Etc. "


Immorality is something I believe in. God isn't.

A 'sin' is an offense against religious or moral law -- as you say, 'against god'. Without god, there is no sin.

'Sin' and 'immoral action' are not the same thing. For someone who believes in god, perhaps they are equivalent, but not to me.


Even so, most religious traditions that I know of accept the idea that you can sin, without being an 'immoral person'.

[wtmusic]

2. He can say whatever he wants

Religion is responsible for more murders in the world than any other single cause.

I'm a proud atheist. Don't need no God to tell me what's right and wrong.

[pnb]

55. Its not so much the religion itself

as it is power hungry people using various religions as an excuse to gain more power. I'm not at all a religous person but I don't think the religions themselves are responsible for most problems.

[NoPasaran]

4. I'm pretty much used to it

"Religion has caused more suffering through all of history than other other idea." MMO'H

[mainer]

5. What's more "moral"?

Behaving in a moral way because you're afraid God will punish you otherwise, and you don't want to go to hell?

Or behaving in a moral way because you simply believe it's the right thing to do?

I would say the second.

[LeahMira]

28. More moral?

Behaving in a moral way because you're afraid God will punish you otherwise, and you don't want to go to hell?
Or behaving in a moral way because you simply believe it's the right thing to do?

I don't think that religious people would necessarily separate these two reasons. Some might say that they behave morally because there is some punishment for behaving immorally and because they really do have a personal conviction that it's the right thing to do.

Even as an atheist, you must have observed that a liar, for instance, tends to be distrusting of others because s/he imagines that everyone else lies as s/he does. The fact of choosing consistent lies has somehow warped the liar's outlook on the world. I see that as a natural consequence, or a punishment, for lying.

Think of the organized crime bosses. They are always scared that another organized crime boss is out to take over their territory or whatever, and most of them live in what amounts to an armed fortress. Is that any way to live? No matter the fancy perks? I don't think so, and I see that as a natural consequence or a punishment for the stuff these crime bosses and their followers are involved with.

I think that religious people would claim that atheists have their moral sense because at some time or other in their lives they were exposed to the influence of religion. The religious people I've met fail to understand how it's possible for someone to evolve a moral code without any sort of religious guidance or any parameters at all. I agree with you that it's perfectly possible, but I've had the influence of organized religion in my life throughout my entire lifetime so I'm no proof of that. I just believe it's possible.

Really, though, a person growing up in the US would probably have to have lived in a cave somewhere to have completely escaped the influence of religion in his/her life at some point.

This is the point I think needs to be addressed and discussed in more depth. People need to understand exactly how you got to where you are now and how, even with religion all around you, you somehow separated your moral underpinnings from religious sources. Does that make sense?

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Why The Need For The 2nd Motivation?

Assuming you're statement is true, why would anyone need a 2nd motivation to be moral? If they truly believe it's the right thing to do, why would the threat of retribution even enter into it?

You're suggesting it's not either/or, but this/and. I don't understand how there can be an "and". If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, right? No other motivating factor is needed.
The Professor

[mainer]

37. When punishment doesn't enter into it ...

Another way to pose my question: what if you see a car you really, really would like to have. And you have the choice of whether to steal it.

Potential thief #1 doesn't do it because there's a security camera overhead, and he knows he'll get caught. (the "god" is watching scenario.)

Potential thief #2 doesn't do it because he knows it's wrong, would have a guilty conscience, and he empathizes with the car owner who'll lose his car.

I'm just wondering -- who is "more" moral? Neither one commits the sin. But once you remove the threat of punishment (i.e., the security camera) wouldn't Potential Thief #1 go ahead and steal it? In other words, the only thing keeping him from sinning is fear of punishment -- not an inherent sense of right or wrong.

I pose this question, because it seems to me a significant number of Evangelicals are always spouting about how we have to behave to escape the fires of Hell. That seems like a pretty desperate ploy to make people behave morally. Shouldn't they just behave because it's right, rather than because they fear hellfire?

I've read several studies that show that christians are no less likely to cheat on their wives or cheat on school exams than are atheists. So Christianity, in and of itself, does not make one morally superior.

Yes, even agnostic parents can raise morally upright citizens!

[ProfessorGAC]

45. I'm Agreeing With You!

It was the other poster i was asking that question. I agree that if one does thing simply because it's RIGHT, no further motivation is necessary. The concern over retribution is nonexistent because the ethical considerations are already complete.

The other poster suggested it was both. My open question, still available to anyone who would like to explain, is why would both reasons be valid. If one makes moral/ethical decisions based upon the intrinsic rightness/wrongness of an action, no secondary stimulus is relevant. If someone can explain to me how it is, i'm willing to listen.
The Professor

[myopic4141]

102. Three principles.

An individual's moral behavior is based on one of three basic principles of self control, namely: Principle 1 is self control without a fear of punishment either from an imaginary or real source (nobody is watching); Principle 2 is self control via fear of punishment from an imaginary source (God is watching); and Principle 3 is self control via fear of punishment from a real source (security is watching).
The hard issue is to define what is moral (setting the dividing line between moral and immoral behavior). The need for definitive dividing lines is based on the three principles as well. Those of principle 1 do not need definitive dividing lines because they can instinctively discern where the dividing line should be, where as those of principle 2 require higher guidance from the imaginary observer. Those of principle 3 require actual legislation to tell them what they can and cannot do.
Those of principle 2 fall into two categories, namely: Religious and of faith or religious and not of faith. The former believes deeply enough in the imaginary principles that they are followed without exception whereas the latter does not have the depth; therefore, occasionally violates the principle (feels that one has to use the Devil's tools to beat the Devil). It is the "religious and not of faith" that are the least moral for they include hypocrisy as part of the immorality.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

6. no.

but i sure would love to see an attack on atheism. i am not sure there is much to attack about it if you remain committed to facts.

we are used to being attacked, i have been told that i am wrong and going to hell for many years now. who is it that has the persecution complex again?

