Atheists are fanatics too.
 

I know this will make a lot of people mad.

If you're an atheist, and you go out of your way to tell people that they're wrong because they follow a religion, that makes you a fanatic.

Since I'm sure these arguments will come up, I'll go ahead and offer my rebuttal.

No, tspikes, you're wrong because we aren't motivated by a god that doesn't exist.

You don't know if there's a god or not.

I do too...

No, you don't. Shut the fuck up.

But we never had a pope or anything tell people to kill people.

No, not yet (or at least any notable incidents like the Inquizition). Atheists were almost non-existent until fairly recently, though. Give them 500 more years and then we'll talk.

But the creationist theory isn't very believable

Who gives a shit how we got here. We can't change it.

But evolution

Again, who cares. It doesn't have much to do with religion.

I see this trend everywhere that just because people are atheist it gives them immunity from being a fanatic. You're not right, and neither are religious people. So stop comparing dick size, man up, and agree to disagree; because nobody's gonna ever be right or wrong.

Nah, that's not fanaticism.

Fanaticism is not only telling them their wrong, but going out of your way to try and force them to your point of view.

Your example is just someone who is an ass and extremely vocal about it.

True, but there are many an atheist that do that.

I feel that those arguing against one's right to school prayer, when the majority wishes it or not accepting that there are intelligent and religious people in this world, would fall under fanatic category.

I have met the above types. Their tactics and rhetoric sounds the same, just change the words a bit.

But some of us might just crack a big smile
It's more than verbal at times. Some people have actively tried to force me to abandon God and take up evolution. It's absurd. It's clearly none of their buisness.
That's true. God is scientifically improbable, but so are many things. How long ago were heart transplants impossible? I'm not saying God is scientifically possible because he can't be disproven, simply that no one has any authority to dismiss anything from reality completly.
:lol:
Interesting. I hadn't considered the age differences between the movements.
Evolution (everyone's counter to creationism) is just on the cusp of believable. Until there is proof, it doesn't matter.
What does evolution have to do with eating bread and drinking wine to celebrate the life of the Son of God? Can evolution disprove that Herod killed every first born to try and stop Jesus from taking his power?
:thumbsup:

The reason school prayer is not allowed is because it would be religious fanatacism being forced on atheists. You pray in church, temple, home, etc. You go to school to learn English, Math, Social Studies, etc.

Just because the majority wishes it does not make it right. School prayer was done away with because it created a situation that bred trouble, students that did not wish to pray would be either forced to or targeted for ridicule. It would violate others rights, besides no where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to school prayer.

I'm not saying that there aren't atheist fanatics, I'm just disagreeing with the definition that tspike presented. I have gotten into arguments/discussions with people over religion, but that doesn't make me a fanatic.

You're taking the word aethiest and applying values to it that don't exist in attempt to bring it inline with other religious beleifs so that it can be treated and argued against in the same way. fanatics can and do exist with any form of beleif. It is not a movement, or a faith. Aethiests do not share a common core of values so I find it unlikely that Aethiests will not go to war or kill in name of well, no-one. Aethiesm is the right not to beleive in what you are told, the right to question the validity of what is given to us as fact. Why don't you try to listen to reasons why a person is aethiest instead of trying to categorize them with others so you have a reason not to

Ha! Who cares?! Of course! Why didn't any of those stupid atheist fanatics think of that. What Church exactly do you belong to that teaches us this wise doctrine of "Who Cares"??

Fanaticism of any sort is bad, whether it's Christian, Muslum, Feminist, Athiest, or anything. Being too tied up in one's own religion or politics to be able to listen to the other side without yelling "You're WRONG!" seems wrong, no matter who's doing it.

The people that try and convince me that I ought follow God by quoting their own faith and telling me I'll go to hell if I don't believe will never convince me. The people that try and tell me that there is no God because there is no proof and so on will never convince me.

Not only does fanaticism annoy people and destroy social structures and peace, but it also doesn't work!

Oh, and prayer in school shouldn't be allowed, despite the majority. Often, "majority rules" leaves the rest of us for dead.

Shouldn't this thread be called: Aetheist's can be fanatics too (or how I learned that people can be assholes regardless of thier religous beliefs).

Proof plz.

You know, unless you're making spurious claims that you can only back up with, "No you don't. Shut the fuck up". Eloquent.

*ding!

a little humility is a wonderful trait for anyone to have...

Fact: the chance of god existing is the EXACT same as that of a purple anus flying around the rings of Saturn.

Well, just because we haven't discovered the flying purple anus doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

People who believe in god are FAR more fanatical than athiests, at least from what I've seen. People who believe in god let it rule their every action and recite 300 pages of bible passages to people who do things they don't agree with.

Simply saying, "There is no god" doesn't make someone fanatical.

Fanatics are those who do outrageous nonsensical things in the name of their cause (i.e. blowing up abortion clinics to save lives).

Hmmm...bit of an overstatement in that title, wouldn't you say? I mean, I'm an atheist...but I don't wear it on my sleeve. In fact, there are, I would imagine, few that actualy know of my beliefs, or the lack thereof. I bring it out when I feel that it is either necessary, or apropriate. To me, a fanatic describes someone that is all consumed by their beliefs, convictions, loyalties or emotions. My belief system does not include a "god". That one simple part of my makeup does not, I believe, consume me.

I think that you may be falling into the trap of claiming atheism to be a religion of itself. It is not. Rather it is the lack of a religion. You believe in God. I do not. You have religion. I do not. It's all really rather simple.

To be fair, though, I do know that there are some of my ilk out there that like to "preach", much as a born again ultra-Christian would. I would submit that those are the atheists that are trying to convince themselves, moreso than you, of the nonexistence of a deity. But most of us, I think, have made our own peace with our convictions....long ago. So, do me a favor and be careful of that broad brush with which you want to paint us. ;)

Read some about the history of the world. Religion has existed since the dawn of civilization. There was some form of religion in every corner of the world. Atheism was not even a widely-known concept until somebody separated church and the state. Before that, you rebelled against a religion, now you just don't believe there is a god.

