Atheism = just another belief system? (recall, cult, believe, scientific)
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.
atheism is also not a function of mathematics, probability, nature, chicken soup, or spoons.
beliefs about atheism, beliefs held by atheists about atheism, do include "very personal perceptions" though.
as seen in post above for example.
the more the merrier. richness, diversity, depth, everyone has a place at the table regarding their beliefs about paths of religion and spirituality.
Try reading in context of the conversation, not your usual out of context nonsense.
I generally try avoid phrases like 'close minded' and 'common sense' due to their inherent intention of being demeaning. That's me. It's a realization based on having walked both sides of that street. Sure we all wake up and have a bad day, but I try to avoid being demeaning unless someone insists on that being the context of a conversation. IF the real goal is a comparison of ideas for growth and review, a certain amount of mutual respect seems to be constructive. But it can be hard to control frustration, on matters you have a strong emotional sentiment towards. Obviously these phrases DO have honest and fair opportunities to be applied without the negative intent, where they are a relevant choice.
Yes good post.
I try to avoid any confrontational language if I can.
It's rarely ever constructive.
I do ask - what are we doing on this forum?
If your intent is to try to understand other people, or share your viewpoint, or to try to have other people understand your viewpoint, confrontation is never going to cut it. All it does is shut people off and shut people down or at worst turn it into a slanging match that leaves everyone angry and frustrated.
That's not effective. It's also not rocket science.
Sometimes though people take offense at whatever you say and just for being you. That can't be helped, sadly.
But for some reason the theists want atheism to be something more.
I think one particular theist here is trying to say that it's unfair for us atheists to criticize (for example) christianity for having so many different sects, and thus not being able to have a truly common faith [at least I'll assume that's what she's talking about since she refuses to explain why it's so important to her].
I think she's missing my (maybe 'our' at least to some extent) point.
Let's take Al and Amos who are two atheists. They have somewhat different viewpoints about exactly how they explain atheism. So what? So what? So what?
On the other hand we have Carl and Chico who are christians. Carl says, "The bible is the literal word of god and every thing in the bible is accurate history. On the other hand, Chico says, "No, the bible has been put together by many men over a long period of time, and the stories it tells are fables, not true history". The difference in those two ways of approaching the bible is monumental because if the bible is accurate history, then there was an Adam, an Eve, a Garden Of Eden, a Great Flood, a woman turned into a salt pillar, and so forth, all the way down to a man being crucified and rising three days later and ascending into heaven. On the other hand, the other version says there was no actual Adam, no actual Eve, no actual Garden Of Eden, no Great Flood, no woman turned into a salt pillar, and so forth, and, following that pattern, there was no man who was crucified and rose three days later and he didn't ascend into heaven. Or at best, we can't know what in the bible was fact and what was fiction. This is not a 'so what' difference. One version builds a firm foundation for christianity, while the other builds a foundation of sand.
On a much more local level, when I was a boy there was true animosity between some of the christian churches in my home town. Some vandalism, and the very idea of the methodists, baptists, and presbyterians having an ecumenical service was sneered at. They couldn't even stomach praying to their common god together. I was told by my catholic priest that I was not allowed to be in the wedding party at my friend's wedding, because I couldn't set foot inside a protestant church (I did anyways). Much of my adult life I lived in Falls Church, Virginia. In the early 2000s, the congregation of the literal 'Falls Church' became embroiled in fights over religious issues, and split, followed by a law suit that went to the state supreme court, and a serious attempt to take to the federal Supreme Court in a fight over who owned the church and church property. And that was just within a church, let alone differences that different christian churches have. And then there are all the good examples of how Mormons are welcomed into the greater christian community (), how other churches look at groups like the Jehovah witnesses. And then there was the endorsement of slavery by many Southern churches. Or the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is this constant turbulence within christianity what Jesus was talking about in his teachings? Could we just have christians stop suing each other, fighting over what christian tradition is, and instead start following the actual teachings of Jesus. Instead of having them say things like, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me", could we actually have them live that? And more to the point of our other poster's recent posts -- is this kind of division happening within the atheist community?
There's a phrase I have always hated, but I'll use it here -- the difference among atheist versus the difference within christianity are apples and oranges.
More often that not, 'close minded' is a manipulative insult when the other person won't come to a person's POV.
Yes and it is an insult I have got on here a few times. Most often from someone who is utterly fixated on their narrow theory. Quite aside from insults, it just doesn't make sense.
If person A is saying that reality is definitely X. Absolutely it is X, no doubt.
Person B is saying there is no good evidence for saying any such thing with certainty. Reality could well be something else.