[Steely_Dan]

7. As an Atheist...

As an Atheist (Agnostic), I rarely have cause to take such things personally. I consider the source before I take such comments to heart. I actually have some respect for those that associate with some religion. I think it's quite a trick to take that which is not "clear and present" and make it the centerpiece of your life. The ultimate denial. And yet, there must be something that I am missing. Perhaps it is that which non of us can really find.

I also do not believe that being moral requires a "religious compass." It is not Devinne intervention that makes me compassionate and caring. It is born of a willingness to see beyond ourselves.

-Paige

[emad]

8. Politicians have a long tradition of burying their heads in the sand

about organised religion = organised crime.

The US child sex abuse scandals of the 1950s and 60s are only just surfacing in the US where the Catholic church faces bankruptcy for collaborating in and covering up paedophilia.

The Mormon question is equally bad. State sanctioned abuse of women and children flourishes in Utah. Any one who criticises Islam for it's appalling line on polygamy should take a look at what's happening in the Mormons' own back yard, where women are forced to share their men in the name of religion. Yuck.

Presidential hopefuls and previous incumbents tow the part line because denial is bipartisan in the US. Upholding religion as an untouchable is the common ground of Democrats and Republicans.

No wonder atheists are being stygmatised. Rational debate goes straight down the pan because core religious values are steeped in the excrement of denial. Regardless of religious orientation.

[Az]

9. Atheism: The Permissible prejudice

Clergy stand in pulpets and decry our existance. Former presidents proclaim us unworthy to be citizens. We are denied access to elected office if we are open about our beliefs.

If any of these actions are performed against any other group there would be an immediate outcry from some part of society. Slam a gay and you got problems. Fly a flag that may disparage a person for the color of their skin and your state can be ground to a fine paste. Call someone an evil atheist and everyone goes about their business.

Yeah, it gets a little aggrivating. Is it any wonder atheists tend to react the way they do. You of course have heard the words by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[lapislzi]

92. First they came for Howard Stern...

It does us good to be reminded of that little ditty every now and again.

It CAN happen here. The Handmaid's Tale is real, people.

[benburch]

10. Nope.

Just total ignorance.

[jobycom]

Never heard Clinton say that (freedom from religion)

I heard Lieberman say it, and the comment was said often by Bush Daddy, but you'll have to give me a cite on Clinton saying it. Being an atheist, I watch for that closely, and I rarely caught him saying anything that upset me.

[qb]

23. Here's an article published in Free Inquiry

that makes reference to Clinton's statement. I couldn't find an actual transcript of Clinton saying it.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/flynn_18_1.html

I remember this clearly because I felt so betrayed.

[jobycom]

79. Hmm. But I'd still like to see the context

I didn't mind that particular bill, because I don't see why someone can't express their religious views, as long as it is not in the performance of their jobs. Freedom of expression alone should guarantee that right. I shouldn't have to muffle my atheism, either.

If Clinton only meant that a person can't expect to not encounter religious views in their daily life, then I can agree with him. Government doesn't have the right to squelch a person's private expressions, or even public expressions as long as they are not job related. When Lieberman said it, he was promoting religion as an ethical system. When fundies say it, they are claiming that government should be allowed to officially represent religious viewpoints, as Roy Moore does.

I'd like to see the context of Clinton's statement. I always felt at home listening to his speeches, even when religion came up. Sad, but the most I hope for from a politician is that they don't insult me, not that they actually make me feel like a full citizen.

[qb]

89. Good point. I don't know the context.

I do not expect to be "free" from viewing religious items in my daily life. However, by lifting this phrase from the right wing propaganda machine, Clinton still did a disservice to non-believers.

[Hamlette]

11. as an atheist it seems religious people are more sensitive than we are

to attacks lile religion/god is stupid, wrong, sinful etc.

I agree that those things don't bother me at all. But say that to a believer and many take great offense.

Why is that? Are they less sure of their beliefs than we are?

[Kazak]

12. Funny Shrubby story:

My wife graduated with a B.A. at Austin College in Sherman, TX while Bush was the Governor of Texas, and he gave the commencement at her graduation. While she was walking the stage to shake his hand (yes, my wife has shaken hands with Bush*...I shudder daily) and receive her diploma case she whispered into his ear, "Say something nice about atheists in your next speech." Hehe...no shit. Supposedly, in one of his subsequent speeches, he said something like: Equality to people of all faiths, AND to people of no faith at all...or something along those lines. I guess since he feels he fulfilled his commitment to say something nice, he thinks he doesn't owe anything else. :shrug:

[emad]

13. Voice of reason:

http://www.atheists.org/

[enki23]

15. yes, the christians are just as guilty

in spite of how common delusions of persecution are among the christian population, they as a group dish out *FAR* more harrassment than they receive in this country. some of the basic beliefs most christians profess are offensive to me. on that basis, "i am a christian" is an offensive statement to me. luckily, i can deal with it. when i say "i am an atheist" i'm implicitly saying that their most cherished beliefs are fairy-tales. saying "i am an atheist" is offensive to christians, should they care enough to be offended (and most do.)

this is all just part of the silly, universal, "i'm offended" game. you can attack people directly, and you can attack them obliquely. if you aren't allowed to "bash christians" you can say nasty things about "credulous sorts, who fervently believe the most fantastic stories, without the least shred of evidence to back them." (or something to that effect) you can almost always find a broader category, which includes the person you don't like, to say nasty things about. until the law of the land becomes "all negative statements are prohibited" you can probably find a way to potentially offend someone (so long as they're smart enough to follow the reference back to themselves.)

that said, it's still a good idea not to allow things to degenrate to "f**k you, you s**teating c**ksucker." if for no other reason than it's not as much fun.

