filtherton

I don't know if i see a difference between your definition of an agnostic athiest and just a plain old agnostic.

And, just so you know, there are a great many christians who take many things the bible says with a grain of salt. The idea of a big bang isn't necessarily unpalatable to all christians.

Zyr

I might point out that, despite what I've said, and quoted, I am, in fact, agnostic, though leaning far to to side of atheism.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

Charlatan

As an atheist I can appreciate a lot of what someone like Dawkins has to say. Especially the point that to support the acceptance of *any* supernatural belief is to support it all.

I am not sure that I would be willing to get militant about it but I do recognize the logic of that kind of statement.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

KnifeMissile

If atheism is a religion then bare feet is a kind of shoe and baldness is a hair colour!

raeanna74

I've considered Atheism.

One question that was crucial to me was - Which choice is the most beneficial to me?

Atheism - (As far as I can tell.) If there is no god than my actions should only be directed by a sense of responsibility to mankind. Beyond that I should not feel any specific moral responsibility to behave in a certain way. I'm relatively free to do as I please.

Religion - (My chosen religion is liberal Baptist.) If there is a god, then I am responsible to him for most of my choices. As long as I attempt to make choices that show love toward my 'neighbor' and god then I have fulfilled my main responsibility. A little love cannot be a bad thing in my opinion.
YET - If I were to not choose this choice and I'm wrong than I have the possibility of facing an eternity in Hell.

There is only one serious consequence to not choosing a particular option. So what harm is there in CHOOSING the option that will result is the fewest possible side effects??

If this sounds coldly logical, it was not my main reason for the choice that I made. But it was something to consider.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

MSD

A theist who believes that there is a God but does not believe that it can be proven is an agnostic theist. You're thinking of what pop culture has dubbed "agnosticism," not what the word actually means.
Belief in divinity is counterintuitive to me. At the most, i would simply be going through the motions. If God exists and salvation can only be achieved through faith, I'd be no better off than if I were to be an active infernalist and worship evil itself. Last time I checked, going though the motions out of fear doesn't constitute faith.

KnifeMissile

If your only reason to "believe" in God is Pascal's Wager then the omniscient God will know that and you will not get into heaven anyways, so why betray your own beliefs?

Baraka_Guru

This has been an interesting discussion so far.

Here's what I find interesting about this issue:

1) Disproving the existence of God, or relinquishing the need to prove or disprove such existence, does not automatically assume that there is no sense of morality. Is the "New Atheism" simply an idea under secular humanism?

2) Science is not exclusive to atheism, and faith is not exclusive to theism. Consider scientific research and trials, which rely on hunches and hopes. Also consider Buddhism, which works quite well with scientific thinking because it is preoccupied with empirical truth.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pig

Just a quick point about Ockham's Razor: it doesn't imply the simpler solution is correct. It simply states that given two theories which are indistinguishable from the evidence / data provided, the simpler solution is more probable. In many cases, this turns out to be pretty valid. Simple mechanisms tend to be more robust. Of course, its not always the case, but its a decent place to start when you're stuck in a rut and you need traction.

Mr. Self : I agree on the distinction in definitions with atheism / gnosticism. I want to know if your understanding is the same as mine:

1. atheist: one who lacks a positive belieft in a theistic philosophy / worldview.
2. theist: one who believes in deities.
3. gnostic: one who believes it is possible to prove the existence of deities.
4. agnostic: one who believes it is impossible to prove the existence of deities.

The reason I ask, is that I consider myself a gnostic atheist. The reason being that I lack a positive belief in deities, and yet if such a deity were to exist, then I guess I'd have to suppose that all the mystical stuff about him/her/it could conceivably be true too. Therefore, if he/she/it could make the world out of nothing in a couple of days or whatever other version of creation account you opt for, it seems entirely reasonable that he/she/it could make me believe in him/her/it. I mean, we're talking God here.

