Atheism.

[RQ]

What does atheism mean to you? What are the symbols or feelings you associate with it?

There are no wrong answers, and I'm unlikely to flame anybody unless they start making things personal - I'm looking for objective public feedback.

[Briaredheart]

I don't think Atheism has any symbols. I'm not very well educated on the subject of religion but I suppose the idea of Atheism is that you do not believe in an all-mighty god. To me Atheism is exactly that, and I think it has far less restrictions and rules than an organized religion.

[Cosine]

It's just another school of thought to me. I look at it as exactly what the literal meaning is - the belief that there isn't a higher power.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Atheism is the structure of my beliefs or "nonbeliefs" as some like to see them. "Well since you don't believe in a higher power, you don't believe in anything at all." That's not true, I believe that everything has a logical and scientific answer to. Some people think that atheism is some sort of loose group of nonbelievers, but it isn't. There are groups of atheists, but they aren't anything like any religious groups, more like a group of knitters or book lovers. Atheism doesn't have a specific symbol, but I do know of the Atomic A logo and the Invisible Pink Unicorn symbol.

[MorganaFang]

Another flavor of an opiate, another kind of pamphlet shoved in your face and another class of people with a superiority complex.

[Petrone]

If all atheists believe the same thing, i.e., the non-existence of God, does that mean we constitute a new religion? That is our one uniting credo. Perhaps we could go door-to-door, handing out pamphlets with nothing on them, and saying "No news is good news!"

[chriz]

Theism is the belief in the existence of specific, individual gods. It's generally broken down into two groups. Monotheism is the belief in only one god (Allah, Yahweh/"God", etc). Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods, either as a single pantheon or as multiple pantheons. Most theist gods are essentially supercharged people who act in an authoritative role and take a personal interest in how you and I live our daily lives. They often punish us if we don't behave.

Deism is the belief in a more generic higher power which doesn't take on the form of a specific god or gods, and doesn't take any kind of personal interest in the activities of humanity. Many of America's founders, like Washington and Franklin, were deists. The Fraternity of Freemasons is a deist organization. Those who follow a religion based on The Force from Star Wars could be considered deists.

Agnosticism is the position that one "has no knowledge" of the existence or nature of a god or gods. Since belief in a god is based on faith, and faith is the opposite of knowledge, then everyone on the planet is agnostic. Including the Pope.

Atheism is the belief that no specific god or gods exist. It does not necessarily dispute the deist notion of a generic higher power (it would be called "adeism," then). More specifically, it's the position that the theists have made an extraordinary claim ("God exists") but have yet to back up such a claim with evidence, and are just waiting for such evidence. They've been waiting for millennia.

Atheism is not a religion, as it doesn't have dogma, ritual, or anything like the structure of a religion. It is also not faith-based, despite many theist attempts to describe it as such (in fact, the word "atheist" was originally a derogatory term employed by theists). It's deduction-based, which is a very different thing.

[MorganaFang]

Perhaps we could go door-to-door, handing out pamphlets with nothing on them, and saying "No news is good news!"

I wouldn't say nuttin if it weren't for being assaulted by an atheistic group (http://www.rationalresponde rs.com/church_of_atheism) myself. May not have been door to door, but an interrupted business commute is far worse in my opinion since I have no doors to slam.

Fanatics exist in every kind of organization.

[ThrasherCub]

The thing I associate with atheism most strongly is an interesting brand of bravery. Exact atheistic beliefs on the nature of the universe or possible afterlives vary a bit, so please pardon that for these examples, but there are a lot of people who would just curl up and spiral into a deep depression and just shut down if they thought their life had no greater meaning or that they served no purpose unless they did something big, and of course, many people are terrified that their deceased loved ones are actually gone for good.

I'm going to be very honest on this though, stupid fanatics of atheism tend to annoy me more than stupid fanatics of most other religions. I think this is probably because they preach knowledge and science while simultaneously speaking like they have no idea how anything but atheism works. My favorite example is still the ones who were protesting the pagan pride parade and yelling how we shouldn't be paying attention to spirituality but to science. Like it's impossible to do both. They seemed to genuinly believe that rather than grab an umbrella we'd start doing a native dance to try and stop the rain. Telling me the god I worship is actually the devil is annoying, but not as annoying as being told I have 0 interest in science.

