A simple question: "Are atheists as common in there atheism as Xtans are in their religion?" The other day I was talking to a freind about God. His family is atheist and his sister has announced that she is a witch. Apparently during the argument that followed she said a bunch of stuff about atheists, about how they are stubborn, about how they demand everything in a ledger or encyclopedia or somehow "proven". But my friend got pissed off when she said that atheists don't like love. I pointed out to my friend that his father had said many times that love is bollocks, and that people in love are only fooling themselves. And my friend said, "Yeah, but what does that have to do with atheism?" I tried to explain to him that when their father says he is an atheist, she is making the same kind of association between the label and the person that atheists make about other people. That didn't go over well. I tried explaining that his actions as an atheist affect how people see atheism. He didn't understand what I was talking about. So I tried 9/11. Not every Muslim wants to blow up the U.S.A. But that only got him more upset because he thinks all muslims do want to blow up the U.S.A. I asked him how he decided that, and he said that, well, they blew up our towers, didn't they? I asked him if that was fair to extend to other Muslims, and he pretended he didn't know what I was talking about. I tried explaining to him that what he was doing to Muslims was the same thing his sister was doing to atheists. We almost came to fighting right there. In the end, I don't know what to tell him. But I started thinking about it and I was a Christian before I was an atheist, and he's been raised to despise religion. So I thought maybe it would be a good idea to figure out a few things about atheists. For the longest time I could walk into a room full of atheists and know what to expect. Not any more. So it hit me that maybe atheists aren't "Atheists", and that we all use the same word to describe things that are not the same. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others do this but not in the same way. For instance, Christians agree that Jesus is Savior. Religions believe God exists. But Buddhists do not see Jesus as the only way to God. What do atheists believe and agree on? "There is no God" sounds good but what beyond that? The only thing I can think of is that my friend and I are two different people with two different sets of experience. Even though we both call ourselves "atheist" we don't seem to agree on much anymore. So, quickly, I was a nondenominational Christian until I was about 10 or 11 when my folks got divorced. We weren't welcome in our church anymore, since my mom had a boyfriend, and we stopped going. I'm not sure I ever really believed, but when I stop and think of my friend's views, I can't agree that these people are all stupid. I mean, when I get right down and compare it, my friend has gotten as stupid in his atheism as some of the congregation was about its religion. And in the meantime, I've even got a tract that I found in a restaurant that has a contract I can sign that awards my soul to Jesus. I keep hoping atheism doesn't get that stupid, but I'm now surrounded by a bunch of friends who want to see religion wiped off the earth, and I don't know where they get it. So whats the deal? I say I'm an atheist, who else uses the same word? Does it describe the same thing? The God Slayer
I'm 100.34% certain that it doesn't mean for me what it means for you. And I'm 66,000.2% certain that what it means for me is not what it means for Ekimklaw.
I figured that out Well Ekimklaw is his own problem. But what about us? Communists, democrats, republicans, Christians, witches ...? They all have more than a single part in common. Otherwise, we might just leave it at "human". Even "Anarchists" seem to have more collective identity than atheists. For instance, are "atheists" being discriminated against? How can a body be discriminated against if there is no collective body? While I agree that atheists are being discriminated against, I can't quite say how because there is no real body of atheists. And I want to find out if there is a natural body of atheists based on philosophy, or if those "atheist cheerleader" websites out there with tiny membership and off-platform ideas are the only option. So we can start with a question: "Why do I not believe in God?" It seems to me that if I don't believe in God, it's kind of strange to be harping on it. Watching my friend I have concluded that he doesn't care about God at all and just finds atheism a good idea because he thinks he can badmouth people because of it. The only time I hear him talk about atheism is when he's cussing something out for being religious. "Goddamn censors. This is why the atheists need to do away with religion." "Stupid holy wars. This is why atheism is a better choice." And so on. It just doesn't seem to me that he's doing anybody any good. Even himself. I guess that's his right, but it makes atheism into a stupid idea when he acts like that. Anyone want to explain what that kind of mindless propaganda announcement gets him, I'd love to know. But he can't tell me, and it only gets him angry if I ask him to do better than his best "Crossfire" imitation. The God Slayer
