All this talk of athiests being religious and so forth, has me wondering...
What do we all have in common?
I'd like to propose some suggestions to start off.
1) Do not believe in a supernatural higher power.
2) Have had to create or choose own value systems.
3)athiests do not call themselves religious**
I think those 3 should be fairly uncontroversial (to athiests).
4)prefer to use scientific or logical methods to rationalise, rather than say faith, or emotion.
5)are of a secular political persuasion*
6)are skeptical of ghosts, psyics, aliens, telekinesis etc
(I actually disagree with myself immediately, as I do believe in aliens, however, worth discussion? Or skeptically leaning perhaps?)
*can we just call this a belief in the separation of church and state?
**I welcome the religious and non-religious opinions. But wish to avoid the 'all athiests are religious' argument, as it is in other posts. I do wish to know if all athiests feel that they are non-religious.
Feel free to add your own.
truespeed
There are certainly Aliens out there (Other life forms) ,so that isn't a far fetched thing to believe,believing they have visited earth though, while unlikely its not impossible,so again its a plausible belief.
As for everything else i don't think you can generalize,i am sure there are atheists who believe in psychics and stuff,though i would guess just by the evidence on this forum that they are significantly less in number than theists.
loremar
I just don't believe in God. That's it. I don't care about the logic or the science that supports atheism because I don't have the time to gather those. But I think a lot people do a lot of unnecessary things because they believe in God especially in my country where most people are devout catholic.
Although I'm still open to the idea of the paranormals. I don't believe in ghosts in human-like apparition though cause that is impossible. But I don't close the idea of other entities other than matter and energy or other ideas about consciousness or the Philosophy of mind such as dualism. Or even aliens or other lifeforms.
Indi
Hello_World wrote:
1) Do not believe in a supernatural higher power.
That is certainly true for all atheists. It is the defining characteristic.
Hello_World wrote:
2) Have had to create or choose own value systems.
That is also true for all atheists... but then again, it's true for EVERYONE. Everyone has to chose their moral code at some point, even the very religious - they would have to at least choose whether or not to follow their religion's moral code, and, given that most don't, they have to pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore.
Hello_World wrote:
3)athiests do not call themselves religious
i would imagine Jains consider themselves religious, as do Zen Buddhists. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, it is the opposite of theism. There are atheist religions.
Hello_World wrote:
4)prefer to use scientific or logical methods to rationalise, rather than say faith, or emotion.
5)are of a secular political persuasion*
6)are skeptical of ghosts, psyics, aliens, telekinesis etc
(I actually disagree with myself immediately, as I do believe in aliens, however, worth discussion? Or skeptically leaning perhaps?)
Now, this is interesting. It may seem so right now, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Let's talk about the homosexual movement for a moment to explain why. (When looking at atheists and the atheist movement, it's often very instructive to look at other civil rights movements in recent history. The big movements in recent history have been against discrimination in race, gender and sexual orientation. The race and women's rights movements are interesting, but the best comparison to use is the LGBT movement, because, like atheists and unlike women and visible minorities, LGBT people can "hide".)
When they LGBT movement took off in the 70s in America, everyone assumed gays were flamboyant, promiscuous and liberal. Why? Not because they are, but because that was where the movement began. And why did it begin there? Because the gays that were discreet, rarely practising and conservative had much less interest in or motivation to join the fledgling gay movement. They were not flamboyant, and so not inclined to be in people's faces; they were not promiscuous, and so didn't face the risks associated with being seen in the gay scene; they were not liberal, and so didn't have the political philosophy to support the belief that they deserved equality. They wanted equality and and end to intolerance, sure, but they weren't as motivated to make a big issue about it as those who were more flamboyant, etc.. Now, almost half a century later, we're still not quite completely past those stereotypes, but we have come a long way; now most people understand that gays are not all "flaming", or promiscuous, or even liberal - we now have absolutely no problem with accepting that a quiet, sexually inactive and conservative person is gay.
However, back at the beginning, and during the peak of the LGBT movement - the 70s and 80s especially... everyone believed that "gay" equalled "flamboyant, promiscuous, sex-obsessed, liberal" and so on... because that's where the movement began, and that was the core that the whole movement grew around.
Now, look at the atheist movement. The reason you associate the atheist movement with rationalists and science advocacy is because that's where the movement is coming from... NOT because that's what atheism "is", in any way. This is still the early part of the atheist revolution, and it began with us banding together with natural allies - science advocates, rationalists, skeptics and so on. They are natural allies because we don't disagree with them inherently, and because we share common enemies (specifically, theocracies and religious intolerance). Today... now... atheism is a lot like the 70s and 80s was for the LGBT movement - we're being stereotyped based on our core group, the group that started the atheist movement. Our core group - the ones who first had the balls to stand up for atheism - was cobbled together out of a loose coalition of people who had the balls to stand up for a lot of beliefs: rationalism, skepticism, liberalism, and so on. (These guys are still our most dominant group, because the movement is still very young.)
In time, though - just as it is happening with the LGBT group - the initial stereotypes will begin to fade away, as people come to recognize that there are many different types of atheists. There are all types of gay groups now: gay conservative groups, gay Christian groups... you name it. In time, once the main battle has been won, you will start to see the rise of more diverse atheist groups: conservative atheist groups, religious atheist groups, new-age "spiritualist" atheist groups, atheist groups that defy science, and so on. So i predict there WILL be atheist groups who actively oppose rationalism and science, who hold surprising political beliefs, and who are strong believers in aliens, ghosts, psychic phenomena and so on. They're still in the shadows now because it's still early in the game, and right now the core group is strategically allied to rationalist, science-based and skeptical groups, so... those other atheist voices are being kinda smothered, for the time being. But in time, they will rise.
----------------------
Atheists are actually in a unique position, because it is still a very young movement, with a very long way to go... but unlike other movements that have had to walk similar paths (visible minorities, women, homosexuals), we have the advantage of history. We have studied the way these movements work (you see, very often, atheist groups taking lessons from old civil rights groups, or the LGBT movement), and are adapting their methods to our own movement.
But one of the things we are being very smart about doing is learning from their past mistakes. The LGBT movement, for example, has done phenomenally well, but they have made some horrendous mistakes; for a long time, it felt "wrong" to be both gay and conservative, or religious and gay. The black movement in the US allied closely with certain brands of Christianity, and, almost a century later, they're still trying to wean themselves from that association (quick, think of a spokesperson for black equality... did you think of a preacher-type? you probably did - that stereotype is taking a long, slow time to die). That's changing now, but the atheist movement has consciously decided we're not going to make that same mistake; right from the start, we are going to make it clear that all atheists are part of our movement - not just the ones who agree with the core group of movers and shakers.
That's why we make such a big noise about the fact that the only thing that all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods. We don't repeat that mantra to be dicks. We repeat it to send the message out to ALL atheists - whether they're hardened skeptics or believers in ESP - that we're all one group, with one goal: equality and the end of intolerance of atheism.
loremar
Everything that Indi said about atheists is true. You can ask every atheist in this world and they all want equality and better treatment from other people. I never knew that there was an atheist movement until I read news about atheists in America posting billboards for their campaigns. I actually felt better and optimistic that it is possible for us to live more peacefully without Christians accusing us of being immoral and evil. Imagine how it feels to be surrounded by Catholics and every time tragedy in my life hits me they always blame my being an atheist, that God is punishing me(seems like this God is very cruel then).
Although I didn't like the misrepresentation that all atheists are rationalists and scientific as I don't want people to expect me to debate and present scientific data and facts, I would be pressured to research more. That would be wasting my time.
Bikerman
loremar wrote:
Although I didn't like the misrepresentation that all atheists are rationalists and scientific as I don't want people to expect me to debate and present scientific data and facts, I would be pressured to research more. That would be wasting my time.
Well, people like Indi and myself frequently point out that atheists are just people who don't believe in God and, after that, you can't assume anything else.
Just look back over several years postings on these boards and you will see the same two names popping up again and again to correct people who think atheists are this that and the other.
Sometimes it is just frrom ignorance, and we are then happy to correct the ignorance and, usually, the person being corrected is happy to have learned something.
Other times it is deliberate. Some theists think there is an advantage in redefining atheism as a religion. It is childish really. What they are doing is saying 'OK, you say all this terrible stuff about religion, but you are religious so you are also guilty'. It is a bit like the young child whose only response to criticism is to turn it back on the critic. You smell, no YOU smell .... and so on.
There is one consolation for you. If you are going to be wrongly described, being wrongly described as a scientific rationalist is not the worst, is it?
Indi
(What the hell is up with all these trollish replies i'm getting that vanish shortly after? ^_^; Is that actually mod action being taken?)
loremar wrote:
Although I didn't like the misrepresentation that all atheists are rationalists and scientific as I don't want people to expect me to debate and present scientific data and facts, I would be pressured to research more. That would be wasting my time.
FYI, if someone's demanding "scientific evidence" of something that you can't be arsed to actually provide any scientific evidence for, the correct reply is: "Consult the literature". That's science-ese for "****** off".
Bikerman wrote:
Other times it is deliberate. Some theists think there is an advantage in redefining atheism as a religion. It is childish really. What they are doing is saying 'OK, you say all this terrible stuff about religion, but you are religious so you are also guilty'. It is a bit like the young child whose only response to criticism is to turn it back on the critic. You smell, no YOU smell .... and so on.
There's actually another reason, too - although, it's also a pretty stupid reason.
From the theist point of view, every time they say "atheism is a religion", most atheists are quick to jump up and say how stupid that claim is. There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, but the main reason atheists get so out of sorts when atheism is called a religion is painfully simple: it's wrong. It's just... wrong. It's not right. There's no mystery, no underlying agenda, no latent anti-religious sentiment... it's just not correct. And atheists, being a constantly harassed minority, are very sensitive to seeing that they get defined properly and don't have to carry any unnecessary baggage, so they jump immediately to correct mistaken definitions of "atheist". There's no hidden agenda or deep reason for it, other than they want to be correctly understood for what they really are - that's all there is to it. (And, in fact, you get exactly the same response any time you misrepresent atheism in any way; if you call atheism a philosophy, or say that it is scientific - even if you're dealing with an atheist who is very pro-science - you'll probably still get an immediate and detailed correction.)