[DoktorGreg]

16. Most of the clergy is athiest....

Its one of the big secrets of all organized religion. Of course they never admit it. But religion is more about business than anything else, from the clergy point of view.

[Az]

18. Not quite but

I do know from frequent conversations that if you want to find a group of people most aware of the contradictions inherant in many of the claims, turn to the clergy. Many of my fellow debaters back in the day were fallen asperants to the clergy. It seems for many the close examination of the doctrine leads to a crisis of faith sufficient to shake their beliefs. Many continue to cling to a tenuous belief.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

38. Agreed

The seeds of my militant atheism were planted during my 8 years of catholic school.

[Lasira]

53. I was a would-be pastor who was deconverted by my studies

"It seems for many the close examination of the doctrine leads to a crisis of faith sufficient to shake their beliefs."

This is what happened to me! I was a pre-seminary undergrad studying as much about my faith as I could, including the major Christian apologists. I saw that their responses to non-believers' questions often didn't really answer the questions and wondered, "Why are they dodging?" Went on a search to find real answers and ended up finding myself unable to believe in Christian doctrine anymore. Now I'm searching to find a new career...

:)

[Az]

54. Check out

a possible career in UUism. Nondogmatic liberal religion. Always looking for new ministers. In fact the Church I frequent is currently searching for a new Minister.

[papau]

61. Welcome to DU - Lasira- :-)

I doubt there are any "answers" here - but with luck there are good conversations!

:-)

[Az]

62. Eh, who needs answers

when there are so many good questions to be found.

[LeahMira]

65. Welcome!

Glad you're here, Lasira!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[jobycom]

17. Atheism denies the beliefs of believers, and vica-versa

That's why there are so many insults hurled back and forth. An atheist is by existence a denial of religion, and religion is a denial of atheism. There is no common ground. There can be common ground on issues like morality, but on the basic issue of belief the two are mutually exclusive, and will always result in arguments.

To me, when I hear a preacher or a believer insulting atheism in general, I feel that they are doubters. Somewhere deep down they are not sure they are right, and so they are trying to deny their doubts. Atheists are simply external examples of their doubts-- we are people who express what they are afraid is true. Believers who are confident, certain of their beliefs-- people like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore-- don't talk about them much, and don't feel the need to criticize non-believers. There is no doubt.

Now, reverse that, and the same is true of atheists who attack believers.

Or carnivores who attack vegetarians. Or straights who attack gays. It's an internal battle with self-doubt that manifests itself outwardly.

[July]

39. No common ground sums it up.

I always bring this up in the abortion debates. If you believe abortion is murder, it follows that you want it outlawed. If you don't believe it's murder, you don't come to the same conclusion. The lack of common ground makes debate almost meaningless.

[papau]

20. Why is this a GD rather than Lounge? atheism is just another belief

system.

One gets to it by either refusing to ask the creation question, or by pretending (i.e., faith) that it will be "solved" without a God construct at some future date.

If Atheism folks go the route of avoidance of discussion via "its just not important" or "its not my job to prove a negative" or "If their are 2001 God's postulated, and you do not believe in 2000, why can't I not believe in 2001" are the stuff of debate and discussion over a drink - not of serious reply.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that you know there is no God.

And I salute all of those with faith. Even those of faith that like to deny they have faith .... :-)

[Az]

21. Atheism is a belief the way

Baldness is a hair color.

It takes no faith to be an atheist. At least at its simplest form. At its simplest it is merely a lack of belief in god or gods. How they came to lack this belief is a far and different question. They may have faith in a great number of things. But the simply lack any faith that god exists. Beyond that you have to actually talk to them to find out what things they do believe. Sort of like you have to talk to believes to find out exactly what it is they believe. Best bet, get to know them for who they are rather than just slapping a label on them and shunting them into a room.

[papau]

24. Atheism is a belief and denial that it is a belief is part of the faith

sigh....

but that is just my opinion!

Hi AZ - good to see your posts - it helps make the day nicer - seriously! "get to know them for who they are" makes you a Dem - which is, I guess why I like your posts!

But back to politics!

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[SheepyMcSheepster]

25. i don't undestand

how can the absence of a belief be considered faith? i do not "believe" that their is no christian god, i have simply seen no evidence to support this. sure there are questions that i don't have the answers too, but the difference between atheism and religion is that religion attempts to answer these metaphysical questions where as atheism does not.

if you want to get picky about things, "faith" is a bad word to use. none of us ever make it past out nervous systems into the "real world" so everything you see, hear, taste, touch, smell is taken by you with the belief that your nervous system is relaying "factual/true" information. imo it seems saying atheism reuires "faith" is equal to saying "everything requires faith" and clearly religious "faith" is quit different from the "faith" we put in our nervous system. imo of course!

[papau]

30. Faith as in Plato? - OK - but also faith in the answer to creation

back to politics!

peace

:-)

[truthspeaker]

31. I don't KNOW the answer to creation; I have no faith about it

Creation as the act of a thinking supernatural entity is one of an infinite number of possibilities.

[papau]

42. That thought makes you agnostic! - a valid position and a wise

position thatindeed does not require "faith"

[Az]

43. I think you will find

that most people that self identify as atheist share these ideas. It is the absense of a belief in god that causes them to identify as atheist. Not an insistance that they know the truth of the universe.

