The "New Atheism," the vocal minority making the rest of us look bad, or more?
 

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html
click for the other 7 pages

Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist. I honestly believe that religious belief and the intolerance inherent in the overwhelming majority of religious doctrine will be the downfall of mankind. Atheism is far from exempt in this list of intolerances.

I agree with Dawkins that the probability of a supreme being's existence is very low, but I understand that there's a possibility that I'm wrong. While I don't agree with belief in God (and especially belief in organized religion,) I agree with him that children shouldn't be indocctrinated (to the extent that I consider forcing a chiild to attend religious services abuse,) but I am equally uncomfortable with the practice of forcing my views on others. I am bothered by Dawkins' assertion that accepting evolution necessarily equates to accepting non-theism at some level. I feel that anyone who firmly believes that humans can answer the question of divinity either way is rejecting logical thought to almost the same extent that those who assert the "truth" of creationism reject it. At the same time, I disagree with firm belief in anything for which concrete empirical evidence cannot be produced, and I feel that while evolution has all of the evidence applicable to the theory standing behind it, neither religious belief nor atheism has any concrete evidence to support them and that the only valid argument is simply whether the burden of proof is on the believers or the non-believers (I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this issue.)

I suppose the whole basis of my cognitive dissonance is my knowledge that in the past I was devoutly religious and fully believed in the tenets of my religion, yet at this point in time I cannot associate myself with that mindset, even to the point that I can understand why I believed what I believed. The closest I can get is teh realization that the inability to prove the existance of God and the tendency to disbelieve based on lack of evidence is as intuitive to me now as the indusputable fact that God existed and that I was carrying out his will and divine commands.

I really don't know what to think about this.

I don't know what to think either, but my thinking is parallel to yours. I, too, was a meaningfully evangelical Christian, and thought I would go to the grave believing what I did. And yet... how Life changes us, if we allow it to do so. I still believe in that kind of Grace, if that makes any sense. Transformation, evolution.

Not much to add, just a little commiseration...

I don't think humans are smart enough to figure this out.
Let's ask a race that has evolved millions of years beyond us these questions.
It may take some patience.

I am an atheist, but a slightly agnostic one at times, and I think tolerance is always a good thing. There are cases where tolerance isn't enough to "smooth over" an intolerant response to your own tolerance. I'm not sure if this is one.

I think many people of faith can be quite intolerant of people who do not follow a particular faith. I like to be tolerant towards religious people. I don't make a point of making being religious or non-religious an essential part of my life. I just try to live my life as well as I can, like most people. I try to waste as little time as possible in my life arguing. I don't see the point. I admit that maybe in my future, if I have children, that it may become an interesting issue, particularly if I decide to have children with someone who is adamant about their faith. Hopefully that won't happen and I'll be with someone who isn't a "believer".

I don't believe in the idea that religion is an evil thing. Good and evil is a product of religion, I think. Our inherent sense of it has partly been instilled in us through the ages by faith. I do believe that religion can at times hamper a person's faith in themselves. Or the opposite. I think religion is an element that brings peace of mind to some people, and helps them find in themselves added strength. I don't like that sometimes religion will lead a person to choose to take a discriminating or weak position.

I agree with the poster that said that religion will eventually be our downfall.

I'm going to blatently steal this from Lady Sage's current sig: "If only closed minds came with closed mouths."

That said, he is right. The buden of proof is on the believer. And until that proof is given, belief in a supreme being is not a justified belief. It might be true, as might many other things. As he said, we can't prove that "the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden" don't exist, but belief in those would also be unjustified.

And to state that is not to force your beliefs on others, any more than telling a person that believes in fairies, that they don't exist. The way forward for civilisation is to confront ignorance, respectfully, but not to let it lie.

I just could care less about religion, unless violence is carried out in it's name.

What's so bad about teaching children to disbelieve what there's no proof for? What I like about the so called "New Atheism" is that it takes a position, where the "old" kind is merely a lack of one.

Intolerance for the idea of God doesn't necessarily mean intolerance for the people who believe in God. You can bet I'm ready to argue with someone on the difference between proof and faith, but I don't immediately lose respect for that individual.

To believe or not to believe that is the question...

What one believes is ones business unless pushed on another person. That is why I have problem with one religion only. Practice whatever you wish in your own way as long as it hurts no one and I wont care. Too often religion preaches too much and practices not enough.

Practice what one preaches or one should get off the proverbial pot.

(That is why my sig is there... for quoting by others when in need of it) :)

I read this the other day and I believe this was also highlighted in a NYTimes Article this past Sunday.

Personally, I don't care.

If you impose your thoughts or beliefs onto another person unreasonably, it doesn't matter which side of the fence, field, railroad tracks, mountains, stream, city, nation, world, you suck. Period.

I don't care what New Label you call it. His shit smells just as bad as anyone else who's doing the same kind of process.

Hmmm... for some reason, I read this and we'd call it trollish behavior on the boards.

