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.
A conservative atheist does not preach his atheism to others. There is no way of knowing; all we have is anecdotes.
Any person that has some intelligence should be able to figure out the God issue. Many conservatives will figure it out and move on. Most old fashion liberals will do the same. This comes up in conversation with close friends and not with just anyone. Someone in this thread mentioned that most atheists keep that to themselves.
If you look at the new in your face atheists types then you are likely to find ZERO conservatives.
Well..the existence of a god (or not) Is the 2nd biggest big question for atheism, but responding to the same Mystic nonsense yet again was probably pointless.
OP "Please feel free to add other examples.
This thread is NOT just for atheists BTW. Others free to join in."
I can't imagine a bigger question for atheists than the God/god question. What do you consider to be the 1st 'biggest big question' for atheism?
I can't imagine a bigger question for atheists than the God/god question. What do you consider to be the 1st 'biggest big question' for atheism?
I'm glad that somebody asked. Whether or not the Bible (and thus Christianity) is valid. God or not is a rather academic question. Whether the forces that run the universe/Cosmos are intelligent or not isn't a matter that affects our everyday lives.
Whether Christianity and its' claims are true is a matter that does affect our everyday lives and what happens after is the salvation -claims are true. Thus, the discussion about Christianity (or not) is more important than the 'god' -claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Describing reality is not labeling.
It is the way you do it. Not to mention making dubious accusations about atheists, pointless anecdotes about priests who try to justify doing a job they don't believe in anymore, and atheists who don't mind if someone invites them to a church wedding (I've been with a Buddhist wife to a Sikh wedding)... but I won't mention any of that
In 'describing reality', once can do it correctly, misleadingly or falsely and that includes accusing atheists (on no valid data that I can see) or applying labels (like New atheism which atheists never asked for - it was slapped on them by theists who didn't the 'New' way we suddenly had a Presence) with no point that I can see other than to swipe at atheists, and I suppose for the same reason you always did - political.
And none of that seems to have much relevance to the thread -topic anyway.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-31-2021 at 10:48 PM..
Conservative atheists are a dime a dozen, but they are in the closet.
They don't need to be. The political aspect seems important only to those irreligious or doubting conservatives who only act as enablers for a religion they don't believe in anymore because they see it as a primary and effective promoter and defender of conservative values.
Atheists often do tend towards the 'liberal' because it allows people to be what they want rather than the Conservative society that requires that people conform to traditional values. But atheists really don't require atheists or anyone else to remain in closets, but liberalism advocates people being able to hols and argue their views, because they may well have value.
No - the problem seems to be with those conservatives who fear social change and have an idea that 'liberal' atheists want to silence and censor them, because, I can only suppose, that's what they would do to the 'liberal' atheists, if they could.
I'm glad that somebody asked. Whether or not the Bible (and thus Christianity) is valid. God or not is a rather academic question. Whether the forces that run the universe/Cosmos are intelligent or not isn't a matter that affects our everyday lives.
Whether Christianity and its' claims are true is a matter that does affect our everyday lives and what happens after is the salvation -claims are true. Thus, the discussion about Christianity (or not) is more important than the 'god' -claim.
Thanks for explaining. That helps me better understand why you respond with, "Yes, but which God?" when evidence for a God/god is discussed. I was always confused by that response, because it implies that atheism is less consequential to your life than whether or not Christianity is true.
The problem with labels is that they are too limiting. I recognize the yearn of others to classify. I always called myself an agnostic cultural Christian.
Ironically a label, and a confusing one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I cannot think like the traditional atheist.
Yet you do not believe gods exist, so technically you do think like an atheist. You just do not like the label.
A few do because they adopt the label given to them. I do not.
The problem is there is no clear definition of what a new atheist is. It is used simply as an ad hominem to ignore the actual arguments. Like you, others want atheists to just shut up. One must ask why are they afraid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
They are seeking change--------
Change is good. Look how Catholicism held back science for 1000 years, because it did not want to accept reality, it wanted to tell people what reality was. Centuries of science lost because the Catholic church did not like it, so did not copy the texts they had.