[truthspeaker]

47. nope, I'm an atheist

When people talk about "God" they are almost never talking about just a creator of the universe. They are talking about a personal God who intervenes in human affairs and is interested in what we do. I am absolutely positive that kind of God does not exist.

Technically I'm agnostic about an intelligent creator, but that's not what people mean when they say "God". I'm atheistic with regard to all other gods.

[sangh0]

75. Atheism relies on faith

Faith is a belief in something despite there being no scientific proven. It's a belief in things unproven. If you believe that God does not exist, then that belief is based on faith because the non-existence of God is something that has not been proved. You believe it in the absence of proof.

That's faith

[SheepyMcSheepster]

85. soooo......

what type of faith is more realistic? faith in specific thing that has not been proven to exist or faith in the belief that this specific thing does not exist because it has never been proven?

are we saying tha faith = assumption?

what if i said i believed there was a magical bean that floats around our planet granting people wishes? do you believe this? if you do not is it because you have "faith" that the bean does not exist?

it sounds like everything involving the act of reasoning in your opinion includes "faith".

this word is no good, here we have people using the word in order to help them to believe the impossible, ie. eve was made from adam's rib and then you claim that it is faith that allows me to "reason" that their is no christian deity based on the qualities ascribed to this deity i think you are strecthing the word a bit.

simply believing something just because someone says it is so vs. believing something because reasoning allows you to do so is quite different in my opinion. if would like to have "faith" that they are the same thing, more power to you. i disagree.

[sangh0]

90. You need to distinguish between

1) believing something does NOT exist even when there is no proof that it does not exist

2) Not believing that something does exist when there is no proof that it does exist

I can choose to not believe that magic beans DO exist without using faith, so long as I also choose to believe that magic beans DON'T exist. IOW, I in situations where there is no proof either way, the way to remain "faithless" is to be agnostic on the question.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

93. do you believe that one can be atheistic towards certian gods?

i don't understand how you can say "I can choose to not believe that magic beans DO exist without using faith, so long as I also choose to believe that magic beans DON'T exist"

you are using what you define as "faith" when you "assume" magic beans don't exist, you previous logic asserted that "if it hasn't been proven wrong than you are using faith and assuming that it is not right"

i don't get your argument.

[sangh0]

94. I made a confusing typo. My apologies

I should have said "I can choose to not believe that magic beans DO exist without using faith, so long as I also choose to *NOT* believe that magic beans DON'T exist"

I left out a "NOT", and that changed the meaning completely. Sorry about the confusion.

The point is that if I choose to "NOT believe" they do exist and "NOT believe" they don't exist, then I have no beliefs in things unproven, therefore I have no faith with respect to the question of "Do magic beans exist?"

[Az]

95. Um, how exactly do you choose to believe

Just curious. Can you choose to believe a wall is not there? Would you still brace yourself if someone asked you to walk through it? I don't think you really get to choose what you believe as actively as you make it sound.

Belief is really just a expression of the balance of what we currently hold to be true. This comes from weighing the entirety of our life. Our experiences, our lessons. Everything that has occurred to us carries with it some emotional relavance to us. Our brains record it with this relevance. And when we consider what we believe to be true it is the end result of all these factors being added together and weighed based on their meaning to us.

Yes we can learn new things that may change the balance. We can have experiences that shatter older emotional values. We can reexamine our life and reevaluate the meaning of things. Our beliefs can shift. But is not a simple matter of deciding to believe something else today. It simply does not work that way.

Thus when an atheist says that they do not believe in god, it is not a choice. It is simply a statement of whether they currently in balance believe that god exists.

[sangh0]

97. There's no precise formula for forming beliefs and controlling the process

but I would argue that some of the religious material we are taught is meant to address that question, if only indirectly. IMO, religious instruction seeks to help us better control our beliefs, just as philosophy is capable of doing the same.

Belief is really just a expression of the balance of what we currently hold to be true.

Yes!! And we can change that balance through various forms of instruction (ex. religious, philosophical, etc) and experience (ex. ritual, meditation, etc). "Choosing" what we believe is not the same process as choosing which color shirt to buy. It's a more complex situation, but that only means that it's that much more difficult to influence. It doesn't mean that it's impossible to influence, or even control it, though control seems unlikely.

So maybe "choose" wasn't the best word to use as it gives the midleading impression that we have complete control over what we believe and/or that all of our beliefs are the result of conscious choices that we make. Unfortunately, I cant think of a better word to use to convey this idea. I hope this help clear up what I meant in using the word "choose"

[Az]

99. Wanna know a secret

I knew what you meant. :)

However I "believe" the nature of what belief is needs to be addressed on a regular basis. And in the case of the Atheism/Agnostic debate I "believe" understanding this nature is critical.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

96. are you saying....

that any statement that seeks to address something that has not been "proven" is an act of faith? your reasoning still confuses me.

[sangh0]

98. Close, but not quite.

any statement that seeks to address something that has not been "proven" is an act of faith

Not "any statement". Only statements of belief. If I say "I don't know if magic beans exist or not", that is a statement that addresses the issue, but since it asserts no belief, it gives no indication of faith.

IOW, there is another choice besides "I believe magic bean do exist" and "I believe magic bean do not exist". It's "I don't know". In the absence of proof in either direction, the only non-faith-based position to take is to acknowledge that lack of proof with an "I don't know"

[SheepyMcSheepster]

101. ok, it seems clear now

i may be using these words incorrectly, but i have always been of the belief that i am agnostic however from the evidence i have seen and the concepts that define the christian god, i can atheistically say that this god does not exist. he/she/it would be a walking contridiction.

so yes, understand your approach and tend to think it is a very hones approach. however, if someone told you that magic beans only do good, yet in the magic bean manual you have magic beans doing viscious things, i think you could assume that their is a contridiction there and thus either one of the premises is false or the actual magic bean does not exist.

so, i guess when we get down to it it's the specificity of the words and our own interpretation of that specificity.