If you can prove that there is or isn't a God, could you please enlighten the rest of us???
I have that right as a person who believes in a god too. I practice it on a daily basis. If you think that just because I follow some doctrines means that I don't question them, or are you implying that all religious people are blind??? What I'm saying is that religious people can be as valid, invalid, or fanatical with their views on God as atheists and agnostics because, simply put, nobody knows for sure what's out there.

I'll get to some more comments after a bit. I know my first post was muddy and kind of harsh, but every writer needs a chance to clarify.

So...because you say so? I love how you put the burden on proof on me, the one who makes no claims.

P.S. Atheism is a word grounded in greek roots. Atheos. Or godless.

Edward Montagu sez

"As long as the manners of the Romans were regulated by this first great principle of religion, they were free and invincible. But the atheistical doctrine of Epicurus, which insinuated itself at Rome … undermined and destroyed this ruling principle.... [This principle of religion] controlled manners, and checked the progress of luxury in proportion to its influence. But when the introduction of Atheism had destroyed this principle, the great bar to corruption was removed, and the passions at once let loose to run their full career, without check or control."

That takes us back to the B.Cs. How far do I need to go back? I mean, is two thousand years long enough?

Yes, religion has existed for a long time, as far as we have discovered. But as far as I understand it the reeaaaallllyyy early religions were based in nature worship, not the worship of a diety/ies.

I have to agree with you here. Free thinking is not just the realm of the Atheist.

But I do have to say that there are far, far fewer fanatical atheists than fanatical religious zealots. And being outspoken about your beliefs, be they for or against god, does not qualify as fanaticism.

This thread only seems to prove that even religious people can make erroneous generalizations about people of a certain belief structure...

There are fanatics in every religion (or belief system). Just because a few people are fanatics doesn't make all of them fanatics. Yes, some atheists are assholes, and fanatics, and won't listen to anything you try to tell them. Guess what? So are some Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. Doesn't mean everyone is that way. That's like saying all Asians are good at math, or all black people are criminals. It's a generalization, and like all generalizations it's incorrect, including this one.
And saying "Shut the Fuck up" isn't going to make you seem like one of the more enlightened...

I don't know. What I do know, is that Atheism requires a certain amount of faith as well.

I belong to the League of Agnostics, where "We don't know if we belive in anything or not"

Excellent post.

Seems to me the OP has some issues that need to be worked out.

ha, me too. Although I think of it more as we're just covering our ass...If we don't actually subscribe to one, then we can't be wrong! :p

It's easier to wind up with Atheism/Agnosticism just because... well, of the obvious.

There's been TONS of religions throughout time - everything from Apollo the Sun God to L. Ron Hubbard's "thetas". Do you REALLY think YOURS is the right one? Really now, you see nothing wrong with believing in some man that lived 2000 years ago that could walk on water and defy the laws of nature, yet you see nothing wrong with a supposed intergalactic nuclear war that took place billions of years ago by aliens?

I think the "fanatics" are the ones that won't even possibly entertain the idea that god may not exist and base their entire lives around a particular religion, letting a POSSIBLE made up story rule their only chance at living and experiencing life.. specially when it comes to insignificant things (for example, "I can't move in with you before marriage or I'll go to hell" or "I can't have sex/have kids before marriage or god will hate me".. that type of garbage).

Pray tell...what are those equal odds numerically expressed? :p

Neither one can be proved or disproved!

Scientists can't see the purple flying anus because it flies so fast and is made of dark matter. But it's purple... or so the legend says!

There is a middle ground here people......acceptance of human nature.
Why does there need to be a "Right" god. And who among us is enlightened enough to say anyone is wrong to believe as they do. The only difficulty here is the assumption by some that they somehow KNOW what this God thing is....

I do not understand why one, or none would be better than another, when likely, each of us has our own understanding of what "It" really is.......to ourselves.

HAHAHA...I loved that. I'm gonna have to send that on to my dad. He's a rather fanatical atheist when you get him talking about it...which is more and more often these days.

When I was in my early teens I thought of myself as atheist. With a little mulling over and a chance to expose my mind to a few more years of asst. viewpoints I figured I was a reformed agnostic. An atheist firmly believes in nothing, and quite often generates a lot of emotional heat when rubbing against more orthodox beliefs. An agnostic figures an answer is there somewhere if only they look hard enough. A reformed agnostic is more relaxed about the whole thing because when we die we know, and until our death/ultimate lesson we can get on with other things while enjoying the play of all sorts of ideas.

Again, I commend you, tecoyah, for being clear, concise, fair and balanced. I hope that in my remaining years on this earth, I can regard things with such a level head and steady voice, as you have.

you're right my post did seem to imply that but it was not my intention, my point should have been that aethiests should be afforded the right not to beleive in god as you are the right to believe.

I'm not sure how individuals on this board follow the bible or certain doctrines, so I'm not commenting on them, however, pretty much EVERY single religious person I've ever known has been utterly ignorant and unwilling to accept differing viewpoints and/or change.

For example, this girl I know is a die hard christian. She won't have sex before marriage because "god will hate her" or whatever the excuse is, yet she will do EVERYTHING else, even anal. She also verbally makes opinions bashing gay people, yet she has been with other girls.

Others have done silly things like realize "Diablo 2" is about the devil halfway through (as if the name didn't give that away..) then stop and say, "I have a bad feeling about this game. It's too evil." Riiiight.

Again, it's not that EVERY religious person in the world is like that, just pretty much ALL the ones I've ever known.. and that's not good.

I think that is a big reason why I am agnostic, just because the absurdity of how they carry out their lives and the basis of which they form these wacked out opinions of things. Yeah, you're REALLY gonna burn for eternity for playing Diablo 2 :lol:

It seems to me, Stompy, that you probably only pay attention to the vocal religious people.

The ones I hang with are nothing like what you describe.

But then again, we don't shove religion in anyone's face either.

Perhaps you ought to expand your understanding of religion and get to know what more liberal Christians think and believe.

Oh, I have quite a good concept and understanding of religion, actually. I don't have a problem in that area.

It's not that I *only* pay attention to the vocal religious, it's that the ones who are really into it... pretty much all of them are like that, like I said. It's not like I've only known a handful, either. I've known quite a bit of them over the years. But as I said, I'm sure not ALL of them are like that.