For the record, while I don't intend to take to the streets, and under my definitions I consider myself to be a spiritual person and typically find more in common with moderate / liberal religious types than I do rabid atheists...it does somewhat irk me that many people around me can publicly profess their faith and belief in whatever god they believe in (down here in SC it's usually JC), which I might be inclined (when I'm feeling like an asshole) to ascribe to being simply a personified projection of all the stuff man can't handle...and yet if I mention that I don't happen to be a believer, I'm the crazy one.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

KnifeMissile

Occam's Razor says nothing about the correctness of a theory, much less a probability of such. You've been watching too many movies...

Simply put, Occam's Razor merely states that, all else being equal, the simpler theory is the preferred one. This distinction is important because the simpler theory isn't preferred because it may be more true or more probably true... it's preferred because it's simpler! By definition, the simpler theory is easier to work with so, if all else is equal, why would you needlessly complicate your life?

I can't say that I understand your definitions or, indeed, what you're even trying to say, here.

I understand the part about people around you calling you crazy 'cause you're not a believer... Trust me, they're the crazy ones...

However, I don't understand the rest of it. I assure you, any (sane) athiest will believe in God if only there were any good reason to, so your distinction on what type of athiest you are makes no sense to me. Indeed, the only reason why there is a word to describe atheism is because it's somehow a minority viewpoint in this world. Perhaps athiests in the modern world should be called "realists," since that's really what they are...

pig

you know KnifeMissile, I've noticed you certainly have a way with words. Right you are, I slipped probability into it, and that's not correct. Me got crappy with my words. I congratulate you on your choice of movies, because Jodie Foster's ass is perfect in Contact. I don't recall any Ockham's Razor jib jab from the movies, but I'm sure it's there. No need to pull up transcripts and whatnot.

All I'm saying is that if atheists are wrong, then no holds barred. If an agnostic is one who believes that proof of God is impossible, but lo and behold he's in front of you creating shit out of nothing and through whatever mechanisms he has at his disposal (nothing implied by adoption of masculine gender, just easier) it's all hyper rational or what have you...then you have your proof, and thus you can now prove the existence of God. I think that would make you gnostic. Perhaps I'm not right on this one either. Ergo, reason why I asked. Are the four definitions I put up correct, individually?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

raeanna74

No it was not my only reason. "If this sounds coldly logical, it was not my main reason for the choice that I made. But it was something to consider." It only made it easier to choose the one that I believed. If I do follow my belief I am no worse off except for having to excercise a little more restraint in my life. Nothing wrong with some restraint - in MODERATION of course.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

KnifeMissile

Well, it sounds like you're using your own, personal definitions here, which is fine but then you can't expect me to correct them, can you? Webster's definition of "gnostic" is kind of vague and specific, if you can believe that.

You're right, you did say that it was not your only reason. However, that it can be a factor at all against an omnicient being is still silly...

You have a surprisingly sober view on religion. I disagree with some aspects of your claim but I do think that some (if not most) people need some type of religion to help them through...

Let me ask you, when did you stop believing in Santa Claus? ...the Tooth Fairy? ...the Easter bunny? ...or any other of the bizarre things we try to get kids to believe...

Lastly, I'm going to guess that the largest contributing reason why you don't mind people in the US (or even the government) practicing the Christian religion is because you just happen to hold the same values as Christians, only as an atheist... If you don't mind a personal question, when the subject of your faith comes up, do you tell anyone that you're an atheist? What does your family think?

jorgelito

I dunno, I think atheism is very trendy these days, it's the new black. Everyone is atheist these days and very mocking and intolerant of religious people (unless you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist). If you are Christian, then you are fair game for ridicule and harrassment. That's how I feel, especially where I live and travel to (not in the bible belt obviously). But I don't dislike atheists (at least the nice ones). My cousins are atheists but we are very close and they don't mind me praying at meals etc, nor do they object to me praying for them in their time of need. Sounds like a nice compromise to me.

Atheists can be just as bad as a few Christians in their intolerance. But as in all things, do not paint the majority with the brush of the minority.

Leto

Indeed, which speaks to my earlier point regarding faith.