[Book Lover]

56. Atheism is not a belief system

You do not have to be taught that there are no gods, but you do have to be taught that there are gods. Atheism is the natural state; theism is a belief system laid atop it.

[sangh0]

74. Actually, you do need to be taught there are no gods

In the absence of a scientific explanation, your mind will create the idea of a God or Gods. That's why cultures all over the world, even people who are cutoff from others, believe in God. It's a part of our human nature to have the capacity to believe in God.

[Book Lover]

78. "your mind will create the idea of a God or Gods"

That is an unproven assertion.

[sangh0]

91. It is unproven

but it is not without supporting evidence, namely the wide number of cultures worldwide that have come up with the idea of God without it having been imported into the culture.

Also, the assertion that the idea of God would not come up if children weren't taught about God is also unproven, but unlike my assertion, this assertion seems to have little to back it up with.

[qb]

22. I took it out of another GD thread. Maybe it should be in the lounge.

[DoktorGreg]

27. Ahh more logical falacy

I dont know there is no God. I simply have no reason to think that there is. Every thing that has been presented to me as proof of existance of God turned out to be fantasy. The logical conundrums, like Pascals wager, reveal themselves as falacy upon closer inspection.

Most of lives issues would be easier if I could simply make the leap and have faith. However I have found and have witnessed the destruction that self delusion inflicts. In current events we are victimized by these sorts of self delusion. While it might make me feel better to simply abandon what I know to be real and true, wanting something to be true doesnt make it so.

I am of the opinion that any notion of afterlife demeans and cheapens the time that we do have. If you want to spend your time in indulgant fantasy, that is ok by me. I choose to spend my time thinking about real things and doing real things. I happen to think that the fantasy life of the christian makes them hesitate because they beleive that in the end, everything works out. Bombs only partially destroy a person. Bullets can't kill their soul. While that may offer a christian comfort, it offers me none. Ultimately, every person of faith, beleives that all the universe is a fantasy, any version of creation theory demands it. Their self created delusion is more real than the world that we share.

In my opinion, that belief system is not only misguided, it is also dangerous.

[papau]

32. "proof of existance of God " - seems proof of the creation without

a God is not avaliable also.

Indeed it is self delusion to pretend you know the answer to creation.

But we all, except the agnostics, practice a bit of self delusion.

peace

:-)

[Az]

36. Find me a gnostic

That can properly defend their claim to know the truth in an absolute sense. I contend that we are all agnostic. That is none of us really know the absolute truth. As to how certain we may be of our own particular positions all bets are off. We each have our own degree of certainty. Those that think they are absolutely certain simply do not understand the nature of what they claim.

[papau]

40. totally agree! - But the gnostic truth of 1st century AD was that the Holy

Spirit was not part of the Trinity.

And street warfare over that claim cost 100,000 lives in Egypt over the years - if the histories are to be believed.

The interesting thing about Jesus was that he never proclaimed the Trinity - nor for that matter did he ever claimed to be God.

But he did claim to be presenting the Truth - and I believe - so I present Jesus as my example of a Gnostic that "can properly defend their claim to know the truth in an absolute sense"

at least in my opinion!

peace

:-)

[Az]

41. I blame Nicea

But thats just me. :evilgrin:

[papau]

44. I agree - the Apostles Creed should never have been messed with at

the 325 AD meeting - The Nicean Creed was the start of all the problems!

:evilgrin:

:-)

[starroute]

46. Why do you keep asserting the universe was created?

You've got a tight little logical loop there, where you keep saying, "The universe was created, therefore it must have had a creator."

But you're making a lot of unstated assumptions just to get to that premise, assumptions which I don't share.

For my part, all I feel able to state (and even that with some doubts) is that the universe exists. That existence is a mystery in itself, but it doesn't clarify matters to claim than an unknown entity created the universe at some given point in time, before which there was (presumably) only the unknown entity and nothing else.

If you look back at the very earliest myths -- the ones still found in fragments all over the world -- they are very concerned with questions about why the world is the way it is and the relationships within it, but not at all with creation. Typically, the First Ancestor just wakes up somewhere and starts arranging matters and producing offspring. Creation-stories only appear in the Neolithic, when people became obsessed with manufacturing physical objects and setting out permanent land boundaries and projected these interests into their myths.

These particular obsessions with making and delimiting remain dominant today, so contemporary religions still tend to be creation-oriented. But a concern with creation has never been the central aspect of all religions, nor even an essential element of many of them. It would be philosophically misguided to set up "creation" as a crucial problem that demands the acknowledgement of a creator-god to manage it.

[papau]

49. philosophically misguided ? - looks like we disagree - no problem

Neolithic beginning equates to around 6000bc - but grain became stable at 8000 bc - so farmers did not sweat boundaries for 2000 years? - and when they did, we got into creation?

Interesting - unprovable - but interesting.

Seems like the truth or falshood of the above does not affect the creation question.

In the end it is a question of faith - nothing posted on DU will affect anyone's faith, however defined.

-

[Az]

52. Untrue

Faith is not just in the existance of gods or how many angels can dance on a pin. Faith is merely the expression of that which a person currently believes. This is changing all the time. Some things are more fixed and others are more flexible. It is by means of exchanging ideas and concepts that we influence others beliefs. When we impart some information to them they consider whether it bears merrit within their current understanding of the world around them. Sometimes ideas get through that may not directly support some strongly held beliefs but do meet other criteria for support. If enough of these ideas accumulate we begin to change our mind on an issue. And this happens all the time.