There are some who are kinda religious who never attend church and don't base their lives off of it, and they generally aren't the ones to be how I described... which is fine.

I have a co-worker that's also on TFP, and he can vouch for that, haha.. we've had two people work here over the past year or so that were very religious, and they were complete nut jobs. I know it's bad to make a generalization but... it's amost to the point where it's not a coincidence.

I have a best friend who is very religious and she is the kindest, sweetest person ever. I know she's waiting until she gets married to have sex, but she doesn't look down on those of us who aren't waiting. She goes to church on a regular basis, but doesn't harp on us if we don't go. I have NEVER heard her say a bad thing about gay people or pro-choicers.
She is very religious, and yet she doesn't shove it in anyone's face. She lets her religion shine by itself, I don't even know when she told me she was Christian. It's like I just subtley became aware of it.
I think people like her are in the majority.
We notice the vocal, fanatical ones because people like my friend are so quiet and subtle about how they live their lives according to their beliefs.
Perhaps you're in an area where there are a lot of assholes, but that's certainly not the case with my peers. We're pretty hesitant to push ANY beliefs on another person, especially religion.

I have known many Christians, some are members of my family whom I love and respect. However, I just cannot understand why any thinking person would logically grab onto one of the religions. I think it is more emotional than logical since we humans seem to have a deep need to understand our place in the universe and do not want to believe that we just live and die and that's all there is.

I guess I'm agnostic and cling to the idea that there may be some truth in all or most of the world's religions, or not. I haven't met any fanatical atheists yet but have met several fanatical religious ones. IMHO fanatical people seem to push their beliefs on others because deep down they question the basis of their thinking and are trying to reinforce themslves as much as to gain new converts.

Stompy,

Thank you for posting your experiences.

All I can say is, that in my 40+ years of life, I have met many deeply religious people, and what you describe is in the minority in my experience.

What a crock. . . next you'll be saying that prayer in a public place shouldn't be allowed because an atheist MIGHT overhear you!! Nothing is being forced on anyone in this situation, if you don't wish to participate then don't, but that does NOT give you the right to tell me what I can and cannot do! You have your rights, and I have mine, I object when the minority inflicts their rights upon me under the guise of being politically correct! Why is it alright for you to choose not to pray in schools, but it is not alright for me to choose that I want to pray in schools?!? Nobody is forcing you, and I don't think anywhere outside of religious based schools has a prayer activity been required for decades!

Before you make it, no I will not agree that the practice of prayer is discriminatory against those that wish to be exempted, because in attempting that argument you're saying that it's more acceptable to have the converse and discriminate against the large majority that wishes to participate! As for being targeted for ridicule if that were the case, given our litigious society why weren't their civil cases brought against students for it? In regard to the constitution there is a clause that says that ALL RIGHTS NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED OR DENIED ARE RESERVED FOR THE STATES AND CITIZENS! Which means I have just as much right to school prayer as you have right to object to it, if you don't like it don't participate or go elsewhere. The catholics have had church run schools for centuries, if the atheists want their own views taught in school, let them do the same, because at the moment I'm tired of the double standard that you feel vindicated with forcing your prayer free schools on people but don't see that you're just the other end of the fanatical spectrum. I know it's repetitive, but how is forcing compliance with being prayer free any less discriminatory and insidious than forcing prayer participance?!

Alright, I'm done ranting, sorry it's a little off topic. My overall opinion on the thread? Anyone with enough conviction is dangerous unless tempered by a little reason, and the ones that are unable to see the compromise or possible flaws in their own logic usually either don't understand the entire concept or are so convinced that they're right that they'd stop at nothing to make sure everyone else shares their beliefs. I've met a lot more religious fanatics than I have atheist or agnostic fanatics, but I agree that being atheist don't exclude them from fanatacism.

Students can pray in school all day long. The school can't sponsor it, or set aside class time for it specifically. Catholic schools are private, no seperation of church and state there. You can pray between classes as much as you want. You can pray all lunch long.

So yes, you can pray in school.

Uhmm. . . you might want to put the first sentence back on that paragraph and look at the context, I'd stopped the prayer in school part and gone back to just fanatics in general. But again you've made my argument of discrimination for me, if the student majority voted to have a time of day set aside for prayer that's their choice attained by the democratic process, and last I noticed most prayer is pretty nondenominational, so precisely what church would you be separating from the state? Yet by your logic the students that want the prayer, the majority most often in this case, should not be allowed that right because someone might be offended? Rather than repeat myself, just reread my previous posting.

So if the student body votes in no clothes Tuesdays you would be ok with that? For that matter, why can't that group that wants to pray just pray? I mean it's allowed. They can pray before school, after school, during lunch, between classes.

Also your entire school prayer argument seems to hinge on a mistruth. I put it in bold for you.

Honestly if they wanted no clothes Tuesday's I'd say let them learn the hard way, if they could get the support for it more power to them. . . I do still remember what my high school student body looked like and there were more than enough people that a) I didn't want to see naked, and b) that I didn't want to see me naked, that a measure like that would never pass.

As for the group that wants to pray, no it isn't allowed. A local high school here actually had several students get EXPELLED over a song that was selected for the graduation ceremony because a single student objected to it. A little different I know, but they objected on religious grounds. They can pray privately and I understand that there are opportunities during school to pray, that's not my objection, my objection is that by the rules and your argument it's somehow more acceptable for prayer to be outlawed than it is for prayer to be endorsed, and you have yet to offer me any reason why that's reasonable?

And how is that a mistruth? By federal LAW prayer may not be school sponsored in any way, you said so yourself, thus all of the children that might like prayer in school do not have the option in any public school system.

Because schools, as a state entity, cannot endorse any religion?

I'm going to allow you your opinion and I'm going to keep mine, contrary as they are, I'm also not going to post on this anymore seeing that we've now gone completely off topic and I'm not a big fan of thread hijacking.

I'm not TOO worried about going off-topic, since that seemed to sort of be the point of the thread. To start a discussion and see where it goes.