I am an agnostic with Taoist tendencies. I do not believe in deities or miracles or saints or the writings of people from millenia ago purporting the cause and reason of existence before mankind could even begin to conceive of the true mysteries and vastness of the universe. I believe that deistic religions are the products of self-centered and cosmically-impaired societies and it's nothing less than foolish to try and make our constantly expanding world fit within the confines of their dusty, old texts. Sometimes I wonder if the world's deistic religions could have come about from brushes with fantastic universal truths by ordinary people who meant well, but, being ordinary people in a darker, less enlightened world, did not have the capacity to process the enormity of what they'd seen thereby leaving much open to interpretation by the limited scope of their imaginations.

But regardless of how they came about, in most cases I don't think it took long for some to view these burgeoning concepts as opportunities to wield power and influence over large groups of people. (And sometimes I wonder if they underestimated just how powerful and influential these concepts would be...and would remain!) Using religion in this way, I believe, has corrupted its spiritual efficacy and diluted its significance as a tool of "higher learning." Buddhism being a happy and notable exception (non-deistic = coincidence?...I think not).

I say I am agnostic because I am open to the possibility that there is an underlying order to the universe that very well could be metaphysical. I just don't know. So, for the most part, I give people space to believe what they need to believe. After all, my ideas are based on a sort of faith, too. Take note of how many times I say "I believe" in this post, lol. But I do take issue with faith when it becomes more of a conquest than a quest for knowledge and understanding about one's place in the universe, especially when coming from those who exhibit very little capacity for understanding the basic human tenets of love, compassion and tolerance. I don't know a lot about the atheist movement, but I am sure there are ignorant, intolerant atheists, as well. So I guess what it comes down to, for me, is that it is not so much what one believes, but whether one uses that belief to make one's self wiser and a more thoughtful, kinder, and positive influence on the world.

So I don't know if any of this addresses the OP :p , but those are my thoughts this morning on faith and religion.

I admire Dawkins for the clarity of his thinking and for his commitment to science. On the issue of teaching evolution without diluting it with supernatural baloney, I am entirely on his side.

I don't think I can stand with him in his attack on religion, though. I don't share his alarmist concern for its inherent dangers, and I definitely don't think atheists are necessarily better or smarter people... the idea presents its own attractions to a number of audiences, much as religions do. I agree with the final evaluation of the author of the Wired article posted in the OP; the New Atheism looks way too much like its religious counterpart to be appealing to me.

I realized there was no god when I was 8 years old, in Church, by myself.

That doesn't mean I see nothing good in religion, but just that the good in it is solely due to human work, no divine intervention.

As such I don't see a reason to shove atheism down anyone’s throat. Most people who are 'true believers' won't be swayed and what do I gain by convincing someone on the fence that there is no magic candy land when they die, and there is no reason to be good beyond their own morality? Nothing, I just bring them into my world of pure logic and no comfort.

Before one attempts to ‘convert’ the world to atheism, you need to ask yourself what good will come of it? Its nice to think that the world will be suddenly enlightened, and religious violence and intolerance will be a thing of the past, but lets look at those who advocate promoting ‘New Atheism’. I’m not talking about looking at their character or what not, but their intelligence. As a rule we are talking about people in the top few % of intelligence who seem to be able to grasp the concept that not only is there no god, but that you don’t NEED a god to be a human, to have a purpose in life.

Human nature is what it is, and apparently belief in a higher power suits that nature. Just because we have science to explain away mysteries, it doesn’t change the nature, the desire for a higher purpose and cause to life seems a pretty universal human trait. What works for the top percent of intelligence may not work as well for the masses. Being ‘right’ doesn’t mean its practical. Religion may be the opiate for the masses but there seems to be a need.

While its in vogue to whine about the injustices of major religions, especially Christianity, those whines ignore the good which really over shadows the evil. Even those who reject Christianity often just fall into another religion. It sort of proves the universal need/desire for a higher power. They reject their parents religion and then instead believe in a religion younger than the automobile, casting spells and pretending to be druids or whatever. Its telling that rather than take the next logical step of, my religion is false, maybe there is no god, they go to my religion is false, maybe this even more illogical one is better. It tells me that there is a need that gets filled and people will jump through logic hoops to fill that need no matter how silly. (and don’t try it, I have +3 saving throws vrs any religion younger than my great grandmother ;) )

So in conclusion, while I think the ‘New Atheists’ are correct, there is no god, and belief in god, gods, spirits, etc, is just silly, I just don’t see any long term good coming out of promoting this for the mainstream.

An atheist zealot is just another kind of religious zealot. I see no difference.

I left my faith behind when I read St Thomas Aquinas and saw the Ontological Argument for the flawed piece of self-convincing handwaving that it is. I don't have to convince anyone else of that--I'm secure enough in my "non-faith" that I can tolerate others believing whatever they believe.