Originally posted by GodSlayer A simple question: "Are atheists as common in there atheism as Xtans are in their religion?" The simple answer: No. Of course part of the problem is the question itself. You are comparing two sets of people that are unequal in scope. The question would be similar to asking whether Felines are as common in their feline-ness as Foxhounds are in their Foxhound-ness. The proper question would be "Are atheists as common in their atheism as theists are in their theism?" Here, the answer would probably be yes. I pointed out to my friend that his father had said many times that love is bollocks, and that people in love are only fooling themselves. And my friend said, "Yeah, but what does that have to do with atheism?" I tried to explain to him that when their father says he is an atheist, she is making the same kind of association between the label and the person that atheists make about other people. Of course this is what people do but when one tries to approach such a problem philosophically one needs to define the terms much more rigorously than one does in everyday life. That didn't go over well. I tried explaining that his actions as an atheist affect how people see atheism. He didn't understand what I was talking about. Sounds like he's not too bright, huh? So it hit me that maybe atheists aren't "Atheists", and that we all use the same word to describe things that are not the same. Yep. Just like when someone says they are Christian the precise definition of what that term includes will vary from person to person. The problem is a very common tendency to speak rather generally and to improperly categorize things when we're speaking. Often we use words when we really mean something quite different... this is particularly true of labels. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others do this but not in the same way. Again, you're looking at a categorical difference. Atheist would be categorically comparable to Theist not Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist. What do atheists believe and agree on? "There is no God" sounds good but what beyond that? Actually, the only thing all atheists agree upon is that they do not believe in God. Beyond that; Nothing. Just as the only thing that Theists agree upon is "There is a God." The only thing I can think of is that my friend and I are two different people with two different sets of experience. Even though we both call ourselves "atheist" we don't seem to agree on much anymore. ... So whats the deal? I say I'm an atheist, who else uses the same word? Does it describe the same thing? Atheist always means the same thing "One who does not believe in God." Everything else an Atheist believes is not Atheism but part of some other category. Therefore, when you and your friend disagree you are not disagreeing about atheist but about other values that you hold. His sister is making a similar categorical error when she announces her perception of "Atheists". She is making a generalization based upon specific case. While this may hold true for a member or a subset of a category it does not necessarily hold true for the entire category. Even "Anarchists" seem to have more collective identity than atheists. Anarchist comprises a much more specific set. I can't quite say how because there is no real body of atheists. Sure there is. Everyone who does not believe in God. And I want to find out if there is a natural body of atheists based on philosophy, or if those "atheist cheerleader" websites out there with tiny membership and off-platform ideas are the only option. There are various atheist philosophies. But the only thing that applies to all atheists is "they do no believe in God(s)". It seems to me that if I don't believe in God, it's kind of strange to be harping on it. It depends upon why one is "harping on it". What often happens is that an atheist will be upset by people acting or speaking upon some religious doctrine... For instance, censorship and holy wars, as you mentioned. But rather than examining the specific doctrine atheists have a tendency to want to eliminate the entire philosophy behind the doctrine by attacking the central principle "God". One reason for this is the Theistic tendency to excuse any logical or moral contradiction with the excuse that it is ordained by God. ~Raithere
Ongoing thoughts Thinking upon this further, I'm willing to take it another step. Atheists have more in common than theists. My reasoning is this: God is a rather ambiguous term. When a Buddhist would call God and Christian would call God is certainly not the same thing. Being a theist, then, depends upon the given definition of God. Seen this way, most theists are atheists given a definition of God they do not believe in. One either needs to be a pantheist that believes that all concepts of God are true or use a very general definition of God (one that I'm not sure even exists). Alternately, a true atheist is an atheist no matter what definition of God is given. ~Raithere
Raithere--from the ashes of the slain godslayer Raithere The cover's been blown elsewhere, so I get to field this one. Which still are more common aspects than atheists hold 'twixt themselves. (Wait for the anarchist point.) In other words, it seems to be that there is no such thing as "atheism" as a collective. I'm happy with that. I'll call it out when necessary. The counterpoint, of course, being that it's much easier if everyone behaves and conducts themselves with some integrity. In the end, I don't care what labels people apply to themselves as long as they seek the best human result from that label. In this case, the father ought to be smarter about his atheism, and the sister needs to be smarter about her theism. But since the younger learned that human regard from the elder, we might wonder what result might have occurred had the elder conducted himself with better integrity. Actually, that's the thing. While people are diverse, observationally the example described is fairly common, and forms the bulk of the curve to my experience. There is better and worse, but I don't find this exemplary dullard to be too unusual. As we both know, however, the problem is not that well dealt with. Hmm ... something about integrity goes here. Hence sects. Hence debate. But these individual religious groupings do have more in common than a grouping called "atheist". To the other, I'm more than happy to see you making the distinction. Pass it on to fellow atheists. After all, if nothing else, we can hope for the best in each person, and to withhold