U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2012, 02:53 AM
 
460 posts, read 512,041 times
Reputation: 354

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateHevens View Post
*sigh*

Maybe Great Christina will help?

I'd quote the full thing here for you, but it includes some language.

I'll just go ahead and pull the bits with links:
That was an absolutely brilliant read. Thank you. Hopefully people will read that and take it as seriously as it deserves. I'm going to have to find out more about who wrote it and what else she's written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
7,903 posts, read 6,479,775 times
Reputation: 7088
I guess I'm just not an angry atheist. Disbelief to me isn't something that should be taken as seriously as belief. There's just more to believing then there is to not believing. I see it as being a couch potato as opposed to going outside to play sports: you really don't have to do anything to be the couch potato.

I'm also not offended by people who do believe, because as much as I disagree with them, I've seen many believers do incredible intelligent things, so calling them "stupid" just seems, well, stupid. I've always been able to separate the actual dangerous believers from those who have a true faith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 07:59 PM
 
15,294 posts, read 16,849,408 times
Reputation: 15020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist Liberal View Post
In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The laws are still on the books in Texas. And, Cecil Bothwell was challenged in 2009, not 1961. The laws are Unconstitutional, but the states still try to uphold them.


Atheists Prohibited From Holding Public Office in 7 State Constitutions - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 09:04 PM
 
37,508 posts, read 25,243,901 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateHevens View Post
*sigh*
Maybe Great Christina will help?
Atheists and Anger
I'd quote the full thing here for you, but it includes some language.
I'll just go ahead and pull the bits with links:
Oh... and before you go dismissing Greta as too angry or such, I suggest reading her follow-up answering, among others, that very critique.
Actually . . . the more I read on the atheist blogs the more convinced I am that you should call yourselves "areligionists." The vast bulk of your anger or concerns revolve around religions and their influence and potential for imposition on society. I can relate to that concern and would probably consider myself an "areligionist" as well on those grounds. What seems like a non-sequitur to me is the anti-God stance that accompanies it. It seems God is rejected primarily because of His corrupt and ignorant "marketeers" . . . which is hardly fair.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 03-10-2012 at 09:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Dix Hills, NY
120 posts, read 98,884 times
Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy View Post
I guess I'm just not an angry atheist. Disbelief to me isn't something that should be taken as seriously as belief. There's just more to believing then there is to not believing. I see it as being a couch potato as opposed to going outside to play sports: you really don't have to do anything to be the couch potato.

I'm also not offended by people who do believe, because as much as I disagree with them, I've seen many believers do incredible intelligent things, so calling them "stupid" just seems, well, stupid. I've always been able to separate the actual dangerous believers from those who have a true faith.
Oh... well, in that case, you and I don't have much disagreement here, then. I agree with you completely, in fact. It really pisses me off when Dawkins, Harris, et al reject the "moderate believer" as giving ground to the fanatics. What they are doing by saying this is sabotaging the fight. The fight for secularism is not an atheist-only fight; it should be fought by everyone who values the separation of Church and State, regardless of their personal beliefs. It seems to me that those like Dawkins are trying very hard to make it an atheist-only fight, which is a huge mistake.

But I am angry about the fanatics and the seeming constant increase in voice and power they have. I really do see the future of the United States being decided in a battle over just how religious the US is. If the Conservative Christian Right wins, many of us will have to leave the US or convert... and I'll be kind of angry at those who just sat back and said "atheism means not caring"... it means "disbelief in God", but when someone tries to tell you that disbelieving should be illegal, I hope you're not stupid enough to "not care"... and this is exactly what the Conservative Christian Right is trying to do, insofar as how hard they fight to turn the US into a "Christian Nation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Actually . . . the more I read on the atheist blogs the more convinced I am that you should call yourselves "areligionists." The vast bulk of your anger or concerns revolve around religions and their influence and potential for imposition on society. I can relate to that concern and would probably consider myself an "areligionist" as well on those grounds. What seems like a non-sequitur to me is the anti-God stance that accompanies it. It seems God is rejected primarily because of His corrupt and ignorant "marketeers" . . . which is hardly fair.
My rejection of the God Hypothesis has nothing to do with my dislike of organized religion. The two are entirely separate and, in fact, I was an areligionist long before I was an atheist. I'd be happy to tell you the story, if you want...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:31 AM
 
15,294 posts, read 16,849,408 times
Reputation: 15020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Actually . . . the more I read on the atheist blogs the more convinced I am that you should call yourselves "areligionists." The vast bulk of your anger or concerns revolve around religions and their influence and potential for imposition on society. I can relate to that concern and would probably consider myself an "areligionist" as well on those grounds. What seems like a non-sequitur to me is the anti-God stance that accompanies it. It seems God is rejected primarily because of His corrupt and ignorant "marketeers" . . . which is hardly fair.
If he is omniscient, then he knows what his marketeers are doing and since he doesn't stop it, I would assume he approves of it.

Of course, I just think that there is no god and in particular no Christian god. He was made up by the *marketeers.*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 05:27 PM
 
37,508 posts, read 25,243,901 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
If he is omniscient, then he knows what his marketeers are doing and since he doesn't stop it, I would assume he approves of it.
Well . . . you see that omniscient thing (all the Omni's in fact) are the creation of the "marketeers" because they represent the qualifications God MUST possess for the "marketeers" to believe in Him. Fact is . . . we haven't the foggiest idea what attributes God has beyond those we have determined by science (and attributed to Nature).
Quote:
Of course, I just think that there is no god and in particular no Christian god. He was made up by the *marketeers.*
Well . . . you can NOT acknowledge that the Source of everything that exists is God . . . but everything existing IS kind of hard to deny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 07:21 PM
 
15,294 posts, read 16,849,408 times
Reputation: 15020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Well . . . you can NOT acknowledge that the Source of everything that exists is God . . . but everything existing IS kind of hard to deny.
I don't see why we have to name a source for everything God.


Stephen Hawking: Does God Exist? - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 07:29 PM
 
37,508 posts, read 25,243,901 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
I don't see why we have to name a source for everything God.
Well it has been pretty de rigueur for our species probably since the earliest inception of consciousness. But it certainly isn't mandatory I guess. What would YOU call it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 08:08 PM
 
34,508 posts, read 8,896,494 times
Reputation: 4790
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Actually . . . the more I read on the atheist blogs the more convinced I am that you should call yourselves "areligionists." The vast bulk of your anger or concerns revolve around religions and their influence and potential for imposition on society. I can relate to that concern and would probably consider myself an "areligionist" as well on those grounds. What seems like a non-sequitur to me is the anti-God stance that accompanies it. It seems God is rejected primarily because of His corrupt and ignorant "marketeers" . . . which is hardly fair.
That's not a new suggestion, Mystic, mate. And certainly the main reason for the New Atheist militancy is the all - pervasive influence of religion in all our lives. But then that does go all the way to the idea of institutionalized beliefs in particular personal gods and even the attempts to teach belief in a creation, organized religion or not.

And that said, we disbelieve in personal gods and don't find ourselves convinced by the case for any sorta god, so a- thei- ism' (in the sense of without god - belief) is actually what we are and the anti - religion thing is a sub - set of that worldview.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top