Incidentally, I'd say that in the balance, as much good has come of religion as evil since the dawn of mankind. It's just that the evil tends to be all concentrated in once place and it makes the news a whole lot more than the good.

i am not sure i understand the meme "the new atheism" because it looks alot like the older types of atheism: same arguments, same procedures, same type of evidence.

within the judeo-christian tradition, god has always been a name.
nothing more.
how people believe, what they project about themselves as being outside themselves, what they attribute to these projections, how they interact with them, has alot to do with the effects of naming--the possibilities that assigning a name sets up--that the name would refer to some guy, some older white guy with a beard (like me) is just one possibility--that the name would refer to other names and say nothing about the attributes of a (potential) referent is another. that there should be no name because god designates dimensions that surpass finite understanding is yet another (nominalism seems to me the only coherent form of christian belief, btw)

what tends to reinforce one view over another is the social situations within which it functions.
what accounts for the selection of one view over another is certain types of social functionality--certain types of social power, certain types of social control, certain modes of deference to hierarchy, etc etc etc.
the problem generated by the notion of faith is simply that it pushes you into an immediate relationship with the context that shapes your beliefs, such that you do not think about context, only about the terms that your belief brings together for you.
so it would seem unreasonable for one who believes to think that they beliefs rest in significant measure on social effects.

the judeo-christian way of framing this god character is very strange.
generally speaking, i am more sympathetic to the catholic version than i am to the protestant one simply because in catholicism you have lots of saints running around and the saints let you indulge the magic-doing aspects of religion--you can invoke them and they will go to the big god-office and talk to the chief of the administrative branch that runs the sector of the lifeshow that concerns you and see if something can be done. i think that's nice. dont you?


this magic-doing seems far more universal an aspect of spirituality than does the single abstract dude and the three phases of being attributed to him. religion seems to me mostly about magic, the desire to be able to do magic, to influence events by invoking a higher power, to have things go more or less your way, to counter impotence and isolation with spiritual artillery.

in this the gnostics seem to have been much more intereting than what later became catholicism, even though catholicism comes out of gnosticism, was a version of it prior to the conversion of constantine and the assimilation of christianity into the bureacratic structure of the roman state. with gnosticism, divine inspiration was everywhere and anyone could tap into it if they performed the correct rituals. the various gnostic groups seems much more horizontally organized, not at all about social control (which is what freaked augustine out about them) and deeply committed to magic---that is not to an abstract notion of faith, instead to kinds of practice.
anyone could be a prophet.
anyone could write gospels.
that sounds kinda cool.
but i digress.

atheism is just the inversion of christianity--both are predicated on this curious belief that human activity yields certainty--they simply disagree on what constitutes certainty. the idea of certainty seems to me wholly retrograde. you dont need it practically, and you cant ground it conceptually.

not knowing makes more sense to me.
because we dont.
we know some of how this phenomena we call reality is organized, we know some cause-effect relationships, we like to think we know alot more than we do becaue we take causal relations that obtain on one register and map them onto all others--whence the illusion that mechanics can function as a way of thinking about causation in general. but if you think about it, there are all kinds of problems with this--for example, even human beings as systems of systems operates on a number of scales at once, and causation within one scale/system does not follow the rules of other scales/systems--and the assumption that there is a single causation has been shown repeatedly to be a real obstacle to understanding--an epistemological limitation that follows from the frames of reference investigators drag from one level to another, the inability to suspend what they take for granted, what they think is "natural"...

i digress again.

stopping now.

If St. Thomas Aquinas made you an atheist... read Augustine's "Confessions". That book, and it's influence on the Catholic Church made me quit going to Catholic mass.

I've given up defining myself. I have no faith, nor belief in a god. It always feels to me that those who feel that it matters are all in the same ignorant boat - whether they are athiest or religious. In other words, the bad thing isn't believing or not believing in a god. The bad thing is treating people differently whether they do or do not.

What makes religious extremism a Bad Thing is the extremism, not the religion.

No, it isn't.

The burden of proof is on the athiest, as (s)he is challenging the claim that God exists. Contrary to popular belief, the aim of science isn't to prove but rather disprove. If science can't disprove that, in this case, God exists (Or even doesn't exist) then it simply says that God might exist but there's no scientific evidence available on the subject.

Anywho, what's the difference between teaching a child to believe in a certain religion? It's no worse than, say, teaching your child that there is no God.

Religion won't be the downfall of man; A lack of religion will be, though.

I guess when it comes to atheism i just don't really understand what the deal is. I know that they don't believe in god, i just don't understand why they can't just leave it at that. I guess religious folk of a certain sort do the same thing. The whole "let's organize just like the religious folk" thing just screams insecurity to me. Then again, i've never really felt the need to proclaim or justify my belief system to complete strangers.