such wisdom from one's neighbors is detrimental. I'll overlook the disagreement among atheism about what the word means, even though that's part of the point. As to the other, why is it that atheists are so often unwilling or unable to identify those other values and stand on them with equal veracity? Does it really? Anarchism is very vague. It is only limited by the amount of writing which directly associates itself to Anarchism. In the meantime, the "anarchists" who tore up WTO-99 probably haven't read Goldman, and whether or not punk anarchists know who Proudhon is remains a question. Nonetheless, anarchists, like atheists, are bound by only one principle. Anarchism is to government what atheism is to God. Beyond that, they're as diverse as assholes; everyone's got one, but to each his own. That's like saying there's a real body of fish: everything that swims in the ocean. Seventh-Day Adventists, Quakers, Kingdom Hall--all of these Biblical/Good News organizations are referred to as Christian, but they all have their reasons for separation. Among Quakers you see basic doctrinal differences, including Original Sin/Original Possibility, which changes the dynamic of everything that comes after creation. SDA's are just weird. I've known some that don't like to be called "Christian". The Kingdom Hall is, well, the Kingdom Hall. I find them peculiar enough to separate out, but I can't seem to get a handle on them. Nearest I can tell, they're the chief proponents of the "everybody else is wrong" theology. Next time a Witness comes to your door, talk about whatever Christianity you like; they'll tell you why it's wrong. Yet they have more than one single belief in common; this as opposed to atheists and anarchists. Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, &c. ... and then Anarchist. Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, &c. ... and then Atheist. Beyond that mere anti-identification comes a great diversity unheard of in the religions. Even Sufis and Witches are more bound to their paradigm than atheism. How interesting, that people should reject the cooperative idea merely because a cooperative idea fails. It's not as if cooperative modes are entirely bad. Sounds like those people aren't too bright, huh? In addition to being inaccurate, such a statement shows a pointed lack of understanding about theism. And in that sense, how can you be of any use to the misguided if all you're offering them is alternately poor guidance? Take the lawsuit about the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm glad someone finally did it. I'm glad he won. But after the hullaballoo died down, I think it was Donahue who hosted the good Doctor on his show. During the taping, the good Doctor's wife called and wanted to point out to Phil and the nation that the lawsuit was poorly-founded because it named their daughter as a plaintiff. Yet when in custody of the mother, the child attends church and prays and believes in God. So what gets me is that here's a guy who has a legitimate shot to change something for the better, but he has to exploit a child in order to do so. How is it any better to lie about your child in order to get what you want? So the good Doctor's a selfish prig. So what? Well, just as the abusive priest is an example of what religion gets you, so is this guy an example of what atheism gets you. Gender distinctions in language? Ooh, that wasn't a good follow-up, so now he wants to follow up by challenging federal chaplains? Hey, I would be behind these ideas if they were represented by someone a little more responsible and decent. Would I be responsible to shoot someone if I don't understand guns? Sure, he's attacking me, but I grab a gun and squeeze the trigger and the shot misses and kills someone else ... hey, I had the right to be defending myself. Even if I hit the criminal, do I really have the right to endanger others in order to save myself? How responsible is it to spread ideas when one does not understand those ideas and their dynamic relationship to other ideas? Have you ever figured out how that "excuse" is legitimate? If not, I daresay you don't understand the concept you criticize. I am critical of the atheistic tendency to attack too broadly. I am also critical of religious "excuses". But I know generally what such "excuses" mean, and, frankly, the only reason they exist is because theists are humans too, and just as bright or stupid as anyone else. So in the end, those broad attacks help preserve the middle-ages theology that infects so many western theists. It seems a nice racket to me; atheists never have to learn what they're talking about, and they help ensure that they will always have a quarry to pursue, and also ensure that they won't have to put much effort into the hunt. In the meantime, it's one world, and if people can't get along, we owe it to ourselves to figure out why. Does anyone understand that if we educate people in general to the degree that we get a clear period of years without any major conflict 'twixt people that we have a chance to break the cycle? Sure, it sounds like a tall order, but for some of us, there is no reason not to try. For others, I can well understand that since peace cannot be objectively shown to be the most beneficial option for humanity that we might as well just keep fighting. And that really doesn't seem too bright to me. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The religious atheist? And all that comes after. You're also turning the atheist into a religious person. If an atheist is an atheist no matter what definition of God is given, then the atheist is an atheist even if a sense of God can be shown to properly exist, and in that sense, an atheist is religious in his or her belief. I strongly recommend that proactive atheists get off their soapboxes for a few minutes and figure out what they can do to reduce ideological conflict. Sure, education is hard, patience is hard, and other people are stupid, but it's not something we're going to see in our lifetime save cataclysm. In the meantime, it sounds to me like an atheist is an atheist even if blindly rejecting concepts the atheist is unaware of or has inadequate understanding of. So it would seem that a true atheist is, nonetheless, religious, by proxy of holding a belief that pertains to God which cannot be demonstrated. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Raithere--from the ashes of the slain godslayer Originally posted by tiassa The cover's been blown elsewhere, so I get to field this one. Yes. I noticed in the other thread and almost mentioned it here but I decided to address it as it was presented. In other words, it seems to be that there is no such thing as "atheism" as a collective. I'm happy with that. As a collective group with a overlaying philosophy. Yes, that is correct. I believe I've stated as much elsewhere. The counterpoint, of course, being that it's much easier if everyone behaves and conducts themselves with some integrity. Of course one must find a philosophy that allows the assignment of moral values before one can do so. In the end, I don't care what labels people apply to themselves as long as they seek the best human result from that label. In this case, the father ought to be smarter about his atheism, and the sister needs to be smarter about her theism. But since the younger learned that human regard from the elder, we might wonder what result might have occurred had the elder conducted himself with better integrity. Generally, I agree. I would point out, however, that a lack of integrity is hardly something that is displayed solely amongst atheists... theists are generally lacking as well. While I don't think that's what you were indicating I find it important to declare. Personally, I attribute this to the mass processing of our social institutions. Education; religious, secular, political, economic, etc. is more focused upon conformity than developing rational thought. There is better and worse, but I don't find this exemplary dullard to be too unusual. ... As we both know, however, the problem is not that well dealt with. I concur. And again refer to education... people are not trained for it. Pass it on to fellow atheists. After all, if nothing else, we can hope for the best in each person, and to withhold such wisdom from one's neighbors is detrimental. I happily argue with atheists as well. Personally, I find the label atheist rather limiting although it is not erroneous. I find that Agnostic and in some sense Pantheist can also apply. But at some point I need to make a distinction and the label of atheist gives the quickest perception of how I am oriented in this regard. I'll overlook the disagreement among atheism about what the word means, even though that's part of the point. No need to overlook it... I do think their is a good point there. As to the other, why is it that atheists are so often unwilling or unable to identify those other values and stand on them with equal veracity? I think it is often because much of the atheist's ethics are left unexamined. Religion comes, in most cases, in a nice neat package. This is one of the reasons I think it's so pervasive. The thinking, such as it is in some cases, has already been done. Atheism often leaves one with an unreasoned conglomeration of leftover values that may have been individually examined but do not yet fit into a single paradigm or philosophy. Rational atheism is often a process of applying logic to preceding values and beliefs... snipping away at the illogical and unfounded. The process of tying those remainders into a unified whole is much more difficult. Does it really? Anarchism is very vague. ... Anarchism is to government what atheism is to God. Again, we're dependent upon definition but I would state that, generally, government is a much more concrete term than God. Yet they have more than one single belief in common; this as opposed to atheists and anarchists. Beyond that mere anti-identification comes a great diversity unheard of in the religions. Even Sufis and Witches are more bound to their paradigm than atheism. What paradigm? How interesting, that people should reject the cooperative idea merely because a cooperative idea fails. It's not as if cooperative modes are entirely bad. I don't see that this follows. Sounds like those people aren't too bright, huh? Sometimes that's the case but not necessarily. The central tenet of theism is rejected by atheists. While, I agree that often too much time is spent upon rallying against various projections of theism that does not necessarily make all such efforts inane. Depending upon the participants, a good challenge to one's core precepts demands a refinement of such. This is why I don't mind an occasional tiff with Jan or the likes of muscleman. It may seem repetitive or obtuse but sometimes it's good to go over some basics. It can also, quite simply, be fun... you must admit. In addition to being inaccurate, such a statement shows a pointed lack of understanding about theism. It depends on the theist. This part is an old argument regarding the tendency of the atheist expression here to simply be a reaction to a particular theistic presence. You are, I hope, aware that the nature, depth, and scope of my posts is entirely dependent upon to whom I'm speaking. I'm willing to broach much deeper waters with you, for instance, than with Jan or Mike or muscleman. So if my presentation here was a bit shallow I do apologize... but at some level there is truth here. Otherwise the theist paradigm falls apart. If the philosophy is not founded upon the central principle then it is extraneous to it and should be examined without the unnecessary accretion. So the good Doctor's a selfish prig. So what? Well, just as the abusive priest is an example of what religion gets you, so is this guy an example of what atheism gets you. Gender distinctions in language? Ooh, that wasn't a good follow-up, so now he wants to follow up by challenging federal chaplains? Hey, I would be behind these ideas if they were represented by someone a little more responsible and decent. I don't believe that the paradigm can be blamed for the individual in either of these examples. And why should the idea be cut down because you disagree with the reason another supports it? How responsible is it to spread ideas when one does not understand those ideas and their dynamic relationship to other ideas? While I agree in principle; is it even possible to find a consensus for any complex idea? I think you're looking for more agreement than will ever exist. 