Or slavery.
So why is change bad? Cue the 'new religion' excuse, where everything becomes a new religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
... they are not like the old fashion more conservative atheists that kept their views to themselves. There is nothing wrong in describing reality.
They kept their views to themselves but you know they were atheists.
A few do because they adopt the label given to them. I do not.
The problem is there is no clear definition of what a new atheist is. It is used simply as an ad hominem to ignore the actual arguments. Like you, others want atheists to just shut up. One must ask why are they afraid?
Change is good. Look how Catholicism held back science for 1000 years, because it did not want to accept reality, it wanted to tell people what reality was. Centuries of science lost because the Catholic church did not like it, so did not copy the texts they had.
Or slavery.
So why is change bad? Cue the 'new religion' excuse, where everything becomes a new religion.
They kept their views to themselves but you know they were atheists.
That's a new one to try.
Husband to a nagging spouse: "Would you please be quiet. You've had your say and I have heard you out... A-Z and back again".
Nagging spouse: "You just want me to be silent because you are afraid".
Thanks for explaining. That helps me better understand why you respond with, "Yes, but which God?" when evidence for a God/god is discussed. I was always confused by that response, because it implies that atheism is less consequential to your life than whether or not Christianity is true.
Yes. In fact that's very perceptive because - you may recall - it's been said that without theism, you wouldn't have atheism, atheists don't talk about atheism (except where religious claims are made, like here) and it wouldn't change irreligion of a god was shown to exist.
Trouts knows, we goddless bastards can amicably disagree with 'agnostic or or irreligious theists because it is an academic question.
New atheism got started mainly because of the ongoing dominance of religion....what's the topic again?...that'll do...and the internet allowed a lot of us Hedonistic Heathens (there's a new one ) to have a voice, know that we weren't alone, and start questioning religious claims.
I suspect that a lot of it was pushed by the sudden concerted effort of I/D and trying to put the god -claim on a scientific basis, and Behe did the best job anyone will ever do with Irreducible complexity.
That, in one way or another, began to coalesce online atheism into a Group (like I say, put out saucers of milk, and you don't need to herd them) and the PeW figures indicated an astonishing amount or irreligion ("Nones") and the realisation that something could be done about the influence of religion, particularly in the US as this irreligious bloc had a Vote and the candidate who didn't offer them something might (if they all used it) find it impossible to get elected.
Yes, that's politicising the whole religion - thing, but atheism knows (as a knock -on social question) that politics comes into it, if the moral debate didn't already do that.
So you see that religion rather than the god -claim is what's really important, and that's what's so divertingly interesting about the Fundamentalist religious debate in particular. They fail to realise that the efforts to validate an intelligent - Creator (a non -intelligent one is simply evolution) don't validate any one particular religion. A sorta -god conceded, the religion itself still has to be proven rather than any of the others.
That's why the 'Which god?' question is so important bur the believers don't seem to get it. They just say 'it's all one God'.
'Which one god?' And that's usually the end of that discussion. They just pop up a fortnight later with the same arguments.
That's a new one to try.
Husband to a nagging spouse: "Would you please be quiet. You've had your say and I have heard you out... A-Z and back again".
Nagging spouse: "You just want me to be silent because you are afraid".
Filibusters: white-collar temper tantrums.
In a way, that's what happens with the religious apologists - they want us to shut up and go away so only Their view prevails and is heard.
Atheists on the other hand, welcome the discussion (nagging spouses that we are) otherwise, we've seen what happens; the thread goes stagnant as atheists (as such) don't have much to talk about.
So it rather looks like you are doing the usual theistic projection of what they do onto atheists, who don't actually do it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2021 at 07:47 AM..
Reason: one more As than I need
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.
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.
) to have a voice, know that we weren't alone, and start questioning religious claims.
that's politicising the whole religion - thing, but atheism knows (as a knock -on social question) that politics comes into it, if the moral debate didn't already do that.