I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to defer to science on matters where science has nothing to say. Besides, science only applies to places where we as a species can apply it, and scientists are just as prone to irrational pursuits as religious folk are(string theory? unified field theory? evolutionary psychology?). Ask a string theorist how they plan to verify the existence of something that's theoretically 10^-35 meters in diameter, and they'll say "I don't fucking know." The idea seems to be that if you put enough time into working on the problem, if you make enough of a sacrifice, one day you'll reach the promised land of little strings everywhere.

the idea that string theory provides something like an account of "ultimate reality" is itself a religious idea. it's not that far from the kind of stuff i just sat through in that ramtha infomercial dressed up as a feature film about the "quantum physics lifestyle"....this is not a remark about string theory itself, but rather about the claims some folk make about string theory--it is an example of what i was talking about in the last of the many digressions in the post above--strange assumptions that get dragged from one register into another when you shift scale/system.

btw i got into a long argument with a physicist who does this stuff at a party. what he is doing sounds interesting--but what he says it *means* (once he wanders outside the modelling itself) is just---well----gunk that only makes sense because he is himself inclined to want to believe and can't believe in the sense that organized religion would have him do, so this provides a way around all that.

there is a book---henri atlan's "from enlightenment to enlightenment"----that addresses this kind of cross-chatter (science/mysticism) in quite sophisticated ways that i'd recommend--before stuff like the tao of physics, which will lead you straight back into the string theory as the ultimate reality/manifestation of god thing. it is sadly a rare thing to read scientists who are also good philosophers. this guy is one. most aren't. and because they aren't. it's good to be skeptical abotu claims as to meaning.

Now that is an extremely bold statement. I mean how can you really say that there is no God? There is no proof that there is or isn't. Saying that you don't believe in God and that there is no God is 2 completely different things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't atheism a type of religion? Mankind is doomed...

And yes, I am an atheist as well. However, I chose atheism because I hated being forced to go to church.

Jeebers, how many times has this discussion been raised in my home? I think a majority here have expressed my own views.

From personal experience, I view a belief in a paradise beyond this one ultimately stems from a fear of death. A fear which is meant to be there for our own instictive survial. I watched my mother all to easily give up on life early with a belief that what was beyond was peaceful and more forgiving than this planet and the people on it. Maybe she is somewhere better, I told her to prove it to me and come back and haunt me, but so far nadda.

Now my father is of the same ilk as my mother in the belief thing (I wont say religion, it's not that, it's more of a theosophical eastern influence, a take what you like and leave the rest thing). Just recently he was given some bad news. Ive heard many saying in this thread that they wouldnt challenge someone with a belief but I'll be stuffed if I'll let him go without a reality check, which Ive already started working on.

I choose to make the most of the trees, stars, grass, laughter and love here. My brain can fool me into many unrealistic fantasies and dreams, but what I physically see, feel, hear, and touch is what I choose to believe in. I dont see anything wrong with challenging someone of faith to forget trying to get their head around what they cant see and make the most of whats in their own back yard. I wont be shoving it down peoples throats but if I notice faith harming someones quality of life I'm pointing some stuff out.

Of course some will hang onto their 'Get out of death free card' with iron grip, so if I'm going to shoot staight it would only be done with unheated intelligent discussion from both sides.

I disagree. What works for science, does not work for religion. Based upon what you're saying, I could come up with the most ridiculous concept immaginable (ala the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and the onus would fall upon you to disprove it. No. It should be up to me to demonstatively *validate* that my belief in whatever deity is accurate.

There is a fine line between teaching, and indoctrination. On the surface, there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a child to believe in a certain religion. It's when a child is taught that their myopic view is the only acceptable "truth", and that if they don't believe it then they will surely burn for eternity in a pit of fire...that's what knots my undies a bit.

I don't think that they are two completely different things, at all. To him, a man that does not believe in God, there is no God. I see it as synonomous. At least in so far as Ustwo views his beliefs. Consider again...my Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy. Do you believe in the FSM? No, you do not. Can you prove that he does not exist? No...you cannot. Would you go so far as to say that FSM does not exist? Probably. At least, I would hope so. Same thing, really.

Oh, and by the way...if you don't "get" the Flying Spaghetti Monster...just google him. It's just a much more elaborate version of the Invisible Flying Purple Llama.

Both points of view are ridiculous. This is faith we're talking about--including the faith in the non-existence of God. There's no "burden of proof" where faith is involved. "Proof" and "faith" inhabit entirely different realms.

It's a symptom of the phenomenon called "belief" that things the believer observes tend to be construed as evidence supporting the belief. This makes us think absurd things like the notion that there are ways to prove or disprove elements of faith.

Yes its a bold statement, but one I can't see a way to weasel around. I have no proof, but I also have no proof that god isn't a small invisible fish that lives in my anus. That was my ridiculous reply in my younger days when someone said to prove god didn't exsist, I'd say prove god isn't a small invisible fish in my anus no one can see. Obviously the flying spaghetti monster has more mass appeal but he is a younger god than my anus fish.

If you count anything you can't absolutely prove as a religion than yes, atheism is a religion, but than so is science. Mankind is doomed regardless, so I don't see much we can worry about there.

I hated being forced to go to Church too, but only AFTER I had my personal relevation. Prior to that I was worried because my parents didn't seem to go enough and I was at Church on my own, on a school day, before class when I figured it all out. I'd be a pretty nervous atheist if a lack of desire to go to Church was my prime motivation.

Thanks Roach, nice post.