2600 years of western philosophy and we're still not dramatically advanced beyond the ancients. Have you ever figured out how that "excuse" is legitimate? For most people I don't find it to be legitimate because it is unexamined. Mystery, awe, wonder, a sense of "oneness", infinity, the inexplicable, the unknown, the fear of separation... are some of the things I find to be wrapped up nicely in the concept. But, as I said, I usually find it illegitimate because it is not examined or addressed. So in the end, those broad attacks help preserve the middle-ages theology that infects so many western theists. It seems a nice racket to me; atheists never have to learn what they're talking about, and they help ensure that they will always have a quarry to pursue, and also ensure that they won't have to put much effort into the hunt. I can't agree. Religions have had hundreds and thousands of years to develop without being harangued by atheism with any significant power. Western theology, in particular, only began to refine itself when atheism started to come into play. Does anyone understand that if we educate people in general to the degree that we get a clear period of years without any major conflict 'twixt people that we have a chance to break the cycle? That would be nice. ~Raithere
Re: The religious atheist? Originally posted by tiassa If an atheist is an atheist no matter what definition of God is given, then the atheist is an atheist even if a sense of God can be shown to properly exist, and in that sense, an atheist is religious in his or her belief. Yes. If God were proven atheism would be a religion. This is also an interesting reflection of theism... don't you find? Of course... I would no longer be an atheist if God were proven. So it would seem that a true atheist is, nonetheless, religious, by proxy of holding a belief that pertains to God which cannot be demonstrated. If God exists but cannot be demonstrated then the atheist is religious. If God does not exist the atheist is merely correct. ~Raithere
This and that ... Raithere With all due respect, that's gonna be a topic. I would love to see that overlaying philosophy laid out. Kind of hard to do that objectively. What are the criteria? Well, I actually had a moment to go off about that just a few minutes ago in a post in that other topic to GB-GIL. I expect a lack of integrity from most religions at a certain level. When reality no longer abides by the religious vision, integrity generally breaks down. Look at the very formation of Christianity, for instance. But the thing is that I do agree in theory that atheists generally are smarter than theists. The problem is that I don't see it. Certes there are the atheists I see every day tending to their lives successfully, but such an argument can be construed for religions as well. But where atheism meets its reason for being--the religious assertion, without which atheism would not bear the necessity of being a word--I see no real evidence that declarative atheists know in general what they're engaging. They might define it for themselves, but that image is as much myth as what they combat. It's rather ... well, sad to see. And what if we start with a silly analogy, like operating on someone when you're not a trained surgeon .... Okay, that's silly enough. But look at what religion does, and how it affects people. Nobody, atheist or theist, should engage religion unless they are somehow educated and prepared to deal with it. Given the affect religion has on behavior and choices, I find it almost offensive to what degree people engage religion. In the case of a dullard Christian, well, I think I understand how such an environment can create such a result. But I don't have anything to help me salvage the atheist's role in this process. And I happily argue with theists. But I could nitpick, say, a Biblical phrase for translation, but that's all it is unless I identify my reasons for that examination. What those reasons are, at their core, are important to the result. A choice, then, to apply an inaccurate label to oneself? How should we interpret that? Fair enough. We'll get to it in due time. The basic issue I'm thinking of at the moment is that atheists need to watch Christians leap into the fire before they know what they're arguing about. When the foolish banner-waving becomes apparent, then perhaps some atheists will be a little less sensitive about the application of words. Ideally, of course, we could say that "forty-three point eight-one-seven-five-three-two-four-zero-nine-two-one-eight percent of atheists specifically believe _____ while compensating plus or minus five per cent based on the use of the word is versus the word can be ...." but isn't that the point where objectivity gets largely useless? I mean, sure there are some people out there who need the data, but are we all about to apply such discipline to our sentiments? So part of it is a juxtaposition: Atheists can take shots at "Christians", "religion", or "theism" and expect that liberty, but nobody can speak of "atheists" without horribly offending their diversity? This is a sense I've gotten from my clashes with people on a variety of subjects, where they cared not to discuss