But from the theist point of view, what they see is that when they call atheism a religion, they see atheists get annoyed, get defensive and retaliate quickly and vocally to quash that claim immediately. Without bothering to understand atheists or atheism, the reason they assume for that defensive reaction is... it must "hurt" atheists to see atheism called a religion. It doesn't hurt us, of course, it just annoys us to see ourselves portrayed falsely - the same way it annoys anyone to see something they care about misrepresented. But the theist who can't be bothered to really understand atheists sees the defensive reaction and thinks, "Aha! This hurts the atheists. Why else would they be so defensive about it?"
And now, those theists whose only real goal is to insult us have (they think) a "weapon". And not just that, a "weapon" they can wield while pretending to be open-minded and academic about atheism. And so, they use it, over and over. There is no real intention to argue that atheism is really a religion, and no interest in any of the responses. None of that matters because they're not repeating the claim for the sake of discussion, they're just repeating it to be dicks. It's just "atheists are poopyheads", only cleverly disguised so it can appear to be part of a legitimate discussion.
So you see, along with trying to deflect criticism of religion, the other reason that lie keeps getting repeated is often because the people repeating it think it really hurts us, and they just want to be insulting.
Just watch for the next time it comes up, you'll see the pattern. "Atheism is a religion" is often not actually trotted out as a response to some criticism of religion, it's often just... thrown out. Just in the middle of a conversation, just for the hell of it. Or you have someone directly accusing some atheist of being religious in some way (often using the nastier forms of religion - evangelicalist or fundamentalist - just to amp up the insult a little). Sometimes it is used defensively, but quite often it's just used offensively - just to be a dick.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
(What the hell is up with all these trollish replies i'm getting that vanish shortly after? ^_^; Is that actually mod action being taken?)
Yep.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Indi wrote:
(What the hell is up with all these trollish replies i'm getting that vanish shortly after? ^_^; Is that actually mod action being taken?)
Yep.
i'm thoroughly impressed. (Although, for the record, i never have any intention of replying to those sorts of posts.)
Hello_World
I find this all most illuminating.
My point wasn't to attempt to derail any kind of movement, I am just curious. Maybe there is some common threads. isn't that worth discussing? Perhaps, in your circles, you have already discussed this, i presume you have, and come to the conclusion, with a lot of political thought behind it, that the only point worthwhile is that we all don't believe in any kind of God. But what if there are some other kind of commonalities? Isn't that part of athiest identity worth exploring?
However, you've already made clear, from the few responses (compared to the millions of athiests out there) that most of the suggestions I made aren't correct... the skeptisism doesn't necessarily flow towards psycics and stuff, others don't necessarily want to involve themselves in science... although what I meant was not that athiests spend hours rummaging through scientific thought, but rather that is the mode of reasoning, anyway...
Indi pointed out that everybody chooses their value systems, and that is of course true. I guess I added that, as to my own feelings on athiesm is that it is a little more to me than just a non-belief in God, and that something more is that I have spent a long time determining my values, as opposed to simply learning my values from my chosen God. Perhaps I do not share that with all other athiests, certainly it is defining of me and my athiesm.
No real mention of the separation of church and state in the posts, and am still curious about this. It seems logical to me that all athiests support this proposition, but ?
As to the religious argument... I mean, it also seemed logical to me that all athiests do not feel religious. I have been trying to fathom the reason that people lately keep saying that we are. The arguments here from Indi and Bikerman about that are very sound.
Indi:
Quote:
i would imagine Jains consider themselves religious, as do Zen Buddhists. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, it is the opposite of theism. There are atheist religions.
I don't really understand this. jains and Budhists are not athiests. At least, as far as I have ever understood. But they have a religion. What's the difference between religion and theism? I thought the difference was belief and church politics. I don't really understand this, how can there be athiest religions?
It is interesting to look at the civil rights movement, and the similarities between LGBTI and athiests. I can see the point. I was going to say, the difference was that LGBTI suffered real discrimination and we only suffer only the most minor discrimination in comparision, yet as I read on, it is clear that my athiest life has been different to others, who live in more religious countries. The only thing I have really had to explain is that my morals are equally as valid, than others.
So i do get the point that not all gay people are flamboyant, not all athiests are scientific minded, but I don't really think that means it is not worth a discussion. Perhaps it isn't PC, but really it is an individual curiousity. Should I wait for the athiest movement to tell me there isn't any common characteristics? I'm not built like that. I share your goals of equality. (Although I would like to be more than just tolerated...) But exploring my identity is not really a political thing.
Quote:
The reason you associate the atheist movement with rationalists and science advocacy is because that's where the movement is coming from...
Not likely. I based my thoughts on what i thought and whether they might be universal or not. I don't really know much about the athiest movement. Most of what I know is in this thread. I also know there was a big conference once and it didn't get the same kind of discounts as the catholic day. I also know Dawkins wrote a book. To be honest, I don't even really understand the athiest movement. Wouldn't it be more logical to form a secularist movement? Well, I keep thinking that, then I look back at Loremar's post and think f@ck, I'm glad no-one is trying to call me evil and immoral and blame my failures on my lack of religion.
Bikerman
You are asking some interesting questions - why is, after all, why we are here.
The reason I (and I think Indi) would insist on the broader definition of atheism (as simply a lack of belief in God(s)) is precision. In any debate it is important to have a base of agreed terms - otherwise debate is not possible. If we adopt a definition of atheism that is not precise then any statements about atheism that follow are immediately suspect.
Now, within atheism it is, I think, valid to say that many atheists are rationalists - accepting of the scientific method as the best tool for discovering 'truth'. We cannot say that is true of all atheists because it simply isn't, but as generalisations go it isn't a particularly inaccurate one.
There are other 'common themes' within atheism which we can explore, but we must always be wary of defining atheism in terms of these, because that would be inaccurate.
As an example - many atheists were once theists. That is certainly true in my case and in the case of many people I know. It isn't true of ALL atheists though - indeed I think Indi would claim exception from this.
Indi
Hello_World wrote:
My point wasn't to attempt to derail any kind of movement, I am just curious. Maybe there is some common threads. isn't that worth discussing? Perhaps, in your circles, you have already discussed this, i presume you have, and come to the conclusion, with a lot of political thought behind it, that the only point worthwhile is that we all don't believe in any kind of God. But what if there are some other kind of commonalities? Isn't that part of athiest identity worth exploring?
The ONLY common thread that ALL atheists share is that they don't believe in gods. There are all kinds of people under that definition, some of whom reject all supernatural beliefs (spirits, magic, etc.) and some who don't. Some atheists are pro-science, some aren't. Some are very liberal, some are very conservative. It's hard to even say what most atheists believe, because "atheist" is such a negative word in most places that people are afraid to use it - so there are millions of people out there who are atheist, but refuse to admit it.
i'll give you some real world examples to show you what i mean.
You may have heard of Bill Maher. He's an American comedian, and in 2009 he won the Atheist Alliance International's Atheist of the Year award for his mockumentary Religulous. He's known for his far-left politics, his support of PETA and... ... ... his attacks on modern science-based medicine. Yup, the 2009 Atheist of the Year is an anti-vaxxer. So much for thinking all atheists are pro-science.
You may also have heard of Penn Jillette (he's one half of Penn & Teller). He won the 2005 Atheist of the Year award (along with Teller), and he is a huge advocate of skepticism (he has a whole show about debunking bullshit), and... ... ... he's a right-wing nutter. He's into Ayn Rand, pushes Libertarianism and - get this - denies global warming. So much for thinking all atheists are liberal-oriented. (Incidentally, Skeptic magazine's founder Micheal Shermer is also a libertarian nut. He's been criticized dozens of times for politicizing his skeptical writings.)
Now the last two were huge names, so let's scale it back a little bit. You've probably never heard of KD and Black Son, but they're hosts on a public access show from Georgia called Black Atheists of Atlanta. Their show is like most of the atheist talk shows, with discussions, callers and so on. Naturally, most of their talk is about atheist issues, but... ... ... turns out they're not too keen on gay people. Or, white people for that matter. So, there's even racist and homophobic atheists out there.
i could go on and on. Even within my own family - my parents and i are all atheist; my father is strongly anti-religion, i'm not but i think it has no place in public life, and my mother was very pro-religion.
There really are all types of atheists out there. The way you word it, it sounds like you think this is a bad thing, because we have no other common identity as atheists except not having gods. i believe the opposite - i love the diversity in atheist thought. i think Bill Maher is a nut for his anti-medicine beliefs, but i'm happy to call him a brother atheist. i think KD and Black Son are disgusting bigots for their racial opinions, but i'm happy to call them brother atheists. i don't need all atheists to share all of my views to consider them comrades; in fact, i find that kind of uniformity bland. i'm happy to disagree with other atheists on just about any topic, while still calling them atheist brothers and sisters.
Hello_World wrote:
No real mention of the separation of church and state in the posts, and am still curious about this. It seems logical to me that all athiests support this proposition, but ?
Actually, they don't. For starters, i would imagine that at least some religious atheists would want (their) religion to be in charge. And, personally, my own mother was not really all that hot for the idea of separating church and state, and she was an atheist. i'm really not exaggerating here ^_^; - the only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. That is literally it. Atheists are really a mixed-up, complicated and diverse bunch. You may have heard the expression "herding cats" when talking about atheists - it's really true.
Hello_World wrote:
Indi pointed out that everybody chooses their value systems, and that is of course true. I guess I added that, as to my own feelings on athiesm is that it is a little more to me than just a non-belief in God, and that something more is that I have spent a long time determining my values, as opposed to simply learning my values from my chosen God. Perhaps I do not share that with all other athiests, certainly it is defining of me and my athiesm.
It sounds to me like you are not talking about just atheism then, but something more. It might be a combination of atheism and humanism (which, by the way, is what i am), but it's hard to say without knowing more about what you believe.