Johnny Rotten

While I appreciate Dawkins' hostility towards organized religion, I am intrigued by his hostility towards faith. I've simply researched too much paranormal phenomena to believe that there can be nothing after death. One need look no further than Ohio University for a compelling monkeywrench.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

raeanna74

I don't get what you're saying. Why would it be silly to consider that my choice was made easier by thinking this way???

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

KnifeMissile

Please, do share your paranormal research with us. Obviously, you'll want to choose the most verifiable (so we may reproduce the paranormal phenomena) or the most documented (to reassure us that you're not just making this stuff up) cases as examples...

Because it will have no effect, either way, on the outcome. If there is no God then it obviously won't help any. Even if there were a God, being all-powerful and omniscient, He wouldn't have been fooled by such reasoning. Pascal's Wager can't help you in either case, so why would you even consider it?

raeanna74

I can understand this reasoning. In my situation I had already accepted the belief in God prior to coming to this thought. I had encountered some doubts along the way but this reasoning allowed me to feel unafraid of choosing what I was most comfortable with ALREADY. It wasn't the REASON I chose to believe in God so I doubt it would negate my faith in Him.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Ustwo

No idea for sure, but it was prior to adding god to the list.

Somewhat. I think Christianity goes a bit overboard with the 'blessed are the meek' philosophy. I see weakness as nothing to celibrate.


I think my family has adopted a 'don't ask don't tell' philosophy for all members when it comes to religion. The last true believer Catholics all died in the last 10 years, and the current group doesn't make a big deal about it. It came up once or twice when I was younger but didn't really go anywhere. My last real religious discussion with my mother was when I was a wee lad and she tried to explain the whole infallibility of the pope concept. That didn't go well for her and it was her last attempt. I think she suffers a bit from Irish Catholic guilt in that shes not really religious but feels like she didn't do her job as a mother with her kids in that department.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

florida0214

What I have to say might offend people on both sides of the debate. I feel that Evolution was a part of God's plan. He thought of it first.

Now I am not talking Humans came from monkey or apes or some primitive ooze, but HUmans change and adapt and that is evolution. We are not the same humans we were thousands of years ago. we have changed, we have evolved. Maybe Darwin understood this better then anybody.
I don't want to know that I cam from some monkey. If we did why are there still monkeys. I don't understand this.
Anyway thought I would throw that out there.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

aberkok

If you don't want to know, then you will never understand. If you ever decide to change your mind, there are plenty of books out there on evolution. Some are at your local library.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Ustwo

Actually we didn't come from monkeys we came from apes. But that aside there are still apes because they have evolved to fit their nitches as well as we have evolved to fit ours. Evolution produces a tree with many branches, its not a ladder of progress.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

KnifeMissile

Well,I don't think you have to worry about this, too much. The values of Christianity change over time and this may go the way of celestial significance...

Have you adopted a "don't ask, don't tell," you're on your own religious philosophy to your own children? Do you still practice Catholicism beyond secular Christmas?

I find it funny that your mother had such faith in the pope (assuming she was prosilytizing something she actually believed in). I mean, it's one thing to believe that an invisible force you can never objectively confirm to be perfect but to say that another person can be infallible is... simply wrong...

I don't think he meant, literally, monkeys. I think he was just saying that he doesn't want to know that evolution is how we came about and that he needs his religion. You, more than anyone else in this thread, understand how much some people need their religion...

pig

Really no reason to be condescending about your beliefs. You have your reasons, which I fully understand and probably largely support. I also am guessing there are entire sections of questions which your approach can't answer. You will say those questions are invalid or foolish questions, but that doesn't answer the questions.

As far as the gnosticism thing goes, I actually pulled those definitions from an atheist website a long time ago. I can't find the link right now, which is the reason I haven't posted it. However, I find the notion that an agnostic is
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. , to be strange if gnosticism is defined in the specific and limited way you gave earlier. It does seem that its the most prevalent definition out there, but I think its odd that analyzing the word roots: the rejection of something very limited is defined as something so general. If I can find the particular atheist references that made the distinctions, I'll try to post them.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

abaya

My husband is also an agnostic-atheist, and I appreciate the distinction you've made between agnostic-atheist and a strong atheist (is this taken from a text or philosophy class of some kind, or did you come up with it on your own?).