the primary issues but wished to quibble of quantifications that are already vaguely defined as trends. In the end, it's just a frustration of mine. What happens when we stop thinking and start quantifying full-time? Then nothing ever gets examined because we need to refine the statistical result even more ... (Okay, that's a nightmare-hell, but you get the point.) Well that's the point. If we trade one for one, that's fine. You give me one dollar, and I'll give you one penny. One for one. But what is that "one"? The atheist assertion is a narrow argument that has the effect of challenging a broad range of issues in a theist's life. Comparatively, the atheist cannot expect these ethical and moral aspects of life to go unexamined, but since they're not officially a part of atheism, should we treat them as irrelevant? Government is an assumption. People appeal to a higher power because they are incapable of resolving their own issues. It is more appropriate, I suppose, to say that Anarchism is to government what Atheism is to church. Thank you for pointing that out. Exactly. I'm aiming for that point. Specifically, the Sufis and the Sufi paradigm, the Witches and the Witch paradigm, and the Atheists the Atheist p-- oh, wait. What paradigm? Which is, indeed, part of the point. Well, it's just a shame that atheists would rather work with their own identity issues than put that intelligence to work. Of course, cooperative ideological movements (e.g. churches) are bad, bad, bad ... well, they're smart atheists, right? They can figure out a better cooperative idea. Which is an awfully broad rejection to consider Universal. No, but such efforts hardly need be mandatory each time theism pops its head up. Atheists often seem to make a point of reinforcing theism each time they engage it. The logic speaks well, but the conduct disagrees. Agreed. It's a gamble I'm usually willing to take. Of course it's fun. But it also seems to be the bulk of what atheism does around here. And when we get right down to it, the public expression of atheism, while more moderate in its condemnation, is pretty much similar in its inflexibility. Fair enough, but it only becomes problematic in the sense I think we're discussing if we isolate theism and atheism in a vacuum. If we want to drag economy and the social ethic into it, I think people work too hard to keep themselves stupid in general. I try to bear this in mind when standing before an incredibly idiotic manifestation of theism. Where I accuse you of being shallow is in the word "excuse". Aside from that, there's not that much to nitpick. Actually, I think it can. Take Catholicism. I sincerely believe that if sociological, psychological, and psychiatric data are remotely correct, that it will be determined eventually that the only way to control sexual misconduct by priests is through the elimination of clerical abstinence. As to other sects, consider for a moment how primal and necessary sexual contact is to the species, and how ingrained are those impulses. And then consider that they are supposed to be controlled. As a result, a Christian can spend much of their effort dealing directly with their own sexuality, and if there isn't enough ways for the pressure to escape, behavioral abnormalities will occur. It's not just the Catholics abusing children, and it's not just children being abused. The problem is age-old; I beg you to remember that a foundation of American literature discusses this very problem among Puritans. As to the atheist: what paradigm? But nonetheless, I cannot ethically support the political exploitation of children, such as has apparently occurred in the Pledge lawsuit. We might look at this from two perspectives. Christians often charge, for instance, that atheism leads to a lack of moral or ethical fiber. (We can fairly restrict this to Christians for the immediate, but the larger argument does demand other considerations of faith.) While I generally charge that moral and ethical troubles are a human-level and not a a paradigm-level bug, it is worth noting that by some atheist "paradigms" (individual, as it seems), the political exploitation of a child is acceptable. And in the end, why does it matter? Well, do we fight these fights just to fight, or do we hope from some progress? What is more important to you, for instance, as an individual: that the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge or that people work to not exploit children for political causes? We've made it almost fifty years with "under God" in the Pledge without any dramatic and demonstrable consequences. While I won't justify the phrasing by that (I'm glad it's been nailed), it is worth noting that because what is demonstrable is that how we treat our children has a vastly profound effect on the society. If the religious paradigm has contributed to it, then shouldn't the opposition seek to end the negative effects of that which it opposes? A fundamental difference. The excuse is legitimate because it exists. Whether or not that legitimacy can be maintained is entirely up to the excuse. Fair enough. We're so far apart here that I'm either right when I say you don't understand ... whatever point that was, or we've morphed into a whole new vein. I shall do some reading and hopefully provide a better response. Don't give the "prayer in schools" people ammo. A statistical coincidence it is until we start throwing those kinds of things into the mix. Atheism has been around for a long time. It took the brightest religious thinkers to lay the groundwork for what you know as atheism. That's what we're working for. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi Tiassa! Long time! I am only making a relavent joke, i do not actually believe this, but none-the-less I find it funny. I hope you all can take it in stride. "Stop praying in our schools and I'll stop thinking in your churches" Lol, again, only a joke, don't take it seriously!