Often person A then accuses person B of being close minded. But clearly person B cannot be the closeminded one - they are not the person fixated on one single theory to explain reality. I find close mindedness a very ironic accusation in that context. Not only is it an insult, it is an insult that doesn't make sense in that context.
Irkle already has a belief system that's very rigid. Atheists already fit in there somewhere. Other sects fit in there as opposition. It's not that uncommon to run into someone that tells you what you believe so they can tell you that you have it wrong. It just happens a lot more when it's someone from one of these ridgid religious sects.
"Very rigid" or simply well-thought-out and fully developed? You could, in fact, scarcely have picked a less-apt description than "very rigid."
"Rigid religious sects"? Which of "these" do you perceive me to be a member of? It might interest you to know that I haven't attended a church or other religious gathering of any kind more than a handful of times in the past 30 years. I continue to study the theology of almost every species of Christianity.
What I think you actually mean by "very rigid" is "a more or less traditional Christian." By the standards that prevail at C-D, where even most of the Christians are pretty much atheists or at least completely unthreatening to the atheist position, traditional Christianity does perhaps seem like a "rigid sect."
Insofar as my Christianity is concerned, atheists don't "fit in there" at all, except as people who don't believe in a deity and thus obviously aren't Christians.
Do I "tell you what to believe" so I can "tell you that you have it wrong"? Really, this is what you think? Who or what is the straw man atheist that you think I'm setting up to knock down - and why do you think I would do this?
I've never suggested all atheists were fungible, any more than all Christians or all Buddhists are fungible. I've simply said - and no one has convinced me I'm wrong - that I have difficulty seeing a meaningful difference between a "lack of belief in a deity" and at least some level of "intellectual conviction no deity exists." It strikes me as a distinction without a difference, yet some atheists apparently believe it's important.
I've also said that it's difficult for me to understand how someone could claim a lack of belief in a deity, thereby foreclosing a deistic or theistic perspective, while insisting this doesn't inform or affect the rest of her life.
Atheists, like Christians, run the gamut from near-mindless to those who have thought about the issues more deeply to those like Bertrand Russell who have thought about the issues very deeply. The New Atheists are aggressive proselytizers for atheism, so obviously not all atheists just hold their atheism in a vacuum and get on with their knitting.
A Christian like me is challenging to atheists who haven't thought deeply in the same way that Bertrand Russell would've been challenging to a Sunday School teacher who just knows she loves Jesus and doesn't want to think or talk about it. I'm not telling atheists who haven't thought deeply what to believe. I'm simply suggesting I believe the issues are vitally important and it would behoove them to think more deeply.
The near-mindless perspective is represented here by the poster who says he simply gives God no more thought than he gives Bigfoot or Father Christmas, as though the notion of a deity were simply too silly to bother with at all. This is the perspective encouraged by the New Atheists: Theistic claims are too silly even to entertain, so forget them and get on with your life. Yet Nobel laureates, other world-renowned scientists and academics, and millions of other intelligent and rational people are theists - so perhaps this poster might want to at least explore a little more deeply?
The atheist I challenge isn't a straw man I've invented. It's a species of atheist that is prevalent here. It's the atheists who revel in the shallowness of their atheism and curiously resist any notion that it could be deeper and better-informed. The responses I get are entirely predictable. They are exactly the responses Bertrand Russell would've got at a gathering of Sunday School teachers. They aren't the responses he would've gotten from me.
I've said previously that I used to be one of the most active participants on the now-defunct Forum for Active and Critical-Thinking Skills (F.A.C.T.S.), an atheist-created and atheist-dominated forum that was at its peak 20+ years ago. Those folks knew their stuff. It was an entirely different species of atheism than prevails here. I can't even remember what I called myself there, but the responses to my posts and the level of the debates were entirely different. Things could get snarky, but it was snarkiness with substance.
It appears to me the folks here simply want a safe haven for mental masturbation and self-congratulation. They tolerate and even welcome Christians whose Christianity is unchallenging and unthreatening. A Christian like me is their worst nightmare, and I think the responses reflect that. Your dismissal of me as a "very rigid" member of a "sect" who "wants to tell you what to believe" so he "can tell you why you're wrong" is self-serving projection on your part. You and yours simply can't handle an intellectually challenging Christian who might force you to confront why you believe what you say you believe and whether you really believe it.
"Very rigid" or simply well-thought-out and fully developed? You could, in fact, scarcely have picked a less-apt description than "very rigid."
"Rigid religious sects"? Which of "these" do you perceive me to be a member of? It might interest you to know that I haven't attended a church or other religious gathering of any kind more than a handful of times in the past 30 years. I continue to study the theology of almost every species of Christianity.