My school had NO problems with student praying before, after, or during school. There was even a christian students organization (which might have overstepped that seperation of church and state). A group would gather around the flag pole before class, or in the quad when it was raining, and no one really had a problem. I mean, they stood out of the way, and were always very quiet, and even finished before the majority of the school even arrived.
I think the arguement against school prayer, as in setting aside class time, is that it does single out those people who do not want to pray. And it takes time away from the services that the school is being paid to perform, educating the kids. And not all religions perform prayers. Buddhists do not pray, in the traditional sense, nor do us agnostics or atheists. Now, just because a majority wants it, doesn't mean it's a good idea. A majority of the white south was into lynching...
As long as it doesn't take away from other students, it's fine. But school sponsored prayer DOES take away from other students.
There's no reason to pray in school, either, except perhaps before you eat lunch? There is plenty of time before and after school to pray.
Liquid: I'm just curious why the student were expelled? Did they suggest the song or something? It makes no sense that they would be expelled because of a song at graduation. If you would feel better answering in a PM, please do.

Prayer in school forces exposure of those who do not wish to pray, and maybe they don't want others knowing.

For example, "bow your head and pray" comes over the intercom and all the non-believers don't bow their head... then the students single them out, make fun of them, whatever... maybe they don't want everyone knowing.

That is why there is no prayer... that and public govt schools have no place even TOUCHING religion. If students wanna gather on their own time outside of the school's money/time, that's fine.

Actually, I just remember that my brother was picked on and beat up a couple of times at least because he's an atheist. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if the school actually approved of singling out those that don't pray, and EVERYONE knew that he was non-religious.
Now, my brother is a bit militant about his atheism, or at least he was. One of those fanatics the post was originally about. :p But the bullies that beat him up were just as fanatical, if not more so for getting physical.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/bad-song.htm

It's not a bad article about the story and has more details than I remember. The expulsion was compulsory and completely for political show seeing that it was a graduating student that was expelled, two weeks after school had been dismissed and he'd received his diploma.

The expulsion itself was a gesture, the song had been rehearsed and prepared as part of a tradition at the school and banned by courts due a a sophomore (mind you this is SENIOR graduation) filing a suit. One student in support of his classmates stood up at the ceremony and led the students in singing the song anyway, which pretty much the entire graduating class of 500+ stood up and sang with him, the video made the news, it was pretty entertaining. IIRC the song itself wasn't necessarily religious aside from the fact that it's considered a christmas song and had the words God and Lord in it.

So was he beaten up for being atheist, or was he beaten up for starting shit about being atheist? :) The whole non-participating action is what I advocate, and usually my religious beliefs don't come up in normal conversation.

You seem pretty vehement about this. . . why shouldn't public schools that receive government funding not touch religion? Would you include in this things like the religious undertones that should be understood when studying European history and the initial American expansion? What about current news that centers around religious events or is impacted by religious philosophy? Or how about getting rid of all the literature in the english department that talks about God? What really qualifies as too religious?

It seems like there needs to be some understanding about where the line between encouraging thoughts and encouraging belief lies. A very shady place indeed.

for being an atheist. he only became militant after he was beat up a couple times...

i think that lindeseylatch made an important point earlier--that this whole thread is shaped by a projection originating with evangelicals, which follows from thieir curious belief that they are the Saved and others are minions of Satan--so there is a symmetry posited from the start, in that both are understood as unified formations that share similar dispositions (even as they are mirror images of each other)--across this you get an element of projection--evangelicals imagingin themselves and their modes of self-organization as the basis for understanding all social phenomena--as a way of putting all social phenomena on the same basis as themselves--so as to give them something they can oppose on their own terms.

so the category "atheists" and the notion of "fanaticism" has to do with a reshaping of the world in the image of evangelical protestants for the most part (in the particular political context we have the ambiguous fortune of moving through in real time--the structure exists across any christian denomination, but seems most operational for the evanglicals)--if you do not find this position to be of interest, then the projections that follow from it are not compelling. so it is with the argument that opened the thread.

Actually, there is a very strong separation between Atheism and Agnosticism. And they cannot be grouped together.

As I posited earlier, Atheism is a very strong belief that there is no God. The faith required to support this belief (in the absence of proof) is everybit as strong as the faith required of all the religions that believe in God/gods.

Agnostics, on the other hand are empiracists who require proof before acceptance. They (we) should all live in Missouri. Without hard evidence, they (we) cannot know for certain, and are therefore without knowing (Agnostic).

This requires no faith. just proof.

i agree with janey in general on the distinction between atheist and agnostic, but not on the explanation for it:

one can be an agnostic if you take seriously one of the basic assumptions of judeo-christian theology: that god is infinite, man finite, that a finite mind cannot know the infinite, so god is unknowable, the name god is just a name, a surrogate fashioned by finite understanding to plug the gap in its being-in-the-world generated by the simple fact, which follows from the most basic aspects of the belief system, that you worship what you can never know.

you could say that pascal was an agnostic simply because he, like most nominalists, followed the actual logic of this tradition to its obvious conclusion.

of course this position makes the universe huge and human beings rather tiny and puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way of this sense of scale being otherwise. which of course freaks out many people.
so they choose to think otherwise.
usually this otherwise involves a watered-down notion of grace, which at least retained something of its strange relation to finite understanding in luther, for example, but which subsequently became an empty category mostly therapeutic in function that served to erase this scary division between human beings and the god to which some attribute everything and nothing.

so there is a rather terrifying element in this tradition. no wonder that folk try to erase it, replacing it with absurd notions like that the bible is at once the word of god and can be understood literally. whcih has the effect of being a patronizing pseudo-understanding of god, the making of the notion of infinite into an unnecessary rhetorical flourish, replaced with a god rooted in projection, who is just like you, who thinks like you do and who speaks like you do--but at the same time has a certain distance from you and immense Authority--a child's relation to the Father, to Authority dressed up as a theology of liberation.

the nominalist line at least has the advantage of making the Incarnation back into the paradox it was framed as being from the outset, and not into a form of salvation delivery which makes of salvation something like a type of pizza that you order in.

so i think you could end up an agnostic by simply following the logic of the judeo-christian tradition in anything like a strict sense. it also follows that you could be quite deeply religious tempermentally and be an agnostic.

it also follows from the above that an agnostic could make every single argument about the god that most folk carry around with them as an atheist would without sharing anything of the assumptions that would inform atheism.

but the pace where this view would split far from janey's view would be in the status of proof: for an agnostic who followed this trajectory, proof of the existence or nonexistence of god would be impossible by definition. i mean that they could be logically consistent--be true formally--without that truth correlating to anything outside itself. so the question of proof is out. following the same logic, no amount of evidence would enable you to get around the basic division between finite and infinite that shapes the startingpoint for this whole system.

it would seem to me that it would be easier to persuade an atheist with proofs because the startingpoints are otherwise.

what is funny is that anyone would argue that empricism in any of its variants plays any role in any of this.