Atheism really means nothing by itself, but it is usually (but not always!) part of a larger framework of ideology. i say embrace the atheist part of who you are, but recognize that it's only a small part of who you are. No one is just one ideology, everyone's a complex patchwork of beliefs. You - and i'm guessing here - sound like you're part atheist, part secularist, and part rationalist (at least, and probably more). i can't understand why one wouldn't think that's so much better that just being atheist - it means you're part of at least three different, and diverse, groups of people.
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
i would imagine Jains consider themselves religious, as do Zen Buddhists. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, it is the opposite of theism. There are atheist religions.
I don't really understand this. jains and Budhists are not athiests. At least, as far as I have ever understood. But they have a religion. What's the difference between religion and theism? I thought the difference was belief and church politics. I don't really understand this, how can there be athiest religions?
Jains are atheists, and so are many types of Buddhists. In fact there are dozens of atheist religions. i can't name them all off the top of my head, but Raëlism and Scientology spring to mind. There are also hundreds of atheist folk religions, too.
Remember, "atheist" JUST means "no belief in gods". That is ALL it means. You can believe in souls, magic, angels, spirits, karma, witches, astral projection, auras, monsters, leprechauns, pyramid power... tons of weird things - so long as you don't believe in gods, you're still atheist. Atheist religions are just religions - like any other religion - with no gods. That's all there is to it. You don't need gods for religion.
There are a lot of differences between religion and theism. A religion is a specific "thing", where as "theism" is an entire category. It's like the difference between "sailboats" and "boating" - "sailboats" are specific "things", while "boating" is an entire category. That's why it's not easy to talk about religion and theism at the same time - it's really like comparing apples and apathy... they're not even the same type of thing.
A religious belief is a belief about the nature of the universe, or humanity's place in it, that is held to primarily by faith (that is, not for empirical reasons, and not for logical reasons). A religion is a collection of related religious beliefs, usually joined together in a (somewhat) coherent narrative or philosophy. Contrary to popular belief, you don't need churches, organizations or any kind of structure - there are thousands of religions that have no churches, no priests, no holy texts, and no politics. For example, one of the religious i grew up around was Rastafarianism. They have no churches ("de body is de temple"), no priests ("i and i is one and de same"), no holy texts (technically they have a form of the Christian Bible, but... not really... because they believe the Bible was corrupted and the "true" Word of God is in the heart - many have never even seen a Bible, and about half the ones i knew were borderline illiterate), and no form of politics ("isms create schisms; turn ye from de gates of Babylon and seek overstanding tru de Lord directly").
Theism is a category of belief that involves the belief in a god or gods. There are dozens of types of theism: monotheism, the belief in one god; polytheism, the belief in many gods; deism, the belief in gods that do not interfere with the world; pantheism, the belief that all of the universe is God; panentheism, the belief that all of the universe is part of God; maltheism, the belief that gods are evil. Basically, any belief that includes gods is a theistic belief.
Now, because no one can (yet?) prove gods exist empirically, or via logical argument, the only way to believe that gods exist is by faith. That means that any belief that includes extant gods must be a religious belief. That is why all forms of theism are religious. One day, maybe, if someone manages to find a way to prove gods exist empirically, or via a logical argument, then there will be a form of theism that is not religious, but i wouldn't hold my breath.
Atheism is just the category of beliefs without any gods; nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, religious beliefs can fall into the atheism category... if they don't involve gods. So any religions without gods are atheistic religions, and there are several out there.
Hello_World wrote:
I was going to say, the difference was that LGBTI suffered real discrimination and we only suffer only the most minor discrimination in comparision, yet as I read on, it is clear that my athiest life has been different to others, who live in more religious countries.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. ^_^; Atheists don't suffer "real discrimination"? The facts beg to differ. Currently, atheists are the most hated subgroup in America - more people would vote for a gay president than an atheist one (in fact, more people would vote for an explicitly Muslim president than an atheist one). The only laws on the books that discriminate against gays are laws dealing with marriage... did you know there are actually still laws in some state constitutions that not only forbid atheists from running for office, but even from serving on juries or as witnesses?
In fact, any kind of discrimination you bring up ever taken against gay people, i can match it with equivalent discrimination against atheists. Not allowing gays to adopt; yup, atheists were banned from adopting, too. Terms for gay people used as insults (like "gay" is used as an insult, and "queer" and other such terms); yup, atheist terminology is all considered bad, too (when someone calls you "godless", "atheist" or "infidel", chances are they aren't complimenting you). First time an openly gay person was elected in US Congress, 1984 (technically, Studds was elected in 1973, but didn't come out until 1983 - he was forced to come out by a scandal; the first member of Congress to come out willingly was Barney Frank in 1987, reelected 1988); first time an openly atheist person was elected in US Congress, 2008 (Stark came out as atheist in 2007). People being fired, harassed, etc. for being gay; yup, atheists got them, too. Gay signs, landmarks, etc. destroyed; yup, happens all the time to atheist signage. Gays murdered for being gay; yup, atheists have been murdered for being atheist, too (and no, i'm not talking about the days back when they were burnt at the stake).
Hell, just the other day i watched a video of veteran American soldiers being harassed for being atheist. Yes! Soldiers! Veterans! In America! Heckled right to their faces for being atheist, despite having fought (and, in some cases, died) for the country. i'm also reminded of the O'Hair case; Madalyn Murray O'Hair - at the time one of the most outspoken atheists in America (she's the one that got prayer out of schools!) - and most of her family were kidnapped, robbed and murdered, and police did... nothing. Jack shit. The case was finally broken by a reporter, who did all the legwork and supplied the information to the cops. That was only 10-15 years ago.
The reason things don't look quite as bad is because the atheist movement is still so young. In the early days of the LGBT movement, no one realized just how bad gays had it. It took high-profile cases like Matthew Shepard and Tyler Clementi before people's eyes were opened to how bad the situation really was (and is). That hasn't happened yet for the atheist movement... but it probably will. Atheists are getting harassed and, yes, even murdered, for being atheist... but so far we haven't had that one big case that becomes a motivating symbol (and hopefully, we won't ever have one, and won't ever need it).
The other issue is: atheists are a far more dangerous opponent than gays, blacks or women ever were with their respective civil rights movements, although, a good part of the reason is because those people laid a solid foundation. Most enemies of atheism are afraid of direct confrontation with atheism... because atheists win. Pretty much all the time. Scopes, Roe v Wade, Dover... we win and win and win. And we always do so very cannily, very carefully, and always while maintaining the moral upper hand (for example, the religious defendants in Dover were flat out called liars by the conservative judge). In fact, most atheists groups are hungry for opportunities to engage in open conflict with enemies of atheism. Because we'll win. That's why most efforts by religious groups against atheism are now done under the table - things like the Wedge strategy, campaigns to sneak crosses and Christian flags onto public ground, and campaigns of disinformation and smear tactics against prominent atheists (like all the effort to label Richard Dawkins as some kind of pulpit-pounding "atheist fundamentalist" (which is a nonsense term)).
Oh yes, there is lots open discrimination against atheists, and oh yes, atheists get just as much shit as gays used to get. In fact, now it's become generally socially unacceptable to be a homophobe, but it's still perfectly okay to rag on atheists. Just look at these forums: if i posted that gays were subhuman animals i'd probably get banned... yet when someone posts about atheists being immoral cretins who serve Satan, no problems there. The current state of discrimination against gays is about equivalent to the state of discrimination against homosexuals in the 70s; the situation of discrimination against gays has improved a lot, and, slowly, our situation will improve, too. But right now... it's pretty bad.
Hello_World wrote:
To be honest, I don't even really understand the athiest movement. Wouldn't it be more logical to form a secularist movement?
It would indeed, and that's why we did it. ^_^
The "atheist movement" is really, ultimately, not very useful in and of itself, because the opposition to atheism is mostly personal. Except for rare cases where gods are explicitly mentioned (like if you have to assert belief in God to run for office), most of the issues that trouble atheists are indirectly anti-atheist. For example, prayer in schools; there's nothing about that that is explicitly anti-atheist (because, as the proponents claim, you can pray to whatever you want - it doesn't have to be God), yet it certainly does infringe on the rights of most (if not all) atheists.
That's why the atheist movement is so closely allied to other groups that share our general concerns. For example, secularists. Not all atheists are for the separation of church and state... but most are, so we ally with secularists to help them in their cause, and in exchange they help us in our specifically atheist concerns (for example, when you have to assert belief in God to run for office). Same goes for allying with humanists, and skeptics, and rationalists, and so on. Things like teaching evolution in school; atheists don't really care about that per se, except that the alternative is usually "goddidit"... so we ally with the defenders of science for the sake of shared interests.
That's the way the atheist movement works. One day, American Atheists (to pick just one atheist group) will work with the Secular Coalition for one goal, the next they'll work with the American Humanist Association for another, the next they'll work with the Center for Inquiry for another, the next they'll work with National Center for Science Education... and so on. It's a huge network of mutually interdependent organizations, most of which share common membership. But don't doubt for a second that we're still the cats that won't be herded; when one of these organizations stops being helpful to the atheist cause we don't hesitate to call them out on it (right now, there's an outcry against the American Association for the Advancement of Science for selling out science to religion, and including theist opinions while deliberately cutting atheists out).
Bikerman wrote:
You are asking some interesting questions - why is, after all, why we are here.
The reason I (and I think Indi) would insist on the broader definition of atheism (as simply a lack of belief in God(s)) is precision. In any debate it is important to have a base of agreed terms - otherwise debate is not possible. If we adopt a definition of atheism that is not precise then any statements about atheism that follow are immediately suspect.
Now, within atheism it is, I think, valid to say that many atheists are rationalists - accepting of the scientific method as the best tool for discovering 'truth'. We cannot say that is true of all atheists because it simply isn't, but as generalisations go it isn't a particularly inaccurate one.
There are other 'common themes' within atheism which we can explore, but we must always be wary of defining atheism in terms of these, because that would be inaccurate.
As an example - many atheists were once theists. That is certainly true in my case and in the case of many people I know. It isn't true of ALL atheists though - indeed I think Indi would claim exception from this.