[papau]

57. Faith is indeed an expression of what one believes - but in this context

it is, in my opinion, belief that has little logic behind it.

One just knows there is a God, or one has faith that there is not a god. Neither can be proved by logic.

And the ability to allow for beliefs that are unlikely to be all true defines the world of anyone working in physics in the last 80 years! I really believe the faith required by gravity, QM, and 10 and 11 dimension worlds that use 6 or 7 point manifolds as the "extra" dimensions is right up there with faith in God - or faith in no god! At one time I thought organic chem was the ultimate, as all the German texts from the 30's and 40's had add this and that and heat and out comes this - with no explanation of why - but I lean to physics today as the faith based science!

:-)

[Az]

59. So what would you call

A person with no faith in regards to gods.

[papau]

60. Does the person claim a belief that there is no God - or does the does

the person say they do not know if there is a God?

No faith because you have not thought about the question of creation, or no faith because you reject such faith in favor of some other faith -belief-answer to the creation question?

The interesting thing I would note is that those of faith in God always lose that for a while - indeed they lose it over and over again. Our species questions everything!

But some of us come back to that faith - and others move on to new faiths - and still others are content to not care about the answer to creation.

[Az]

64. See here is the problem

There are an infinite possible number of claims for god. Claims for god are available from nearly anyone that believes in one. Now a person can be met with one particular claim for god and find it without merrit. Thus they have no faith in that particular claim for god. The next claim for god they come across meets a similar fate. It simply does not convince them. Eventually they come to the conclusion that until the come across a valid claim for god they will simply say they do not believe in god. Which is absolutely true.

They are without a belief in god. They do not necissarily run about telling everyone there is no god. That is not their claim. They simply do not believe any of the claims for god that they have met with. This is not faith in believing there are no gods. This is simply an accurate description of their current absense of any particular belief in a god.

[papau]

71. Sometimes called God shopping! Seems that sans a there is no

god thought - the perfect fit would be UU!

Although the UU in Newburyport, Ma had the minister do a "why I do not believe" for the Easter Services that I attended there!

And then said that after the service, those that were Christains could gather and say a few things after the rest of the crowd had left!

I understand the need for a discussion group on ethics that does not have someone telling you that you are going to hell, but the Newburyport experience left me feeling like a pariah.

:-)

As to a "come across a valid claim for god" - - we are back to faith, and how important it is to one to answer the creation question. And "absence of any particular belief in a god" is sometimes called a deist faith, rather than agnostic.

peace

:-)

[DoktorGreg]

58. There is simply no reason to think a creator exits...

or that there was even a moment of creation.

What was it that burning bush said? I am the beginning and the end? As closely or broadly as we observe the universe, we find more detail. It goes on forever out, and also seems to have infinite precision. In other words, there is no beginning, and there is no end. I have no reason to think otherwise.

To suggest that I say "There is no God just beyond that horizon" is not only innacurate, it is also dishonest. I am saying, every time we have looked over that horizon, there has never been a God there. Failing any reason to think that God exists, why should any other horizon, just beyond where we can see, be any different?

The ultimate horizon is death. All we have is our short period here on earth. If we are lucky, we have children, and maybe something of us will survive. None the less, after every one who ever knew you has died, it will be as you never existed. Just because it comforted you as a child, to think you would be with your loved ones in the afterlife, doesnt make it real. However, the comfort it offered is very real, and that idea even made you feel good. However, feelings are not real.

That is the crux of faith. It makes you feel good. It gives you answers. However, it does not change that your mother has just died, and the answers are wrong. It does not feed you. It does not keep you warm.

In the case of Jesus, and all the early Christians, and the Jews in WW2, and our own religious war we find ourselves in, faith stirred people to innaction or over reaction. Jesus failed to save himself, even though he knew his demise was coming. Mohamad Atta used faith like a drug, to fly that plane into that that tower.

In the end, you should feed the hungry and cloth the naked to help yourself. The naked and the hungry are the most prone to resort to faith, because it feels good. They will use that faith, as blinders and justification, to take your food and clothes.

Dont commit adultry, not because it is a sin, but because it destroies your life.

Dont be a glutton, not because it is a sin, but because it is unhealthy.

Work hard and smart in your life, not because God told you to, but because it keeps you clothed and well fed.

Make a pilgramage to the holy land, not because it is Gods law, but to be with your family, and comfort them when a loved one passes away.

[starroute]

81. It's not a matter of either faith or proof, but of interpretation

As nearly as I can tell, all religion is based on the fact that (1) some people have a sense of being in touch with a higher force and (2) that sense sometimes enables them to know things and do things that others cannot.

However, beyond that, it all gets murky. Is there really a force outside ourselves from which we gain knowledge and power, or is that just a rationalization of the unconscious workings of intuition? If there is such a force what is its nature? Is it our own higher self? The daimon of the classical Greeks? Jung's collective unconsciousness? The world-soul? Aliens beaming positive thoughts at us from their motherships? One of a multitude of pagan gods? A single monotheistic deity? Teilhard du Chardin's omega point? The cosmic unity of which we are each a holistic fragment?

We don't know, and perhaps we never can know. What we can do is tell each other stories about the adventures of heroes and prophets who are in touch with that force (however described), as an aid to hearing the still, small voice within ourselves. But those stories are just stories. Fairy-tales if you will. They aren't true. They aren't provable. And when we start to believe them and to enforce our beliefs on others, we go very astray.

I don't believe in God, but I don't disbelieve either. The whole question seems irrelevant to me -- an application of the concept of belief to a sphere where it doesn't belong. I do believe in the higher potential of all of us, and I am concerned that it be nurtured and properly applied. Anything more seems like hubris.