A bit to digest. however, I think that there is precedence for the empiricists to actually bridge the gap. That is if you have faith in the achievements boasted by the teachings of buddha and various bhodisatvas...

Thanks roachboy. Keep posting. A clarity and a distillation is evident and very welcome in your thoughts. A more casual (read intellectually lazy) fellow such as myself appreciates such things :thumbsup:

ust because the majority wishes it does not make it right. School prayer was done away with because it created a situation that bred trouble, students that did not wish to pray would be either forced to or targeted for ridicule. It would violate others rights, besides no where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to school prayer.

There was an excellent Larry King the other night with the question "Where do we go when we die?". They had a hardline Christian minister (who said that EVERY word in the Bible was gospel, every story absolute truth), a Catholic priest, a Muslim higher-up (sorry don't know the name), a Rabbi, some girl who was pretty into JC, and the president of the American Athiests. They had quite a conversation. It was very interesting, as someone who considers themself to be an atheist, to listen to the dialog.

As someone who does not believe in God (and I promise I won't jam it down your throat unless it's something you bring up first, say Amen) I have to say the bullshit about the pledge of allegiance and prayer in school disgusts me.

My "religion" or way of doing things is to treat people in a manner I would like to be treated. I think many atheists think you have your shot down here to enjoy life & be a good person, since there is no afterlife. That being said, if you want to pray in school, in an airplane, or wherever, go ahead, it does not bother me. If our currency says "In God We Trust" it's true that I don't buy it (no pun intended) but I'm not suing the government for putting it on my money. I also don't care about God being in the pledge of allegiance, once again, it's what the masses believe so it's fine by me. I am not offended.

Way too many people are way too quick to bitch about their rights being violated these days. Shut the hell up & get along with each other. If everybody had the same views the world would be one damn ugly place.

well said c172g - if we allowed each other to be comfortable within ourselves it would make quite a difference.

to me being an atheist just means rejecting religion and being doubtful of the existance of god.yes its true that we have no proof that god doesnt exist,but theists have no proof of his existance either.so its a deadlock as far as thats concerned.
i agree with MageB420666 when he stated that school isnt a place to pray but a place to learn.

what upsets me is when the religious right tries to impose their lifestyle on everyone else dictating the way other people should live.concerning alcohol,drugs,abortion,public schools,censorship of music and media,and dress code.

I only bring up my atheism in appropriate venues, such as internet message boards. The moment I start going door to door or 'preaching' it at my place of work then you can talk about me being a fanatic.

Actually I'm fairly certain, however this isn't the time or the place. Have you ever heard of the argument from non-cognitivism?

This just flat-out isn't true.

Look up Socrates and what he got accused of. Please read the "Apology".

I pretty much agree. Evolution doesn't actually disprove god.

Perhaps you are looking in venues that encourage atheists to give their opinions, such as the philosophy section of message boards.

So Socrates was accused of 'impiety'. If you'd read any of Plato's other dialogues, you'd know that Socrates was hardly an atheist. If there was any justice to the claim of the Athenian court that Socrates did not honor the traditional gods, it was that he tended more strongly towards monotheism than most of his contemporaries. And, moreover, it seems from the Apology that the proceedings of the court were motivated more from political reasons than anything else.

[QUOTE=hypnotic4502]to me being an atheist just means rejecting religion and being doubtful of the existance of god.yes its true that we have no proof that god doesnt exist,but theists have no proof of his existance either.so its a deadlock as far as thats concerned.
QUOTE]


right. a deadlock, and since each position is not (at least not yet) provable they both require faith in order for one to maintain one's belief. I have a question: Does being atheistic also reject the possibility of life after death? or does it just reject religion, and the belief in God. The way I see it, life after death does not necessarily mean that there needs to be a god.

I'd consider myself a fundamentalist anti-theist. I am 100% confident that there is no life after death. There is life after birth and it lasts until death.

There's a possibility, depending on how I die, that some signals will continue to flow through my brain for a limited period after I am confirmed clinically dead.

so you definition of death is the death of our physical bodies as perceived by ourselves?

When they teach about religion, it's fine. When they blatantly favor or publically practice a religion (like schoolwide prayer,) they have violated the Constiitutional provision prohibiting establishment of a national religion.

Consider it from the perspective of this pig.

http://www.gweeksilverband.org.uk/ph...humbs/p010.jpg

The pig is dead.

It has lost the use of it's senses. It has lost the ability to think. It is existing as flesh and bones only.

I am certain of this fact.

so what was it that made it not dead, before it died? it existed as flesh and bones as well, before it died.

By the way, it looks really tastey.

I don't know... and I'm not ashamed admit it. I studied architecture, not biology.

my belief is when youre alive,youre alive.
when youre dead,youre simply dead and sease to exist.

that makes life all that much more important to me,you have only one chance to be the most compassionate,caring and productive person you can be.

I realize that not everyone would feel comfortable doing this... but I went to a Catholic high school for two years. Every morning, and at the beginning of most every class, we would pray. Towards the end of my time there, I was an Atheist, (ironically, attending a religious school made me a non-believer :)) but I still pretended to pray. I crossed myself, repeated Hail Mary, etc. It was just meaningless words to me, so what did it matter? I was able to blend in just fine. It wasn't until the next year that I "came out" as an Atheist, though my parents still don't know.

As far as being a fanatic... I don't think I'm really a fanatic about anything. I tend to keep my mouth shut and listen. I'm a far-left liberal and one of my friends is a far-right conservative. He says that I'm a good liberal because I don't force my beliefs on others. I think that's a pretty good endorsement of non-fanaticism.

It's a magical thing called consciousness that scientists still don't understand and philosophers still argue over.

I have read Plato's other dialogues and furthermore Socrates defends himself against the charge of atheism.

You've created a strawman in assuming that I was accusing Socrates of atheism-I wasn't.

I don't know about that; Socrates believed in a Daemon (sp?), but he also believed in the traditional Gods, such as Apollo, who sent him on his quest in the first place.

When I read the apology I was more struck by the need for vengence in Socrates' accusers then I was that it was politically motivated. It has been a while since I've read it, but if my memory holds, the idea was that Socrates was being brought up on fallacious charges to satisfy the petty revenge of three of athenians citizens.

They accused him of atheism and of corrupting the youth, he of course rebutted all of that, but was found guilty anyway.

what maintains consciousness then? can it be maintained after the physical support system dies? or does the vacating of the body by the consiousness cause death? where does the consiousness go to? does it disipate? I'm glad this thread esists, i have a ton of these questions...

On second thought, consciousness isn't really the right word. But I'm not sure what is. Consciousness is your awareness, and what you're talking about I can only describe (lamely) as animation. Since they're closely related, I'll try to answer your questions from both points of view. Keep in mind that I'm not a theologian, psychologist or biologist.

Consciousness is maintained by the human body in order to preserve life. Animation, on our level, is the byproduct of coexisting cellular structures trying to keep themselves alive. Animation on the cellular level is maintained by the interplay of organelles. Animation below that...?

After the support system dies... is the person on artificial life support? If so, the human body will tick along just fine. If not, animation and consciousness will cease.

Without consciousness... To what level? If someone is unconscious, for example because of too much alcohol, life can continue. If someone is permanently no longer aware of their surroundings, perhaps not. If you are completely unaware of what is happening, then how would you know that you need to breathe, or pump blood, etc. If animation ceases, there is nothing to keep you alive. Animation is what causes the peculiar things to happen that cause life. The only thing is that somebody can be clinically dead, devoid of animation, and be brought back to life. Reanimated, so to speak. Hmm...

Consciousness should return if somebody passes out. If it involves brain damage, maybe not. Where does it go? It's nothing physical, so it can't go anywhere. Consciousness is... caused by electrochemical signals racing through the brain to produce something wonderful. Animation is the same way.

If you are religious, then you could much more easily sum this up by saying that animation is caused by your soul, which floats out of your body after death. :)

Umm......so this part is completely off topic.

I completely understand that you are not speaking as a biologist in presenting these ideas. However, if the above quote were true, I believe we would theoretically be able to bring people back to life after a longer amount of time than when we are capable of doing now. This is suggestive that whatever you consider to be "animation" is not electrochemically based, but instead something different. If there are any biology/medically trained people out there who could shed some light on this, it would be great.


So this part is not off topic.

Atheists are quite capable of being fanatics. While the connotations of "fanatic" generally imply religious conviction - to which I could understand some atheists being completely against the use of the term for themselves - the word itself simply means a person who is vocally (and perhaps physically) adamant about a belief. Some atheists are extremely fanatical (may I use the term anti-God?) just as some nonatheists are fanatics of their own religions. The fact that Christianity and other religions have a few centuries of bloodshed and debate behind them changes nothing about this point.

first off, I have met more religious fanatics then atheists.

and second, off who are you to group atheists as one big group?

Seriously I'm sick of this bullcrap.

Agree to disagree? I think that making up theological arguments with yourself is being an F'ing fanatic.

I'm not religious or an atheist, I just don't give a flying f$#%.

That changes nothing about the possibility of atheists being fanatical. Just because you haven't met many doesn't mean they're not out there.

I did no such thing. You're reading more into my statement than I intended.

I wasn't making an argument with myself. I was discussing the possibility of atheists being fanatical, which was the original subject of this thread.

Archpaladin, I wasn't talking about your reply.

In fact I kinda like yours, makes sense.

Now your off topic remark I can help out with. Conciousness is not a factor in bringing somone back to life. Because anyone who us pulseless and not breathing have better not be concious because that person would be a zombie. (you should check out my zombie movie thread! in entertainment) Don't get me wrong conciousness is a big factor of someones injuries/illness. (oh I forgot to mention I'm an EMT) Conciousness is brain related. And all brain function relies on electrochemical signals to relay stuff. Conciousness plays a part in all of this. Now psycology says that your conciousness and your mind represents your perceptions and experiences. Just as parts of the brain can cease to function due to a stroke or something of that nature, your conciousness will be affected because it lies in the mind. If the stroke causes you to never wake up again (coma) who the hell knows where it went. Can't be proven. Only in exploratory brain surgery, unfortunetly some coma patients don't qualify for that.

What is the point of this thread? Is it to prove who is less intelligent?

Anybody can be fanatic about anything.
Not believing in a god, is a believe.
Believing in a god , is a believe.

You win. All I was trying to say is that we all believe in something, and that any ethos has the chance for fanatacism. It seems like the tone of most on the TFP is that "my dick is bigger than yours because I'm atheist." Notice I said most and not all. It is just some imaginary pissing contest that no one side will ever win. If you can be offended by somebody praying in public, then somebody should be allowed to be offended by you telling them there is no god.

One thing that people have been failing to realize here:

The chance of there being a god is exactly equal to the chance of there not being a god.

Anybody debating this is a stupid asshole.

Notice I said that atheism was "almost" non-existent. One man out of millions certainly does not constitute a large existence. Now, because I'm sure somebody will bring it up, I am aware that this is due to supression by various religious entities.

Nobody can argue with that.
Haven't really seen that...
I agree. You shouldn't be offended by somebody praying unless he's forcing you to pray as well.
Erm... based on what probabilities exactly?
Debating what? The existance of a god? A lot of people are assholes then. Or did you mean the probability of a god existing?

Look up a couple definitions of fanatic. A recurring theme are the phrases "uncritical devotion" and "irrational enthusiasm".

Also, I don't think I've met an atheist yet that took a hardline against a fuzzy feel-good generic theism. Once you get into specific imprementations of the deity concept, though, all bets are off. There's a bit of a difference between claiming that gods cannot exist and the pointing out that a specific deity doesn't.