What I think you actually mean by "very rigid" is "a more or less traditional Christian." By the standards that prevail at C-D, where even most of the Christians are pretty much atheists or at least completely unthreatening to the atheist position, traditional Christianity does perhaps seem like a "rigid sect."
Insofar as my Christianity is concerned, atheists don't "fit in there" at all, except as people who don't believe in a deity and thus obviously aren't Christians.
Do I "tell you what to believe" so I can "tell you that you have it wrong"? Really, this is what you think? Who or what is the straw man atheist that you think I'm setting up to knock down - and why do you think I would do this?
I've never suggested all atheists were fungible, any more than all Christians or all Buddhists are fungible. I've simply said - and no one has convinced me I'm wrong - that I have difficulty seeing a meaningful difference between a "lack of belief in a deity" and at least some level of "intellectual conviction no deity exists." It strikes me as a distinction without a difference, yet some atheists apparently believe it's important.
I've also said that it's difficult for me to understand how someone could claim a lack of belief in a deity, thereby foreclosing a deistic or theistic perspective, while insisting this doesn't inform or affect the rest of her life.
Atheists, like Christians, run the gamut from near-mindless to those who have thought about the issues more deeply to those like Bertrand Russell who have thought about the issues very deeply. The New Atheists are aggressive proselytizers for atheism, so obviously not all atheists just hold their atheism in a vacuum and get on with their knitting.
A Christian like me is challenging to atheists who haven't thought deeply in the same way that Bertrand Russell would've been challenging to a Sunday School teacher who just knows she loves Jesus and doesn't want to think or talk about it. I'm not telling atheists who haven't thought deeply what to believe. I'm simply suggesting I believe the issues are vitally important and it would behoove them to think more deeply.
The near-mindless perspective is represented here by the poster who says he simply gives God no more thought than he gives Bigfoot or Father Christmas, as though the notion of a deity were simply too silly to bother with at all. This is the perspective encouraged by the New Atheists: Theistic claims are too silly even to entertain, so forget them and get on with your life. Yet Nobel laureates, other world-renowned scientists and academics, and millions of other intelligent and rational people are theists - so perhaps this poster might want to at least explore a little more deeply?
The atheist I challenge isn't a straw man I've invented. It's a species of atheist that is prevalent here. It's the atheists who revel in the shallowness of their atheism and curiously resist any notion that it could be deeper and better-informed. The responses I get are entirely predictable. They are exactly the responses Bertrand Russell would've got at a gathering of Sunday School teachers. They aren't the responses he would've gotten from me.
I've said previously that I used to be one of the most active participants on the now-defunct Forum for Active and Critical-Thinking Skills (F.A.C.T.S.), an atheist-created and atheist-dominated forum that was at its peak 20+ years ago. Those folks knew their stuff. It was an entirely different species of atheism than prevails here. I can't even remember what I called myself there, but the responses to my posts and the level of the debates were entirely different. Things could get snarky, but it was snarkiness with substance.
It appears to me the folks here simply want a safe haven for mental masturbation and self-congratulation. They tolerate and even welcome Christians whose Christianity is unchallenging and unthreatening. A Christian like me is their worst nightmare, and I think the responses reflect that. Your dismissal of me as a "very rigid" member of a "sect" who "wants to tell you what to believe" so he "can tell you why you're wrong" is self-serving projection on your part. You and yours simply can't handle an intellectually challenging Christian who might force you to confront why you believe what you say you believe and whether you really believe it.
I would encourage anyone to read Bertrand Russel - he was pretty much an agnostic atheist, similar to many on this thread. In the meantime here is a quote from him to ponder, where he compares God to a teapot (never mind Big Foot or Santa Claus).
Quote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
It perfectly shows the folly of the argument used by some theists - that since you can't disprove God exists it is reasonable to believe God exists. However because of humanities imperfect history, religion has become so ingrained in humanity that many are not able to see the flaws in that theistic logic.
Did I just read that the atheists in this thread are shallow? Yet, this thread is 39 pages deep. How did that happen? Must be some system going on here.
Oh, shocker Mystic would thumbs up Irkle's post. Mystic is the King of "let me tell you what you believe". You shall be his queen Irkle.
Now, now, L8, you know I simply try to point out what you do not realize you automatically believe as a matter of course from what you claim not to. believe.
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.
), how other churches look at groups like the Jehovah witnesses. And then there was the endorsement of slavery by many Southern churches. Or the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is this constant turbulence within christianity what Jesus was talking about in his teachings? Could we just have christians stop suing each other, fighting over what christian tradition is, and instead start following the actual teachings of Jesus. Instead of having them say things like, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me", could we actually have them live that? And more to the point of our other poster's recent posts -- is this kind of division happening within the atheist community? 