[theboss]

26. Senator Byrd on the pledge and atheists

"I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. …What are we coming to when we cannot speak God's name? … I will read the Bible right here on this desk. I have done it before. I will do it again. I have recited the Pledge and so has every other member of this body time and time again. Come, Judge Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit, put us in jail. … I, for one, am not going to stand for this country's being ruled by a bunch of atheists. Let that judge's name ever come before this Senate while I am a member, and he will be blackballed…"

[Az]

29. They just don't get it

They are free to pray to god as much as they want. They just can't make me do it. They cannot compell me to swear and oathe to god. They cannot make me believe in god. Not as a representitive of my government.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. No kidding. I don't give a fuck how often Byrd prays or where he does it.

What a moron. (As far as this issue goes.)

[papau]

35. Very True - faith is personal, can not be compelled, and gov should stay

out of the discussion.

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

63. he has choice words for gays also. tis why i dont idolize him

just because he gives a good anti-war speech on the senate floor.

[gpandas]

67. this guy is the consumate...

politician -says whatever will get him re-elected. knows his constituency, and lucky for us, he's a democrat. sure, he' an asshole, but who in politics isn't?

[BonjourUSA]

48. In a country where 90% of the population believe in God...

... everything is possible, even to change atheists into pariahs ?

[papau]

50. pariahs are by definition undesirable individuals singled out for

vilification and expulsion from the group.

come on .... hugs?


thats better - see - no explusion from the group!

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[Az]

51. No soup for you!

Yes, we atheists can find friends here. We find them in society as well. We are a rather self sufficient group. I welcome your acceptance but continue to decry the acceptance of discrimination against us in the bulk of society.

[Selwynn]

66. I would take it personally, which is not the same as a "personal attack."

But I would take it personally - because it is attacking something that I believe, that is an important part of my life, that is an extremely important part of my worldview, how I think about responsibility and society, science, philosophy, etc. In short, it's an integral to who I am as a person.

If you start saying atheism is stupid, that's identical with saying anyone who is an atheist holds a stupid belief, which if it truly is integral to who I am like I said, is nearly the same as just saying I am stupid.

It's difficult not to take things personally when another person calls "stupid" "sinful" or "offensive" the things that and central to my person-hood and worldview...

But the again, I am not actually an atheist. But that is how I would feel if I were.

Sel

[NNadir]

68. I do take offense.

It seems to me that the only two bigotries that remain open to discussion in so called "polite society" are those against Atheists and those against gays. (The latter, thankfully, is becoming less acceptable than it once was.)

Imagine if George H.W. Bush had said "Jews shouldn't be considered American citizens," or "Catholics shouldn't be considered American Citizens" or "Moslems should not be considered American citizens?"

We secular thinkers are definitely under assault, and our rights are definitely in danger.

[OhioStateProgressive]

69. prejudice against fat people, prejudice against smokers

those are the top two

[Az]

70. I don't recall

Anyone claiming fat people should not be considered citizens. Must have missed it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

73. i didn't say you did

i am an atheist as well

[sangh0]

77. Citizenry is not the only way to be discriminated against

.

[Az]

100. Agreed

But there are not companies that gather all their fit employees together and praise them for being fit while the fat employees are made to stay away from such events. There are companies that hold prayer sessions that nonbelievers are excluded from.

This doesn't need to turn into a this group is more oppressed than that group issue. A recognition of oppression for any group that is oppressed suffices. And atheists are oppressed permissibly in this socieyt currently.

[papau]

72. add the fact us short and not great looking are also having problems- plus

being a male is tough, and if you like dogs there is always a dog hater in the room, and by the way your village is not as nice as my village, you accent, and your skin color are not as good as mine, you're just not as sharp as I am (or if sharper - you always shoot from the hip and your comments/observations/ conclusions can't be trusted), and this job is a legacy for people like me because our customers expect it.

But no hard feelings - there is not prejudiced bone in my body.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. Misuse of the term 'prejudice'

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prejudice

I don't like sitting next to fat people in crowded places, and I don't like sharing closed spaces with smokers. Those aren't preconceived judgements, opinions formed before sufficient knowledge, or irrational attitudes of hostility.

[OhioStateProgressive]

80. yes they are

you have an irrational preconceived judgement of fat people and smokers...you may try to spice it up with some code words, but don't kid anyone

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Only if you ignore the plain meaning of words.

They aren't preconceived judgements, opinions formed before sufficient knowledge, or irrational attitudes of hostility.

My opinion about whether I like sitting next to fat people in crowded places and sharing closed spaces with smokers was not formed 'before sufficient knowledge' -- it was formed after countless times sitting next to fat people in crowded places and sharing closed spaces with smokers. They aren't irrational attitudes of hostility, or preconceived judgements -- I'm not hostile to fat people and smokers, neither do I pass judgement on them. I simply don't like to share crowded, closed spaces with them.

[NNadir]

83. I don't think "smoking" is quite the same as atheism.

Smoking is a health isssue that impacts the physical health of others, patrons in a bar for instance, or co workers. It is not quite the same as "not believing in a god."

One might have a case against catholicism if one were sensitive to inscense and catholics were holding services on subways. As it is, though, the practice of catholicism does not effect me directly, at least as long as Roe v Wade is in place. Now, I think Catholicism is silly and bizarre, but I fully endorse anyone's right anywhere to be catholic.

I am fat myself, but frankly this has more to do with my health than with free chosen beliefs. I may suffer some discrimination but I change that. There is no way I make myself believe in god.

[Solon]

84. Acceptable Discrimination...

One thing I hate is the, "I'm more persecuted than you" syndrom in life. Civil Rights are not negotiable. However, I did want to point out that their are other groups that politicians speak out against, with no repercussions.