I should mention Every once in a while, the stories, factoids, and odd asides of my posts draws a critical eye. So be it. But of those who responded to GodSlayer, I think it worth noting that nobody really questioned the basic tale. I find it odd that the shit I make up is more believable than the stuff that's real. But truth is stranger than fiction. How ... well, strange. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
With all due respect, that's gonna be a topic. I would love to see that overlaying philosophy laid out. Sorry, my fault for being unclear, I was agreeing with you that there is no overlaying philosophy. Kind of hard to do that objectively. What are the criteria? I don't know that it can be done while maintaining complete objectivity. Recently, I've been working with the Aristotelian concept of Good and Evil but I have yet to play it out towards the extremes to see if it still works. The problem is that I don't see it. Certes there are the atheists I see every day tending to their lives successfully, but such an argument can be construed for religions as well. Well we can make a judgment based upon the practical results and/or the logical results. Practically, there are many paradigms that work or can be made to work in a given context. The problem with this is that we may develop perfectly workable models that are not true and invariably fall apart when the parameters change. Here is where the strengths of logic, empiricism, and objectivity are particularly useful. Can subjective experiences be true? Absolutely. But a subjective experience is far more likely to be false than is an objective one. But where atheism meets its reason for being--the religious assertion, without which atheism would not bear the necessity of being a word--I see no real evidence that declarative atheists know in general what they're engaging. They might define it for themselves, but that image is as much myth as what they combat. It's rather ... well, sad to see. I disagree. I see no error in combating simplistic or erroneous suppositions wherever they lie. If I make a fundamental error in my reasoning that you are aware of I would hope you'd point it out despite the fact that our discussion is being carried out several levels above. Likewise, I see no problem with trying to engage those whose discussion remains mired in the very basest of errors. Now you may point out the futility of my combating mistakes made by the likes of muscleman but that does not mean that the effort itself is improper. After all, there is the slightest chance that I may cause him to reevaluate a portion of his position. Frankly, you're going to need such combatants if you ever do work out a solution to the religious equation. Or do you think minds that are mired in illogic and supposition will immediately see the clarity of a refined paradigm? Believe me, I will transition to a soluble religion far quicker than muscleman ever would. But look at what religion does, and how it affects people. Nobody, atheist or theist, should engage religion unless they are somehow educated and prepared to deal with it. Heh. Rather elitist. It would also confine most of humanity to some strange agnostic juxtaposition. You might also consider that religions engage us not the other way around. No one is born seeking religion, it's fed to us along with the rest of the pap. Given the affect religion has on behavior and choices, I find it almost offensive to what degree people engage religion. In the case of a dullard Christian, well, I think I understand how such an environment can create such a result. But I don't have anything to help me salvage the atheist's role in this process. Hell, I get offended too but mostly I find such attempts humorous and try to educate witless assaults. The only thing that you're missing regarding the atheists is the similarity in education. You're expecting too much from too broad a group. A choice, then, to apply an inaccurate label to oneself? How should we interpret that? Not inaccurate, merely incomplete. Can you show me a label that defines any individual entirely? To explain myself: I find that pantheism/cosmotheism indicates a wholeness to the cosmos that I cannot refute and actually believe. Likewise with agnosticism, where I must admit uncertainty at some level when considering God. Ultimately, however, in the pantheist consideration I must reject God as extraneous which leaves me with the agnostic position. However, when considering this position I must analyze why I leave the door open, so to speak, for God. Ultimately, I can come up with no valid reasoning to believe that God even might exist. Which, of course, puts me in the weak atheist position. So part of it is a juxtaposition: Atheists can take shots at "Christians", "religion", or "theism" and expect that liberty, but nobody can speak of "atheists" without horribly offending their diversity? This is a sense I've gotten from my clashes with people on a variety of subjects, where they cared not to discuss the primary issues but wished to quibble of quantifications that are already vaguely defined as trends. I find that the definition is quite specific. The problem only comes in with it's use as a label and the tendency to wrap it up with that which it is not. I've