I learned a lot about this throughout the process of planning our wedding... I thought ktspktsp wanted an atheist wedding, but really he wanted a secular one. An atheist wedding would have been rather militant/activist... reading literature/taking vows, etc that promoted the idea of NO GOD. Ktspktsp, though, wanted to simply remove the idea and mention of any God or religiously-associated texts, which we did (other than a slip on my mother's part, but that was my fault for not modifying the text at 4am). He was fine with having the literature and vows be spiritual/humanist, as long as it wasn't religious.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there. Agnostic-atheism makes sense to me, though I'm just plain agnostic (with smatterings of Christianity and Buddhism).

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

pig

Quick interjection: I didn't find a direct treatment of the definitions, but I did find this. I thought this was the site I found previously, but it does have some content.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

KnifeMissile

Who's being condescending? How are they being condescending? Are you sure it isn't just your defensive interpretation? To what are you referring when you say "approach?" Is it your contention that all questions must be answered? ...even if it means deluding one's self to satisfy this need?

When I read this, it sounds like you think there are two teams and all the players are cooperating with each other to compete with the other team...

You can't take the roots of a word too seriously when considering its current meaning. For instance, why are awful things not as desirable than awesome things? I mean, surely it's better to be full of awe than it is to only have some of it, right? Mind you, we can still find vestiges of awful's original meaning when we say that something is awfully big. The technical meaning of words (and phrases) change as real people use them. I've seen many intelligent people use the term "begs the question" to mean "raises the question..."

Why do you think an atheist wedding would have been too militant? It's not as if atheist vows spend any time maligning religion...

pig

I feel that remark is condescending. Translation: We're in a special club that has removed the intellectual fetters of false spiritual desire, leaving those with overly-emotionally muddled psychobabble to scratch in the dirt like self-shitting chickens. Look how they play with the shadows!!! It's probably also because I've watched you post for a long time, and as I said, you have a way with words. When you were talking with will about the Mac vs. MS stuff, and you basically pulled the classic " I don't mean to offend you, but you're an idiot" routine. Putting it all in context with the style you typically adopt, I interpreted the above as a little condescending. If you didn't intend it that way, then well, there you go.

Re: agnostic vs. awful and awesome. That's true. However, a-blah usually means "not blah." I'm not arguing your definition of gnostic isn't valid, correct, and well substantiated. All I'm saying is that I recall seeing a more general definition elsewhere, which was general like the term "agnostic." I haven't been able to find a reference, so I didn't post about it. However, as I found myself back in the thread, I felt that I would address it.

I don't think there are two teams to this thing, outside of the obvious context of the New Atheists vs. Theists Believers that has been set up in the OP. I'm really not sure what you mean. I was setting up a simple binary definition based on what I've read elsewhere.

gnostic: believes existence of God can be proven.
agnostic: believes existence of God is not provable.

Seems pretty simple to me. Sorry for any confusion, etc.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

KnifeMissile

I see... Here is the context for which that was said:Please note that I was responding specifically to ustwo when I wrote that. I was merely using one of his beliefs to emphasize my point to him. What you interpret as condescending was ustwo's opinion and not mine! If you want to complain about condescension then you can go complain him. I assure you, he's quite used to it...
Furthermore, let me show you what my point was!He's not saying that he knows we didn't come from monkeys. He's not saying that he doesn't want to hear that we came from monkeys. He's saying that he doesn't want to know that we came from monkeys. He's saying that, even if it were true, he doesn't want to know about it! What you interpret as "condescending" is me bridging communication by pointing out to people what they have said...

I like that you remember reading some of my other posts.
What you're doing is interpreting any disagreement as an "I don't mean to offend you but you're an idiot routine." Nothing I had said in that or any other thread, including this one, was ever pejorative. I merely disagreed and pointed out his mistakes. This is not me telling anyone they're an idiot, figuratively or otherwise. Why would you hold such a belligerent view on disagreement?