A buddy of mine is Atheist, and would often attack my religious views. So one day I tired of it and asked him what makes the Universe. He went on about various leading theories, including the string theory. Having recently seen a show on the String Theory we had a discussion about it.

So I slowly meandured my way to get him in a corner. I asked him if he felt that miniscule waving circles made of no matter could create matter, energy, and every force/thing/motion in existence. He said yes, that it was very plausible.

So then I told him why is it so hard to believe, if he believed the String Theory, that there is a greater being which seeks balance and love. Why is it so hard to believe that the good or bad we do in life will affect us later.

He was stumped, but he promised to come back with an answer. That was 3 years ago and has not bothered me about my faith since.

It takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist, as much as to be a Theist. So, I'm not sure how you can mix agnosticism with that.

Agnosticism is simply not knowing the answer, while faith doesn't require the knowledge, and therefore tends to be proselytizing. This is what people don't like, the preaching of another's faith without reason.

Here's a bit from a book called "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law.

Of course, many would claim that the evidence points to one side or the other, but that's not the point.

Okay, so what's the most simple explanation for the existence of the universe?

That sounds remarkably like some works of Carl Sagan, but he talks about dragons in our garage.

Yes, well, that's the problem isn't it. Or it would be, were the evidence equal on both sides. I happen to be of the opinion that it's not, and that the evidence is in favour of atheism. The post was mainly pointed at the agnostics in the room.

Occam's razor is certainly a good way to chose what you believe, but belief, imo, is weaker than truth. I see no contradiction in believing that my garden is fairy free whilst refusing to cite it as an "objective" truth (if such a thing even exists). Perhaps the desire for our belief set to be "true" is the problem (or a problem).

Wrt "The New Atheism", i'm generally wary of anything that draws battle lines. But then again, if my friend told me he believed he was immune to electricity and proceeded to take a toaster into the bath with him, i'd fight him all the way*. I guess Dawkins thinks the damange caused by the confrontation will be outweighed by the benefits of victory. This is usually about the point i stop having opinions.

* edit: ideally my friend would proceed to take an unplugged toaster into the bath with him and then laugh at me for falling for it.

What evidence? Show what evidence there is to discount the existence of a diety. The argument between atheists and spiritualists can really be summed up with a repeated back-and-forth of "you're wrong" and "no, your wrong." The basis of the conflict is a strong sense that the other fella's wrong. There is no "evidence" either way, at least not in the scientific sense.

Just to be clear, i'm pretty much agnostic. I do find instances of faith in others, be it atheist or spiritual, to be interesting, though.


Edit: and as an aside about ockham's razor: I've never understood why it would be advantageous, if one is attempting to figure something out, to always pursue the simplest explanation. I could see it being advantageous to choose the explanation most easily verified, which might sometimes be the simplest. Very often, explanations are complex. I have a feeling that if mr. ockham was alive today he'd be selling diets and herbal supplements on late night television.

It reminds of something i once heard concerning people who lived in the last millenia. I'm not sure which century exactly. The deal is that they thought that rats were borne out of dirty rags, and that maggots spawned directly from rotting meat.

I could see this discovery being predicated on ockham's razor. You have youself a rat problem and you notice that the rats happen to like your cellar, which has a pile of dirty rags in it(it might be the food, too). Now, given the choice between the idea that the rats are the result of complex biological systems working within the framework of the ecology of your neighborhood who mate and produce offspring, and the idea that the rats just spawn out of the rags, which idea would ockham have you choose? Which one is simpler?

Also, though an above example uses ockham's razor to refute theism, it strikes me that the idea of a god as the originator of our universe is actually a whole lot simpler than whatever the scientific soup dujour on the subject.

One can not prove 'non-exsistance'. I can not prove that there is no Big Foot, I can not prove that aliens do not live amongst us, and I can not prove there is no god.

This is why the burden of proof is on the believers. Humanity may be ignorant on why the Universe is here, but that doesn't make an invisible friend in the sky a valid reason.

It may feel better to believe the myths, both old and new, it may fill a void and keep us warm at night, but thats about as far as it goes.

No one has to prove anything. Faith does not require proof. Faith and proof are two different things. Humanity is ignorant on why the universe is here, period.

Heh, that's Colbert's line. "Isn't it a whole lot simpler to say that "God did it"?

But as Dawkins responded when he was the guest on the show, "then who did God?"

"We don't know how existence came into existence" is simpler than "God created existence and we don't know how God came into existence".

(I say all this and yet I hold on to a belief in God.I was just never a big fan of the 'proofs' or 'evidences' of God. Cosmological is my favorite and yet you see me attacking it here.)

I was an atheist, simply because I despise "faith" as I knew it - people using it to ignore science. Science, in my mind, is the most effective method we as humans have for advancing our race. Through the exploration, documentation, experimentation and repetition, we can make sense of our world. By turning our backs on it and relying on "faith" we stagnate and stall.

I'm not claiming there is scientific proof of non-Divine Creation, only that using the scientific method would be the best approach.

The only reason I'm not an atheist is I believe I was being hypocritical in doing so. I could hardly argue that theists were silly for basing their lives on a book written by an Almighty imaginary man without being able to verify it, if I based my life on the non-existance of such.