All true: as i said before, the reason we're so nitpicky about "atheism" being defined as only "not believing in gods" and nothing more is just for the sake of correctness. (It's also the same reason it's grating on my nerves to see "atheists" spelt "athiests" in this thread. ^_^;)
And yup: most atheists are rationalists - i'm just wary of stereotyping. Some atheists are not rationalists, and atheism doesn't need to be rational. i have to point out that of the four horsemen, only one's a scientist (Dawkins). i suppose you could call Dennett a professional rationalist, too, but the other two...? One's a writer and the other one is a full-time ****** (and proud of it). The connection between atheism and science really isn't as tight as you'd think.
And indeed, i was never theist - i suppose you could say i was "raised atheist", although, i really wasn't. i actually went to churches and Bible study groups, but then, everyone did there. i never had anything to do with religion outside of the one or two classes a week i had to sit through, although i did end up getting very well versed in the Bible. i actually didn't know my own parents were atheist until after i "came out" to them. i still don't know if my brothers and sister are atheist. ^_^;
Josso
I can't exactly keep to the high standard of Indi posts (interesting points and comparisons by the way) but...
... what do athiests believe? Well the constant is THERE IS 100% NO GOD, and all the rationalist stereotyping is because a lot of scientific, artistic and philisophical minds in the early days stood out from the crowd in times where some form of religion was almost a given in a person.
<opinion>
If you think about it, it's not actually a very rational constant - neither is thiesm - as the technological abilities of this time are not great enough to establish what all the chaos we see before us now was actually started accidently/created by. Is the average athiest more rational than the average person taking part in organized religion? Probably not... in fact I would say the average religious individual is more philosophically/ethically rational, and the average athiest more scientifically rational... this is of course MASS GENERALIZATION... but it's what I tend to notice.
</opinion>
As for ambiguous definitions, agnostic is even harder to define than athiest!
This may be going off topic a bit, sorry if it is... tried to answer some questions, but my brain just fork bombed itself. I feel like a redneck at a mensa meeting in here.
Bikerman
Nonono....THIS is why we insist on precision.
Atheism is NOT 'THERE IS 100% NO GOD'. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). It is not the same thing.
You can be unsure about whether God exists and not believe in God - you are still an atheist. You can be unaware that there is such a concept as God - you are still an atheist. You can be someone who just can't be arsed to think about it one way or the other - you are still an atheist.
What you are describing is commonly known as 'strong atheism' and it is a faith position, in the same way (but not to the same extent) that theism is a faith position. The non-existence of God cannot be demonstrated (yet) so the assertion that there is no God cannot be made with certainty (although I would say it can be made with a very high degree of probability).
As for your 'ethically, philosophically rational' bit - I think that is horse manure. Doing good because one is scared of the consequences of doing evil, or because one is looking forward to a reward, is hardly super-ethical, and religious belief is fundamentally irrational.
Josso
Bikerman wrote:
Nonono....THIS is why we insist on precision.
Atheism is NOT 'THERE IS 100% NO GOD'. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). It is not the same thing.
You can be unsure about whether God exists and not believe in God - you are still an atheist. You can be unaware that there is such a concept as God - you are still an atheist. You can be someone who just can't be arsed to think about it one way or the other - you are still an atheist.
What you are describing is commonly known as 'strong atheism' and it is a faith position, in the same way (but not to the same extent) that theism is a faith position. The non-existence of God cannot be demonstrated (yet) so the assertion that there is no God cannot be made with certainty (although I would say it can be made with a very high degree of probability).
Ok, my mistake - no certainty then. In the same way that a religious person might have doubts about there being a god. So can I define agnositic a sub section of athiesm?
Bikerman wrote:
As for your 'ethically, philosophically rational' bit - I think that is horse manure. Doing good because one is scared of the consequences of doing evil, or because one is looking forward to a reward, is hardly super-ethical, and religious belief is fundamentally irrational.
I meant ethically and philisophically rational BUT not because of that motive... as you say, this is not really ethical. Mainly I think just because of more frequent encounters with advanced ethical debates often in academia. I'm not saying this is always the case, it is just what I have observed. Whilst an athiest may spend his time wondering about how this sub atomic particle does this and that, the religious man may become self obsessed with more empathetic/human forms of intellectual debate.
Bikerman
*sighs*
Once more from the top....
Atheist - lacks belief in God(s)
Agnostic - doesn't think the existence of God(s) can be dis/proven (at this time).
And:
Strong atheist - asserts that there is no God.
Strong agnostic - asserts that it will never be possible to prove/disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
Agnostic atheist - doesn't think the existence of God(s) can be dis/proven and doesn't believe in God.
Agnostic theist - doesn't think the existence of God(s) can be dis/proven but does believe in God.
All the evidence that we have says that atheists are at least as ethical/moral as theists. Take your pick - prison population, divorce, abortion, gambling, teenage pregnancy....you pick a metric and I'll show that the rates for atheists are as low, or lower then theists.
Philosophically religion is a cop-out. Theists are not more philosophically able - as can easily be seen with a quick trawl through this forum. I would argue the reverse - that most atheists, because theirs is likely to be a considered and often difficult position (ie they are likely to have made a conscious decision to adopt an atheist position, against pressure from peers, family and society as a whole), are more aware of the philosophical and ethical issues than the majority of theists.
Josso
Ok thanks, that's the kind of clarity my brain accepts, forgive my ignorance there on that one mate.
Bikerman
No problem (if I seem a bit exasperated it is only because this is such a regular issue that I wish I had a pound for every-time I've had to post these definitions )
PS - which leads to the obvious question - why don't I put it in a sticky, to which the only sensible answer is - brilliant, I will do it now.
Hello_World
Quote:
Atheists don't suffer "real discrimination"? The facts beg to differ. Currently, atheists are the most hated subgroup in America - more people would vote for a gay president than an atheist one
I had no idea it was this bad in America, I knew it was different... but... wow.
Perhaps this is why the Atheist Movement is not that strong in Australia. We are just not under this kind of pressure. Out Prime Minister is an atheist, lives in a defacto long-term relationship with her partner Tim, who is a hairdresser to top it all off.
She isn't the first. Whitlam was PM 1972-75, an athiest. Hawke was agnostic.
While not everybody is totally enamoured by having an atheist PM, the opposition leader is critisised for being 'too religious'.
Atheist is just a word, meaning, usually, not religious, no God. (Not here on this forum though.) It doesn't have any special connotation. It is just a word like 'paper'. While the majority of Australians are Christian, only 10 per cent or thereabouts actually go to church. Most Australians prefer a personal version of Christianity I think.
I've had some small conflicts about religion, my (defacto) father-in-law doesn't like it, and that family doesn't like that we are not married. But not so much that it is any more than a small conflict.
My cousins are very religious. The holding hands and singing type. We would probably be closer if they weren't so religious and I wasn't an atheist. They have made efforts to bring me to God. But there isn't any real issues.
My partner was offended by my aunt sneaking into all our rooms including our ensuite which we had closed the door to, to 'bless the rooms', when we had a housewarming.
Compared to the issues I would have had, if instead I was gay, or converted to Muslim, this is nothing. Generally, I do consider this nothing. I could equally have been closer to my cousin if I had chosen to be really into guitar.
Indi said:
Quote:
The way you word it, it sounds like you think this is a bad thing, because we have no other common identity as atheists except not having gods.
I don't think it is a bad thing. It just feels... nothing. It feels like the satirical Tim Minchin song, Peace Anthym for Palestine', "if you don't eat pork, and we don't eat pork, why not, not eat pork, together?" Of course I feel some kind of natural affinity for other atheists, but I don't need the guidance of other atheists to reassure me that I don't believe in God. Coming to this conclusion was really a non-event in my life. This would be different if I felt that I was in a class of people who were vilified in some way.
I think the way the Atheist Movement joins with several other similarly interested movements is good.
I think it came across that way also, because I felt slightly like you were telling me, this is the way it is, don't discuss this. But that was really my wording of the initial question that was at fault. Definitions are important, Bikermans sticky is excellent, as you need to be confident of definitions to progress in communication. Like I said before, definitions and a political message is one thing. Exploring concepts is another. I shouldn't have attempted to find a common thread amongst all atheists perhaps. Nevertheless, I found the answer to that pretty much in this thread.
Bikerman:
Quote:
In any debate it is important to have a base of agreed terms - otherwise debate is not possible.
Yes, as above, I agree completely.
Quote:
As an example - many atheists were once theists. That is certainly true in my case and in the case of many people I know. It isn't true of ALL atheists though - indeed I think Indi would claim exception from this.
When I was a child I vaguely believed in God. I had to go to church and all, but at no point did I ever get really excited about the concept, I always vaguely disliked wasting my Sundays going to church and at best I liked singing songs and the stickers you got in RE, but thought of it is a dumb, bludge subject. It wasn't until I had to get confirmed and go to bible classes that it occured to me that you didn't have to believe in it, and the moment I realised that, I was an atheist. I realised why I had always disliked church etc, was because I never really had any faith. I was about 14. I got confirmed without fuss to make my Mum happy, I knew she just made us do it to make the rest of the family happy, so she felt like she had done her duty, and that was it for religion for me.
I do think there is issues in the political arena though, here, perhaps why I am more interested in secularism.
I was about 14 when I first began to seriously question Catholicism. That led to a period of intense study, which culminated in a realisation 4 years later that Catholicism was one of the most transparently idiotic systems of belief it is possible to imagine, and a period of anger with the people around me who (I thought it was obvious) could not possibly believe this nonsense and yet had subjected me to a childhood filled with it, controlled by it.
I was partly correct - my mum, I know now, didn't believe any of it. My dad, on the other hand (name was Dermod, which might tell you something about my family demographic was very deeply religious. My mum had done the thing required of any non-Catholic marrying a Catholic - agreed to bring up the children as Catholics.
Caz, my wife, is nominally catholic (though I don't think she believes any of it - funnily enough it isn't something that ever comes up) and even though I am also nominally catholic, we still got the 'pep talk' from the priest about bringing the kids (it is assumed that there will be plenty) into church as soon as possible. Why did I marry in Church you might ask...to make our parents happy. That was the only reason - certainly from my POV. Caz might have wanted the full white dress Catholic pomp, but I don't think she was really that bothered.