First, lets get one thing straight. It's not my definition I gave you, it was Webster's. I have never used the word in my life and, thus, have no personal opinion on its meaning. I was merely explaining to you why I couldn't help you with your definitions...

I said that because you said "As far as the gnosticism thing goes, I actually pulled those definitions from an atheist website a long time ago" as if it were somehow relevant. Why would you bring such particular attention to the idea that it was from an atheist website? It looks as if you're trying to make youself look credible (I never doubted you since there really wasn't anything to doubt) by claiming that this definition is an atheist one as if we all belong to a club and should agree on our own doctorine or protocol. Atheism is not an organization of any kind...

pig

Knife,

First, if I misinterpreted your tone, I apologize. It came across that way when I read it, and it seemed consistent with your views on those with religious beliefs. I can assure you that I have no problems with disagreement. If I did...would I be posting this?

So, on the first point above: you were responding to specifically to ustwo, in a medium where everyone could read it. Its not exactly whispering, so to speak. "Oh Ustwo, you know how those people need their relgions..." To a certain extent, I agree with you. It's the way the delivery came across to me, I suppose. I once said religion isn't the opiate of the masses, it's the placebo. I happened to say it to someone I later found it is pretty religious. I don't know if I ever apologized for that, but if I didn't I do now. (if onesnowy is reading this, you were that person. Sorry)

I realize that you were disagreeing with will, and the only reason I brought that up is because of the tone that came across in the above-mentioned post and the post on the macs - the posting in that thread provided me with context which I confess probably influenced my interpretations here. I'm not getting sidetracked on that here, and I don't want this thread to get sidetracked with this.

I also know where you got the definition from, becuase you linked it the first time. The whole thing started because I think I've seen a different definition elsewhere. I posted that definition and asked if anyone could confirm. Basically, you said no. The rest follows from there. I mentioned that I found it on an atheist site, because the site I recall finding on was devoted to the topic of atheism. However, I can't find the classifications right now. It may not be of major importance, but I simply was interested in the terminology that others used to describe their belief systems. For instance, I would trust the classifications given from a site run by people who study and write about atheism, as opposed to classifications given from a site run by people who study and write about wood varnish.

Really much ado about nothing. Again, if you feel I misrepresented the tone of your post, I apologize. As I said, it didn't seem like an isolated incident, but it really doesn't matter. I'm just a wittle pigglet passing through, etc.

And finally, I dont' see the point of getting militant about atheism, as much as I understand not giving into theistic interpretations of reality where they are obviously not appropriate. Situations like Intelligent Design taught in biology classes and the like.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

abaya

Well, as I already said in my post, it wasn't me who thought there was a difference between a secular and an atheist wedding. It was my husband who said there was a difference, at least in his mind.

And an "atheist" wedding, to him, would have been more activist, if not militant, in promoting atheism as a worldview. Whereas, a secular wedding simply abstained from promoting anything in particular (other than the coolness of our relationship ), including atheism. My husband is not a militant atheist; in fact, he is mostly an achristian and amuslim, if you will, and did not want anything referring to either religion.

But perhaps I should stop speaking for him.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

KnifeMissile

I wonder if it's attitudes like this that cause people to think that atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. A secular wedding is an atheist wedding. Did you (or your husband) really think that atheists must bring particular attention to their lack of belief? ...like "dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the presense of no God," or something like that? Seriously, an atheist wedding is simply a wedding where you declare your love and devotion for each other without mentioning God, gods, or tooth faries. It's truly that simple...

Out of wild curiosity, if you did have an "atheist wedding," what would your vows have been?

Mrs Master

I thought piggy was be very tolerant of your attitude, as others have been. From my observations you seem to be searching for things to disagree with, with a number of posters in this thread.

It appears you are choosing not to see this obvious truth.

There's is nothing wrong with friendly debate. Im struggling at times to see your friendly side in this thread.

KnifeMissile

To his credit, he has been quite level-headed. Some of his posts were agressively defensive but he has never escalated the discussion. I thank him for that and he has my respect. This is not as common as I would like which is why I have been out of the politics forum for quite some time...