I simply won't commit to the existance OR nonexistance of a diety, because neither has verifiable credibility.

It's simply not important to me. Religion is only "critical" once in your life - right after you die. If there's a God and a Heaven, then I'm fucked. If there isn't, then.. well, I'm still dead and therefore still fucked.

But because I don't live my life with a fear of death, nor do I spend my days thinking about the very last moment of my life, it never comes up. Why should I commit so strongly to something that I don't and won't ever care about? Furthermore, a strong committal to either side would lead me (simply by the nature of strong belief) to ignore an entire half of society with valuable insights into a simple philosophical question.

When you're in a 10% minority and a significant portion of the other 90% actively engage in societally acceptable discrimination ranging from trying to tell you you're wrong all the way to believing that your contrary belief (or lack of belief) means that you're incapable of being anything but evil, you tend to want to speak out at those whose beliefs not only seem absurd, but cause them to hate you for thinking differently.

I guess the simple way to say it is that it's hard to keep your mouth shut when most of the world is against you.

I can see where the frustration might come in. Lord knows that i'm often frustrated by the pigheadedness of the pious. However, it doesn't seem to me to be all that constructive to essentially adopt the tactics (as dawkins has) of your religious persecutors by proselytizing and condemning those who disagree with you.

Not all religious folk are intolerant of atheists just as not all atheists are intolerant of religious folk. Dawkins and his ilk appear to be, and to me that makes them just as bad as that guy on the bus who asks you if you have a close personal relationship with jesus christ.

Being an Atheist who does not believe in God because there is no proof either way requires no faith. This is the Agnostic Atheist. Being an Atheist who strongly believes that there is no God requires faith. This is the Strong Atheist. I am the first, I do not believe that either can be proven, but when given the choice of nothing or something, nothing is the default option.

given a choice between:

The universe has existed forever and has been in its current form for approximately 15 billion years, the beginning of which is believed to have been an event commonly known as the Big Bang which flung all material and energy outward from a singularity in a pattern of motion that can still be observed today. The functioning of this system consists of observable patterns, of which human life is a minor one. With the advancement of technology and the evolution of human ingeniuity, we will eventually be able to observe and document these patterns through processes that will yield consistent results with repeated observations

and

An omnipotent being has existed forever and at some point in time, which is disputed by the followers of this being as having been as long as 15 billion years ago and as short as 6000 years ago, according to writings by previous followers claiming to have been contacted by this being, it created the universe from nothing simply by willing it into existence from nothing. This being has not proven its existence by contacting us for thousands of years, but we must believe because of stories passed down by those who experienced its presence thousands of years ago, which weren't written down until hundreds of years after the fact.


I am inclined to take the simpler solution.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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?

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.

Indeed, which speaks to my earlier point regarding faith.

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.

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???

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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). :)

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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. :)

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

They can easily be equated with God for we, too, know who is responsible for the activities depicted in the Bible. It is the men who wrote it...

Okay, ustwo's remarks were condescending. If you have read any of his other posts, you would not have found this surprising...

Right, but...

1) We might not necessarily be talking about Christianity

2) There are still mysteries out there more compelling than angels, burning bushes and parting seas

I didn't want to name names, but I understand your concern. I doubt this sort of sentiment is uncommon among atheists, though.

Okay, but it is an example of how non-belief in a deity is not faith but simply common sense, something that I think everyone can relate to on some level.

As a side note, at least half of the world's religious people base their faith on scripture...

There are plenty of mysteries out there but none of them are cause for religion. I don't think that the answer "we don't know" constitutes faith of any kind...

Do you think this because you know a lot of atheists that say this or is it because it sounds like something an atheist might say? Personally, I doubt many atheists have given the matter much thought. Indeed, I hadn't until I read ustwo's post, hence my response to it. I have always felt that certain individuals needed religion because life truly is hard but I never thought about why it is so popular among the masses and why its existence is largely independent of culture. There's also a highly disproportionate number of atheists in academia which probably contributed to ustwo's condescending conclusion...

Also, feel free to "name names." We all know each other, here. ustwo's been here, literally, for years...

Now who exactlly said that?

If someone said that only tall people played professional basketball does that mean that everyone who doesn't play professional basketball are short?

Well, you seem take an irregular exception to the word faith. I don't believe in deities, but I do have faith in many things. Most of them having nothing to do with religion. Do you or do you not have faith in what you believe to be the truth?


I didn't say that they were. I only meant that if one is looking for compelling reasons to have faith in a religious philosophy they needn't ever open the Bible or any other religious text.

Well, I know two atheists very well, my mother and my sister. And I know for a fact that they view religious faith as nonsensical and believe many religious followers, and probably the bulk of American Christians, to be intellectually inferior. And I can't say that I disagree with them to a limited extent. I've been around backwards religious folks enough to know this is true to some extent (although the word ignorant may more accurately describe these aforementioned Christianfolk). Being that it is human nature to compare and contrast one's self with others, very often favorably of ourselves, I've little doubt that there are atheists who take a bit of narcissistic pride in their atheism.