I still go into churches occasionally - I love the Cathedrals in Liverpool and often just pop in if I'm passing. The Anglican is a massive Gothic affair which is actually modern, whereas the Catholic cathedral (known locally as 'Paddy's WigWam - for reasons which should be apparent from the picture and the fact that Liverpool has a very large Irish Catholic population) is a striking building but architecturally it is pants - some very shoddy work, which is probably exactly as it should be, in fact.
The Anglican Cathedral
Paddy's WigWam
Afaceinthematrix
I can easily understand misconceptions. Rumors go around. You hear a definition, which is wrong, and so you think something means that. It's easy to get the wrong definition of these terms because they float around so much and why bother consulting a dictionary if you think you're correct anyways? Besides, even if you did read the definition, it's relatively close to what you think the definition is so you'd figure you were correct.
But what I do not understand is that I have seen people be corrected multiple times and then continue to make the same mistake over and over again! I do not understand that because the definitions are pretty easy! I can understand it from Creationists because they are liars and their definitions serve their purpose better. But that only applies to the vocal Creationists. What about everyone else?
------
On a side note... Bikerman: I also like churches like those because the architecture is amazing. It's unfortunate, though, that the amazing buildings had to be wasted on something like a church. Other causes would have been better. But they still look cool. My friend and I are going to Europe next summer after we graduate college and would like to see some churches. Do you have any suggestions since you also like them? The only issue is that we won't be in the U.K. We're going to the Wacken festival in Germany and so we'll probably spend our time in Germany and neighboring countries. So do you know of any down there (the U.K. is far)? We won't have a lot of time (his parents are from Germany and his father has already suggested a very time-intensive itinerary which didn't include much time for churches... His suggested itinerary was - and I quote - drink beer and find hot women) but I'd still like to see some cool buildings... I know you're not from there but if you're interested in churches I figured you might still know of some...
I had no idea it was this bad in America, I knew it was different... but... wow.
Perhaps this is why the Atheist Movement is not that strong in Australia.
You know, i'm glad that you haven't experienced lots of anti-atheist hate. i haven't been to Australia, so i don't know how institutionalized it is there (i do know from writing about the Salvation Army that there's a lot of anti-gay hate still live there), but don't assume that just because you haven't personally seen hate against atheists that it isn't real, or that it isn't a big problem.
To make the point, i'm going to tell you a story you probably haven't heard... that happened in Australia. In fact, it only happened in 2001, so we're not talking about 30 or 40 years ago here.
It's a story of two nice people. John and Alois saw a guy who was down on his luck hitchhiking, and offered him a ride and lunch at their house. The guy accepted, and ended up staying with them for a couple days, and they chatted and drank together and just generally got along. Seems all harmless, sure.
But then, Alois mentioned that they were atheists.
Our devout Christian friend punched her in face. Repeatedly.
John got up to defend his wife, but was beaten to the ground and stomped on. But that wasn't enough divine punishment for the evil atheists, no. So this guy picks up an axe, and starts hacking at John and Alois, and then proceeds to smash up their house. By the time the cops get there, John's dead. Alois ended up with several fractured bones and some axe-hacks to the legs, but she survives.
Wanna hear the best part?
The judge decided that our axe-wielding Christian was not really a threat to the community. Oh, he got some jail time, but not all that much, considering.
Oh, actually, that's not the best part. Dig this:
If you check this list of major crimes in Australia, you can see the mention of the event that occurred on 18 November 2001, and... what the-?!
Oh, right. It's not there. Turns out that the vicious axe assault of two innocent people who were helping someone out, resulting in the death of one of them - attacked just because they admitted they were atheists - isn't really that major a crime. i mean, not compared to the Society Murders, geez. Hell, the cases before and after the atheist-axe-murder case both got turned into movies... meanwhile i'll bet you never even heard of the atheist-axe-murder case before now.
Here's the thing: unfortunately for atheists, they really aren't all that sympathetic as victims. Not only are they generally disliked, they tend to be smarter and better off than the religious people who attack them. That was obviously the case above, and if you look into any of the atheists-murdered-for-being-atheists cases, you'll find more-or-less the same thing. The attacker is usually younger, less intelligent, and less socially well-off... it makes it harder to feel sorry for the victim than if the victim had been the weaker on victimized by a stronger aggressor. Add to that the fact that most people don't really like atheists all that much, and... these stories just don't make news.
But it's happening. It's not making news, but it's happening, with alarming regularity. Just last year in Iowa, another atheist was murdered... just for being atheist. He was a 16-year-old kid, and he was murdered, out of the blue, while discussing religion with another kid - just blown away with a shotgun.* You'd think that would make the news... but no.
Do not mistake the fact that you don't hear a lot about discrimination against atheists as a sign that it doesn't exist. It happens. A lot. And not just in the US either, it happens in Australia, too, apparently. The sad fact is that discrimination against atheists is so common that it's just not news; no one heard about discrimination against gays in the 1970s, or against blacks in the 1920s, because it was just so common, it wasn't news. In fact, whenever something bad did happen to blacks in the 1920s, or gays in 1970s, the standard response was that they probably deserved it for being "uppity" in some way. Naturally, that happens today to atheists; next time an atheist is being pilloried in the media, look for the same kind of message: the atheists should have kept their place (usually, nowadays, that comes in the form of "atheists have no right to criticize religious belief").
*And for a sad P.S. ... The murderer in that case, too, is also probably going to get off easy. So hey, if you want to just fricken butcher someone - like with an axe to the head or a shotgun to the face - and you don't want to spend a lot of time in jail... your best bet is to murder an atheist, it seems.
Hello_World wrote:
I don't think it is a bad thing. It just feels... nothing. It feels like the satirical Tim Minchin song, Peace Anthym for Palestine', "if you don't eat pork, and we don't eat pork, why not, not eat pork, together?" Of course I feel some kind of natural affinity for other atheists, but I don't need the guidance of other atheists to reassure me that I don't believe in God. Coming to this conclusion was really a non-event in my life.
It is nothing. And, it should have been a non-event. You get it - you understand it correctly. There's nothing magical about "becoming" an atheist, nor should there be. It's just a natural, obvious thing to be. Everyone is an atheist, unless and until they find a god they like (or, more often, have one forced on them when they are children). And everyone is an atheist about most of the gods that have ever existed - i've seen lists of over 50,000 gods, covering thousands of religions, modern and historical, but there are very few people who believe in more than 1 god, which means most people are around 99.998%... yet they hate us, harass us and kill us over that last 0.002%.
There should be any big deal about about. There shouldn't be atheist organizations, or even an atheist movement. These things only exist because of the irrational hate against atheists - and that hate is usually preached as part of various religious. That is why atheists are usually so vocally anti-religious... not because atheism is against religion, but because most religions are against atheism, and we have to fight back because our rights - our lives - are in jeopardy.
There are no movements against people who believe in Santa Claus, and no organizations of people who don't believe in unicorns... because no one is discriminating against (or killing) those people. This is the reason it infuriates me so much when religious people play the pity card, or pretend to be the victims of some kind of atheist conspiracy. It's pathetic, and easily shown to be stupid and dishonest. They started it, they continue to make it an issue, and our only crime is not bending over and allowing them to continue to treat us as badly as they have over the last few thousand years. It's the same thing that's happened in every other civil rights movement in history: Harvey Milk and Martin Luther King Jr. were both murdered solely for saying, "We just want to be equal."; that was their "crime", just as it is the "crime" of every outspoken atheist today.
loremar
In my country, Atheists are burned at the stake. No just kidding.
Hello_World
loremar:
Quote:
In my country, Atheists are burned at the stake. Shocked No just kidding.
lol.
indi:
Quote:
(i do know from writing about the Salvation Army that there's a lot of anti-gay hate still live there)
yes. Perhaps not in the inner cities. Curious about the link you make here between homophobia and Salvos?
Quote:
don't assume that just because you haven't personally seen hate against atheists that it isn't real, or that it isn't a big problem.
okay. I live in Melbourne, a progressive city. I get shocked sometimes by the attitudes of people from Qld say, or central, or WA. Maybe there is some kind of atheist dislike there, and I would be surprised. I'm not saying, that every person on this continent loves athesists. But I don't think there is any significant, discriminatory dislike. Not every person loves Christians, Muslims, cyclists, hippies, conservatives, and so on.
I wrote this long personal spiel here which I decided to delete, but wanted to add, my personal upbringing was rather sheltered from hate, this may influence my feelings. I am not unaccustomed to being different, either, being an Australian who rarely drinks and thinks professional sport is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Not to mention my political views.
My opinion on this may also stem from my inate arrogance on this issue. I simply don't take religious opinion seriously. Most likely, if I have come across discrimination of this type, I probably laughed at them, or thought they were joking, or simply dismissed their opinion and never thought on it again.
But i think the fact I can have this attitude indicates my sense of security in my position in this country.
That was a horrendous crime Indi cited there. It was a hate crime, by virtue of the fact that he killed due to atheist. But this is not in my mind any evidence of an undertone of atheist hatred. This is a lunitic. A psycho with wacky ideas in his head. Who can understand a man like this? Why do they do what they do? Why do they choose what they dwell on? Who can answer these type of questions? Not me. This particular murderer was a religious nut and freaked out at atheists. I'm sure in history there has been an atheist murderer too.
Perhaps the reason that those poor hitchhikers aren't known is that the media didn't feel sympathy with an atheist, that is possible, but I'm not sure it is a likely explanation. It is also possible that Australia was still wrapped up in the events of 911 at that point. Perhaps the media felt the public was tired of the 'hitchhiker getting murdered' stories, after all the Peter Falconio coverage.
I'm not sure about the sympathetic victim thing. Maybe. It's not like they talk about people's religion when they are victims, unless they are a minority or it's a hate crime, so i don't really see how. After an internet search, I found a news article http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Religious-axe-killer-jailed/2004/12/23/1103391878844.html He got 18 years. We usually reserve life for serial killers. (And we don't have the death penalty.)
Who knows who wrote that wikipedia article anyway. When I looked up 'australian criminals' and gansters, there are also notable ones missing. The ones listed are only from Underbelly. Even Chopper Read is listed as other. 3 rapists listed? They left a few off there.
I will be keeping a more open eye, after such a discussion, to see if I have been ignoring stuff... but I just don't think that is an accurate assessment of the situation in Australia.
There are certainly vocal morons like George Pell or Fred Nile, who come out with offensive opinions trying to tell people how to live their lives, such and such is right or wrong. Pity they get any airtime, but the media loves a vocal moron.
The religious are certainly gaining strength here. It is a backlash against the Muslim fundamentalists and the increasing feeling of insecurity in the world, also the tendency of Australians to copy Americans. (It used to be the English, now it is the Americans). It is of worry to me. They are trying to use the momentum to get chaplains in schools for example.
When they are trying to encroach on shared space I cannot fail to take that seriously.
@Bikerman
Your way of coming to the conclusion that you are an atheist explains how you have so much understanding of the stupidities of the bible and desire to share lol.
Indi
Hello_World wrote:
okay. I live in Melbourne, a progressive city. I get shocked sometimes by the attitudes of people from Qld say, or central, or WA.
Actually, i think the axe thing was Brisbane, or thereabouts.
Hello_World wrote:
That was a horrendous crime Indi cited there. It was a hate crime, by virtue of the fact that he killed due to atheist. But this is not in my mind any evidence of an undertone of atheist hatred. This is a lunitic. A psycho with wacky ideas in his head. Who can understand a man like this? Why do they do what they do? Why do they choose what they dwell on? Who can answer these type of questions? Not me. This particular murderer was a religious nut and freaked out at atheists. I'm sure in history there has been an atheist murderer too.
The real discrimination in that case was not the axe murderer himself. That guy, as you say, was a lunatic.
The real discrimination is all the stuff that happened around the murder. Such as the murderer getting off light because he wasn't really a threat to normal citizens... just atheists. Or the fact that the case - despite being a brutal and violent murder of two nice people who were just trying to help someone out - was pretty much ignored. You mentioned Falconio, but really? Is that really a more interesting case than an axe murderer who attacked two nice people who picked him up, fed him and gave him a place to sleep? Do you really think that if John and Alois had been devout Christians who picked up a down-on-his-luck atheist that turned around and murdered them, that that wouldn't have been headline news around the world?
See, i don't know what you think real discrimination looks like, but that's it. Real discrimination against a group is when a member of that group is horribly wronged and... no one cares.* It's when a woman soldier is raped, and everyone just goes "meh" because women shouldn't be soldiers anyway. Or it's when a black man is mysteriously murdered and no one is ever brought to justice because the all-white police force just can't be arsed to do the legwork. Even in the height of the racism, it was not "normal" to attack black people (so it was done secretly and never discussed in polite company) - that's not what discrimination is. Discrimination is when they were attacked... they never saw justice, because they just weren't considered worth it. Same with women's rights - no one went around beating women, or killing them... but when it happened, it was just not real news.
* Actually, this is a real discussion topic in the atheist community now, centring on the treatment of women. A prominent female atheist made a comment about a situation at an atheist convention where some guy made her feel really uncomfortable, and thousands of people told her "it was no big deal" (including Richard Dawkins no less!), and that she should just accept that kind of thing when it happens. None of those people cared about the woman, or her feelings. Luckily, thousands more atheists jumped up to shame all those people.
loremar
I think, if people knew they were atheists, Most probably the guy killed them not necessarily because they were atheists. People might have just jumped into conclusions. For example, I read this news about a mother and his kids invited a guy who was all wet in the storm. They were so kind they let him sleep the night over. The next morning they were found all dead. I think some psychopaths would love to kill if they have the opportunity.
If the guy said he killed them because they didn't believe in God, you can't really take his word for it. He's insane. Who knows what he was thinking when he murdered the couple. Some people kill because they thought they were satanic or being surrounded by demons. Him being alone with the couple, probably made him so anxious it triggered his being psychopath.
If that is true, that is really scary. I hope that's not true. Or perhaps that could be true. Who knows how many religious people uses drugs these days.
Yes, the judges decision was really a discrimination. If a guy kills because he got so angry is not only dangerous to atheist but to the community. The couple being atheist doesn't mean his anger is valid and reasonable.
Hello_World
Quote:
Who knows how many religious people uses drugs these days.
ROFL
Funny, because its true.
Indi
i've mentioned a couple times that there is a coming wave of anti-religious sentiment in young people - and if religious people think they're pariahs now....
Well, recently, i stumbled across an article that lists about a half dozen examples, and then quotes tons of statistics to show the trend. It even goes on to analyze the cause of the trend. So, you'll be able to see for yourself that i'm not just blowing smoke; religion really is on the way out.
That is good news for America. But I felt sorry for some of those kids who have to pay the price for speaking out. But it's good to know that politics and law is on their side. But why it has been effective, I think it is the church that did it to themselves, insisting on their fundamentalist ideas with disregard to human rights. It has backfired on them.
The same is also happening in my country. I read that there is also a growing number of freethinkers here - atheists, agnostics, and deists working together. Though I have not personally met any atheist in my area. Frihost is actually the first place I've found where I am able to speak to other atheists including one frihoster, tingkagol, who probably live in the same city where I live. Good thing I was looking for some free web hosting and found Frihost.
I really learned a lot here especially from Bikerman and Indi. Thanks to them. There were many thoughts I had before that weren't clear and I didn't bother to search for more truth. I thought religion is something I can't deal with and thought probably I should gave up atheism a long time ago. But that would mean I have to lie to myself. That's just impossible. Now I realized it is necessary for me to speak out and debate about the issue. If along the way I may offend other people and me assaulted in return, that's just the price to pay. To fight for my right of free thoughts and ideas, and be fully liberated and live my own way is worth it anyway.
Stories like this in America is truly inspiring.
tingkagol
I think the internet has done more for atheism than it is currently being credited for. The abundance of information just naturally 'awakened' alot of people about, not just their beliefs, but pretty much everything in the sun.
Bikerman
I would agree but for different reasons.
I don't think it is the information content that is critical - after all, anyone who really thinks about it MUST see that most religious dogma is sheer invention. You don't need access to the internet to know that virgin births, rising from the dead and similar mythology is just not something that happens.
It is useful for polemicists (and I'll include myself) to use in researching particular points, but we are already firmly in the atheist camp, so it isn't changing minds at that level.
Where it really comes in is in the social networking side. I must admit that I am rather spoiled, living in the UK. Being an atheist here is no biggie and there is little peer or social stigma attached to atheism.
I know that the same is most certainly not true in large parts of the US. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a teenager who has realised that they simply don't believe the stuff that they are being fed. The whole community, in many places, is not only Christian, but fundamentalist Christian. Even doubting the religion must seem to many such youngsters to be an indication that it is THEM that is weird, disfunctional, mistaken. Taking a stance on your own is VERY VERY hard to do - particularly against an entire community, including your parents and family.
The internet gives these youngsters a channel of communication that is not censored by the community or family. Through it they can discover that it is NOT them that has a problem. It is NOT them that is being weird, delusional, mistaken, and that in fact there are many millions of us who, faced with the same issue, have reached the same conclusions.
This is one of the main reasons I started to post on Frih, years ago. I became aware, through a colleague, of just how isolated and constrained many young Americans are in their communities and figured that one thing I could do to help would be to offer them a positive atheist role model. By that I mean someone who can (more than) hold their own in any debate with any theist on any religion. Someone who is not intimidated by sanctimonious bullshit, cannot be browbeaten by pseudo-academic theologians spouting crap, because he knows the scriptures at least as well as, and nearly always MUCH bettter than, the theists he debates. In short, someone who doesn't take crap from theists and who can withstand the best that theists can throw against him without even breaking sweat.
If that sounds arrogant and conceited then it really isn't. I'm under no illusions about my intellect - I'm pretty smart but I'm no genius. It is simply a reflection of the fact that, when push comes to shove, the Emperor doesn't have, and never has had, any clothes at all.
Dennise
There are many thing atheists believe. Here's a common one simply put:
You only have one life to live, and this is it. Your life is not a rehearsal for another time or place. This is IT, so 'go for it' and make it a good one.
Indi
Dennise wrote:
There are many thing atheists believe. Here's a common one simply put:
You only have one life to live, and this is it. Your life is not a rehearsal for another time or place. This is IT, so 'go for it' and make it a good one.
No, not necessarily. It's entirely possible for atheists to believe in reincarnation (and millions do).
i don't know why this has to keep being repeated, but here it goes again. There is NOTHING that all atheists believe. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.
The ONLY thing that all atheists have in common is that they do NOT believe in gods. That. Is. It.
Omif
Quote:
Although I didn't like the misrepresentation that all atheists are rationalists and scientific as I don't want people to expect me to debate and present scientific data and facts, I would be pressured to research more. That would be wasting my time.
[/quote]
You should at least be able to tell to yourself why you have this or those opinion. Why will researching and thinking be waste of your time, as you said?
Hello_World
For the record, not everyone agrees with your definition of athiest.
The "Atheist Society" defines atheists as:
Quote:
Atheists have a lack of belief in God, in gods, in the Divine, in the Spiritual, in the Supernatural, in the Occault, in Superstition, and in supernatural processes such as Re-Incarnation and Astrology, as well as a lack of belief in paranormal phenomena such as ESP and UFO's.
(emphasis in original)
I disagree with the above, as I can see no conflict between being atheist and believing in UFO's, as UFO's need no existance of any god to exist.
I do, however much I respect Buhdists, agree that they are not atheists.
In any case, you do need a working definition to communicate, and I see no reason why it should not be yours for the purposes of this forum, but I did want to point out that your definition is not universal.
Bikerman
Sad to say that the Atheist society is wrong - and not for the first time. The definition is as Indi gave - simply a lack of belief in God(s). That doesn't imply a lack of belief in other 'supernatural' entities or phenomena. Although it is probably true to say that most atheists don't believe in any supernatural stuff, it isn't a requirement of atheism.
Ankhanu
Yep, the Atheist Society is better describing skeptic atheists than atheists in general.
loremar
Hello_World wrote:
For the record, not everyone agrees with your definition of athiest.
Those who disagree better find a new term for other atheists then.
non-deitist perhaps?????
Indi
Hello_World wrote:
For the record, not everyone agrees with your definition of athiest.
The fact that some people disagree with something doesn't mean there isn't only one right answer. Some people disagree that the Earth is round... does that mean that there's not one correct answer to that question?
You must know there are numerous theists who have the definition of "atheist" wrong... why is it so surprising that some atheists get it wrong, too?
It's not uncommon for people to want to "load" a word to mean more than it actually means. Take "American" for example: it just means someone who was either born in America or holds citizenship. Yet, there are people who want to "load" the word to include a host of other meanings. Things like: "someone who believes in capitalism and the free market", "someone who believes in freedom", "someone who doesn't speak with a foreign accent or live according to some other culture", and so on. In particular, theists want to "load" the word "atheist" to make atheism a faith-based system, under the bizarre and misguided notion that if they can't defend their own position, at least they can bring atheism down to the same level. At the same time, there are many atheists who want to "load" the word to make it mean things like "belief in science", "skeptic" and so on. There's nothing strange or surprising about that. But, they're wrong. Period.
The correct definition of "atheism" is "not having belief in gods"... and that's all there is to it. Unless the definition of the privative "a-" or the word "theist" changes, then that's the only correct definition. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
Hello_World wrote:
I do, however much I respect Buhdists, agree that they are not atheists.
Some Buddhists are atheists, not all. Buddhism itself is an atheist belief system (an explicitly atheist reimagining of Hinduism), but it has allowances for belief in gods.
loremar wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
For the record, not everyone agrees with your definition of athiest.
Those who disagree better find a new term for other atheists then.
non-deitist perhaps?????
There are already perfectly good terms for both general atheists ("atheist"), and what the Atheist Society is calling atheists ("skeptic").
Nameless
Indi wrote:
The correct definition of "atheism" is "not having belief in gods"... and that's all there is to it. Unless the definition of the privative "a-" or the word "theist" changes, then that's the only correct definition. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
That's not how the evolution of language works.
deanhills
If theists don't get the "official" definition of what an atheist is, it is because the definition does not make any sense at all. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently got me thinking when he defined someone who is religious as someone who prays to a personal God at the end of the day. I thought that would be a good place to start for a definition of atheism as well. A person who does not pray to a personal God? Or a person who does not pray .... period.
Bikerman wrote:
This is one of the main reasons I started to post on Frih, years ago. I became aware, through a colleague, of just how isolated and constrained many young Americans are in their communities and figured that one thing I could do to help would be to offer them a positive atheist role model. By that I mean someone who can (more than) hold their own in any debate with any theist on any religion. Someone who is not intimidated by sanctimonious bullshit, cannot be browbeaten by pseudo-academic theologians spouting crap, because he knows the scriptures at least as well as, and nearly always MUCH bettter than, the theists he debates. In short, someone who doesn't take crap from theists and who can withstand the best that theists can throw against him without even breaking sweat.
I don't like the Mississippi type Christian evangelists either. If any of those evangelists should come to Frihost with a message that you're destined for hell, please take them down, you will have me cheering you all the way when you do that. I have not seen any of those posting at Frihost however. So it is perhaps unfair to super impose your missionary objective on Christians at Frihost who hardly fit the category of the Mississippi type you have just described. That by the way is a guaranteed recipe for creating trolls out of Christians when they had never been trolls to start off with. They had been doing exactly what you had been doing, rebutting robust "debate" robustly. A sign of great debate? Hardly! The only good discussions I've seen in this forum have been atheists in discussion with other atheists on real subjects of debate. Not atheists "in robust discussion" with theists.
loremar
deanhills wrote:
If theists don't get the "official" definition of what an atheist is, it is because the definition does not make any sense at all. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently got me thinking when he defined someone who is religious as someone who prays to a personal God at the end of the day. I thought that would be a good place to start for a definition of atheism as well. A person who does not pray to a personal God? Or a person who does not pray .... period.
Atheist - one who does not believe in god(personal or not). That also means a person who does not pray to a personal god.
A person who does not pray? I'm not sure. What does pray mean? Is it always directed to a god? Can it be directed to spirits, or to other people other than god?
Sometimes, I feel like praying. But that is just a feeling. Maybe because I know how it feels like. It's like wishing or hoping but slightly different. I can't put my finger on it though.
I was about to say that deists don't pray to a god but I checked wikipedia and I was wrong. Some don't but some pray for thanks.
Hello_World
Hmmm... the problem that I always had with Buhdists being considered atheists was that they believe in re-incarnation.
After watching the video, I think that praying is one good indicator of belief of a God. I think another is 'what do you think happens after you die?'. If you think some kind of supernatural process happens whereby you go to heaven, or your soul enters another body and you live on, you are religious, theist.
After reading loremar's site, it indicates that Budhists don't actually believe in re-incarnation at all. It is another one of those annoying metaphors that religious philosophies seem to love so much. Re-incarnation, according to this website, is the process you go through when you achieve a different state of being, ie, enlightened or depraved etc.
I don't know if mediation counts as praying. They say that you remind yourself of the philosophy of Buddha and it is known scientifically to achieve a change in conciousness (ie, calmer etc). They are not trying to talk to a God.
On whether prayer is essentially theist regardless of who it is to. I agree, I think if you are praying, then you do believe in some kind of outside force. I don't think mediation counts, because it is a process by which you achieve some benefit which has nothing to do with any outside force.
So, hmmm, maybe Buddhists are atheist after all.
But then again... I did a 'prayer' once, at a Buddhist thing. (Some special Buddhist day, they had a giant Buddha in Fed Square)(Felt silly, just thought I'd give it a go lol.). What you were supposed to do was light a candle, then go and pour water over this Buddha figurine, a spoonful for each wish, up to three. That indicates theism to me.
I do know, however, that when people talk about atheists, they are NOT talking about Buddhists or Jaans.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
Hmmm... the problem that I always had with Buhdists being considered atheists was that they believe in re-incarnation.
Reincarnation involves a soul concept, not necessarily a god concept. Yes, it's supernatural, but it's not theistic.
Hello_World wrote:
After watching the video, I think that praying is one good indicator of belief of a God.
It is and it isn't. Yes, if you pray, chances are you're theist. However, there are theists who believe, but do not pray... for example, if I believed in a god, but did not feel that god was worthy of praise, I would not pray... though I still have belief. With belief comes a theist position... it says nothing of how I feel about that god, or my relationship to it. Belief does not infer a relationship.
Hello_World wrote:
I think another is 'what do you think happens after you die?'. If you think some kind of supernatural process happens whereby you go to heaven, or your soul enters another body and you live on, you are religious, theist.
Religious or spiritual, perhaps. Theistic, not necessarily; see above.
Hello_World wrote:
I don't know if mediation counts as praying.
It depends on the type of meditation, as you alluded. There is meditation akin to prayer, but there is also meditation that is a simple centering and exploration of one's consciousness... it doesn't require any kind of supernatural belief or context at all; it can be entirely mental/physical in nature.
Hello_World wrote:
... What you were supposed to do was light a candle, then go and pour water over this Buddha figurine, a spoonful for each wish, up to three. That indicates theism to me.
That indicates a supernatural belief, or simple ritual; it need not necessarily be theistic. That said, yes, there are theistic branches of Buddhism, and this may have been one of them.
Hello_World wrote:
I do know, however, that when people talk about atheists, they are NOT talking about Buddhists or Jaans.
Generally true, yes.
Hello_World
I don't think you can believe in the supernatural without a belief in a God of some form. Maybe that God is only some kind of special energy or something, but that is still a God.
Assuming we are talking about people who do believe in real re-incarnation, how does this soul magically get ripped out of one body and miraculously get placed into a different body? Just a magical process?
I'd be interested in Loremar's response to this as I know he is interested in supernatural ideas and yet does not believe in a God.
What is the difference between a theist and a deist?
I agree with both Ankhanu and Loremar that not praying does not preclude a person from being a theist.
Quote:
That said, yes, there are theistic branches of Buddhism, and this may have been one of them.
There is different types? lol. Maybe when I was looking into Buhdhism, I went to the wrong one and that's what put me off. (EDIT: in fact, it was, Tibetian Buddhism which believes in a God realm apparently, that is the type in the temple near me.)
Well, that and all the talk of suffering. LOL.
EDIT: now I read a different part of the website and it says re-incarnation is physical. *sigh* I don't understand. Maybe they are different types.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
I don't think you can believe in the supernatural without a belief in a God of some form. Maybe that God is only some kind of special energy or something, but that is still a God.
That somewhat depends on how one defines a god, I suppose. Generally, I would consider a deity (god) to be a personification of some sort... it need not be personal, but there is, as far as I know, always a will, a consciousness. I can't think of any deities or other supernatural beings that do not possess this sort of trait. With that in mind, a supernatural "energy" or what have you without consciousness would not be a god, per ce.
Hello_World wrote:
Assuming we are talking about people who do believe in real re-incarnation, how does this soul magically get ripped out of one body and miraculously get placed into a different body? Just a magical process?
In most reincarnative paradigms, there isn't a being dictating the process. It's a little like asking how a planet decides how much gravitational force to exert on a passing asteroid; there's no decision making process, it's a matter of the mass of both objects and their distance from one another. Similarly, many reincarnative concepts work on the idea that our experiences in life weight our souls one way or another; when we die, the soul is released and has the properties it acquired through life, influencing how it moves on to the next life, and, in the case of Buddhists and the like, where there is an idea of samsara and nirvana, it is possible to have the soul "weighted" such that it eventually escapes the cycle.
The process need not be "magical", exactly, it could operate in parallel to "natural" processes, but, ya know, on a supernatural level or context. Technically, anything supernatural could be considered magic, though, I suppose.
Hello_World wrote:
What is the difference between a theist and a deist?
Deism is a subset of theism; it's like asking what's the difference between a dog and a mammal. Deists possess all the traits of a theist, but theists need not possess all the traits of a deist.