I admit that I'm not particularly friendly. However, this doesn't mean that I'm particularly belligerent, which is important to me. You'll see no ad hominem attacks in my posts. If most of my posts bring up disagreement, it's only because it's more interesting to disagree with someone and say why rather than to type another single line "yeah, I think so too" post. However, this is merely a trend and I certainly don't come here "looking for a fight." I agreed (although, personally, I'm still considering the issue) with ustwo's assessment of people's need for religion and I typically abhor his opinions! Surely that's evidence of someone not looking for conflict...

I'm sorry I'm not friendly. I hope you can see that I'm not antagonistic. I may disagree emphatically but never without discussion and nothing I say has ever been pejorative. If you can find anything of that nature, I'd be quite embarrassed...

ktspktsp

KnifeMissile,

Hi, I'm abaya's husband.

About that whole atheist vs secular wedding. When I told abaya that I didn't want a Christian or Muslim wedding, she asked me if I wanted an atheist wedding. To me, a non-religious wedding is a secular wedding. It doesn't matter what one believes at that point, if there's no religion in it, it's a secular wedding. So, if there was such a thing as an atheist wedding, I would imagine it being slightly different than a secular wedding in that it would emphasize aspects of atheism (which is not a religion or a faith, but more like a belief [mine indeed]). So that's the difference.

I guess we have a difference in semantics here, but in the end it doesn't really matter. If a wedding that doesn't mention a god is atheistic to you and secular to me, then so be it.

Mrs Master

I have no intention of embarassing you, I simply felt the need to state my opinion on what I was viewing. Your sincerity in your response is appreciated, it makes all the difference.

mixedmedia

I have to say that while I, for the most part, agree that many "lay" people use their religion as a crutch of sorts to help them deal with the challenge of facing an existence full of ungraspable meaning, significance, value, etc., but to suggest that those who have faith in religious philosophy are, by nature of being faithful, less intelligent than atheists is well, yes, condescending. What about religious scholars, Jesuit and Franciscan monks...the Rev. Jim Wallis? And for that matter, the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist monks, lamas, bikshus, etc. The Buddhists have faith in reincarnation, karma, enlightenment and nirvana, bodhisattvas...does this make them less intelligent? Atheism is a faith, as well. Atheists have faith that the unknowable is, at least, definitely not what they think it is not. I offer up, as a fully neutral observer, that many people who call themselves atheists are not necessarily more intelligent or open-minded than those who have faith. That they are simply another fragmentation of mankind's eternal quest for the meaning of life. I suppose, it's natural for those who think they are privy to "the truth" to lord it a bit (no pun intended...well, maybe a little one) over those who are "not." Avid Christians do it, too. Ya. But I think to voice these things in a generalized way is just a way of patting one's self on the back to validate their own understanding of things.

And, for my two cents, the discussion on this thread has been very engaging and thoughtful on the part of both pigglet and KnifeMissile. I've enjoyed it very much. But I just wanted to touch for a moment on the subject of spiritual or aspiritual prestige. One is as annoying as the other from my perspective.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

KnifeMissile

To whom are you referring when you say that someone has suggested that people "who have faith in religious philosopohy" are less intelligent?

Before you accuse atheists of practicing "faith," please exercise a little common sense. It takes as much faith to not believe in God as it does to not believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Do you believe in any of these made up tales? Do you think your disbelief is based on blind faith? Obviously not... you have good reason not believe in any of these entities in exactly the same way you have good reason not to believe any of the religions on Earth (at least, the ones I've heard of). This is not faith, it is pragmatism.

Remember, everyone is an atheist when it comes to the other guy's religion. Atheists just add one more religion to that list...

mixedmedia

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are not entities one can equate with the concept of a god. We know who is responsible for the activities attributed to them. You believe, you have faith that there is no god or other unifying metaphysical order to the universe. I don't see any other way of looking at it. And further more, wonder why someone should care.

And I was referring to ustwo's remarks about people of faith in comparison to atheists.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce