The basic disconnect in the discussion of atheism/theism.

[kwassa]

This is probably a vain attempt to bring some clarity to part of this argument.

To clarify my problem with these arguments:

For me to accept the arguments of the atheists here, I have to accept the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an affirmative belief in no gods. If I can't accept that premise, then the rest of the atheist argument in the thread falls apart. I've stated why I can't accept the argument, which I think is a very rational point of view, and it seems to make atheists here quite angry, which is not my intention at all.

The atheists want us theists to discuss religious ideas with them, but to do so we must first accept their premise. This precise "lack of belief" argument is how, as far as I can see, that the atheists here distinguish themselves from "believers". The atheists seem themselves as people without belief or faith, using these words in a sense that excludes them, not using the full dictionary definition, again. The implication from this word use to me is that they see themselves as rational creatures above belief and faith of theists. It is what distinguishes them and makes them different.

We theists see ourselves as very rational creatures, too, and it creates resentment on our parts to be judged irrational by some atheists. Pushing the idea that theists are irrational is not something likely to get a positive reaction from us.

This discussion falls apart at ground level, on basic terms and their meaning. Both sides use the same words, but mean different things with those words. I'm not sure how to get past this point, because I see the atheists insisting that we come over to their understanding of "belief" and "faith" before we can even talk. Speaking only for myself, I don't see why I should have to sacrifice these words to their limited definition of these words.

Does anyone have a different understanding? Theist or atheist?

[maxsolomon]

1. i affirmatively believe there are no gods

you may be a rational person, but i hope your position is not that Faith is Rational. I think of it as by neccessity A-rational, not Ir-rational.

[Lerkfish]

5. And if it were, what then?

would you be unable to accept /respect that position?
and if so, why? Do you not wish to determine how you will be referred to, since you just went out of your way to explain your position.

[maxsolomon]

37. my comment was to IR-rationality

which seems to offend the OP. i care not one whit how anyone 'refers' to me, i'm not an 'out' atheist, i'm actually more of a pantheist/animist in my personal belief. i believe i cannot know the true nature of reality.

i accept anyone's position on belief if they keep it out of my face & act in an ethical manner. that is where monotheists cross the line. trying to impose a pre-enlightenment interpretation of the bible, a document that i believe more atheists know the history of than christians, on me when our country was specifically founded to free humans from theocratic vagaries, frankly, it enrages me.

but believe the moon is made of green cheese if you want. there aren't many atheists that will force you to denounce Jehovah at knifepoint.

"thank you, lord, for the healing gift of religion" - bill hicks, r.i.p.

[electropop]

13. I also afirmatively believe there are no gods.

I'm not clear on why that invalidates my disbelief. It may be difficult for a theist to understand how a person can disbelieve in their god(s), just as the converse is also true.

If I understand the OP, if I state the agnostic position (not affirmatively believing in gods), then I am permitted to be an atheist, otherwise my beliefs are unacceptable?

I'm not interested in converting anybody to a different (dis)belief system, and that's my main complaint about many theists. They can't accept that there is anybody in the world who was not born with the gene for belief in the supernatural. So they harass and harangue, trying to twist other people's minds into their thought patterns. Not gonna work.

on edit:

My beliefs are based on observations of the world around me. I see nothing that would indicate to me that there are any supernatural beings governing our existence. I do see evidence contrary to the descriptions of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God (ie if there is a God, it is a very cruel and random God). Now granted, some gods found in other cultures would fit fairly well. Zeus/Jupiter comes to mind. However, when it's so much easier to simply observe cause and effect, than to insert some additional causative being into events, why would I want to waste my mental energy on aimless imaginings? I have a life to live.

[Lerkfish]

2. You make very valid observations, but I would add that many atheists

here prefer to be referred to as THEY wish, which is a reasonable request. They don't want themselves framed in a way they find is counter to their own view of themselves.

Many theists here prefer to be referred to as THEY wish, which is a reasonable request. They don't want themselves framed in a way they find is counter to their own view of themselves.

again, this is not an unreasonable request.

Where it gets into the realm of unreasonable is when they WANT that level of respect for their own POV but seem incapable of according the same respect to the view of the other.

If an atheist prefers not be referred to as an antitheist, or prefers not be referred to as having a "belief" at all, I think that's fine and I try to accomodate. I'm frustrated, though, when these same atheists insist on referring to those with belief as irrational or worse and will not budge on according the same amount of respect.

I think this problem goes both ways. Not really sure how to fix it. If people cannot graciously extend the same level of respect they demand, then we will always be at this impasse.

[kwassa]

26. Is it an issue of respect, or an actual language barrier?

If I use the words "belief" and "faith" the way that some atheists do, is that respect, or is that limiting the discussion? The very languaging presumes rationality on one side and irrationality on the other.

[Lerkfish]

95. I think it is a matter of respect. If you feel limited by a word, then you

need to acquire better debating skills.
Which is not to say you shouldn't attempt to discuss framing and try to arrive on a common semantic ground to discuss.

Its a good question, though, whether framing in and of itself limits debate. I think it can, if one or both sides are too rigid in coming to a common ground, but then it's more a symptom of a larger problem.

I'm going to start a new thread with this, but here is something I wrote a long time ago:

LERK'S RULE OF YARDSTICKS

Preface: Everyone has some yardstick by which they personally measure the big questions, like faith or non-faith, God or no god, the right way and the wrong way...etc. For the sake of clarity, lets assign everyone a different color yardstick, with varying forms of measurement for each.

1. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor. He already has an orange yardstick. He will not accept your measurement of him.
2. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor's orange yardstick, because he has already accepted the orange yardstick's standard of measurement as true, or else he would not be using it.
3. Your green yardstick cannot be used to pummel your neighbor or break his orange yardstick. He would just make another orange yardstick.
4. You cannot proclaim your green yardstick is the only true measurement, even if it is, because your orange neighbor will simply ignore you or hate you for trying to dislodge his orange yardstick.
All these things lead to disharmony with your orange neighbor. And if it was your goal to change his orange yardstick to green, that will not happen.

However...
1. If you accept your orange neighbor's orange yardstick, even if you disagree with him, you may have gained a friend, though not a convert.
2. If you frame all your discussions on measurement with relativity....by saying things like "It was 3 green inches long, or on the orange yardstick, 4 inches" you may have achieved synthesis of two colors, arriving at a third, or at least are speaking in a language that can be understood by your orange neighbor. Even if he does not accept your green yardstick, he at least can understand your point.
3. If you borrow your orange neighbor's yardstick to measure something, you might better understand him. And, he will be more likely in return to borrow your green yardstick to better understand you.

Conclusion:
The Purpose of personal yardsticks is to measure only ourselves. To see if we measure up to our own standards, and if not, to make adjustments to do so. We cannot forcibly make another use our yardsticks, however they may be impressed with how well we measure up to our own standards and ask to borrow ours.
To each of us, our own yardstick is our own truth. There is nothing that says We or our neighbor cannot readjust either ourselves or our yardsticks with new information or enlightenment, but those adjustments can only be made to ourselves and from within ourselves. When we accept THIS truth, we can be more happy with our own yardsticks, and others can be more happy with theirs.
Because ultimately, whichever yardstick is THE yardstick, doesn't matter. We will all make our own standards. When the time comes to calibrate our yardsticks with the great yardstick in the sky, the Lord is not likely going to come to us and say, "hey, your orange neighbor, what do you think of his yardstick?" He is more likely to say "hey, well done with your green yardstick, lets see how you measured up, shall we?"
The bottom line is, if indeed, as I believe, there is a God, spending time worrying about our neighbor's orange yardstick is time wasted when we could have been trying harder to measure up to our own. Better to get your own house in order than to have run around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to force other people to get their houses in order. They won't thank you and you won't help them and you won't even get to put in your own two cents when judgement day comes. God does not need advisors or informants, so why fritter away doing the equivalent of that with the amazingly short time we have?


my two cents.

[kwassa]

120. Is respect the ultimate value necessary to a good discussion?

Thank for the yardstick metaphor.

But ....

if one does not see a view to respect, must one respect it? If one sees the opposing or differing view to be fatally flawed, must one not mention it, but pretend the flaw does not exist, in order to maintain peace? Would that not be enacting a falsehood?

My feeling is that I am being asked not to speak my thoughts. I certainly have them, but I must not speak them. That seems to be the gist of comments I read here, that I am being disrespectful by speaking my honest thoughts.

Isn't that what a discussion forum is for?

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Another good question

My take would be that it starts as one, and might end as the other.

If at I use terms that an atheist finds disrespectful, and am told that, then I have an option of searching for a different way to express my thoughts, I suppose. (Don't know if there is a good way, though.) I'd take that effort, however successful, as a sign of respect.

[papau]

199. well said :-)

:-)

[Zhade]

46. From our interactions, you know that you and I can agree on that.

I've often said believers can be every bit as rational in their belief as atheists can be irrational in their eagerness to be understood as nonbelievers.

So how is it that you can accept my self-description, I can accept your and kwassa's, but kwassa cannot accept mine?

I think it's a matter of wanting to frame the debate on his part, as you state above.

The arrogance of people like kwassa give the good believers like you a bad name, and I thank you for making the point that's it's reasonable to allow us - ALL of us - to describe ourselves as we are.

[Lerkfish]

93. :shrugs: I dunno. I think its because POV on theism, atheism is extremely

central to how one views oneself. Therefore, confusion, intentional or otherwise, on framing hits way too close to home for some to allow a decent conversation.

For example, I"m in the group that has no problem with atheism, and in fact I respect all religions, but I can be irritated by HOW others refer to my faith.
So, you'll find for the most part, whenever I get backed into a dustup about religion, its because I'm trying to reframe the debate, rather than having content problems with people's argument.

As an example of that: I have absolutely no problem with people thinking there is no God or no afterlife. In fact, doubt is part of my own faith so I certainly understand that possibility and that argument. I readily accept that its possible I"m wrong, that there is no God and no afterlife. That's possible. But then I have my own life experiences and reasoning which leads me in the other direction. In my view, even if I'm wrong, trying to live my life under the golden rule is not a bad thing, even if there is nothing after this life and no one to obey. Its just a good thing.
Jesus's teachings are beautiful instructions on how to be a self-actualized human being, even if you don't agree that he was the son of God.

Which is why I"m so aggravated at the current crop of fundie RWers, because they don't seem to even have read the teachings of Jesus at all, but oh well.
:shrug:

you asked: "So how is it that you can accept my self-description, I can accept your and kwassa's, but kwassa cannot accept mine?"
I think because humans differ, even those who have the same faith. Take any congregation, and you'll have wonderful, salt of the earth faithful and those who barely can be bothered to buy into the religion, to those who actually try to manipulate the congregation to their own ends. There is a wide spectrum of HUMAN strengths and failings within the same building on Sunday. Do the weakest by their existence malign the strongest?
In my opinion, none of us have the right to judge another, so to me, I don't want to judge ALL atheists or christians or buddhists by one or a few people.

I WILL, however, stand up for my faith if I feel it is being unfairly framed or maligned.

[Zhade]

106. An excellent, reasonable post.

I have no problem with people having beliefs. I don't have to respect those beliefs, but I won't go out of my way to ridicule them (unless they are literalist beliefs clearly repudiated by scientific evidence, like 'the earth is 6000 years old' and 'the story of Noah's Ark really happened').

[heidler1]

81. You hit on a point that shows limitations on human understanding, no

matter if you believe or don't believe in Gods. To me this really whacks the view that some extremely intelligent God would find spending eternity with intellectually limited humans is what he would want to do, in the first place. Now if this God has inferiority complex problems or depression problems this God would like having lackeys (like dogs) around to cheer him up, but any God that can create Universes at will surely would not have those problems.

[stray cat]

3. Faith in a deity or faith that there is no deity

Both appear to be a belief system since I have yet to see either definitely proven scientifically. On top of that science is not infalible either. Either chose seems to involve an act of faith.

[kwassa]

30. I agree

[Kare]

34. Atheists have no faith

Faith is defined as: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
That is the definition that I think best applies to religion.
Religion is faith in a being with no evidence that that being excists.

Atheists don't have faith that there is no god. We just have no faith period.

[kwassa]

41. I'm sorry, but your definition is one of about six

welcome to DU, catch up on the discussion

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[Kare]

51. I'm aware

I said that that was the definition that I thought best applied to religion,
not that it was the only one.

[Zhade]

48. Agreed. Of course, I myself do not have faith there are no gods.

I just haven't seen any evidence for them, so I don't assume they exist OR don't exist.

[centristo]

4. i see things a bit differently

"lack of belief" in god or gods is agnostic.

"affirmative belief" in no gods is atheism. An atheist is positive there is no god whatsoever, that all religions are false, etc. A "lack of belief" in a god is more open-ended.

From my viewpoint, all theists are irrational. Having faith in god (Jesus, Mohammad, Yahweh, whoever) requires having faith IN SPITE of no rational evidence. That's the whole point. You accept Jesus, for instance, even though you cannot prove he is the son of god, put on Earth to die for our sins.

It is irrelevant if you, as a theist, have a negative reaction of being called irrational. Take a devout Jew and a devout Muslim for instance. One of them, by their own definitions, is "wrong" about god. So one of them is irrational. The atheist concludes that all theists are irrational. The theist concludes that all other religions are irrational (at some level at least).

[ThomCat]

8. The athiest possition does not say religion is pointless.

Religion has many purposes, and serves all of them very well. It just may not be founded on Truth.

If it could somehow be proven that there was no God, religion would still serve many purposes, and many people would continue to have faith because of the value of religion regardless of the proof.

[centristo]

21. i don't think the biggest athesit in the world can

doubt the good religions can do.

I also don't think the biggest theist can deny the evils that religions can do(and have caused) either.

Whether spending one's life in the pursuit of what one knows to be false is pointless or not is a matter of opinion.

I try and pursue truth, wherever it takes me. If it takes me closer to god, I will follow. If it takes me away, I will follow as well.

[ladjf]

57. Do you mean more good than harm?

[Lerkfish]

9. Consider this: "You're a godless heathen, and you're going to hell"

It is irrelevant if you, as an atheist, have a negative reaction of being called a godless heathen.

just returning your argument to you.

Even though a fundi theist might not consider the statement "you're a godless heathen, and you're going to hell" to be anything other than a factual statement from their point of view, devoid of insult, the fact remains it can be considered insulting to an atheist, no?

I think the problem is that "irrational", while not necessarily intended to be insulting, can certainly be taken that way, especially by the target of that remark.

[centristo]

17. it is irrelevant to the atheist

because the atheist does not believe in hell.

If I threatened to send you to the 9th dimension of Mulklork after you die would you care? I don't think a real atheist cares about being damned to a place he doesn't believe in.

[Lerkfish]

22. are you intentionally missing the point?

the point is people can be offended by how they are labeled by others. If you wish to be referred to as you desire, is it impossible to return that consideration?

[Kare]

47. I understand the point

I think that you are putting too much into what other people think.
Whether you are a theist or an anti-theist makes no difference.

Who cares what other people think of your own personal views and labels you in some way?
Would it upset your feelings to have some one you don't know label you in some fashion? and if so why? People shouldn't care what other people think of whatever they believe as long as it works for them and they are happy with themselves.

I think that is the one of the biggest beefs that atheists have for religious people. They want everyone to share in their joy of knowing god. How many atheists have come to your door to convert you? How many times do you drive by an atheist organization that has signs out front that tell you how you should join if you want to find happiness?

People just need to shut up about their beliefs and realize that it is a personal thing. If atheists think that people who go to church and/or believe in god are irrational fine. If people who go to church and/or believe in god think that atheists are going to go to hell fine. What concern is it of either group what the other group believes?

If you want to call me a godless heathen who is going to hell fire away, hell is an imaginary place.

[Lerkfish]

99. to clarify: I do not wish to call you anything.

I was using that as an example of what MIGHT be considered insulting by one side, but factual by the other side.
If you felt those were my own words or opinion, I apologize for the confusion.

[ThomCat]

54. I agree with this.

It is very easy to be offended by people's attitude towards you without agreeing with the belief behind the insult.

If Athiest can't be offended by being "damned to hell" then I can't be insulted by being called a Homo Slut.

I know I'm not a slut. I do not even believe that consentual promiscuity is wrong, so the whole idea of "slut" is something I doubt. I'm still going to be pissed because it's an insult, it's a judgement thrown at me, and who the hell has the right to judge me?

To take this one step further, if someone judges me me in a language I don't even understand, and I can tell from the tone or from gestures that I'm being measured and found lacking I will still be pissed.

I think the idea that you have to believe in hell to be offended when told you're going to hell missing the point.

[0rganism]

115. Context is important, in such cases

For instance, as you point out, it may simply be a statement of theological fact, presented neutrally.

Or, it may be directed in the spirit of disdain, contempt, pity, concern, and so on. It is within that realm of intention and perception that offense can be given and received.

Consider the difference in implications between being called a "good Jew" by an orthodox rabbi vs. being called a "good Jew" by a neo-nazi. The observation may even be rooted in identical evidence and rationale (e.g., an overall visible compliance with halacha), but the meaning has changed completely.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Is it possible, in your opinion,

to be overly rational?

[centristo]

18. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean

Would Spock be considered overly rational?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. Star Trek Spock?

Well, he was half human. Maybe Data would be a better example of a person hampered by being overly rational and by lack of intuition. He WAS constantly working towards being more "human."

[centristo]

23. is there any other?

oh wait, that child doctor guy. lol.

[trotsky]

33. Oh please.

We're not freaking androids. We love, we cry, we experience awe and wonder at the world. I know this is a very common theme to try and put atheists into this "too rational to enjoy life" box, but trust me, no atheist I know is like that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. Oh please yourself

I didn't suggest. I just asked.

How you been? I've been on spring break.

[Zhade]

52. False.

I am an agnostic atheist, for reasons I've explained an untold number of times.

I do NOT believe it has been proven there are no gods. We don't know everything, so there's always a chance. Just no objective evidence for any yet, so I happen not to believe in them (my atheism), based on that lack of knowledge (my agnosticism).

"The atheist concludes that all theists are irrational."

This atheist doesn't. Theists can be quite rational in their beliefs, which usually do however stem from the acceptance of unproven things (like the divinity of Jesus, etc).

Lots of flavors of atheism and theism.

[ThomCat]

6. meaningless semantics

" have to accept the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an affirmative belief in no gods"

These are both the same thing. If you don't believe something exists, then you have no believe in it.

The only possible situation where these two things are different is in the case of ignorance of the possiblity of something existing. I don't know anything at all about some thing I've never heard of or seen, so of course I have no belief in it's existence, but I don't believe it doesn't exist.

But this exception doesn't exist when discussing God because we've all been presented with the idea that God exists. We aren't ignorant of the concept and possibility. So given that we know of the belief in God, not having that belief is the same as believing the belief in God in incorrect.

We all have faith in many things. Just not necessarily faith in a God. We are all rational, so some extent or another. None of us is without faith or without rationality. But some of us see no reason to believe in God, and therefore because we see no evidence of God believe that there isn't one.

(As an aside, we've all heard the argument that there are many things that exist that we can't prove, and God might be one of those things. Fine. But that's a baseless hypothetical. When there is even tangential evidence that points to a God then present it and people will discuss it.)

[kwassa]

27. I agree with you, but many atheists in this forum would disagree

I agree with your entire post, including this:

"We all have faith in many things. Just not necessarily faith in a God. We are all rational, so some extent or another. None of us is without faith or without rationality. But some of us see no reason to believe in God, and therefore because we see no evidence of God believe that there isn't one."

[Zhade]

88. Sorry, that's wrong.

" have to accept the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an affirmative belief in no gods"

The first premise (the correct one, at least in my case) stems from the lack of evidence for gods, which is why I don't believe in them.

The second premise asserts that there are in fact no gods - an affirmative belief that would have to be backed up with evidence that proves no gods exist. Since no human being can possibly know all the information in the universe (they'd be a god if they could), there is no proof that the universe has been thoroughly searched and found lacking gods.

With all due respect, it's most decidedly NOT semantics. The first does not assume a conclusion, the second does (and without evidence, hence it is as unproven as the premise that gods exist).

Seems like it's not a difference at first, and fundies LOVE to argue there's no difference, but there is, as I just explained.

ON EDIT: to clarify this further: my atheism - a simple lack of belief in gods because there is no evidence for them - allows for the acceptance of gods should evidence someday be found. The strong atheist (what I'm not) doesn't leave open that possibility.

[unblock]

7. trying to avoid the loaded terms, ...

there are many varieties of belief, non-belief, and dis-belief systems, with various labels, and more than one viewpoint is represented here on du.

some maintain that god doesn't exist and maintain that this is a view is a rejection of 'faith'.
some actively believe that god doesn't exist and accept this understanding as a form of 'faith'.
some haven't decided whether god does or doesn't exist, but acknowledge that it's "possible".
some haven't decided whether god does or doesn't exist, and maintain this question is inherently undecidable.

there are other views as well.

then of course there are the believers, and within the set of believers there is even more variance in terms of the exact nature of god or gods believed in.


most people who reject faith do so for themselves only. within their viewpoint, belief in any god makes no sense TO THEM. these people rarely try to impose their views on others.

the problem is that when people (believers of otherwise) talk about faith, they automatically talk in universal terms, which makes it sound like they are insulting anyone with a different view. believers and non-believers are both guilty of this, it's frankly hard to discuss such topics any other way.

i grew up surrounded by christians who honestly thought i was going to hell simply because i was jewish. try not taking THAT as an insult!

[Xeric]

10. as an atheist...

If atheism is a belief, then going barefoot is a kind of shoe.
As an atheist, it is not my "belief" that there is no god. It simply is not proven and I am not required to prove the negative. If you have proof then fine, I'll be glad to listen. If you can't and rely on faith or belief, that's fine. It isn't proof though.
I can understand why this frustrates theists. In seeking to define atheists on their terms they run into resistence to the view that lack of a belief is a belief. It simply is not.

[kwassa]

29. In my original post I pointed out the limitations of these definitions

of both "belief" and of "faith". The dictionary includes many other meaning of these two words than the way you, and some atheists, are using them.

I am not attempting to pick a fight with you, just pointing something out, the point of my OP.

[Xeric]

40. semantic obfuscation on your part

This is the kind of semantics that religious apologists seem wont to use. I find it somewhat disingenuous. I think we all know what "belief" and "faith" mean in common usage. It does not depend on what the meaning of "is" is, nor does it require any vast philosophical discussion. You believe in, or have faith in, a god or gods. I do not. To try to complicate the matter is simply an obfuscation.

[kwassa]

44. Absolutely not.

This might be your common usage, but it is a limited one.

And I think it is quite specific to a sector of the atheist community. I've never heard it elsewhere, personally.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[trotsky]

53. Funny thing with that definition.

None of them apply.

1. Nope, atheists don't have a belief in the "truth" or "value" of someone or something. They just don't think theists are correct. Thinking that something is false doesn't necessarily mean you hold another thing to be true.
2. Nope. That's religious belief - no proof or evidence.
3. Nope. No fearless leaders in the atheist "movement."
4. Nope. (Obviously.)
5. Nope. (See #4.)
6. Here's the only thing that ALMOST comes close. But we can note once again that atheism doesn't involve any "principles" or "beliefs," it's just the state of being unconvinced by the assertions of theists.

[kwassa]

56. Two apply, at least

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

trotsky:

"1. Nope, atheists don't have a belief in the "truth" or "value" of someone or something. They just don't think theists are correct. Thinking that something is false doesn't necessarily mean you hold another thing to be true."

The atheists here have a belief in the truth of science, and the scientific method, and what they see as rationality, as expressed through many statements made here in this forum. That is pretty obvious source of most atheist beliefs.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

"Here's the only thing that ALMOST comes close. But we can note once again that atheism doesn't involve any "principles" or "beliefs," it's just the state of being unconvinced by the assertions of theists."

And, I don't think this is true, for reasons already stated repeatedly. Also, do you not think that "babies are born atheists" and "everybody is an athiest" are common atheist beliefs, for instance?

[trotsky]

75. You are completely wrong.

The atheists here have a belief in the truth of science, and the scientific method, and what they see as rationality, as expressed through many statements made here in this forum.

There is nothing in atheism that requires such. Sorry. Check your dictionary.

I don't think this is true,

So, your whole argument once again just comes back to your mere opinion. There is not ONE unifying principle or belief that identifies atheists. Not a single one. I know atheists who believe in astrology or ghosts. I know atheists (there are several here) who DON'T think babies are born atheists. Or that everybody is an atheist.

Try as you might, you just can't tar us with the same brush. You intensely object to any grouping or categorization of Christians, so why do you think you can do the same thing to atheists?

[Zhade]

90. I think I've decoded the Kwassa Mystery.

This whole thing is an argument put forth so that kwassa can use his phrase "active disbelief" as simply another way to say "my god exists and my beliefs are correct".

By begging the question this way, it becomes a case of "the atheists are denying my god that really exists".

I've got this guy figured out. Sad little game. Must have very weak faith to have to scrabble for any possible way to assert, without evidence, that he's right and we're wrong. I see a bunch of believers right here who have much stronger faith than that, and don't have to try to frame the argument in their favor.

See, I could take being wrong. JUST SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Simply saying, in whatever way it's disguised, "uh-huh, god does too exist!!!111!!!" doesn't cut it.

[trotsky]

97. It sure seems that way.

Like this is a competition - and by letting atheists define themselves (please note, of course, that we're only trying to define OURSELVES, not others), that somehow that will give us a "leg up" in the cosmic courtroom.

[Zhade]

89. That's exactly right.

The only reason some like kwassa refuse to accept that fact is likely because to do so would mean they lose another way to assert their god exists.

Like you, I'm open to the evidence. It just ain't there, though.

[wtbymark]

11. semantics are very hard to deal with

Like if I say the phrase " You ARE God" - to some would be blasphemous, to some it would be an honest compliment not to be taken seriously, and to others it would be "yea..duh...already knew that". In each three of these responses there are sub-connotations. a)could get you killed, or just looked badly upon b)could be in 'jest', or admiration; and c)could be purely logical to sarcastic.

semantics are tough - and you can't have a conversation without agreeing on them.

[Zhade]

91. It's not semantics - see upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=214&topic_id=57535&mesg_id=57826

It's tricky, but they really do mean two very different things.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Atheism comes in several flavors

For me to accept the arguments of the atheists here, I have to accept the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an affirmative belief in no gods.

"Strong" atheism is essentially a theological position on the non-existence of God or any other gods. "Weak" atheism is an expression of disbelief in God or any other gods. These are distinct positions and need to be treated as such.

In addition, there are other views that can be classified as atheist, such as "There is no evidence giving reason to believe in the existence of God or any other gods" and my personal view, "There is no relevance to the question as to whether God or any other gods exist." These, too, are distinct positions.

And as distinct positions, there are different points of discussion. A discussion you might have with a strong atheist will on religion will, of necessity, be different from the discussion you might have with a "no evidence" atheist.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. You raise interesting points

regarding "lack of belief" rather than "affirmative belief in no gods." I would imagine the seed of atheism varies from individual to individual.

I think it is very challenging, perhaps impossible, to discuss religious ideas with some people, because of their certainty of your (our) irrationality. In order to discuss, there must be some flexibility on the part of both participants. Take away that flexibility and you are pissing in the wind. (and that goes for both sides)

I believe myself to be a very intuitive, "right-brained" person. Logic is not my strong suit. My spiritual faith flows from that intuition. To me, it is a gift. To some, it might be considered a liability. But it has served me extraordinarily well in my long lifetime.

Happily, in this country we are not required to defend our thought processes. I have quite a few friends, colleagues, acquaintances, who do not attend any sort of church, but I have no idea whether they are simply not the type for organized religion, agnostics, or atheists. We don't discuss it. I have only once in my life been asked whether I "knew Jesus" and that was by the recovery room after surgery and she scared the hell out of me. Happily, by the time I was fully conscious she had gone home.

Perhaps it is simply not a good idea to attempt to frame another's beliefs or disbeliefs into a package you can understand. It is such an intensely personal subject.

[Zhade]

94. Your last paragraph is right on.

Maybe kwassa will accept that, someday.

[brooklynite]

15. Consider the following distinction...

You have been presented with a message that says "There is a God and I can prove it thus". You have considered and accepted the argument (at least I hope you have), and therefore affirmatively "believe" in a God. I have been presented with the same message, and have rejected it as flawed/inadequate/inconsistent, etc. Hence I "do not believe" in God. That does not mean necessarily that I would not believe in one at a later date if someone made abetter argument, but so far its not forthcoming.

The distinction would be if someone had come to me and said "There is no God; instead, there is a series of natural laws and occurrences, and I can prove it thus". If I consider and accept that argument, you could argue that I affirmatively "believe" in "no God". However, that is not the case since, as far as I know, atheists don't go around proactively trying to disabuse others of their religious faith.
- - -
note - You state: "For me to accept the arguments of the atheists here".....and "The atheists want us theists to discuss religious ideas with them". What arguments are you talking about and who "wants" you to discuss them?

[kwassa]

32. hmmm ....

"However, that is not the case since, as far as I know, atheists don't go around proactively trying to disabuse others of their religious faith."

Stick around this forum awhile. You might change your mind. While there is not often a direct attack, there can be much snarkiness around the edges.

[scorpiogirl]

20. I'm not sure I understand the difference you are trying to

point out, lack of belief versus affirmative belief? I am an atheist who does not believe in god. To me that means that I don't believe in the god that others believe in. I honestly never discuss this with anyone because to me there is nothing to discuss. You are saying that discussions are difficult because there is a lack of understanding on basic terms. I have never felt the need to try to convince anyone of my viewpoint. I am a live-and-let-live type of person. I dated a die-hard catholic many years ago and his sister asked me what I thought would happen to me when I die. I told her that I would be buried in a box and that's it. I think I shocked her a bit. Now I wonder if there is something after we die, but I don't think it's a god type thing. I have faith in myself is what I say if anyone asks what I have faith in.

[kwassa]

35. Welcome to DU, and read this forum for awhile

scorpiogirl:
"I have never felt the need to try to convince anyone of my viewpoint. I am a live-and-let-live type of person."

great!

[Zhade]

92. Please see post #88 above.

Kwassa is trying to frame the debate in his favor by mislabeling atheists. He does it a lot, and is incredibly disrespectful about it (I find insisting that he knows what we think better than we do to be quite insulting).

Welcome to DU, hope you get a lot out of it.

[trotsky]

24. What?

I think in about 90% of the threads there are no atheist "arguments," just an attempt to share our perspective, which is met with "oh you damn atheists are just shoving your belief system on us". You seem to have this total unwillingness to allow atheists to explain to you that how you define them is wrong. Instead, you have this perception that somehow if you let the atheists have that right, then they "win." And you just can't have that.

I don't view this as a win/lose type of thing. I view it as a "Here is my perspective as a legitimate member of the liberal/Democratic portion of the population and I would like to see the party have some respect for my views." In that regard, it's definitely a win/WIN situation. Liberal theists should learn to be more inclusive and respectful of those with no faith (and yes, it's your side that needs to work on this - witness ALL the Democratic Senators joining with the Repukes to chant "under God" in the pledge. Point out to me where an elected Democrat has done an equivalent act AGAINST religion.) Since you so rarely get to interact with real, live atheists, this is our only forum to try and get our point across.

[kwassa]

25. With all due respect

can you address the points in my original post about "belief" and "faith" and premises of discussion?

Thanks!

[trotsky]

31. Sure.

You are picking one arbitrary definition for each of those words, and insisting that it applies in all cases. Doing so essentially makes the words (those words in particular) meaningless. Equating "faith" that a chair won't collapse with "faith" in an unseen, undetectable, unknowable entity, for instance.

YOU are the one making demands concerning the "limited definition" of certain words.

At least you're fair, in a way, because you're doing the same thing with word "irrational" as applied to you. You assume one meaning (crazy, stupid, etc.) and think that's what we mean, and take offense.

[kwassa]

38. I am not using one definition of "faith" or "belief" at all,

and my choices are not arbitrary, simply different than some of the atheists here.

trotsky:
"Doing so essentially makes the words (those words in particular) meaningless. Equating "faith" that a chair won't collapse with "faith" in an unseen, undetectable, unknowable entity, for instance."

It is not meaningless, it is a different meaning, which words often carry, a multiplicity of meanings.

What I am really asking for is more specificity, rather than the assumption that what some atheists mean by the word "faith" and "belief" is what theists mean by the words "faith" and "belief". Without it, there can be no discussion.

The demand I am making is that we all use the commonly-understood meanings of words, as used in society at large, rather than within a sub-community, be it atheist or theist. I think this demand is extremely reasonable.

[trotsky]

43. You're making demands?

It is not meaningless, it is a different meaning, which words often carry, a multiplicity of meanings.

Yes, and while you criticize atheists for trying to use one of those meanings (the one that THEY feel fits), you see nothing wrong with doing the same thing, but further insisting - nay, DEMANDING - that your definition is the correct one.

How about you listen to someone else when they tell you, "No, that's not how I think" and respecting them for that?

Do I call you a Fundie Pat Robertson Christian? Have I ever?

[kwassa]

45. Why am I required to use only one of six definitions?

and the difference between my position and yours is this:

I use "faith" in all six definitions.

You use it in only one.

Which is correct?

Am I required to eliminate five definitions? Why?

[trotsky]

49. No one's asking you to "eliminate" any definitions.

In fact, that might more accurately describe what you're doing.

Let's go back to the Deep South, ca. 1952. Let's consider some of the "typical" or "commonly-understood" meanings of "black" as it referred to skin color.

Did the fact that those horrible connotations were "typical" and "commonly-understood" make them correct or accurate?

[kwassa]

58. These false race-based analogies are really obnoxious

though you persist in them

trotsky:
"Let's go back to the Deep South, ca. 1952. Let's consider some of the "typical" or "commonly-understood" meanings of "black" as it referred to skin color."

WRONG!!!!!

In fact, the polar opposite. Why?

Atheists are assigning negative connotations to the words "faith" and "belief". No one else is doing this.

Those negative connotations didn't exist before, at least in not in common usage. "Faith" and "belief" are only pejorative in the world of atheism.

The correct analogy would be atheists turning the words "belief" and "faith" into the equivalent of the N-word. That is an accurate analogy.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Ignorant and bigoted.

Trying to tell others what they believe is ignorant and bigoted.

Keep it up, we thrive on religious intolerance.

[kwassa]

63. Do you have an argument? Please pose it!

I'll be happy to reply.

[beam me up scottie]

67. How can one refute ignorance and intolerance?

In chronic cases, it is futile.

[kwassa]

125. I see. I guess you have no argument.

Other than labeling me without anything to support the idea.

[beam me up scottie]

126. See me when you're cured.

I don't want to catch it.

[trotsky]

76. Obnoxious? More like eerily accurate.

Atheists see terms like "faith" and "belief" as applied to THEMSELVES as negative. But you continue to try and make those words fit. My analogy holds.

[sutz12]

28. I prefer the term "non-rational"....

it sounds less insulting than 'irrational,' which has connotations about sanity and social pathologies.

Faith in God is non-rational. That is not to say that people of faith are not rational, however most people of faith do tend to react emotionally when their faith is questioned. Often, non-religious types will also react emotionally, when a rational response would be more apt. Our animal nature will tend to rise up when stressed or 'threatened.'

I believe there have been psychological studies that have put forth the theory that humans are 'hard-wired' to believe in some kind of deity, or at least something of a 'higher power or authority.' There is no disputing the fact that most humans are sociable, and will tend to gather in groups that share similar ideas and habits. Is this what evolved into what we think of as religion?

My estrangement from religion came from a growing revelation that the churches I was attending were pretty much devoid of any true spirituality. Perhaps that is becaus I refused to commit my self completely to their doctrine. Perhaps I didn't try enough different venues. For whatever reason, though, I always came finally to a conclusion that I wasn't being nurtured, only indoctrinated, and I always rebelled.

Right now, we are witnessing a time when some people who have declared themselves religious leaders are twisting religion into something that is hateful and violent. I wouldn't so much as help any televangelist I have ever heard of cross the street. In fact, I would happily push most of them under a bus. As a group, they disgust me, because they live off of the donations of the weak and the elderly, by feeding their fears and admonishing their desires, then promising them worthless prayer.

The problem with faith, as I see it, is that eventually faith in God, or in a religious doctrine, always seems to degenerate into faith in some person or institution, and that leads to Hell. You can see it going on right now. In the face of overwhelming evidence of corruption, lying, law-breaking, ad nauseum, there are still people who support our government, not based on any facts, but merely on faith in the people that are running it and who support it.

People can believe in people like Pat Robertson, who has publicly made statements that would get any 'left winger' excoriated and cast out of office. But he still goes on, because his supporters have 'faith' that he speaks the word of God, even when he promulgates evil messages.

Sorry, but 'God' just isn't really a rational concept. It is based on the deep seated emotions of human beings and a desire to be part of something greater than themselves.

[BurtWorm]

39. No one, atheist or theist, is wholly rational or irrational

I doubt any atheist would hold such a position, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting you when I say you seem to think anyone would.

What I believe is that theistic belief, because it is utterly dependent on faith in what cannot be objectively shown to be real, is irrational by definition. That doesn't mean that the person who holds the belief is irrational--if a person can be called irrational.

[Zhade]

42. Although this thread is against the rules...

(since it continues an argument from another thread), I will respond thusly:

You are reading things into our words that are not there. At least on my part, the fact that my atheism is a simple lack of belief in gods (because there is no objective evidence for any) should illustrate that I don't think it has been proven there are no gods - as I and others have repeated to you, countless times, the only way to disprove that would be to know all information in the universe, which of course would make US gods and thus render atheism invalid (since we'd have to believe in ourselves). It has nothing to do with thinking I'm more rational than you.

The reason I feel you and others will not (note I do not say 'cannot', as I believe it is willful on your part) accept our definition of ourselves is so you can beg the question and assert, via your "belief there are no gods" nonsense, that there are gods that we just refuse to accept.

It's another way of claiming gods exist without evidence, and it doesn't apply to me at the very least, so of COURSE I'm angry. Anyone would be angry at being told what they believe when it's flat-out wrong.

And since you've been told this, again, countless times, I don't think your post is sincere.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. I didn't know this was an old

argument. Now I feel dumb.

[Zhade]

84. Just because it is, doesn't mean your contribution isn't meaningful.

Please don't feel dumb just because I pointed that out.

[kwassa]

55. I think there is a misunderstanding

Zhade:

"The reason I feel you and others will not (note I do not say 'cannot', as I believe it is willful on your part) accept our definition of ourselves is so you can beg the question and assert, via your "belief there are no gods" nonsense, that there are gods that we just refuse to accept."

Not at all. I have no interest in making anyone believe in gods. None, whatsoever.

I believe, however, as I have stated previously, that you and a number of others have an active disbelief in God, for the reasons I stated before; no one goes to battle over a lack of belief in something. There are many things all of us lack belief in, but we pass them by, because they are of no interest to us. I know you and others here find this offensive, but I am using the word "belief" as it is commonly-used.

Unless one ONLY uses the definition of belief applying to religion: With that huge restriction, the atheist position here makes sense. Otherwise, it seems irrational.

I want to know why I need to restrict the definition.

[Zhade]

85. You're wrong. You've been told you're wrong.

Keep calling me a liar when I tell you I don't have an active disbelief, though. I really don't give a fuck. If you need to do so to feel like you're winning the argument, fine. Doesn't make it one bit truer, though it does make you an arrogant, disrespectful ass for continuing to deny the fact that I know my mind and you don't.

[ladjf]

59. Good argument!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

82. Truest thing all day:

The reason I feel you and others will not (note I do not say 'cannot', as I believe it is willful on your part) accept our definition of ourselves is so you can beg the question and assert, via your "belief there are no gods" nonsense, that there are gods that we just refuse to accept.

Those of us of "alternate" theologies (or lack thereof, really) are not "resisting" your gods. We honestly believe that your certain gods as you perceive them--or, in the case of atheism, all gods--do not exist.

[mariema]

60. I have no belief in any deity.

I have no belief in any deity. I do not “believe” that there is no God. In other words, my lack of belief is not a “belief.”

I don’t consider myself a weak, strong or any other type of atheist. There is no “active/inactive” belief of any kind. I no more “believe” in the nonexistence of a deity than I “believe” in the nonexistence of a talking rock. I don’t think about talking rocks; I don’t think about the existence of any deity.

If some one asks me point blank what my religious beliefs are, I just tell them I have none. So if you want to have a discussion with me about religion you’d be doing most of the talking because it is such a non-topic with me that I have little to say about it.

Now, if you want to talk about church/state separation issues I’ll go at it all day. The only reason I found this thread was I was interested in what folks here thought of the Univ of Minn study about atheists being the most despised minority.

Marie

[beam me up scottie]

61. You have no interest in discussion with atheists.

You're only interested in redefining atheism in order to justify your own belief, and trying to force us to accept your incorrect definition.

If we don't accept it, and most of us don't, you ignore us and continue to misrepresent atheism and atheists.

Your posts are without a doubt, among the most intolerant and disrespectful I've ever seen on DU.

There was a three way tie, but this vanity post puts you in the lead.

I must give credit to the other believers in this thread, they don't seem to be at all interested in playing your sad little game.


Thanks, liberal believers!

[varkam]

64. I kinda got the feeling..

that he doesn't like us too much...

[beam me up scottie]

66. Yeah, but he can't seem to get enough of us.

Funny, I hate ignorant intolerant believers and I do my best to avoid them.

At least until they advertise their ignorance and intolerance by calling out atheists in this forum.

[kwassa]

65. Can you respond to the OP?

[beam me up scottie]

68. I just did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57535&mesg_id=57636

[arwalden]

83. Indeed!

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

86. I think the difference is in the 'liberal' part.

I don't think kwassa IS a liberal, to be honest.

[Strong Atheist]

69. Well, there are two major types of atheists. The weak atheists,

who are probably in the majority, have no belief in gods (lack belief). Strong atheists, such as myself, positively believe there are no gods, much as you theists positively believe there are gods. And yes, atheists of both flavors think theists are wrong in their beliefs, just as theists think we (both types of atheists) are wrong in our beliefs (or lack thereof, for the "weak" atheists). Such is the nature of polar opposites....

[Desertrose]

70. About what you just posted....

"Strong atheists, such as myself, positively believe there are no gods,"

In your very own words above, you are admitting that you do have a belief system- "that there are no gods. Positively."

Yet you argue that this is NOT a belief system when it clearly appears to be one. One which you will defend endlessly. If something important or even crucial in how you view the world is not a "system of believing", then what would you call it?

I think the whole discussion is premised that atheists are saying that a "lack of believing in something", is not a belief system. But simply by saying because this is a belief in the "negative".... doesn't make it any less a "belief".


I can't really speak to whether weak or strong atheists feel theists are wrong, nor can I speak for theists as I don't consider my self either. I do wish we could agree on the definitions and meanings of words, (which is what I felt this OP was about) otherwise we will continue to beat our heads against a wall and get nowhere.

I do not mean to insult atheists by stating that you do have "beliefs" (please note I am in no way defining what those beliefs are). But as there is no real scientific proof for or against, then all anyone has is their "belief"- positive or negative- its still only a "belief". One that you have come to by your own experiences and thinking. Why not concede the same to the other rational posters here who may take the opposite viewpoint based on their own experiences and thinking. It doesn't have to be a constant war, does it?

As for fundys and evangelicals of any ilk, I agree, no one likes to be told how to think or what it is they think.

[varkam]

71. Sure, atheism is a belief system...

about as much as physics is a belief system - e.g. I believe if I drop this pen that it will fall. Or Psychology - e.g. I believe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or mathematics - e.g. I believe that I failed pre-calc in high school.

Atheism, at least my atheism, is based upon my experiences and things I've seen. People have told me they've talked to God, but I've never seen him. I don't see how the world could be like it is with God at the helm, to me it's logically inconsistent. My atheism has evolved from my observations and evidence that I've seen. Maybe that will change in time (maybe God will visit me before I manage to post this), as I haven't always been this "strong" of an atheist. I used to be very religious, then more agnostic, and now I assert that our universe and existence is purely material. It's a belief system, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me, given my experiences.

I do think that, given a different set of experiences, I may have arrived at a different conclusion. But one thing that I think a lot of people make mistakes with is not keeping an open mind. In psychology, there's something called a confirmation bias - we all tend to search out evidence that supports our pre-conceived notions about the world and the people in it while at the same time disregarding contradictory evidence. I think we all tend to make mistakes here - as if God did come visit me right now, I would probably check myself into a mental hospital. But, similarly, a hardcore theist would be able to, somehow, find God in the presence of horror (e.g. The Holocaust happened because of free-will).

[Desertrose]

73. Thank you.....

I appreciate your reply. :)

I guess I have the biggest problem with those (theists & atheists alike) who only see "god" as basically like us- viewed in "human" terms from a human reference. A being who gets pissed, rewards, punishes, etc etc . Sometimes we see the world from strictly that point of view. When I was a child, they tried to teach me that view ...but I always questioned that premise after having some extraordianry experiences from my earliest childhood on.

I agree completely, taken from that perspective, I would hope a god like that doesn't exist...a god who acts just like we do. Scary thought for sure.

But what if "god" is not that god of the bible or any of the other "holy" books...what if "god" is so much more and sees things in a completely different way? We judge what we perceive and then label it as good or bad- positive or negative. What if our perspective was suddenly much larger & we could see all the layers upon layers of humanity woven together so that everything takes on a different meaning. What if there are lifetimes layered and woven and all things have a reason that we can't see. Maybe we are like the fish in the bowl...limited world and distorted view?

I know, none of this has proof...I am simply posing questions that perhaps some have never considered.....

I think ultimately this may be all about if you believe there is more beyond this physical existence...if you believe there is nothing more, then yes, I can understand that thinking that a "god" who could let these things happen ...suffering, pain and then it just ends...is a pretty cruel god. I doubt I'd want to believe in him either ....but what if there is much more beyond just "this"....that "god" doesn't act with human "thinking" and "emotions"....that there is much that science cannot (yet) come to grips with. All my experiences in this life have led me to the knowledge that we are much more than just the physical bodies we inhabit.

Geez, its late and I suppose he only answers that work are the ones we come to for ourselves. :)

DR

[Strong Atheist]

74. You don't read very well, do you?

I very CLEARLY pointed out that there were two types of atheists. So, therefore, I was not being contradictory when I pointed out THEIR DIFFERENCES; what was happening was, you can't read properly.

I said that strong atheists are like theists in belief, and weak atheists are not, so as a strong atheist I do not mind you saying that I have a belief system, but the weak atheists do.


They have a "belief system" about god the way you have a "belief system" about Zeus. Lack of belief IS NOT a belief system. What part of this don't you understand?

[Desertrose]

77. Excuse me.....

but I simply disagreed. No reason to get insulting....I can see you are quite attached to all this strong/weak atheist pov.

You are telling me that "lack of belief in something" is NOT a "belief system". I see it differently. Whatever, its really not that important to me how people choose to label themselves. Whatever works for you.

DR

[Strong Atheist]

78. Ok. I saw your post differently. BTW, the weak atheists are

the ones who will really get mad if you say they have "beliefs" about gods. I don't care.

[Zhade]

96. Why concede a false premise?

My atheism, a simple lack of belief in gods since there is no evidence for them, is WAY different from the atheism of SA above, who (IMHO, wrongly, since he doesn't know everything in the universe) concludes that it has been proven that there are no gods.

I don't make an affirmative claim that evidence shows gods don't exist, so why in the world would I accept a flawed definition of what I believe? I think it's safe to say that I know my own mind and people like kwassa have no clue as to what goes on inside my skull.

[Strong Atheist]

110. Howdy! nt.

[manic expression]

121. Excuse me

for jumping in.

No offense, but IMO, your atheism is still constitutes certain beliefs. You may have a lack of belief in divinity, but you also have a belief that there is no evidence for divinity (you said it yourself, no?).

I'm not saying you believe IN anything, I'm just saying that you have beliefs that pertain to both the topic of the concept of divinity and the discussion thereof.

Sorry for offending you if I did (this is mostly speculative).

[Zhade]

155. False. I said there is no objective evidence for gods.

And that, my friend, is a demonstrable fact.

Therefore, your point, while potentially valid, doesn't apply to me.

[manic expression]

162. Not quite, IMO

That still encompases a belief on a subject. Notice how "subject" is very different from something like "entity", as it is only a subject of discussion in this case.

However, I see your point, I just slightly disagree.

[Zhade]

196. That there is no objective evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.

Unless, of course, you can point me to objective evidence to consider.

[manic expression]

202. I think

that is still slightly incorrect. The conclusion that there is no evidence is an opinion on the very subject, a belief, if you will. I would like to remind you that one can hold beliefs on facts as well.

[treegiver]

210. We believe the evidence

but that's not Belief.

It's worth remembering the words of our Dear Leader:

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe--I believe what I believe is right.'' G.W.Bush, Rome, July 22, 2001

[manic expression]

211. ?

The argument was that there is a lack of evidence and no evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence for a person to believe (I think that is what Zhade is saying). However, I would argue that the ultimate conclusion is still a belief. That's just me, and I'm sorry if it offends anyone.

[treegiver]

212. "Belief" with a capital "B"

If I may put words in his mouth, Zhade was saying that he knows there's no objective evidence, that it's not a mere belief (Belief with a capital B).

Knowledge has been characterized as justified true belief. So, by that definition we believe what we know, but mere belief may be neither justified nor true. The beliefs of Believers are not justified. Zhade does not want to be counted as a Believer. I'm with him.

I'm sorry if it offends anyone.

No offense here.

[manic expression]

215. belief or Belief

The point is that, in my view, (these) athiests do hold beliefs on the subject of divinity through their conclusions. That, I believe, agrees with your definition. It matters not if you feel your beliefs (as I call them) are justified or if others are not, since that is beside the point and is for another discussion.

[Zhade]

219. It doesn't offend me, but it's wrong.

I said there was no objective evidence, and by following that line, yes, you are correct that there is no evidence (note that I said objective - I know people have subjective feelings all the time) to believe in gods.

Again, if you disagree, I'm reasonable enough; just present the objective evidence.

[manic expression]

220. OK

However, what conclusion do you have on the subject of divinity? That is what I am getting at. Although you simply do not regard the concept of divinity as supportable by evidence, that is still a conclusion that constitutes a belief on the subject.

It's not about objective evidence (however, one only needs see smoke to know there is fire, but that's for another discussion!), it's about the way people regard the topic itself.

[Zhade]

226. "what conclusion do you have on the subject of divinity?"

Well, first, define divinity. There are a million and one definitions. I can't possibly answer without knowing exactly what you're asking.

"however, one only needs see smoke to know there is fire, but that's for another discussion!"

Yes, and we've had that discussion, and the fact remains that the smoke just might not be from fire.

[manic expression]

236. It's a concept

that's like asking someone to define art. However, divinity is, loosely (it should be loose), a higher/deeper existence.

Yes we have, and I recall that the only thing people could bring up was dry ice, which gives off a completely different type of smoke than fires. The point stands.

[Zhade]

218. It's not an opinion, though it is a fact-based belief.

If you dispute that there is no objective evidence, all you have to do is offer some. I'll honestly look at it.

[manic expression]

221. Sure it is

it's an opinion on this subject. It makes a certain conclusion on the topic, which, to me, is a belief.

This is a whole different discussion, but in regards to evidence, there are pure observations one can make, but one can also make inferences from that data. You may disagree, but it is my opinion that virtually everything around us shows divinity, and this can be concluded from observations and logical thought.

[Zhade]

227. As long as you're honest in calling that your opinion, and not fact...

...feel free to draw such conclusions. Doesn't harm me in the slightest, and to each their own and all that.

[manic expression]

235. Of course

all views on the subject are opinions, after all. I believe it is "true", and I have reasons for believing so, but that does not mean I can claim it is a "fact".

A really unrelated thing, but I was wondering today, is it possibly to empirically prove negative numbers? I do not think you can really prove their existence in the physical world. I mean, think about it, can you have -5 of something (not as in loosing 5, but an actual entity of negatives)? Just a thought.

edited spelling mistake

[FM Arouet666]

72. Why do you believe?

That seems to be the crucial question. I do not believe in the supernatural, including a belief in god. Why? Was this always so? I would be lying if I stated that I lacked belief from time immemorial. How did I become an atheist, why did god fail me?

Nothing profound, belief offered a series of little failures that guided me to the understanding I have today.

Pray for this and pray for that, never really finding solace in the results. Ghosts, goblins, and witches haunted my childhood, failure to glimpse a supernatural predator got me thinking. Oh, but the rewards! Step right up folks, all you got to do is believe in jesus, he is the son, the holy sponge for all human sin, and you will 'pass GO', 'ring the bell', 'black jack', all in one. You get to live forever! Yeah, Ahhhhh, Yeahhhhhh, Ohhhhh, Ohhhh, bang bang!

I was believing, got to believe if you want to live forever. Who wants to suffer in a burning sewer with rivers of McDonald's french frier oil, an eternal sunburn without SPF 2000 to protect your pale ass. Nope, got to believe. Just like lotto, you got to play to win.

So what happened? I was drinking the Kool Aid, thumping the bible, loving the afterlife. Education. I don't mean to suggest that those who believe are uneducated, that I do not believe. I am only sharing my personal evolution toward atheism.

I was challenged early on in junior college, a biology teacher drove the last nail in the coffin of my belief. Evolution, the big bang, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, etc etc Science made sense, science was testable, verifiable. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." No rationality needed?, you have to believe?.

My ability to 'just believe' is dead, it died long ago. The world is filled with mysteries, all of which have a rational explanation rooted in the natural world.

Why do I lack belief, because I have never witnessed anything which establishes the existence of the supernatural. I witness everyday the validity of modern science; from the time I wake to the buzz of an electric clock, followed by an energetic drive in a car powered by an internal combustion engine, to the time I go to bed blogging on a progressive web site courtesy of a computer and the internet. I witness life and death on a daily basis, I see no great revelation from the lord.

So I wonder, why do you believe? Whatever the vernacular.
:evilgrin:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

101. I believe because

my experience was almost the opposite of yours. I had the supernatural experiences. Also, I have never believed in Creationism, and so science to me was miraculous in and of itself. I've never believed in hell so I didn't have that problem, either.

tg

[FM Arouet666]

105. I am curious, what supernatural experience did you have?

You can ignore the question if you like. Predictably, I will usher in the Hume quote in my tag line and offer a scientific explanation for your experience. However, if you share I will refrain. Again, just curious.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

107. I won't get into too much detail

but I have seen family members after death and spoken with them. I have encountered my God in many places, ways, events, coincidences, miracles....you name it. Some can be explained away, and I've tried. But others have left me believing there is something...but it isn't "out there." It is in me.

But I believe for some reason I have been given this gift and there are reasons others have not. Maybe reincarnation is true and I'm an old soul and ready to move on. Or maybe I"m nuts. But I am remarkedly sane in my daily life. But there has never been a moment in my life since infancy that I was not aware of another presence. I never had to do the soul-searching others seem to do in order to decide whether to believe. I was born believing and I still do.

I have no problem with atheists, however, because I sense that we are not all supposed to be on the same page, at the same level. I can't explain it. I just know we all fit. Perfectly.

[FM Arouet666]

108. Thanks for the reply

Your last line is an expression of tolerance, an ideal all should strive for, a goal rarely achieved. I have no problem with believers, though I am sure many of my posts suggest the contrary.

Peace T. Grannie (oops, didn't mean to suggest that your a dinosaur. "The massive T. Grannie dwarfed the T. Rex in hostility, a scaly chutzpah that instilled fear upon the Earth.") :evilgrin:

[arwalden]

79. Ooph!

<< and it seems to make atheists here quite angry, which is not my intention at all. >>

:spray: :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

114. I'm with you

I've stayed out of this one because I don't think I want to get tombstoned at this point in my stay at DU.

[sutz12]

80. I think I've figured it out....

The theists hate the atheists because they have no real way to attack them.

Being an atheist is equivalent to, in a playground argument, answering the "My daddy can beat up your daddy" offering by saying, "My daddy is dead," or "I don't have a daddy." Suddenly, they've been disarmed and the only tactic is to attack the person directly.

Once again, 'irrational' is a bit of a caustic term. I prefer non-rational as being more descriptive.

[Zhade]

87. You may be onto something.

The fact that kwassa insists he knows our minds better than we do shows you might be right - begging the question of a god's existence by insisting we have an active disbelief in god (which is another way of asserting that his god exists) is an attempt to frame the debate in terms favorable to him.

Notice we don't play that rigged game.

[kwassa]

119. Ain't no rigged game

but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

All I'm sayin'. Actions speak louder.

[Lerkfish]

98. you're assuming theists wish to attack.

:shrug:

may be true in some cases, but it is also possible that theists prefer to be respected in their opinion, just like atheists.
maybe respect is not the right word. consideration? You don't have to agree with someone in order to accept their POV as valid.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

100. You assume theists

hate atheists. I don't.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Have you really seen evidence that any theists here at DU

"hate" the atheists? Don't you think that's a bit over the top?

Yes, I think it can be said that we are using different criteria, and different definitions for common words, and therefore coming to differing conclusions.

What I wonder is whether that means the chances for meaningful and respectful discussion are slim?

[sutz12]

111. My bad, 'hate' is the wrong term....

I do think that many theists get a bit confused and uncomfortable about this aspect of the discussion.

I will offer up that theists, especially of the Christian persuasion, will tend to evangelize more than atheists. However, and it has been pointed out elsewhere, converting a theist of one persuasion to another brand name is probably a lot easier than getting an atheist to start believing in a god, any god.

Atheists, OTOH, will more likely be of the "Leave me alone" persuasion. They don't really care about what the theists believe, until they start legislating their doctine into law. All too often, religious types will think that their 'moral code' is somehow universal when, in fact, it is largely a compilation of their particular theological ethic. To an atheist, a 'Christian' United States is not much more desirable than a Sharia dominated Muslim state. To them, it is like the difference between getting one's throat cut or head chopped off. The overall affect is undesirable.

Theists tend to bristle at the logic that atheists use, mostly because atheists tend to lump Christianity (or whatever religious group, actually) all into the same group labeled "Religion." The bottom line is that atheists believe that all religious doctrine is based on a non-rational assumption, the existance of one or more spernatural beings or entities. Theists will argue that belief in God (at least their god) is a rational assumption or position. However, if one believes that a rational belief must be supported by physical evidence, then the atheists are right. If one can surmise that a rational belief can spring from a feeling, then the theists have the upper hand.

The chances for meaningful and respectful discussion are slim. Atheist are left brained, if you will, while theists are more right brained. Sweeping generality, of course, but I think it is valid. If that is true, then women probably have a better chance at real discussion than men. Their brains might be better constructed to balance the two hemispheres than men.

[JerseygirlCT]

112. Some interesting thoughts there!

I agree with a whole lot of that.

"All too often, religious types will think that their 'moral code' is somehow universal"

Oh yes, we do see lots of this. Ironically enough, I think those theists among us who might identify as "universalists" are least likely to fall into that trap. As you mention, the trick there is the lumping of all various beliefs.

I'd make a strong guess that most theists of a liberal political stripe are NOT the ones evangelizing -- at least not in the "you must believe this!" way. Perhaps in the "let my works speak for themselves" way, which I have no problem with.

I think you hit on the differing perspectives that might lead one to either atheism or theism. I was thinking about this the other night... you might have one person look at the ocean and think: hmmm, salt water, pulled by tides created by gravitational forces, looking a little dirty today...

The next person might think: Oh. Beautiful. What power! How soothing! This is something bigger than me!

As you say, perhaps a left-brain, right-brain dynamic at work here. I'd say both responses are perfectly good and perfectly accurate, myself. And as a theist, I do think limiting proof to physical evidence eliminates a whole raft of other ways of experiencing life and our world. But I get why someone would think that way. I'm married to someone who thinks that way, lol!

I wonder if identification as a theist is more important to one than identifying as an atheist is to the other? I wonder if someone could chime in on that. If you're not religious, does the topic not interest you at all, or is it not an integral part of how you see yourself? Or is it very important? I'm not sure I have any idea, and would find that an interesting question to have answered.

[manic expression]

127. OK

many theists probably do get a bit confused. However, "many theists" do not represent all religious beliefs or religious people.

"I will offer up that theists, especially of the Christian persuasion, will tend to evangelize more than atheists."

And you'd be right, and then some (is it even possible for atheists to evangelize?). The thing that you should not forget is that Christianity is perhaps the most aggressive religion on the face of the planet. Christianity is very unique in this sense, perhaps along with Islam, although it is debatable which is more "aggressive". Most religions are very non-aggressive and tolerant; there's a reason why Hinduism coexisted with Buddhism peacefully for so many years in India (Buddhism is gone from India today, as a virtually direct result of the Mughal invasions), or why the cult of Dionysus didn't try to convert the devotees of Zeus. Again, most religions are not aggressive, Christianity is an anomaly.

"...if one believes that a rational belief must be supported by physical evidence, then the atheists are right."

This may be off topic, but I disagree. I would argue that smoke is physical evidence of fire, even though the actual fire may be out of view. Using this, we can make conclusions on deeper aspects of existence without readily observing them directly. For instance, the law of conservation of mass/energy would (IMO) point to the eternal existence of a soul; furthermore, the fact that all objects are attracted to one another would (again, IMO) show that all things are ultimately connected on the truest level. There are more examples, but I just wanted to share that thought.

Just a few thoughts, sorry for inviting myself into the discussion again.

[manic expression]

123. A few things

First of all, it is a gross mistake to say that theists "hate" atheists (on edit, I saw your other post, so don't worry about that). It is incorrect to say that theists "dislike" atheists. These generalizations are not accurate in any way.

Secondly, it's not about attacking, it's about a discussion (passionate discussion at times) on the subject of divinity. For you to say that theists "have no real way" to do this is false and borders on arrogance.

Lastly, many religious beliefs are neither "irrational" nor "non-rational". Just because you disagree with one sort of logical conclusion doesn't make it illogical.

[sutz12]

133. Some responses....

<<First of all, it is a gross mistake to say that theists "hate" atheists (on edit, I saw your other post, so don't worry about that). It is incorrect to say that theists "dislike" atheists. These generalizations are not accurate in any way.>>

Agreed, I was a bit heavy handed with my characterization, there.

<<Secondly, it's not about attacking, it's about a discussion (passionate discussion at times) on the subject of divinity. For you to say that theists "have no real way" to do this is false and borders on arrogance.>>

That's not really what I said. Certainly, theists can express themselves just fine, but they cannot express themselves in a way that atheists can accept. There are two separate languages at work here. One side is saying that a 'rationality' based on supernatural influences is invalid, at least for them. Theists must believe in something supernatural for their chosen 'theism' to be valid. Atheists, for the most part, have no belief in supernatural forces, beings, or events, and thus assign no value to them in their own lives. When offered those as 'proof' of something, they will always say, "That's not real," because to them, it isn't. Any 'supernatural' experience can be explained in many different ways in terms of physical and chemical processes going on in the body and brain. IMO, it really is two different modes of perception.

<<Lastly, many religious beliefs are neither "irrational" nor "non-rational". Just because you disagree with one sort of logical conclusion doesn't make it illogical.>>

I would argue that just because you believe something to be 'logical' doesn't make it so, either. Once again, you want others to accept what you say you have experienced as rational and real. Since no one can know what you have experienced in your body, that is not proof for anyone other than you. To accept your stories and 'logical progression to faith,' one must have faith in you. Since there really is no rational reason for one person to believe that another has had a 'religious experience' there is no logical reason to accept that person's religion.

The OP requested opinions on why the two sides of the argument cannot seem to discuss their differences rationally. I have opined that the reason is because the two sides are:

1. Speaking different languages, in which the concept of what is 'rational' is in some dispute.

2. Not able to look at the subject from the other side's perspective because they just can't. They think in different terms.

Much like the 'battle of the sexes,' the two sides will probably never agree. :)

[manic expression]

134. Some more

1.) OK, no problem here.

2.) Well, I think both sides can and do understand one another, but there is still a very strong disagreement that is very hard to eliminate either way. To me, it's really just different viewpoints that will seldom, if ever, come to common ground on certain topics.

4.) Of course belief in something doesn't make it logical. However, the point is that many religious beliefs are logical, and disagreement with them does not change that. Personally, I don't ask anyone to accept what I believe, I would hate it if there was no diversity in thought. However, one does not have to believe in something to see the rationality involved. The recognition of the rationality in many religious beliefs is all I am asking for. I see the logic that atheists use, I simply disagree in a big way (and that goes for many other groups with religion).

Well, theists and atheists get in huge arguments over the mere label of "atheism", so one can hardly expect them to reconcile their different viewpoints. Although I think many atheists understand and recognize what theists are saying and visa versa, there is still that split that can't be ignored, and that forms the foundation of much of the discussion.

"Much like the 'battle of the sexes,' the two sides will probably never agree."

Sounds like a reality TV show to me! At any rate, I think theists and atheists need to stand together when necessary, especially against RW religious lunatics. If we can put aside our differences for the common good, there will be a lot of progress that can be made. Ultimately, I think that while we rabidly disagree on religious questions, we mostly agree on important issues, and we should not forget that.

[sutz12]

135. Therein lies the difficulty....and I don't think you see it.

The recognition of the rationality in many religious beliefs is all I am asking for.

That you will never get. Get used to it. The very essence of atheism is that religion is a non-rational belief system. For an atheist to acknowledge that any religious belief system is rational, they would have to abandon their own rational system.

Ain't gonna happen, any more than a theist proving that atheism is not rational.

I think both sides can see the other's point on an intellectual basis, but agreement or acknowledgement, as you call it, will not happen.

I agree that the extreme RW fundamentalists are a lot of what is wrong in today's world. We need the more moderate religious people to start realizing what the extremists are up to. I'm willing to stand by moderate religious people against them.

Me, I'm more of a non-denominational agnostic. :)

[manic expression]

136. It's a difficulty

but it's one that should be overcome.

"The very essence of atheism is that religion is a non-rational belief system. For an atheist to acknowledge that any religious belief system is rational, they would have to abandon their own rational system."

Is that true? I thought most atheists just say "well, I don't believe that, sorry" and not "that's non-rational, I'm rational and you're not". I do think that they are more of the former. However, it is a fact that many religious belief systems are rational, and that is simply what I am trying to get across. If an atheist can't recognize that, it's his/her problem, but it doesn't change anything.

I don't say that atheism is irrational, because it isn't, I just wholly disagree with the conclusion itself.

Well, a widespread agreement is unreachable, but an acknowledgment that many on both sides are rational is reachable, however difficult it may be. As you said, what is more important is acting against insanity regardless of disagreements.

I admit I'm not EXACTLY clear on what agnostics think/believe/hold as an opinion. IIRC, isn't it simply doubting? Sorry for not being sure.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. I think that's all very well put. nt

[greyl]

109. The disconnect is a myth.

Generally, I see a continuum at the base of ideas here - there are a few exceptions.

The desire to be good is shared by theists and atheists, hence the "moral+value" point of discussion. To devout theists, it's fascinating in a fishbowl kind of way how atheists can have any apprehension of goodness.

I'd bet that the argument will be won by dynamic atheism because it is on a higher level of evolution than static theism.

[JerseygirlCT]

113. Can you define those terms for me?

"I'd bet that the argument will be won by dynamic atheism because it is on a higher level of evolution than static theism."

Do you mean to say that atheism as a whole is dynamic while theism is static? Or are those sub-sets of the two?

And can you explain what you mean by "higher level of evolution"?

[greyl]

259. ok

"Do you mean to say that atheism as a whole is dynamic while theism is static?

Pretty much, yes, but it's a general statement all the same and there are exceptions.
As atheism is the lack of belief in god it's more difficult to attribute qualities to it, but it's fair to always include scientific knowledge, intellect, and atheism in the same breath. Most theists would say that faith in god/s isn't in the domain of the intellect and is beyond the reach of science.

So, we have on one hand a system that looks for knowledge right here on earth, and on the other one which began only several thousand years ago with prophets revealing "Divine" wisdom which was written into "Holy" books which must be honored above all else.
But they haven't been unfailingly honored by theists, have they? Through time, the intellect and new scientific knowledge has compelled theists to slowly reinterpret the Holy Books to better fit. That's why I say that the disconnect between atheists and theists is a myth. The extremes are bloody obvious, yet we are all sharing the experience of being human.

By "higher level of evolution", I was referring to this metaphysical description of reality from Robert Pirsig which comes in handy:

I place religion on the level of social patterns which seek to dominate biological patterns. With little or no regard to intellect, Divine dogma is often cited as the source of The One Right Way to Behave. Certain fundamentalist societies put people to death for adultery not because it makes sense to, but because it's their revealed God's will to. There are many less extreme examples of this in our country right now, as progressives are well aware.
In turn, intellect is on a higher level of evolution than society because intellect is capable of instantly responding to new stuff. Matter of fact, the intellect loves new stuff, seeks out new stuff, makes better sense of old stuff, and creates brand spanking new stuff at an amazingly rapid pace.
I'm afraid that theism simply can't keep up - not even with it's misguided self-appointed task of controlling our 'evil' biological patterns.


*note: theism in this context includes all salvationist religion with a traditional dogma, not totally personal and unique apprehensions of god/s with zero dogma.

[kwassa]

122. What makes you think that theism is static?

if anything, I think theism continually evolves.

[NMMNG]

138. Not really

Theism is based on a book written thousands of years ago, and its staunchest adherents, in particular, insist on following that book to the letter even today. If one could resurrect a man from the 14th century he would be completely ignorant of modern science, history and technology. However his knowledge of his religion would be beyond reproach, and virtually identical to that of modern man. Why? Because in all of the intervening centuries very little has changed. Theism is, for all intents and purposes, a static entity.

[0rganism]

116. Can you clarify your clarification for me?

> For me to accept the arguments of the atheists here, I have to accept
> the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an
> affirmative belief in no gods.

In particular, I want to understand the difference you construe between a lack of belief in the existence of an entity as opposed to the affirmative belief in the non-existence of an entity. Maybe you can point me to a previous post you've made on the subject.

What is your criterion for differentiating a lack of belief from an affirmative disbelief?

[Goblinmonger]

117. That god really exists

Specifically that HIS god really exists. Which would mean that atheists are "actively" disbelieving that god.

Damnit, I told myself I would stay out of this. Must be my lack of morals.

[0rganism]

118. The OP's assertion doesn't really address the generality of the belief

That is, one might be actively believing that a specific god doesn't exist -- e.g., Thor. Given the current unpopularity of the Norse pantheon, it's a good bet that presented with a valid description of Thor, most people would "affirm" a belief that such an entity doesn't exist. This may be the kind of disbelief the OP is talking about. However, there is also the possibility that one might have a belief set that actively or passively excludes the existence of such beings independent of any particular description of characteristics.

To go a bit further, when a Christian recites the Nicene creed, and gets to the part about, "I believe in one God, the creator of heaven and earth," that raises two questions on this matter. First, is the creed in any way a tacit exclusion of belief in other gods, such as Thor, who might not be creators of heaven and earth but still have divine powers and merit worship in their own right? Second, if such a belief is excluded in principle, is that exclusion an affirmative disbelief or a passive one?

I don't ask about this lightly, I think such questions can get us to the heart of the overall epistemological question which the OP proposed to address.

[kwassa]

124. To me, God is not an entity or a being

That is a limited understanding of the concept of God. I have never thought God to be a "being" because that in and of itself is limited.

"What is your criterion for differentiating a lack of belief from an affirmative disbelief?"

Behavior. If one has a lack of belief, one simply doesn't care about the issue and does nothing about it. If one has an active disbelief, one actively opposes the belief.

If it is only lack of belief in something:

I am equally an a-communist, a-fascist, a-monarchist a-NASCARian. Why would I focus on a-theism?

and if it is lack of belief in God:

My cats are atheists because they lack a belief in God, though I am not really sure because I don't speak "cat". My front door is atheist because it lacks a belief in God. My sidewalk is equally atheist. The lamp post is atheist. The gas station is atheist. They all lack a belief in God.

[beam me up scottie]

128. How sad.

And by sad I mean pathetic.

You've really outdone yourself this time.

You started a thread in this forum for the sole purpose of convincing others that atheists are incapable of defining themselves.

I bow to your superior knowledge about my atheism. :eyes:

[kwassa]

129. How about rebutting my behavioral argument?

Rather than attacking what you suspect as my motives.

No one has even attempted it, which leads me to think that my argument must be quite sound. I keep raising the argument, hoping to get a response, but instead have my motives attacked.

It does not seem to be much of a debate from the atheist side, here.

[beam me up scottie]

130. Gee, kwassa wonders, why won't the atheists talk to me?

:rofl:

[kwassa]

131. Some very interesting ones have.

although you don't appear to be able to answer my argument, either.

[beam me up scottie]

132. A snit is not an argument.

And this is all it deserves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57535&mesg_id=57636

[0rganism]

139. Just hold on, I want to be sure I understand what OP's getting at

I think there's a valid point here, that requires some thought, and the ad-homs aren't going to make that any easier.

Atheists, myself included, are often inclined to contend that a lack of theism is no belief, arising naturally from a corresponding lack of convincing evidence or argument -- in my view, a matter of epistemology rather than a form of negative theism. However, I also see some atheists on this very thread who've indicated that this non-belief is itself actually a metaphysical belief well worthy of zealous defense. The OP's point, if it is what I think it might be, has actual merit -- evidenced, ironically enough, by self-declarative behavior I've seen on this thread.

I can see here a qualitative difference in approach to the subject by atheists.

> (OP) started a thread in this forum for the sole purpose of convincing
> others that atheists are incapable of defining themselves.

I didn't see it that way at all. The OP's declared purpose was to open a dialog of some sort concerning his rejection of a specific premise -- one which other atheists have outright rejected here as well. At the very least, s/he's established some common ground on this point with the atheists most willing to argue about theism. Personally, I think that's the kind of silver lining that can crash a cloud right through your roof, but that's IMHO.

[beam me up scottie]

143. Look again

A brief history of the op's attempts to uh, "open a dialog" with DU atheists:

***************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-18-05 11:53 AM

135. Your atheism sounds like agnosticism, so you are not an atheist?

Have you been masquerading?

An athiest definitely believes that there are no Gods. That is what atheism is. It is a positive, declaritive position, without the possibility of doubt involved.

If you define it otherwise, you are not an atheist.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-18-05 06:53 PM

145. Atheism is a dogma, like I said before

you have a dogmatic belief system, which you strongly advocate

yes, I read the blurb, I particularly like this:

"Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not."

One of the worst sentences I've read in a long time.

This is not what you practice, of course. You actively and sincerely believe it not to be true. It is your dogma, specifically.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-19-05 10:46 AM

150. The "absence of belief" is a belief in and of itself

It is a cute word game, actually, which thrusts on to others the responsibility for proving their is a God than onto atheists to disprove that there is no God.

The absence of belief IS it's own absolute belief, in fact, not some time of void. It is the belief that all atheists ascribe to, the unifying principle. It is therefore the dogmatic belief of atheists.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

2) An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-26-05 09:57 AM

45. Your point is obvious, just incorrect

YankeyMCC
"Claiming disbelief in god is a dogma is just plain silly."

Sorry, it fits these definitions of dogma. Of course, the "atheists" here seem to like to make up their own definitions of words, so maybe that is the issue.

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-26-05 04:07 PM

65. A lack of belief is a belief in and of itself.

"Is a lack of belief in leprechauns or Santa Claus a dogma?"

A lack of belief in this circumstance would be to believe that there is no leprechauns or Santa Claus. This belief would not be a dogma because it would not touch on a belief about God or religion.

***************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-27-05 12:15 PM

75. Religion is a universal human activity, probably a basic human need

All human cultures have religions, which indicates it as a basic human need, simply because we all do it. The function of religion is a means for humans to deal with the nature of that-which-is-greater-than-us, whether we call it God or something else. We wonder about greater meaning, and our individual role in that meaning. I've heard religion described as human psychological states projected outwards as archtypes, which could well be true. Nonetheless, it is important, it is a constant need, and it won't go away.

I also regard serious atheism as another religious faith, though I would certainly except a bit of disagreement here.

By the way, this poll does really reveal the anti-religious, pro-athiest majority on this group, which is actually worse than I thought it was.

**************


And look what I found! A thread started by op over a year ago FOR THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE of informing other DUers that DU atheists are incapable of defining themselves:


kwassa (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-03-05 07:26 AM
Original message
Lack of belief, or active disbelief?

I have a lack of belief in many things.

I lack a belief in leprachauns. I don't, however, haunt the Irish Affairs group talking about my lack of belief, because my lack of belief has a side effect: I really don't care about the issue. My lack of belief creates the corollary that the belief also lacks importance to me.

I lack a belief in Communism, either, and I don't search message boards for Communists to argue theory with. My lack of belief renders it unimportant to me.

Now, if I have an active disbelief about an issue that I think is important, I will go and argue it, because it is so important to me. It is an active, vs. the passive stance of those who maintain the idea of "lack of belief".

I see much of the activity here by atheists as active disbelief, which is simply a different belief, of course. They really don't believe in God and need to argue the point.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 12:14 PM

126. A "lack of belief" is a belief in itself

which is the dogma of Athiesm, as limited a dogma that it is.

We've been through this several times already.

Want me to post the definitions of dogma again?

****************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 02:23 PM

131. And I think many atheists use the "lack of belief" posture

so they are not required to prove a thing.

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 02:31 PM

135. I ask only for a rational position

And "lack of belief" is not the definition of atheist.

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" n : someone who denies the existence of god

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-01-05 09:14 PM

155. There is faith in the scientific method as the absolute tool of truth

It is simply a different kind of faith. That method might turn out to be terribly flawed in a future that we can't anticipate now, or it might continue to be supported.

There is faith that there is no God, under the more traditional definition of atheists, and, of course, I see atheists as people of great faith. But, you knew that, and so do others around here, and I am sure most "atheists" here reject that claim.

Faith doesn't requre tools or techniques, it is simply belief, which is a choice.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-19-05 01:35 PM

319. Atheism is a belief system, not a lack of belief, as I have stated before

I never said it was a religion. It has some characteristics that are similar to religious faiths, however.

*****************

Here the op complains that Richard Dawkins only uses ONE definition of religious faith (apparently the op never looked up the definition of hypocrisy in his dictionary.):

kwassa (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-21-05 11:13 AM

17. The problem is Dawkin's definition of faith

quoting Dawkins:

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence,"

Um, no, faith has many other definitions, and there lies the problem. As with many words in these discussions, I find that atheists may use the word faith differently than many others, which creates misunderstandings, of course, and the usual heated round of discussions where people use common words in completely different ways.

To recapitulate, please note that Dawkin's definition fits under #2:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-14-05 07:44 AM

73. Some atheists use a narrow and perjorative definition of "faith"

Everybody has faith in something, if we look at the real definitions of faith. These discussions always break down at the point of language, because we are saying different things when we use the same words.

Do I have to go get the definitions again? Part of the endless circle of these atheist vs. believer discussions (though atheists are also believers, too, for that matter).

You have faith in science or reason or whatever. Everyone has faith in something.

here we go again:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

Atheists generally only use faith in the sense of Definition #2. I see atheists as faith believers in Defintions #1 and #6.

Any question?

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-15-05 12:31 PM

129. no, but atheism is a faith

I know you don't like it when I say that.

Of course, we define the word athiesm and faith differently, so it is pointless to argue. I'm stuck on those old-fashioned dictionary definitions

**************

Here is the op admitting that there is more than one definition of atheist:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-25-06 02:01 PM

101. I don't agree, or course. Atheism is very much something

Here are some different definitions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:
"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.
Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.
The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

********************

Only to turn around and inform an atheist that he is using the wrong definition of it in regards to his own atheism:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-28-06 05:30 PM

42. There are several definitions of atheism

Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 05:31 PM by kwassa
you and other atheists here choose to express only one of them.

Frankly, no one fights hard over a lack of belief, or anything they don't believe in. I think you and many others here have a very strong affirmitive belief that there is no God, judging simply by your behavior in this group.

And that is another definition of atheism.

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-01-06 07:57 AM

101. Hey, I am only judging by actions, not words, just like the Christians

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, its a duck. Some atheists here act like the truest of true believers.

There are a million things I have a lack of belief in. I don't spend one second identifying myself by what I don't believe in, but by what I do believe in.

The fairly militant atheists here continually fight for a void, if I was to believe their stance. They fight for a "lack", whatever that is.

********************

Here the op tells us that being gay is not a choice while atheism is:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-01-06 03:34 PM

136. well to me homosexuality is not a choice and atheism is ...

as belief always involves choice, so I really don't see the parallel.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-15-06 02:45 PM

127. To me, quite honestly, atheists have beliefs

But atheists here use the words "belief" and "faith" differently than the broader meanings used in the world, and as what we see in the dictionary definitions.

I don't use it as a dig at all, merely an observation.

It is like the old joke "Everyone believes in something, I believe I will have another beer."

I understand that the word "belief" has an extraordinarily negative connotation to atheists, but they have a specific, from what I can see, definition that is not more widely used in the world. To atheists belief connotes only believers in specific religious ideas, not believers in the scientific method, or in winner of the next Superbowl, or in the value of a certain political candidate. These are all beliefs, though, as the word is defined

***********************

And we're back to the this week's thread, which, as I already pointed out, is a duplicate of a thread he started in March of LAST YEAR to call out DU atheists.


If the op were to do this to any other minority, wouldn't such behaviour be labeled intolerant?


Ad homs?


Please.


I think DU atheists deserve a medal for restraint.

[BurtWorm]

144. Excellent archaelogy, BMUS!

Of course it was all pretty near the surface... ;)

[WritingIsMyReligion]

146. !!

:yourock:

[trotsky]

147. Game. Set. Match.

Nice work, bmus.

[SidDithers]

148. Oh, Snap!...

Great summary, BMUS. Bookmarking, 'cause your hard work should be remembered.

:applause:

Sid

[varkam]

149. The perfect way to end a bad day.

Thank you for the enjoyable read BMUS!

[arwalden]

151. Bra-VO!

:applause:

File --> Save --> C:\My Documents\DU\NiceWorkBMUS.html

[NMMNG]

152. Now what would the Christians be doing in this situation.

Oh, I know.

"We're being persecuted!!!!" :cry:

[Zhade]

154. Saved, and available upon request.

All his own words.

(Yeah, I know the mods will delete this subthread, but I saved it. :) )

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

170. Add another backup copy to the repository -nt

[FM Arouet666]

156. Tsk Tsk Kwassa

Very interesting post. A cornucopia of logical fallacy and twisted information concerning atheism. I would have to agree with the other respondents, if the OP was to post the same threads replacing Atheism for christianity a fire storm of opposition would result.

I think atheists have been more than tolerant. Thanks BMUS great post............

[0rganism]

159. Interesting, thanks

Clearly you (and others) have a history with kwassa with which I am unfamiliar, which casts doubt on the sincerity of the original post. Once again, other perspectives are revealed in the light of context.

What the evidence shows is that kwassa does have an urgency in making this point, bordering perhaps on an obsession. The question remains, as to whether the point itself is invalidated by the history of the one who presents it. Perhaps the longer kwassa builds this history, the more the scenario he presents is self-fulfilled?

Were the ad homs any less so because of who offered or received them? I have never known this to be the case, and even with the context you provide, I cannot help but think that the "medal for restraint" would go to those who choose to ignore these threads rather than engage and inflate them.

One thing is certain, I lack the background to participate in the R/T discussions. I will refrain from commenting in this forum until I have read more of it.

[beam me up scottie]

167. No, we deserve the medal.

We have been subjected to that kind of intolerance in this forum for far too long.

By your logic, we should just ignore the bush administration and the "moral" majority too.

BMUS don't play like dat.

I am sick of seeing people feel sorry him every time one of us decides we've had enough and refuses to allow him to broadcast his intolerance in this forum unrestrained.

I had been ignoring him for quite some time, actually, but when I saw him blindsiding new posters, I couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer.


THAT is why I'm the Uppity Atheist.

I don't know my place.


And as far as refraining from commenting in this forum, why should you?

You have just as much right to post here as anyone else.

If you want historical context, ask someone, or better yet, do a search, but don't think you have to sit on the sidelines because we've been fighting this battle and others for years.

[Goblinmonger]

168. Two thing

1. I agree with BMUS that you should post all you want. Don't be hesitant to engage in the conversation. Many people don't like the "6 or so" uppity athiests, but I promise you that none of us will stand by silently while someone, theist or atheist, comes down on you.

2. An ad hom/bigotry from anyone is bad. If it is from someone I do not know, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and point it out to them. If it continues, then the gloves are off. In the case of the person(s) in question, it has been going on for YEARS, which compounds the arrogance with which the bigotry is committed. Certainly you can see that. Ignoring it would just be allowing it to continue. It would be riding in the back of the bus and never saying that is bullshit.

[BiggJawn]

161. I love it when people try to define me according to THEIR definitions.

Show me indisputable PROOF of this "God", and I'll convert on the spot.

It's not my responsibility to "disprove" anything, since I'm not the one asserting the exisitence of a mythical being.

A lack of belief is a belief in itself. Hogwash.

And why believe in the Gawd of the bible, but not, oh, let's say Odin? Zeus? Vulcan?
Everybody's an Atheist, I just believe in ONE LESS Gawd than most.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

169. Copied, pasted, & saved in .doc format

I presume you'll post this excellent investigative report in Neural Gourmet? If it vanishes before you can, you know who you gonna call.

[kwassa]

174. Thank for the archeology, BMUS

I note that these posts cover over a year of time, corresponding to how long I have been a member of DU. It seems that you did a lot of work here to condense a year of my writings.

I also note that my views are not static over time, and that my views were pretty strong when I first joined this group, and to me, have shifted and mellowed somewhat.

I also sometimes take a bit of a devil's advocate position in order to stimulate discussion of certain ideas.

I think that your large-type conclusions are unwarranted.

Let's look at some of your characterization of all these posts of mine.

BMUS:
"And look what I found! A thread started by op over a year ago FOR THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE of informing other DUers that DU atheists are incapable of defining themselves:"

1) That is not the purpose of this thread.
2) That has never been my purpose on any thread. My more recent purpose is to clarify the discussion. It took me a very long time when I first got here to understand that part of this disconnect was the way that common words were being used.
3) Topics are revisited on a regular basis in this forum, i.e., the recent repeat of "babies are atheists", so there is nothing unusual about repeating a topic.

BMUS:
"Here the op complains that Richard Dawkins only uses ONE definition of religious faith (apparently the op never looked up the definition of hypocrisy in his dictionary.)"

Whether or not you think me hypocritical (where does that come from?) I am correct about Dawkins, so I don't see your point here.

BMUS:
"Here is the op admitting that there is more than one definition of atheist:"

and?

"Only to turn around and inform an atheist that he is using the wrong definition of it in regards to his own atheism:"

I never said that I accepted all the definitions from this site, I merely cut-and-pasted their version of different definitions.

BMUS:
"Here the op tells us that being gay is not a choice while atheism is"

Which is true, I think. What is the problem with this statement?

BMUS:
"And we're back to the this week's thread, which, as I already pointed out, is a duplicate of a thread he started in March of LAST YEAR to call out DU atheists."

As I pointed out, you misconstrue my purpose, both last year and now. I took a somewhat stronger position than, than I do now, but I have always been interested in discussion.

"If the op were to do this to any other minority, wouldn't such behaviour be labeled intolerant?"

Tolerance or lack of tolerance has nothing to do with majority or minority status. I am not being intolerant, I am expressing my opinion and asking questions about the "atheist" position here. You ask me to accept something that to me that seems self-contradictory, which is why I ask the questions. I also support my own opinions with my reasoning, much of which is never touched upon by the atheists here, so I ask the question again, hoping to get an answer.

A point that mystified me when I got here still mystifies me; how I upset people over a "lack". If a lack is a void, why do you so strongly defend a "lack of belief"? Isn't that defending nothing?

I know I will never get the answer to this question, which is in one form or another the question I have asked for a year, so, I'll stop for now.

[arwalden]

175. You're Smarter Than You Pretend To Be. The Homer-Act Fools Nobody.

I think you're smart enough to understand that the word "lack", when used in such a manner, suggests the absence of something that is otherwise desirable, or required, or necessary, or preferred.

I lack a full head of hair. But I don't lack belief in deities.

<< I am not being intolerant, >>

:rofl: :rofl:

<< I am expressing my opinion and asking questions about the "atheist" position here. >>

Oh brother! Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're still clinging to that??


<< Isn't that defending nothing? >>

:eyes: Heh. Only you would come up with something like that.


<< I know I will never get the answer to this question, which is in one form or another the question I have asked for a year, >>

TRANSLATION: "No matter how many times you answer me, I'll pretend like I didn't hear you, or I'll pretend like it doesn't make sense. I'll assume you're lying and I'll continue to tell you that you're lying and tell you what you believe, no matter how insulting you find it. You can't ruin *MY* fun of taunting and insulting atheists."

<< so, I'll stop for now. >>

PROMISE???

Only "for-now"? I'd prefer it if you stopped FOREVER... but I'll settle for "for-now" if that's the best you think you can do.

[kwassa]

180. In response

arwalden:
"I think you're smart enough to understand that the word "lack", when used in such a manner, suggests the absence of something that is otherwise desirable, or required, or necessary, or preferred."

I don't see that at all. I don't think that a religious belief or lack of religious belief necessarily falls into any of those categories. To me, a lack is a lack. There are many completely happy and completely secular people in this world.

arwalden:
"TRANSLATION: "No matter how many times you answer me, I'll pretend like I didn't hear you, or I'll pretend like it doesn't make sense."

I certainly hear you, but it really doesn't make sense to me. That part is correct, and that was why I am continuing to seek clarification.

"I'll assume you're lying and I'll continue to tell you that you're lying and tell you what you believe, no matter how insulting you find it. You can't ruin *MY* fun of taunting and insulting atheists."

I don't think anyone is lying, I do think that they haven't thought through their premise. You are insulted, I think, by my not accepting the premise, which I have done because it does not make sense to me.

[arwalden]

184. Well... That Didn't Last Too Long. (Pity.)

arwalden:
"I think you're smart enough to understand that the word "lack", when used in such a manner, suggests the absence of something that is otherwise desirable, or required, or necessary, or preferred."

<< I don't see that at all. >>

I'm not surprised that you would respond in such a manner. (You do know that you're skating on pretty thin ice, right?)

<< I don't think that a religious belief or lack of religious belief necessarily falls into any of those categories. To me, a lack is a lack. There are many completely happy and completely secular people in this world. >>

Sorry, bub. I'm not buying your who-me act.

<< I certainly hear you, but it really doesn't make sense to me. >>

TRANSLATION: "Because despite my intelligence, if I admit that I really *do* understand, then I can't continue to bait, insult and taunt atheists."

<< and that was why I am continuing to seek clarification. >>

TRANSLATION "... by taunting and insulting atheists. (Tee-hee-hee. This is so fun! I'm about to wet myself.)"

<< I don't think anyone is lying, I do think that they haven't thought through their premise. >>

TRANSLATION: "I'm really a mind-reader. I know what atheists think better than they do. I have no reason to trust what they tell me is true. You can't trust atheists, they're all liars."

<< You are insulted, I think, by my not accepting the premise, >>

Ah... more game-playing and pretend-acting, eh? You "think" incorrectly... and you're not fooling anyone.

<< which I have done because it does not make sense to me. >>

Oh, dear. Poor you! It "does not make sense" to you. Awwww.

Yet... for someone who has NO difficulty at all in thinking up clever ways to skirt DU rules against bigotry and intolerance... and for someone who can so easily find new ways to re-word the same anti-atheist insults... and for someone as intelligent as you are... you CERTAINLY DO have a difficult time understanding pretty basic things.

Wow. Go figure.

[trotsky]

176. Pathetic.

Your own words have been used to show your true intentions.

I am not being intolerant, I am expressing my opinion and asking questions about the "atheist" position here.

Much like someone who says that homosexuality is a sin is not being intolerant, just expressing their opinion, right?

We've already been over how atheism is not a "choice" for most people - but you again just dismiss the answers you don't want to hear, and instead INSIST that yours is correct.

And then when people don't agree with you, you claim they're not answering you.

We ARE answering you, kwassa. You just refuse to listen.

[kwassa]

181. When is an answer correct?

trotsky:
"Much like someone who says that homosexuality is a sin is not being intolerant, just expressing their opinion, right?"

Where have I ever said atheism is a sin? This is a false analogy.

"We've already been over how atheism is not a "choice" for most people - but you again just dismiss the answers you don't want to hear, and instead INSIST that yours is correct."

I disagree with their answers, not dismiss them. I believe that this is allowed when people have different opinions.

Some choices are not necessarily conscious choices, but they are choices nonetheless. Faith, or lack of faith, is a choice, in my opinion.

[trotsky]

182. Not even close.

You're getting desperate with your distortions to avoid confronting what's really behind this.

It isn't about atheism/homosexuality being a sin. It's about expressing a bigoted opinion, but claiming not to be intolerant.

Don't get too caught up in the parsing of words here. Quite a few atheists have been upfront about their reasons why your insistence on defining them is wrong. It has now gotten to the point of comedy seeing you defending the few remaining shards of your position.

[kwassa]

183. my reply

as the ad homs continue.

trotsky:
"It isn't about atheism/homosexuality being a sin. It's about expressing a bigoted opinion, but claiming not to be intolerant."

I am neither intolerant or bigoted, but I do disagree with you. Apparently that makes me a bigot in your eyes.

To describe someone as a bigot, one must established that the person being desribed as bigoted has an intolerant opinion towards an entire group, which, of course, I do not. To disagree with someone is not to be intolerant. I disagree with you and several others. I don't disagree with many others who desribe themselves as atheists.

trotsky:
"It has now gotten to the point of comedy seeing you defending the few remaining shards of your position."

Sorry, but you haven't even dented my position. You really haven't. If you have a more substantive argument, mount it.

[trotsky]

185. Ad homs indeed.

I am neither intolerant or bigoted, but I do disagree with you. Apparently that makes me a bigot in your eyes.

No, refusing to accept someone's own perception of themselves but instead forcing YOUR perception on to them is what makes you a bigot in my eyes.

Pretty simple, actually.

There is no need to save face, kwassa. This is not about "defeating" you, this is about trying to get you to stop defining people as you see fit, especially when it is contrary to how they WANT to be defined. Learn and grow as a progressive, won't you?

It does not excuse such behavior to claim it's just a different opinion. After all, some people have the opinion that homosexuals should be executed, or that black people shouldn't have civil rights.

Sorry, but you haven't even dented my position.

What the heck is your position, anyway? That your definition of atheism is better than what atheists are telling you?

[kwassa]

189. I force nothing on you, and never have.

trostsky:
"No, refusing to accept someone's own perception of themselves but instead forcing YOUR perception on to them is what makes you a bigot in my eyes."

I can't force you anything upon you, and while I might be a bigot in your eyes, I have no idea of your personal definition of the word. It certainly doesn't fit the definition of the word "bigot". I merely disagree with you, which has nothing to do with bigotry, whatsoever.

[trotsky]

193. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

You disagree, fine. Let it go. Don't bring it up. It obviously pisses a lot of people off to be mischaracterized by you, so why don't you just stop? Avoid the threads instead of popping in to announce your self-righteous disagreement with how someone chooses to view themselves.

[kwassa]

195. That's fine with me.

I have no problem with not bringing up my beliefs about "lack of beliefs" if others find it so upsetting.

My exception would be this:

The threads where I have issues is where the "lack of belief" meme is leveraged into corollary ideas such as "babies are atheists" or "everybody is an atheist". What this does is to attempt to assign this "lack of belief" atheist definition to people who never asked to be so identified.

I find this as repulsive as you probably find my characterization of "atheists".

[trotsky]

198. Oh but kwassa, since that's just a difference of opinion,

why does it upset you so?

[kwassa]

203. Because it does

Because it is nonsense, too.

[trotsky]

205. Well cool.

I'm glad you can finally admit your objections were nonsense.

I feel like we've made some real progress here.

[arwalden]

187. Here, Kwassa... Have Some MORE Rope. Take All You Want.

<< To describe someone as a bigot, one must established that the person being desribed as bigoted has an intolerant opinion towards an entire group, which, of course, I do not. >>

:rofl: :spray:

TRANSLATION: "As long as I can point out ONE atheist that I agree with... ONE lone atheist who thinks the way that I do... then *technically* I'm not being bigoted to an *entire* group... therefore I'm not really a bigot."

Kwassa, I think it's only fair to tell you that the extraordinary effort you take in parsing words and splitting hairs, has the OPPOSITE effect of what you actually desire. It only serves to convince me that the observations about you are correct.


<< To disagree with someone is not to be intolerant. I disagree with you and several others. >>

How can you "disagree" with what someone tells you about what they believe or what they do not belive? Are you a mind reader? Stop calling people liars.


<< I don't disagree with many others who desribe themselves as atheists. >>

TRANSLATION: "Some of my best friends are black."
TRANSLATION: "I know plenty of gay people."
TRANSLATION: "I've been a democrat all my life, but..."
TRANSLATION: "Not all atheists are liars."

[kwassa]

188. Your use of this "translation" technique ..

isn't debate, but an attempt to make me say things I've never said. How dishonest is that?

and whether or not I convince you of anything is immaterial to me. I assumed that door closed a long time ago. I really write here to explain myself my views to those who are interested, not to win over those whose minds are closed.

And I don't parse words and split hairs, I use language clearly and simply. I'm very clear, actually, and say precisely what I mean. I can't make you like what I have to say, though.

[arwalden]

191. Awwww... Isn't That Cute? You Think I'm "Debating" You.

:rofl:

No... I'm demonstrating to you what you're actually doing, and the reality of what you're saying, by giving you equivalent translations... and by putting into plain language what your twisted-logic and code-words really men.

<< and whether or not I convince you of anything is immaterial to me. >>

Clearly! The only thing that IS "material" to you is being able to taunt and insult.

<< I assumed that door closed a long time ago. >>


Not THAT long ago... January 3rd 2005, to be precise. I'm pretty good at figuring people out. You were pretty easy to figure out, and my initial impressions have been proved correct many times over.


<< I really write here to explain myself my views to those who are interested,>>


... and to insult atheists.

<< not to win over those whose minds are closed.>>


Ah... I see. The visceral reactions you continue to get couldn't have anything to do with YOU, right? So it's those pesky "closed minds" that are the REAL problem, eh?

:rofl:


<< And I don't parse words and split hairs, >>


Yeah right! :rofl:

"I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't! And I MEAN IT!"


:rofl:

"Stop laughing at me!! Stop it! You mean old atheist you!"




<< I can't make you like what I have to say, though. >>


I think you're in for a lifetime of disappointment if you'll think you're gonna find many people who actually "like" listening to your bigoted taunting.

[kwassa]

197. No, I don't think you are debating me.

That's the reason there isn't much point in talking to you. You can't, or won't.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

190. Wow, with the whole tag team out en force....

you'd think you'd get some answers or at least a bit of discussion, but it seems that defending that darn "lack of belief" may get them too steamed up to see clearly. It appears that all they see is someone attacking them. Very sad.


I thinks its unfortunate that there is no common ground to be found here just to be able to get a deeper discussion started. ..wasn't the original post about just that thing...words/definitions keeping the discussion and understanding of each other from even getting off the ground?

IMHO -it is a distraction that only continues to advance the divisive "us vs. them" thinking.

[arwalden]

192. So You Fan The Flames And Then Complain The Fire Is Too Hot?

:rofl:

Too precious!

[Goblinmonger]

201. Neither of you have had

the full tag team yet.

How about this for common ground? Don't insult people. Don't be bigoted. If someone tells you that something is offensive to them, don't do it.

Is that so hard? If you really read this thread you just commented on, you would see that is the whole point of it. kwassa has been told that he is insulting people and he won't stop. And you are blaming the atheists for the "us vs them" thinking. That's rich. That's really, really rich.

How come you and kwassa have not voiced your support of the R/T pledge I started?

[beam me up scottie]

240. Trying to reason with christians like you makes me wish I was stillborn

As for why you're mystified, in my opinion, bigots never get it.

I suggest all DU atheists ignore the baiting and dogmatic rhetoric.

Why should they reply to a christian who obviously has no interest in intelligent discussion?




And fyi, it wasn't difficult or even time consuming to document your intolerance of DU atheists, all it took was a search of your user name and the word "atheist".

My post practically wrote itself.

[0rganism]

137. I mean entity in the sense of having any identifiable distinct presence...

...and being in the sense of existing in the world/universe/realm of discussion.

Are you sure that is too limiting? I would posit that even if one's idea of divinity transcends such things as presence and existence, it must at least don some of them in order to interact with the universe in any recognizable way. However, I'm more interested in your epistemology than your metaphysics.

> Behavior.
> If one has a lack of belief, one simply doesn't care about the issue and does nothing about it.
> If one has an active disbelief, one actively opposes the belief.

What, then, your criterion for the quality of (dis)belief is entirely rooted in your observation of the behavior of the one who has it? Is that the sole arbiter? A person may consciously act in many ways with respect to many things during the time you're in their presence; if they fail to indicate any opposition to a belief, are you going to conclude that they lack an affirmative disbelief? It seems like a very difficult proposition to support in the abstract, and a dangerous one to apply in practice.

> I am equally an a-communist, a-fascist, a-monarchist a-NASCARian.

Yet as every one of these entities (communists, fascists, monarchists, NASCAR) exists, at the very least as a descriptive handle applied to something one can experience or, historically speaking, some have claimed to experience. Is your disbelief in them indistinguishable from disinterest, or are you actively affirming a belief in their non-existence?

> My front door is atheist because it lacks a belief in God. My sidewalk is equally atheist.

You mock me, kwassa. You offer me as example that the theistic inaction of a door or sidewalk or lamp post is qualitatively equal to that of a person disinterested in a topic? Do you truly expect me to believe you suppose that inert objects have the same capacity for cognition and ethically-guided action as a human? Truly, you must hold my inquiry in low esteem to test me so. Tell me I have misunderstood you, for I should consider it a cause of some regret to depart this thread as ignorant as when I arrived in it.

[kwassa]

141. Sorry for the delayed reply

Organism:
"I mean entity in the sense of having any identifiable distinct presence and being in the sense of existing in the world/universe/realm of discussion."

I agree with this, though my concept of entity is usually has a physical component.

"I would posit that even if one's idea of divinity transcends such things as presence and existence, it must at least don some of them in order to interact with the universe in any recognizable way."

Agreed.

"However, I'm more interested in your epistemology than your metaphysics."

I'm not sure that I can satisfy you, as I think the core spiritual experience can be quite subjective. This does not less it's impact or sense of reality.

I said:
> Behavior.
> If one has a lack of belief, one simply doesn't care about the issue and does nothing about it.
> If one has an active disbelief, one actively opposes the belief.

"What, then, your criterion for the quality of (dis)belief is entirely rooted in your observation of the behavior of the one who has it? Is that the sole arbiter?"

No, but it is a good solid rule of life. Actions reveal much, words can be cheap and meaningless. Generally, many talk the talk, few walk the walk. Sometimes words reveal much unintentionally in which extraneous or irrelevant argument disclose issues of a personal nature and unconnected to the argument itself.

"A person may consciously act in many ways with respect to many things during the time you're in their presence; if they fail to indicate any opposition to a belief, are you going to conclude that they lack an affirmative disbelief?"

No. They might just not feel like talking about it at this time. The situation in this forum, however, is generally the exact opposite of your example.

I said:
> I am equally an a-communist, a-fascist, a-monarchist a-NASCARian.

you:
"Yet as every one of these entities (communists, fascists, monarchists, NASCAR) exists, at the very least as a descriptive handle applied to something one can experience or, historically speaking, some have claimed to experience. Is your disbelief in them indistinguishable from disinterest, or are you actively affirming a belief in their non-existence?"

Oh, no, I am simulating the lack of belief position as a point of philosophical identification. Who identifies themselves by a lack?

> My front door is atheist because it lacks a belief in God. My sidewalk is equally atheist.

"You mock me, kwassa."

Not at all, this is a referential statement to an earlier discussion in this forum that you probably haven't seen, about how "babies are atheists" when babies are really incapable of forming beliefs at all. Since the only criterion to be an atheist expressed here by some frequent responders is a lack of belief in God, that qualifies a great many things to be atheists, including my cats and my front door.

[0rganism]

157. Oh, quite alright, my DU tracking is spotty anyway

The problem with any discussion of this nature is that words are only the handles for ideas, and it is inevitable that some words will be handles for different ideas in different people.

> my concept of entity is usually has a physical component

Then let's try to specify entities as physical or abstract if/when it matters. In this case, though, the important notion is that such an entity be distinguishable in some manner from other causal phenomena, in much the same way that your cat is not the sidewalk. Of course, for something like a transcendental god such distinctions may be more difficult to apply -- if the god is equally or to varying degrees in your cat and the sidewalk, that's fine too; the important distinction then becomes that there is a cat that is not the sidewalk even though there is this god in both of them.

>> it must at least don some of them in order to interact with the universe in any recognizable way.
> Agreed.

We may also want to agree that some such interactions may not be recognizable to an observer, whether they happen or not.

>> However, I'm more interested in your epistemology than your metaphysics.
> I'm not sure that I can satisfy you, as I think the core spiritual experience
> can be quite subjective.

It's a risk I'll have to take -- really, it comes right along with the problems of semantics in any conversation. Really, I wanted to ensure that I understood your take on these discussions as clearly as you can convey it within the limits of our subjective interpretations.

>> if they fail to indicate any opposition to a belief, are you going to
>> conclude that they lack an affirmative disbelief?"
> No. They might just not feel like talking about it at this time. The
> situation in this forum, however, is generally the exact opposite of
> your example.

OK, that's fine, I think I'm seeing plenty of what you were referring to anyway. Tell me, do you think it is possible to be atheist without being anti-theist?

I wanted to take another look at this:

> I am equally an a-communist, a-fascist, a-monarchist a-NASCARian.

See, I think this is an important point of departure.

> I am simulating the lack of belief position as a point of philosophical identification.

Do you see any grounds for considering the possibility of a qualitative difference between theism and, e.g., communism? They seem like very different sorts of belief to me, one a viewpoint concerning economic and political methods, the other a basis for, as you put it, a "core spiritual experience."

> this is a referential statement to an earlier discussion in this forum that you probably
> haven't seen, about how "babies are atheists" when babies are really incapable of forming
> beliefs at all.

Ah, I get it now. You were proceeding ad absurdum, I just didn't have the back story to see it as such. Might we agree that words like theism and atheism are meaningful when applied to beings with whom we can communicate abstractly, at least to the point of making a justified inference? Your cat, a baby, a lamp post, they are not able to carry on the kind of dialog that would let us discern their views on the topic, or even ascertain if they had views. Related, one who doesn't discuss his beliefs or disbeliefs could still have them, although you would not know enough to apply words like theism or atheism to them.

> Who identifies themselves by a lack?

That, indeed, is the heart of the thread. The obvious answer, to me anyway, is "one who lacks." To stay on point, one who lacks a belief in a deity might identify himself as an atheist. Obviously, such identification only makes sense in the context of the existence of some theism; if humans engaged in no theism, and a lack of it were universal, then it would be on the level of identifying oneself as "one who does not have a neutron star in his pocket" or something equally ridiculous; i.e., it is no identification at all in that hypothetical situation. However, I hope we can agree that is not the case in the consensus reality we share. One might be saying something very revealing and personal by pointing out their specific theism or lack thereof.

One might also reveal unrelated character traits in the process. Is it not possible that the behavior you observe is either unrelated to or overdetermined by some of these other traits?

[beam me up scottie]

158. I identify myself by a lack.

I'm a vegetarian.

[0rganism]

160. That's a good example of what I was getting at, too

It makes sense to do so insofar as many others are not.

[bloom]

140. I haven't been following

all of these arguments lately -

but I wonder why atheists don't just post in the philosophy section.

It seems to me - if you don't aspire to some religion or another - that you are mostly talking morality, ethics and philosophy - which may include a religious philosophy or it may not.

Unfortunately - nearly nobody posts in the philosophy section. I guess people think that they have to have studied all of the philosophers first. I think everyone has a philosophy of one sort or another. Or maybe people would rather just come here and argue.


As to your point - I don't see why you can't accept a "lack of belief in gods". It seems pretty straightforward to me. It seems like there are more interesting morality issues to deal with.

OTOH - there are some atheists who insist that I believe in God even when I say that I don't. So at least they aren't telling you that you don't believe in God when you do. Something to be happy about? :silly:

[Goblinmonger]

142. And there are some atheists

that do take you at your statement of being an atheist but consider you an Uncle Tom that cow-tows to the theist establishment for some reason I do not know.

[beam me up scottie]

145. You haven't been paying attention but you tell us what we should do anyway

Nice.

Btw, atheists don't have an atheist philosophy.

Check the instruction manual.

[Goblinmonger]

163. This, like the post in the other thread,

refers to atheists in the third person. Why do you do that so often? Maybe you don't realize you are doing it, but I bet a lot of the hosility you talk about at the end of this post may come from that habit. See, when I talk about atheists, I usually include myself and don't refer to them in the third person.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

171. Six words:

"I am a lifelong Democrat but"

[Strong Atheist]

172. ROFLMAO!

:yourock:

[Goblinmonger]

177. Sounds a lot like a 5-word version

"I don't hate gays but"

[Strong Atheist]

179. ...

:rofl:

:yourock:

[treegiver]

165. Philosopy section

I wonder why atheists don't just post in the philosophy section.

Newbie here. Where is the philosophy section?

[WhollyHeretic]

166. It's a DU Group, which means you can only post there if you are a donor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=322

Not a very active group, only 91 posts in the whole group in a year+.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[treegiver]

194. Thanks, I was afraid that was it. /nt

[salvorhardin]

150. Look dude, it's real simple

I don't walk up to you and say, "You don't believe in Christ. You don't even know what you mean by Christ. Let me tell you what you really believe in." Why would I never do that? Because it's beyond offensive. I'm not inside your head and I have no way of really knowing what you believe. So I've got to take you at your word.

Similarly, you don't walk up to this atheist and tell me what I have beliefs about. Any behavior to the contrary and I have to assume you're either a moron or just looking to cause trouble. If you really can't accept someone's self-definition with respect to their belief or lack of belief in a deity or deities then perhaps you want to reconsider your involvement in this forum?

[NMMNG]

153. Nicely put

:applause:

[trotsky]

164. Most excellent response.

Doesn't seem like it should be so difficult to help people understand that, does it?

[arwalden]

173. You'd Think Not... But...

... there's always one or two nitwits who refuse to understand. (Personally, though, I think they actually DO understand... they just don't want to acknowledge it because it would ruin their fun: taunting the atheists and skirting around DU rules against bigotry.)

[Goblinmonger]

178. kwassa is conspicuously absent

from my R/T Pledge thread. I wonder why that is? You would think someone so self-proclaimed tolerant would jump on the chance to pledge their tolerance.

[salvorhardin]

186. Yep. One wonders those things. n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

245. That's exactly it, salvorhardin.

Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Strong Atheist]

204. I have a suggestion. After reading much of kwassa's tortured

thoughts on weak atheism, in this and other threads, since he is admitting in his own words:

For me to accept the arguments of the atheists here, I have to accept the premise that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, rather than an affirmative belief in no gods. If I can't accept that premise, then the rest of the atheist argument in the thread falls apart. I've stated why I can't accept the argument

that he won't stop trying to describe the weak atheists the way HE wants, so he can have his straw man, instead of the way THEY know they are, why don't all the weak atheists respond in kind, to him and others who take this tactic.

Example: kwassa, you are not a believer in god, no matter what you say, because I say you aren't.

No different than what he does to the weak atheists....:shrug:

Or better yet, call him an atheist! kwassa#1, meet kwassa #2:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57278&mesg_id=57420

Will the real kwassa please stand up?:rofl:

But kwassa why should you get to define yourself,

We don't see ourselves as atheists


when you won't let the weak atheists define themselves?


Edited: Turnabout is fair play, they say....:evilgrin:

[kwassa]

206. No, there is a difference

I say that the behavior of the "atheist" is inconsistent with someone who lacks a belief in God. If one lacks a belief, one simply doesn't care, and wouldn't spend a great deal of energy and time arguing about it.

[Strong Atheist]

207. Your double standard is showing

CLEARLY, for all to see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57278&mesg_id=57420

kwassa can define kwassa's beliefs, but weak atheists can not define their beliefs, because only kwassa can do that... guess kwassa thinks he's god...


Edited to add: You know that having a double standard automatically makes you lose an argument, right?

[kwassa]

213. No double standard at all

You can define your beliefs all you want, and I can define mine all I want and you don't have to respect my definition, and I don't have to respect yours. There is no "respect" requirement on DU, only a requirement of civility.

I can tell you what I think your beliefs are, and you can tell me what you think my beliefs are. Same deal.

This is entirely symmetrical, and there is no double standard.

You can complain about my behavior, and I about yours. Or whatever.

It's all free speech.

[arwalden]

222. So You're Calling Atheists Liars.

<< I can tell you what I think your beliefs are, >>

And when an atheists personally tells you that the things you say are incorrect, your insistence that what you say is "true" is the equivalent of calling the atheist a liar.

You're a real piece of work. What a prize!

[kwassa]

228. Nope.

arwalden:
"And when an atheists personally tells you that the things you say are incorrect, your insistence that what you say is "true" is the equivalent of calling the atheist a liar."

Not at all.

There is a great difference between being incorrect, and being a liar.

[arwalden]

230. People Who Think They Can Read My Mind Are Only Fooling Themselves.

Anyone who claims to be capable of truthfully and accurately telling me what it is that I think or don't-think--or what I believe or don't-believe--is the liar.

<< There is a great difference between being incorrect, and being a liar. >>

Really. So tell me... which one are you?

What I frequently see on DU are people who fancy themselves as pop-psychologist and amateur mind-readers. BUT... there's a great difference between actually HAVING such skills and abilities and being nothing more than a juvenile provocateur.

Seeing that it is impossible for anyone to actually read my mind, when anyone attempts to tell me what it is that I *actually* believe (or don't believe), and when that person contradicts what I have indicated to be my true feelings on a subject, then we can be 100% certain that one of two things is true: either (1) that person is a liar, or (2) that person is calling ME a liar.

If someone knowingly makes false statements about me, then they are lying. If they suggest that I'm "incorrect" about knowing my own mind, then they are insinuating that I'm being untruthful ... and essentially calling me a liar.

I'm tired of liars, and I'm tired of being CALLED a liar.

[Fridays Child]

234. I share your frustration on the issue of lying.

Someone accused me of lying, today, and, when I called them out on it, guess what? MY post was deleted. :(

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

243. Well you just don't know your own mind, Allen.

Obviously kwassa does.

God must have given him the same extraordinary cognitive abilities as Sylvia Browne.

[arwalden]

247. You're Not Fooling Me...

... with such twisted "logic".

<< You might not simply know your own mind. >>

So... I don't know my own mind, eh? Now you're calling me delusional? Insane? Psychotic? Sure, you never said those words, but the meaning and intent is clear and understood by all.


<< and I'm not saying that you are one of them, but that you might be. >>

Weasel words. Aren't you CLEVER?

There are many people who are stealthy bigots... but "I'm not saying that you are one of them, but that you might be."

<< I'm pretty direct. >>

Oh, spare me. The word games are fairly juvenile. Stop insulting atheists.

[Strong Atheist]

223. Well okie dokie. In that case:

you can tell me what you think my beliefs are

from now on, you are an atheist!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57278&mesg_id=57278

[arwalden]

209. How Can You Be So Certain That One "Simply Doesn't Care"?

<< If one lacks a belief, one simply doesn't care, >>

What are you basing that on? By what standards are you making that assessment? On whose authority can you make such a claim about someone ELSE?

<< and wouldn't spend a great deal of energy and time arguing about it. >>

So in your estimation, an atheist is only a "true atheist" if he keeps quiet about it? A "true" non-believer wouldn't engage or challenge others, eh?

The things you've been saying and the arguments you've been making are the RW talking points of folks who would prefer that atheists keep quiet and go back into the closet.

I think you're allowing your arguments and "logic" to be skewed by your own personal prejudices against atheists.

You know... that hole you find yourself in is getting mighty deep... but please, do keep digging.

[kwassa]

214. reply

me:
<< If one lacks a belief, one simply doesn't care, >>

arwalden:
"What are you basing that on? By what standards are you making that assessment? On whose authority can you make such a claim about someone ELSE?"

My knowledge of psychology and human nature. I've been around a long time, have read extensively on psychology, and am a pretty sharp observer of people.

People fight for what they believe in. It's pretty simple. What they have no belief in, they don't waste time on.

arwalden:
"So in your estimation, an atheist is only a "true atheist" if he keeps quiet about it? A "true" non-believer wouldn't engage or challenge others, eh?"

No, a true atheist, to me, has an affirmative disbelief in gods, and would be debating me here. If one has a lack of belief, one would not care enough to get involved.

"The things you've been saying and the arguments you've been making are the RW talking points of folks who would prefer that atheists keep quiet and go back into the closet."

I've never asked any atheist to be quiet and go back in the closet. Talk away, atheists! I do think that the weak atheists, as some here call it, talk about persecution not realizing that the average person uses the old dictionary definition of atheism, and approaches it from that angle.

In my opinion, the persecution some atheists think they feel comes from the difference meanings for "atheist" these two sides understand. In other words, weak atheists are being attacked for a philosophical position that they actually don't hold, which would be a strong atheist position. Most non-atheists think that there is only one atheist position.

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

231. Bollocks!

What they have no belief in, they don't waste time on.

Wrong, we fight for our right to not have a belief and to be treated equally under the law to those who do hold beliefs in gods, just as we fight to be able to define ourselves. At least I do. I don't want to speak for anyone else, though I think many atheists would agree.

On edit: Meant to reply to the parent post of this one.

[Goblinmonger]

217. Here's where I see you getting off track.

People fight for what they believe in. It's pretty simple. What they have no belief in, they don't waste time on.

The problem you make here is that you take the atheist position on god (no belief, absense of belief) and apply that to what we talk about in here. I don't believe in god and therefore, as you point out, I wouldn't fight for him.

You take that one step further and then say that I shouldn't talk about anything related to god and that is crap. People shove god down my throat and I should just shut up because I am an a-theist? People legislate religious morality and I can't say anything because I am a-thesit? People make judgements about my morality because I am a-theist but I cannot have any recourse because as an a-theist I should not talk about anything religion oriented?

Do you see how you are twisting your logic? We don't believe in god and we don't fight FOR him (YOUR wording by the way). We do "believe" in our rights granted by the constitution so we do fight FOR them.

[trotsky]

225. Couldn't have said it better.

Our rights are threatened by believers. There are no atheists in charge of the reins of government right now. I combat religious dogmatic thinking (and there's plenty of it, even here on a liberal message board) because I see with my own eyes just how dangerous it is to secular democracy.

THAT is what I fight for. I don't give a rat's ass about this god character, I fight for my rights and a world where religion plays a personal, not public role.

Got it, kwassa???

[kwassa]

229. No, I never said that you shouldn't talk about anything related to god

Talk about anything you like.

This has never been the issue.

[Goblinmonger]

233. I hate to sound like you

but why didn't you respond to the main point of my post? I am trying to answer you "why do atheists fight for something that is nothing" canard, and you just choose to ignore that answer. I know that is par for the course for you, but I would like to know why my response isn't an answer/explanation.


We don't have a belief in god and we don't "fight for" him. We do think that we should be able to think what we want, we do think we should be afforded our constitutional rights, and we do think that some of the thoughts posted by theists in this form are logically/scientifiically unsound so we respond to the public posting of those beliefs. That is what we are "fighting for." Not your god as you like to frame the debate.

[kwassa]

238. No.

goblinmonger:
"We don't have a belief in god and we don't "fight for" him. "

This is not what I meant whatsoever, and I have never said that!

What I am saying is that you fight for a "lack of belief", supposedly, not that you fight FOR god. This fight for "lack of belief" does note make sense to me, because no one fights for a lack, or nothing, they fight for what they believe in. That is my opinion.

[Goblinmonger]

239. I don't know how many times

and in how many ways I need to say this.

We aren't fighting for the "lack of belief." We are fighting for our right to have a lack of a belief. We are fighting for our constitutional protections that make my lack of belief just as protected as your belief. We are fighting to stop people from pissing all over us because of our a-theism. We are fighting for people to stop putting their classifications onto us when they are no where near accurate. We are fighting to stop legislation of theist principles. We are fighting to get the likes of Little Lord Pissypants out of office. We are fighting for a lot of stuff. But I don't think you can logically say that we are fighting for a "lack."

The other discussions come as a result of our interest in the topic area, which I don't believe you would fault anyone.

[Desertrose]

244. BINGO-"We are fighting for our right to have a lack of a belief."

Now I think this is where the disconnect started......fighting for the right rather than the actual belief or lack of whatever it may be.

I can agree with this.

"We are fighting for our right to have a lack of a belief."



I think these days we are all fighting for our rights for many things thanks to this maladministration.....sigh.

DR

[kwassa]

246. I agree with everything you say you are fighting for, including

"We are fighting for our right to have a lack of a belief."

and all other consitutional protections. This I understand. I am strongly in favor of all free speech, for people to believe whatever they want, and the separation of church and state.

I was referring to the fighting more specifically here, in this forum, rather than the wider world. Why do the atheists here so strongly take on the theists? Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them? That we are in any way interested in turning this country into a theocracy? I don't think anyone here is remotely interested in that.

I think that both sides, both theist and athiest here, feel that the other side is bashing their viewpoint. This might be a point of tension between the two groups that never ends, and part of that is that each side only tolerates the others viewpoint so much.

[arwalden]

248. Some People Need To Get Out More... Read A Newspaper...

... or just listen to the TV news.

<< Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them? >>

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. :eyes:

[kwassa]

249. Washington Post, WSJ, New York Times, PBS Newshour ....

get the Post and the Wall Street Journal at home, which has surprisingly good articles (it was a gift subscription). NYT online.

[arwalden]

250. That's A Dubious Response.

Unfortunately the evidence we have in the form of the depth of understanding (or lack of) that you've consistently displayed on such matters belie your attempts to convince us otherwise.

[kwassa]

251. Who is the "we"?

Are you the elected representative of a group, and thereby speak in some official capacity?

[arwalden]

252. Interesting That You Choose To Respond By Splitting Hairs And...

... hyper-analyzing irrelevant minutia such as my use of the word "we" and trying to divert attention from the actual message contained in the post itself by subtly suggesting that I've assumed some authority that I'm not entitled to.

Although the fact you needed ask suggests otherwise, surely we can assume that you're intelligent enough to know who the word "we" refers to. I know you're smarter than you often pretend to be.

<< Who is the "we"?
Posted by kwassa
Are you the elected representative of a group, and thereby speak in some official capacity? >>

Oh good grief... does it ever end? :eyes:

I don't think that anyone is actually convinced that such a thing really matters to you, or that you're actually confused or concerned by my choice of words. And if indeed you're truly confused as to who "we" are... then I'm afraid you'll just have to continue to be puzzled.

You don't need to be spoon-fed everything. Figure it out for yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

253. What do you mean by "spitting hairs" ?

Can you define hyper ?

Who is this "you" you speak of ?

[arwalden]

254. LOL! (Good One!) --- Well... What I Mean Is This...

<< Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them? >>

Questions like the one above indicate a complete disconnect with what's really going on in the world. When one considers how many people actually think that way... and how many people feel that nothing is wrong... it's little wonder why RWers and fundies get away with treating atheists like 2nd class citizens.

[beam me up scottie]

255. It is amazing, isn't it?

Especially considering the fact that the "moral" majority has been quite vocal about their intentions.

I wonder if sand gets in their nostrils?

[arwalden]

256. I Still Can't Get Over This Bit Of Nonsense...

Further up the thread, someone asked:

Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them?

I find it positively astounding to think that any reasonably intelligent individual would suggest that such things were not true. Statements like that--at worst--reek of intellectual dishonesty, or--at best--extreme naivety.

It ranks right up there with the "every atheists is trying to convert us" nonsense that we're witnessing in another thread in this forum. This irrational fear that some folks have of atheists, and the "we're poor persecuted Christians" is really too much.

No... seriously, it's TOO much. Stop it!

There's been a disconnect from reality from those two separate mindsets at the far end of the religionist spectrum. There's one extremely paranoid group that feels as though atheists are the new Pod-People who seek to convert all believers (into what I wonder?)

Then there's another extremely myopic group that's totally oblivious (or pretends to be oblivious) to the actual goings-on in our government, with our laws, and even our constitution. They are absolutely clueless as to what it is that the religionists are doing when it comes to non-believers or anyone unlike themselves.

To see perfect examples of this, one needs to look no further than the religious-based challenges to a woman's right to privacy; attempts to deny equal rights to homosexuals; and attempts to legislate that religious creationist fairy tales are taught in public schools.

Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them?

On the face of it, that's an absurd thing to say... and it speaks volumes about the type of person who would seriously ask such a thing. But what's even more revealing is that when the statement is challenged, the OP chooses to play evasive Clintonian word games.

[beam me up scottie]

257. Yeah, I haven't been able to forget that.

I expect the freepers I work with to say things like that, not "liberals" on DU.

Like I said before, fundamentalist christians have nothing to lose if the Amerikkkan Taliban succeeds.

[arwalden]

258. Hellooo? Kwassa? Are You There? << crickets chirping >>

Kwassa said:
"Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them?"

:shrug:

Can you elaborate as to why you think that such a thing is *not* true?

[arwalden]

260. ~

:hi: :popcorn:

[arwalden]

261. :popcorn:

:popcorn:

[salvorhardin]

232. Excellent reply!

Thank you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

208. You could actually make a very convoluted case based on post #124 here

Not more convoluted than his against us, though.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.