has some rather strident conversations with atheists regarding definition, including one with Adam where we reduced the word to mean "not shiny". The point to be made here is we need to be as specific as possible... so if you wish discourse on an atheist tendency towards utter objectivism and the failures of such a paradigm I can agree with you that such a strictly objective adherence fails for me too... rather than having to clarify that atheism does not necessitate or even suggest such an end result. The atheist assertion is a narrow argument that has the effect of challenging a broad range of issues in a theist's life. Comparatively, the atheist cannot expect these ethical and moral aspects of life to go unexamined, but since they're not officially a part of atheism, should we treat them as irrelevant? No, they're certainly relevant to any individual. And this is why, if the issue can stand alone, it should be addressed apart from considerations of God or religion or atheism. Thus we might inquire into Good and Evil and see if we can even define a standard that does not necessarily include the human condition. Or we can look into the shadings of objectivity and subjectivity and see if there is an absolute point of transition or if it's a relatively vague area. Exactly. I'm aiming for that point. Specifically, the Sufis and the Sufi paradigm, the Witches and the Witch paradigm, and the Atheists the Atheist p-- oh, wait. Yes, I agree. The label fails at some points, offering nothing in itself. One of the issues here is we are discussing in a religions forum Well, it's just a shame that atheists would rather work with their own identity issues than put that intelligence to work. Of course, cooperative ideological movements (e.g. churches) are bad, bad, bad ... well, they're smart atheists, right? They can figure out a better cooperative idea. I think that they are. The issue has popped up here now and again regarding tradition and community amongst atheist. However, generally, atheists seek out already existing non-religious communities to join. No, but such efforts hardly need be mandatory each time theism pops its head up. Atheists often seem to make a point of reinforcing theism each time they engage it. The logic speaks well, but the conduct disagrees. No, but I'm not quite sure what it is you're arguing towards here. Seems more like you're looking towards some standard of conduct that would be rather strict for a public forum. Why not just ask the dimmer theists not to post. Fair enough, but it only becomes problematic in the sense I think we're discussing if we isolate theism and atheism in a vacuum. If we want to drag economy and the social ethic into it, I think people work too hard to keep themselves stupid in general. I try to bear this in mind when standing before an incredibly idiotic manifestation of theism. I concur. Most people don't want to think more than absolutely necessary to get by. And even that most people complain about. As to other sects, consider for a moment how primal and necessary sexual contact is to the species, and how ingrained are those impulses. And then consider that they are supposed to be controlled. As a result, a Christian can spend much of their effort dealing directly with their own sexuality, and if there isn't enough ways for the pressure to escape, behavioral abnormalities will occur. Not to mention that the Bible is full of it. Or as Alex would say "I like the parts where these old yahooties tolchok each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and getting on to the bed with their wife's handmaidens.". But nonetheless, I cannot ethically support the political exploitation of children, such as has apparently occurred in the Pledge lawsuit. I agree that the father's behavior seems entirely self-serving and neglectful if not actually damaging to the child while I might not support this particular expression of the idea I hardly consider refusing the idea itself. If the religious paradigm has contributed to it, then shouldn't the opposition seek to end the negative effects of that which it opposes? Or might seek to eliminate it wholesale, the good the bad and the ugly. Sorry but I'm simplifying here I'm running out of time. A fundamental difference. The excuse is legitimate because it exists. Whether or not that legitimacy can be maintained is entirely up to the excuse. I disagree. The answer of God might be the same but the unreasoned, unexamined answer contains no truth. God is too ambiguous a concept to simply name at leave it at that. When developed I can accept this as a legitimate answer. Unexamined, it is simply an ignorant one and means simply "things I don't know". ugh. We're so far apart here that I'm either right when I say you don't understand ... whatever point that was, or we've morphed into a whole new vein. I shall do some reading and hopefully provide a better response. Why don't you try pointing me towards your meaning? Perhaps I'm simply off track. Atheism has been around for a long time. It took the brightest religious thinkers to lay the groundwork for what you know as atheism. Agreed. But as an societal influence it has had little affect until fairly recently. Sorry my answers started to run short... I'm out of time here. ~Raithere