Well, ustwo has been only respectful to me since I came here. It is not my intent to inflame or insult.

I inferred it from your previous posts and I'm too tired to look back right now. It will have to wait until sometime tomorrow.

If you are saying that all atheists are of exceptional intelligence I might have to see some proof of that. I don't think one need necessarily have above average intelligence to lose their faith in god, nor to have never had it in the first place.

Last night's newst episode of South Park made a good point; Athiesm is no different than religion. They're just on opposite sides of the same specturm. It takes a certain amount of faith to claim that there is a God and it takes a certain amount of faith to claim that there isn't one.

In the literal sense, yes. However, in a colloquial sense, some things in life you're so sure of that describing them using the term "faith" is simply inappropriate. Do you have faith that your door opens? Do you have faith that you can leave your house? Do you have faith that you can cross the street? No one talks like this...

If I may quote myself, let me show what started this part of the conversation and bring it to a full circle...Even in the literal sense of the word "faith," this much is true...

You misunderstand me. I mean that we are all friends here and saying who said what is not inflammatory nor is it an insult...

You're getting your religious philosophy from South Park? Considering how badly they've slammed Mormonism, Islam, and Scientology, not to mention their regular pokes at all forms of Christianity, I'd be shocked if the show ever had a serious message other than "it's funny, go ahead and laugh at it..."

If atheism and religion are on opposite sides of "the spectrum," then what sides are Christianity and Islam on this thing? The religions I've listed, so far, take far more "faith" to believe than the simple common sense notion of atheism...
Again, I am going to quote myself although, really, it will just be me repeating myself, but it is an especially meaningful response to this idea. Everyone is an atheist of the other guy's religion. Atheists only add one more religion to that list. How far apart can religion and atheism be on this "spectrum?"

Yet there are those who feel so compelled that they feel this way about their religion and it's okay to say they have faith. I don't really understand your exception to being told you have faith. As you said above to I_L, everyone is an atheist of the other guy's religion. Everyone who is not an atheist is going to consider your beliefs faith.
That's cool, but I didn't think it necessary to name names so I didn't. I just wanted to comment. Although I may have partly misinterpreted his statement.

It takes absolutely no faith on my part whatsoever to not believe in something.

I am not in opposition to anything.

I am quite comfortable in my conclusions that there is no God. I generally don't care what other's believe (though if pressed I think they are fooling themselves).

So let me ask this, does atheism preclude the existence of any unifying metaphysical "organization" (for lack) in the universe or is it only the existence of a "god" that is objectionable?

I know the case in regards to my mom and sister, they basically believe "what you see is what you get." That there is no who, what, when, where or why for their existence and likewise for the existence of the universe. It just is and they feel no compulsion or need to know more. Is this indicative of the feelings of most atheists or are there a variety of attitudes one might take and still be considered an atheist?

so.... yes, have a look at my posts (# 27, & 55) I made this point, but I guess they were too brief to be conisidered by the thread. maybe I should write for South Park?

at any rate: (oops, took too long to save the post, see below)

Okay, how about this. One of my exceptions to using the word "faith" is that one of its meanings is to believe in something even when there's no reason to. However, there is very good reason not to believe in religion (again, in any of the ones listed so far). They are as believable as any of the other childhood fairy tale. In this sense of the word, it's inappropriate to use "faith" to describe atheism...

Well, now we're starting to move to a semantic argument, which I abhor. Strangely, the conversation addressed above is also moving there. Defining religion is like defining life. We all know one when we see one, so it's easy to define by example but it's hard to define in words.

It also depends on what you mean by "metaphysical." I am tempted to make another thread on this subject but let me just say that there is very little useful distinction between the metaphysical and the physical. As far as I can tell, the only reasonable definition of metaphysical is "physical events that never really happen."

Having said all that, plenty of atheists have a physical model of the universe. There is obvious organization caused by underlying forces that govern how everything works and we are trying to understand them. None of this requires God and I will guess that this is all that defines atheism. I must also say that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is especially silly. Once you go that far, you might as well dress him up in a big red suit, have him wear a long white beard and say "ho ho ho..."

Well, I'm sorry, KM. I don't mean to harangue you about it. I'm just curious is all. From what I can tell you are an intelligent and thoughtful person and I could care less what you do or don't believe. Just as with the atheists in my family - it never enters my mind in reference to how I feel about them. We rarely talk about it nor do I need to talk to them about it. I was there for the progression and I understand how their atheism came about. It's not that I question atheism as a concept, not at all, I question it much less than I do most established religions. I guess I should just accept the obvious here: that the popular connotation of the word faith, makes the word anathema to those who have rejected this popular idea of faith (even though, personally, I think the word faith, in a sense is applicable to atheism). At any rate, I don't mean to be annoying. But it's been known to happen...

And perhaps metaphysical is not the right word, but in essence I mean a unifying order in the universe that has purpose, rather than an arbitrary gathering of space, matter and circumstances. I guess...something like that.