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."



This is the aweful quote by Bush the Elder, he suffered no repercussions for it.

The web site Web, White and Blue conducted a "rolling cyber-debate" from 2000-OCT-1 to NOV-7. It receives questions from the public, and submit one per day to the presidential candidates: Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform Party), George Bush (Republican), Al Gore, (Democrat), John Hagelin (Natural Law Party), and Howard Philips (Constitution Party). 1 Ralph Nader of the Green Party declined to participate in the survey. One question, from "Amber" of San Diego CA was submitted on 2000-OCT-15 via Yahoo. She asked:

"With religious diversity increasing, what are your thoughts on the protection of religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Should religions like Wicca be banned from recognition by the military, as some legislators suggest?" 2

George Bush's Response:

"I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it."

Apparently he is tolerant of monotheistic religions, but apparently not all. BTW: This was around the time of a controversy over the religious rights of Pagan Soldiers at Fort Hood, TX. To better put it in context.

Here is Al Gore's response to the same question:

"For too long, national leaders have been trapped in a dead end debate. Some on the right have said for too long that a specific set of religious values should be imposed, threatening the founders' precious separation of church and state. In contrast, some on the left have said for too long that religious values should play no role in addressing public needs. These are false choices: hollow secularism or right-wing religion. Both positions are rigid. They are not where the new solutions lie. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion need not mean freedom from religion. There is a better way.

America's national identity is not shaped solely by our diverse faith traditions. But we are a people who believe that these traditions contribute to the formation of values with which we agree to live out our common lives together.

Our founders believed deeply in faith. They created the Bill of Rights in large measure to protect its free expression. One reason America is the most religious country on earth is precisely because of the church-state divide: people who are free to worship as they wish, worship more freely.

Our founders also knew history. They could look back on centuries of religious war in Europe that tore nations apart. They resolved that religious war should never tear this nation apart, and the only way to do that was to allow religious freedom.

The history of the United States has proven our founders’ wisdom. They believed -- and I believe -- that we can protect against the establishment of religion without infringing in any way on its free exercise. That belief is at the very heart of our Constitution. And we must keep on working to make it a reality in our public life."

He avoided the question, doesn't surprise me, could you imagine the uproar if he even tried to be seen as tolerant of "Witchcraft"?

[swag]

86. In answer to the original question

I would not care at all if you attacked atheism.

[Az]

88. Why

Just curious.

[swag]

103. Because I'm darned comfortable with my beliefs

and I don't give a damn what other people think of them.

So fuck 'em, you know?

[Az]

106. Ah

Fuck'em. Got it.

[kiahzero]

87. Yes, and I'm not an atheist.

It pisses me off, to a large degree, because its a lack of respect.

[Malva Zebrina]

104. No--atheists are used to it

there is a strong support system on the net, however, and that is helpful.

The one organisation that I am sure to contribute to, small as it is, is the ACLU. It is a beacon in the storm and I am grateful we have it.

George Bush, imo, is doing more to destroy Christianity than a whole boatload of atheists could. Atheists are not interested actually in destroying any religion. The athiests I know, are rather passive , loving types--poets instead of warriors.

[Az]

105. But should we be used to it

Thats the issue. Its like saying gays should just get used to being called names or blacks should just get used to not being able to ride in the front of the bus. Our thick skins do not condone their actions.

[Malva Zebrina]

107. you are right

I did not mean to support or encourage a self defeating martyr like stance, but the time is not ripe to take an agressive stance right now,imo.

As it is, the likes of a religiously delusional Bush who claims to hear messages from a god, the likes of Robertson, Falwell and all the rest, will be left hanging on their own petard.





The problem is that organising atheists is like herding cats. Too many independant skeptics and free thinkers maybe

Here is a good article that points to the plight of athesits as it exists in this country

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm>“Atheism Is Not a Civil Rights Issue”

[Az]

108. I am pretty sure

The head librarian at Alexandria hoped a similar thing. Just before she was burnt alive by an angry religious mob bent on sacking the library.

As to organizing atheists, unfortunately far too true. I suspect much of our woes comes from our own hands. Our previous champions have not exactly been positive roll models. Instead they have been firebrands. Necissary for their time. But far too soon the forcefulness of their tactics creates a negative image that many would rather not be associated with.

I and others I strive with are coming to the conclusion that what we atheists need to do is find the things we positively agree on and champion those. The various Humanist associations seem to have the right tact but seem too caught up in previous issues and fractious history.

Its not just that we need to demand that atheists be treated with respect. We need to simultaneously demonstrate that we deserve the respect. And despite our belief that what others believe is based on a lie we must extend them respect in order to expect it in return. Instead of demanding that religion be swept away, we need instead to be demanding our place at the table.

[Malva Zebrina]

109. actually we do not have to prove a thing to anyone or demonstrate to

others that we deserve their respect. I can think of more than a few postive role models also.

But I know where you are coming from from your many posts on these boards.

I can go for just being treated like an ordinary guy. Most of the time, amongst friends ,the subject never comes up at all. No one asks and no reason to discuss it at all.

It is in the application of law, that I think atheists will make some gains.

As it is in the current solcial climate, now, conservatism seems to be the popular mode. How we came to that point is another subject. Under conservatism, atheists and other miniority groups suffer. As the wheel turns and liberalism returns,and I believe it will, then we might see some respect and some gains.

If one is a thinking, altruistic human being, one will respect another human being. If one cannot overcome deep seated, dogmatic prejudices that are attached to their religious beliefs, then perhaps they are simply not worth it--the time spent striving to gain their respect (for my non theism), would be frustrating and wasted.