Since most theists are pretty fanatical about none of the other deities existing, they often have the mistaken impression that a well reasoned (if passionate) discourse about why their particular deity is impossible can be generalized to apply to gods in general. Contrariwise, a fanatical theist will make the mistaken assumption that a well-reasoned (if philosphical) discourse about the existances of gods not being provable (I.E. a god could exist) somehow serves as an endorsement for the existance of their particular deity.

In short, I think you're confusing a fanatical anti-christian who happens to be an atheist with a fanatical atheist.

I will answer this one with a quote from our good friend Walter (from "The Big Lebowski"): "We're splitting hairs here."

And from the same movie, a good quote that is applicable here: "You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole."

As for the "imaginary pissing contest" that I was referring to, I will do some research and find some quotes, I can remember some instances where some were directed at me, one by our dear administrator/founder Halx.

Okay, here's a quote, as promised, straight from Halx:

Link to the thread

That quote has nothing to do with fanatisicm it just highlights Halx ignorance on the matter of faith and belief which I've been through with him on another thread

No, it has nothing to do with fanaticism, but it does have everything to do with what I was posting it for. See above: "Imaginary pissing contest" and "My dick is bigger than yours."

I've been seeing a lot of people on this thread, including the original poster, make the assertion that Atheism is just stating "There is no god." and taking it on faith as something that cannot be proven.

This is incorrect.

In fact, there's two tiers of questions to be asked, here, instead of just one. The first is, "Can the existence of God be proven or disproven?" Many philosophers have considered this question, and some have thought one way, and some another. But that is separate from the second question: "Does God exist?"

So basically, there are four groups here: People who believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but believe in God regardless (like Kirkegaard, and the original poster), people who believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but do not believe (like the characterization of Atheists in this thread - I think this is actually very rare), people who believe that the existence of God can be proven, and thus believe (like St. Augustine, and the intellectual theology tradition), and people who believe that the existence of God can be disproven, and thus disbelieve (like the majority of actual Atheists).

So the original poster asked for some examples of how people prove or disprove these things (at least, that's how I choose to interpret "Shut the fuck up"). Look into philosophy, there's a whole tradition of considering this question, and some very intelligent people have come to both conclusions.

Also, I should note that I'm not talking about scientific proof, either. The proofs mostly used are logical proofs, because of course science can't prove anything, it can only show what is most likely to be true. Logic can prove that things can or cannot possibly exist, though. Sometimes science influences logical proof - for instance, one of the premises for the Argument By Design (the Cosmological Argument) was that there was no way for complex designs to arise without an intelligence behind them. Before Darwin, this argument was basically bulletproof. But Darwin showed, not that there was no God, but that this premise was not actually true. He did nothing to prove or disprove the logical argument, but challenged the validity of one of the premises.

So basically, don't dismiss such things so readily - while you may feel one way, there's a long history of considering the proof of the existence of God, and you should consider the arguments and come to your own conclusion. Some religious philosophers have come to some surprising ones, like the aforementioned Kirkegaard.

Bingle

So, in there being good arguments from both sides, could you not conclude that the existence (or lack thereof) of a god could be proven, but have not yet??? What I think you are saying is basically I don't have an educated opinion about whether a god exists or not, but I choose to believe that there is one anyway. In turn, I think you are in a different kind of reality where you define reality by what you think it is. Look, I'm all for thinking outside of the box, but you're not being very realistic. Logically, you can't prove completely the existence of a god, or the lack of one. You can come to conclusions as to the possibilities, and granted I haven't looked into past philosopher's work on this, but this isn't a case of possibilities. Two distinct possibilities exist, and you can come up with logical explainations for both, but at the end of the day, they're still only thoughts, not substance. Until somebody sees god, there still exists the possibility of not being one. Much like anything. Say, for instance, that I told you I had a cat. You came to my house, saw cat hair on my furniture, a bowl full of cat food, and a litter box. Now, there still exists a reasonable possibility that there is no cat, although logic and reasoning would tell you differenty.

hmmm.. intriguing. but not simple enough for me. I think that physical proof is needed before the reality can be established. The physicality doesn't have to be limited to what we today consider it to be. metaphysics can be involved, as I presume metaphysics is just an extension of the natural universe beyond our ability to measure.

it's relative. Until the physical proof is there, it will require faith to believe that god exists. Other wise one can only be agnostic about it.

Well... I think that this argument continues to go in circles so I might as well post and add to the mess.

Atheists are not necessarily fanatics.. (although some may be)

some of them have looked to see if there is a god.... but they can't find god... they see no evidence that there is a god... they WANT to find god... they wish god was there... but alas... there is no god... they continue waiting...

To those of you that continue with empty retorical questions, looped logic, and crossed definitions... Help an atheist find god!...... The atheist isn't a fanatic for wanting god to be there... is she a fanatic for waiting to see any smidgen of evidence at all?

Or have you declared a matter of faith to be absolute truth without any tangible evidence?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no way to prove or disprove the Judeo-Christian god because of its definition?

I am an atheist, but if someone were to present compelling evidence, I would definitely believe. Until that day, I wait...

No, you don't understand logical proof :-) Let me break it down for you.

In the example of your cat, you're again thinking of scientific proof, or empirical reasoning. That means you look at observable evidence, and conclude from that what the most likely explanation is. Empirical reasoning can't prove anything, though, at least not in a strong sense. There's always the logical possibility that, even if you've repeated an action a million times, the next time things happen differently.

Logical proof is quite different, though. It deals with deductive reasoning, instead of empirical reasoning. To prove things logically, you don't need any physical evidence,and in fact physical evidence doesn't help your case at all. (Except to disprove something). Deductive reasoning is what mathmaticians use to prove theorems and so forth - things like the sum of angles in a triangle must be 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, and so forth. They don't go around measuring angles, in fact you can prove that statement without ever having seen a triangle.

And, just like it's a logical impossibility for there to exist a triangle with angles adding up to, say, 360 degrees, there are arguments that say it's logically impossible for God to exist.

However, logical arguments do have to have connections with reality - these are called premises. Usually the arguer lays out his premises, and if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. For example:

Premise 1: Today is a Thursday.
Premise 2: It always rains on Thursdays.
Conclusion: It is raining today.