That deists do not believe God to be personally involved in the universe now does not preclude them from believing that the god exists (or at least existed).
Hello_World wrote:
There is different types? lol. Maybe when I was looking into Buhdhism, I went to the wrong one and that's what put me off.
Well, that and all the talk of suffering. LOL.
There are two or three main forms, Mahayana (the major modern Buddhist grouping), Theravada (more akin to ancient Buddhist roots) and Vajrayana (which can be considered a form of Mahayana, and includes sects like the Tibetan Buddhists). Like the various Christian sects, they're basically the same, but with different approaches to the same ideas, and some unique aspects unto themselves. Within these two or three groupings there are further sects, just like with other religions, which have their own interpretations on the common themes to the larger sect
loremar
Hello_World wrote:
I'd be interested in Loremar's response to this as I know he is interested in supernatural ideas and yet does not believe in a God.
I'm not even sure what believe means anymore except that I might have been picking sides randomly.
What does believe mean? When can a person say that he believes? Does a person believe consistently? Can a person say he believes but he doesn't really believe in the truest sense? Can a person believe without rationalizing and create arguments to come up with a conclusion, but just picking sides randomly? Does believe even have any real meaning at all?
Maybe Ankhanu has an idea which part of the brain where a person says he believes.
About the soul. Well, I'm not even sure if I really do believe in a soul. I did made some posts where I said I believe in a soul but I'd be lying if I say I have been honest all this time in all my posts in frihost. Just look at my posts where I said I believe in soul and defended that stance. My posts where completely ridiculous, I can even laugh at them.
The thing is I don't see any problem saying "I believe in soul" or "I don't believe in soul". The truth is I don't know. I can pick any side I want.
In fact, just to demonstrate how easy it is to pick anything you want to believe, from now on, I make a stand that I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY SOUL. And I will be researching arguments against this soul concept. Already got a few from Ankhanu, Bikerman, and Indi.
In fact, where I said I don't believe that Jesus Christ exist, I did also picked that randomly. And did some research on arguments against the historicity of Jesus.
But there are also sides where I am more inclined to believe and picking the other side is difficult. One is the belief of god. I'm not sure if I also picked that side randomly when I was 13 or 14 but for about 10 years, I have always said that I don't believe in god except in some occasions where I am forced to act as if I believe in god. In such cases, I can say I truly don't believe in god because I felt guilty of lying every time I pretend.
Maybe skepticism and disbelief becomes more concrete when more people say they know that a said thing exist and you felt not convinced, and forced to say that you disagree. "There can't be a possible way to know that such thing exist, I don't believe in it."
This is where I can say I don't completely have a grasp of what believe means.
I can say that there might be a possibility that reincarnation exist because it's hard to imagine what it feels like when you don't wake up and that feeling of familiarities and the feeling of what's it like to be in his shoes must be clues that reincarnation does exist. But do I believe that it's possible? I don't know. All I know is that I don't disagree when some people speak about it unless they add some more mumbo jumbo into it.
You might guess it by now. I don't necessarily ask for evidence. But I might, if people starts acting as if they know.
Well, about supernaturals, sometimes I am a superstitious guy. But I think it's all fun and entertainment. During college, I used to sit on the second chair near the door most of the time in many classes. I thought of it as my lucky seat. But do I believe that some supernatural phenomenon makes it lucky? I'm not sure, I'm doing it regardless whether I believe it's lucky or not.
About praying, believe it or not I think I prayed to god a few times during my 10 years of atheism. Well, I was praying to god for 5 or 6 years when I was a kid, so a few times more wouldn't hurt, would it? And what's even more funny? I remember when I was a kid I prayed to the Big Dipper through the window in some occasions. Really weird. hehe. I don't think of the Big dipper as a god but I felt I have some sort of connection with it. These shows that there doesn't seem to be a consistency with my beliefs. Does a belief had to be always consistent?
Now with all the things I just said. You ask me, am I an atheist???? Well 99.99% of the time since I was 13 or 14, I can say I am.
If I'm not then what am I? I would definitely not call myself a theist because I can say I don't believe in god 100 million times over and over again.
loremar
Hello_World wrote:
I don't think you can believe in the supernatural without a belief in a God of some form. Maybe that God is only some kind of special energy or something, but that is still a God.
Say for example, a magician pulls a trick from his sleeves and the audience believed in it like it was really magic. Does the audience think it was the work of god? I agree with Ankhanu. It depends on how people define what god is. You think that supernatural force means god is present. For me I think, people commonly think of a god as a supernatural force that has consciousness. So let's say a person sees a supernatural event in front of him. How does a person react?
I can think of three possibilities:
1. God who is conscious showed miracles to send a message.
2. Person thinks of it as supernatural(doesn't think that there's a natural explanation to it) but doesn't think that some consciousness purposely did it.
3. Person thinks his mind is playing tricks or that there might be a perfect explanation for it.
All in all, I think it's possible that a person can believe in supernatural but doesn't necessarily believes in god.
Deists make it more complicated. They don't believe in supernatural but they think god created everything. Which makes me wonder how exactly do they define god. If it is supernatural and that he created everything in a supernatural way, then what makes it impossible for a god to supernaturally intervene with the universe? If it isn't supernatural then what exactly is a god? If this god can create a world physically without supernatural intervention, then god must be physical in some way but in what form? Can we still even call it god? It seems that this god is different from what people call god for centuries the same way that the monotheist god is also different from a polytheist god in that a polytheist god is less powerful than a monotheist god.
What I know is I don't believe in the christian god nor the typical polytheistic gods. Do I believe in a deistic god? No, since I don't accept their definition of god. For me a god who can create things can do whatever he does with those things. Neither do I believe with the pantheist god since I don't find it necessary to call universe as god.
Bikerman
Belief in the supernatural doesn't entail a belief in God(s).
Many people believe in 'crystal healing' or 'pyramid power' or other new-age claptrap. They don't necessarily also believe in a divinity - they just think that there are some special laws to the universe that scientists don't get but that they have 'discovered'.
Hello_World
Interesting how assumptions can be broken down. I never really considered that people didn't think of God as a concious being and God as a special energy the same way. I didn't really think of it that way because it is essentially the same to me, i don't believe in either, at least, at this point in time I have no evidence to sway me towards either. I simply have never previously made a distinction, yet I discover there is such a distinction for many people.
That is a very good analogy, the magician pulling a thing out of her sleeve. No, I guess people do not necessarily think that a God did it. I can also see the point of view that 'healing crystals' are some kind of extra special undiscovered force not yet found by science, and this is not a theist belief. I suppose I should really go further, and admit that the idea that God could be a special energy is wrong, for if it were considered that way, then before the discovery of gravity, then gravity would have been a God, which clearly it is not.
Yes, I can see the distinction.
I also forget sometimes that people are agnostic, haha I am only human, and sometimes I only look through the prism of my own mind.
Can you say, I don't believe, I just don't know? Of course, I find this admittedly the most logical position to be in, even though I have moved away from it, into a 'faith' position (strong atheist, in case you didn't know...lol). I retain an open mind, but live on the basis that no God exists, and build my philosophies around that position.
I suppose I picked my side randomly in the first instance too. I found out that it is possible not to believe in God, and thought, "naaah, I don't believe in God." It was after that, that as evidences and experiences have come and gone through my life, and I have compared those to my non-belief, I have strengthened my feelings, to a more non-random position. I am constantly driven to find consistency and an over-arching 'truth', and again, forget that may not be as important to everyone else.
Even though I tend towards anti-supernaturalism, I can't say I am completely immune to all superstitions, I guess. I have a jacket in my cupboard, and a number of times I have worn it and something unpleasant has happened. I never wear it now, I don't even know why I still keep it. Yes, it is the consistency that bothers me when I think something like that. I don't really think that there are supernatural forces at play when I wear it, but I don't wear it anyway.
Do you have to be consistent? I suppose I would say, yes, if you are trying to propose something is the truth.
I don't think praying is the determiner of who is religious. It is just, what you believe. If you pray as a ritual or as a show, can you really be considered religious? I light a candle at midnight Easter most years, the tradition behind it is that God lit the candle in Greece some years back, and we keep passing the same light around. i don't believe that, I just do it to join in, to be a part of my extended family. I know what you feel about lying, too, when you were praying. That is how I felt when I poured that water over the Buddah figurine. It felt silly, because I was lying... and to myself. And of course when you lie to yourself you don't believe yourself, so it all feels silly.
haha sometimes I make posts where I put forward a stance and try to defend it. Just to see if I can make any new ideas or test out theories or come to a better understanding within myself. Sometimes I get in trouble for it lololol.
I'm feeling rather introspective today. LOL.
Hello_World
Some Buddhists are not atheists and some Buddhists are not religious.
loremar
Hello_World wrote:
Some Buddhists are not atheists and some Buddhists are not religious.
And so are some of Jains and Hindus. Indians are quite open-minded about atheism unlike some religions we know.
Hello_World
Hindus!?! I thought Hindus had hundreds of Gods, starting with Krishna?
Wow I don't know much about Hindu religion.
loremar
There are schools of thoughts in Hinduism like Samkhya and Mimamsa which argues that god can not be proven.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Concept_of_God
Hinduism is mainly focused on what they call Eternal Law and believes in the concept of Karma. Although atheism is accepted in Hinduism, many Hindus think that atheism is not an easy path to follow in terms of spirituality.
brandon02852
Athiests like myself are people of science. We look to science for our explanations of "how", "what", and "why". I believe that thorough investigation and research yields more substantial results than "making up a reason". Religion is simply a way for the clueless to attempt to explain things that are beyond our understanding.
With the scientific discoveries in the past few centuries, you would think that religion would have naturally abolished itself. Science has gone above and beyond in explaining most of the topics that were mysteries in the distant past...topics that religion has tried to explain but failed at.
I am an athiest because reason and proof outweighs myth, tale, and rumor.
deanhills
brandon02852 wrote:
Athiests like myself are people of science.
Hmmm .... so are you saying people without the "A" in front are not of science?
No just kidding.