I think you are misguided Chalatan, and I would debate with you on this matter for ever. Your atheisim IS faith based...

I assure you, I have taken nothing that has been said in this thread (by anybody) personally. I don't think you have deliberately moved discussions to semantic topics. Personally, I think I have made very compelling arguments and you have had little choice by playing Devil's Advocate in scrutinizing the meaning of our terms. I just don't find semantic arguments interesting since the meaning we attribute to words are entirely arbitrary.

As a side note, the etymology of metaphysics comes from a chapter of a book that Aristotle wrote and literally means "after physics." It was a chapter that came after the chapter about physics and he titled it as such so that the reader can know that he was no longer talking about the real world and is moving onto the topic of philosophical bullshit...

Perhaps this is the crux of the discussion here. It may be that religious people want to believe in something that give them "purpose" in life, whereas atheists don't need one beyond what they make for themselves. Indeed, I find it curious that some people say that religion does just this for them since I see no real purpose given by any religious doctorine. They appear as mysterious and unanswering of that question as anything else. The Bible, for instance, only says that your life has a purpose but fails to mention what that purpose is. Perhaps merely the reassurance of one is enough, even if what that purpose is remains unsaid, where atheism doesn't even do that much. However, the idea that these people can't give themselves a purpose in life, even if they don't have to specify what that purpose is, may be the source of ustwo's condescension...

Well, it's based on the same faith that I have that if I let go of my glass of coke, it will fall. In some sense, I do have faith in this idea. In another sense, it doesn't take a leap faith to see that this is true, regardless of your religion or lack thereof. I think it is the latter of which Charlatan speaks, rather than the former...

This tempts me to start another thread on the difference between the Christian worldview and the atheist one. I choose Christianity, in particular, because it is the religion I know best. It's hard for me to talk about religion, in general, if I don't really know the other ones...

hmm...philosophy is "bullshit" but religion is serious.




ok, i dont get it.



atheism is a religion....




fundamentalists like to say that.
it says more about them than it does about its purported object.
on the other hand, the atheists who continue to operate as if christianity was a necessary frame of reference even for them provide fuel for that sort of statement.
so maybe in some cases, there is a bit of accuracy to it
but in the main, the sentiment is just, well, meaningless and--what is far worse for a meaningless statement--it is tedious.

I'll say! Who said that "philosophy is 'bullshit?'" If you do a search in this thread for the word "bullshit," you will find that there is only one sentence using that word.

To give you an idea of how egregious your understanding is, let me draw up an exact analogy to what you're doing...

"What these teachers propose is educational nonsense."
"You mean education is nonsense? I don't get it!"

I think you might be a little niggardly with your common sense, there. You may have to think about this a little while longer, hmm?

If I understand you correctly, the whole "atheism is religion too" argument is meaningless and tedious. I can actually agree with this...

[QUOTE=KnifeMissile]...
Well, it's based on the same faith that I have that if I let go of my glass of coke, it will fall. In some sense, I do have faith in this idea. In another sense, it doesn't take a leap faith to see that this is true, regardless of your religion or lack thereof. I think it is the latter of which Charlatan speaks, rather than the former...

QUOTE]

You're close, in the sense that I operate out of a set of definitions. It is senseless to discourse on a topic, without defining your terms and/or parameters, as you would need to be able to communicate your ideas.

I would dispute that you have faith that your glass of coke will fall, I would instead state that you know from experience, empirically derived, plus from the knowledge of proven scientific theorems, that in the presence of the force of gravity, and, all other things being unchanged or equal (ceteris paribus) your glass of coke will continue this behaviour each time you let go of it.

Your faith in the scientific method is your starting point. And useful for the paradigm of your world.

Faith in a god, does not require scientific theorems or proofs. It stands on it's own merit as being merely accepted.

the same faith operates for atheism, as there is no proof (or just as much proof as for theists) to support that there is no god. It merely takes faith to believe that there is no god.

Exactly right. The possibility is not zero. No matter how small, it's not zero. So, we should respect that possibility. Dawkins, though I respect him, is too intolerant for my tastes.

I do not believe in God, but I also do not believe in intolerance. The reason the religious right are causing problems is not because they are religious. It's because they are jackasses that don't respect other's rights to believe differently. When atheiests become intolerant, then they are just as bad as intolerant Christians (or any other religion).

knife missle:

whaddya getting so pissy about? i just asked a question.

here is why:



i understood the context (none of this is rocket science, you know?)
but i found it a strange statement.

and the syllogism you run out it like most are--formally ok but not really terribly illuminating.
that's the problem with syllogisms.
i could go on to make a parallel between this choice of demonstration, the peculiar syntax of your snippy response to me, but like they used to say on "in living color" homey dont play that.



see?
pissy is easy peasy.
generally, though, it doesnt really get you anywhere.
i indulge it from time to time, it never seems to get me anywhere, so i relay that bit of accumulated "wisdom" to you.

i could go on, but this is not the kind of exchange i had in mind at all, and really is not that much fun.

have a lovely thread.