Given that you accept the two premises as true, you MUST accept the conclusion as true. You can, however, argue with the premises. These premises, for example, are both false.

So, here's the logical argument for the existence of God that I talked about earlier, the Cosmological argument (very simplified):

Premise 1: Complex objects must be created by an intelligence.
Premise 2: Biological life is very complex.
Conclusion: There exists an intelligence that created biological life.

However, as I noted earlier, Darwin demonstrated that Premise 1 was false. Before Darwin, there were no really serious Atheists.

So premises are the weak points of any proof, as they are the points at which the physical world can disrupt things. However, note that physical evidence can only disprove premises - you only need one counter-example.

There are two other classical proofs for the existence of God, if you're interested I can post those as well. It's worth noting that, since those arguing for the existence of God are the ones on whom the burden of proof falls. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here's the Argument From Evil, which in my opinion is unassailable. This is an argument by contradiction, which basically means if you accept some premises, and thus prove a contradiction, one or more of your premises must be false:

Premise 1: Evil exists in the world.
Premise 2: God is perfectly good (Omnibenevolent).
Premise 3: God is all-powerful (Omnipotent).
Premise 4: A good entity will do all in its power to remove evil.
Conclusion: A contradiction. If God is good, and God is all powerful, evil should not exist in the world, because God has the will and the means to eradicate it.

Note that the only part of this proof that requires proof from the physical world is Premise 1. Also, this proof is not strictly proof against the existence of God, anyone can admit any premise as being false and the proof falls apart. So if you, for instance, think God is capricious rather than all good, this doesn't prove anything. But few are willing to accept that :-)

Bingle

I am familiar with logical proof. I actually got an a on my geometrical proof test. If one of your premises is false however, it invalidates the whole conclusion.

Premise 4 is false in this case, assuming that you were referring to the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). God is usually passive to a certain extent when dealing with matters of evil, allowing it to go on (see: Job).

Just some rebuttals....

Incorrect. Darwin actually showed that Premise 1 was possibly incorrect, not that it was necessarily incorrect.

Not necessarily. Claims for the existence of God were around long before they were argued against. Those who make extraordinary claims to change the claims of the past (ie. athiest beliefs) are really the ones on whom the burden of proof falls.

I dont think you can really say anyone who holds a belief has a certain characteristic... but I have to admit, I know some people who would call themselves athiests, who basically hold an unflinching view that anyone who believes in God must be an idiot, since the whole idea is so easily demolished.... which I personally find as foolish and as single minded as people who believe tehir own interpration of one view of God is the unquestioned truth and everyone else is going to hell.

This doesn't deal with any particular God, just one that has the characteristics given in the proof. But most people would be reluctant to discard Premise 4 - do you agree that someone who is morally Good has an obligation to oppose evil when it comes? Someone who stands by and watches a murder without preventing it is morally (and legally, in the US) in the wrong. Even more so when the person can do so at no risk to themselves.

Here's a thought experiment: A person is put into a room, where they can watch an infant being tortured. At any point in time, they can push a button, which will stop the torture. The person does not push the button. Is this considered a morally good action?

Bingle

You're absolutely right about Darwin, that his discoveries do not entirely preclude the possibility of intelligent design - after all, we can see machinery and other things all around us that arise from intelligent design. However, I phrased the premise as "MUST be created by an intelligence", and that was no longer true past Darwin. Complex objects CAN be created by intelligence, but we now know there are other possibilities as well. Darwin does nothing to disprove the existence of God, he merely weakens one proof.

As for your other point, I wasn't talking about historical claims, but in a logical sense you must proceed from only the knowns, rather than the already-assumed.

For instance, although the idea of the existence of dragons predates the present, if I were to claim that such beings existed, your rightful course of action would be to demand proof from me, rather than accept the idea until it is disproven. Regardless of how many have believed in dragons before, it is an extraordinary claim.

Bingle

A memetic idea, or "meme" is one that self replicates and adapts itself to suit a new circumstance.

Christianity had done a fair bit of adapting in just the last 400 years. Christains had to concede that the world is not flat, the world revolves around the sun and not the other way round and that we have indeed evolved from the same lineage of ancestors as the mordern orangutan.(The newest molecular evidence clearly points to this truth,as discovered and accepted in only the last 5 years) The world is not 6400 years old as some have interpreted the Bible to say but seems to be 350-450 million years old.

In spite of these findings Christianity, Islam and Judeaism continue along without a burp, bump or wobble.

How much evidence will people have to see before they realise that OLD documents aren't necessarily "technically correct" documents.

The Old and New testaments, Quran, and the Torah are documents filled with great ideas, including the idea that we will have an after life. They say that there is a heaven (including extensive descriptions) without any physical evidence, as they did with the flat earth etc.

Christians have attempted to prove God through logic, mathematics and some continue today with creation science. Inspite of all of the work, God has not yet poked his nose through the clouds to say hello. God's abscence does NOT prove god does not exist, but it surely does not prove his existence either. (I lost my watch, but I know it still exists, somewhere..)

The problem is that there are no reliable witnesses to God existence, at least in modern times. Had he been here and left the matter would be different. (like the watch)

Faith of any kind is just that... faith. It does not take faith to wonder where the evidence is! It does not take faith to ask hard questions of those who puport to know the answer to the mystery of God's existence.

Is there a God? My wife says there is.... and if I expect to get laid tonight I will agree.. because she is standing here watching me type..

Praise the lord...

Many Christians would say that God did come here and left through Jesus. Thus the whole religion-not-dying thing.

Yes and no. Your statement about being related to orangutans may have been conceeded by the Catholic church, but certainly not by Christianity in general. The whole idea of creation science and Christian scientist's use of logic and mathematics to show/argue the existence of God is because they reject the bias of methodological naturalism in science (ie. the idea that only what we can directly observe is the cause of other things we can directly observe) Theories brought by science to explain natural origins of the universe are still riddled with holes, even after all the years of trying to refine them.

Absolutely correct. A direct view of God would destroy the need for faith, and thus we do not have it. However, people who ask for evidence of God (scientists, atheists, etc.) should not complain when people provide evidence in a language that they can understand. (creation science, philosophical and logical arguments, etc.)