[chriz]

I wouldn't say nuttin if it weren't for being assaulted by an atheistic group (http://www.rationalresponde rs.com/church_of_atheism) myself. May not have been door to door, but an interrupted business commute is far worse in my opinion since I have no doors to slam.

Wow, yeah, I don't know what to say about that, except that some people will try to make a scam out of anything. These guys sound like an echo chamber.

Fanatics exist in every kind of organization.

This is the problem, though. There is no atheism organization. Or at least there shouldn't be. There's nothing to organize around; there are no tenets, no commandments, no sacraments, no rituals, no hierarchy, no holidays, no revered historical figures... nothing.

If someone claims to be part of an atheist organization, hide your wallet.

[Destiny]

A belief in no higher power, deity, or god. Whatever. Nothing more. Some do make it seem like a religion, but it's not. I agree with Morgana fanatics do exist in every organization. There are those crazies out there. I also agree with BRP that even though you don't believe in a god, you still believe in something, other things. Doesn't everyone?

[Petrone]

I tend to think that ever since Dawkins' books became popular, atheism has become the new black. It is suddenly a bit fashionable, and is seen to give you a bit of a rebellious and 'free-thinking' aura to claim to be atheist when really, you just haven't been to church for a while. Bit like the whole Buddhist movement last decade when Richard Gere suddenly declared his beliefs. Next will probably be Zoroastrianism, or Toothfairyism. We just need a celeb to see the light.

True atheism, like true Christianity or true Islam, for me came like a revelation, a soul-wrenching insight into the nature of the Universe. Humans are not here 'by design,' we are not blessed, and almost everything crappy that's been done in history has been done because of belief. But I've always since maintained that because we can only rely on ourselves, it's even more imperative to try and connect with others, and realize that though accidental, our lives are special, because this is all the time we get to make our mark.

[Vendetta]

I think the most important aspect of atheism is reason, with skepticism being a close second.

I wouldn't say nuttin if it weren't for being assaulted by an atheistic group (http://www.rationalresponde rs.com/church_of_atheism) myself. May not have been door to door, but an interrupted business commute is far worse in my opinion since I have no doors to slam.

Fanatics exist in every kind of organization.
Except your problem isn't with athiests, it's with morons (as these folks obviously are.)

Also, as Chris pointed out, there is NO atheist "organization", so I wish people would stop using that word.

there are a lot of people who would just curl up and spiral into a deep depression and just shut down if they thought their life had no greater meaning or that they served no purpose unless they did something big
That implies that athiests can't have greater meaning to their life, nor do big things. I pretty sure that isn't the case at all. Einstain, I think, is a good example of this.

many people are terrified that their deceased loved ones are actually gone for good.
People should cherish and treasure their loved ones while they're ALIVe. I think too many people take too much for granted that they'll be able to see people in the "afterlife". I'd rather live my life and love NOW, rather than wait for some vague hereafter.

[MorganaFang]

Also, as Chris pointed out, there is NO atheist "organization", so I wish people would stop using that word.


There may not be REAL atheist organizations, but there ARE organization that identify themselves being all about atheism.

Yes they are wrong but, frick man, there are a lot of them. I've been hassled multiple time by "atheist groups" at the bus station. If you'd like to accompany me sometime and tell them they're wrong, PLEASE DO!! I promise won't meet up with another guy if you do :p

[chriz]

A belief in no higher power, deity, or god. Whatever. Nothing more. Some do make it seem like a religion, but it's not. I agree with Morgana fanatics do exist in every organization. There are those crazies out there.

Technically, atheism is specifically only a refutation of the existence of specific gods (even if it's all gods). The refutation of a generalized, nondescript, "cosmic force" kind of god would be called adeism or antidesim or something.

I also agree with BRP that even though you don't believe in a god, you still believe in something, other things. Doesn't everyone?

Only if you use the vague sense of the word "believe," as in "I have reason to think..." But religious belief is a specific kind of mental behavior where evidence is irrelevant to the final conclusion. One doesn't have faith in God because there's evidence of or logical reason for his existence. One believes in God despite the lack of such evidence, or even because of such a lack.

On the other hand, one believes that if he lets go of something, it will fall to the ground, specifically because there are mountains of evidence to support such a belief (including past experience). This is very different from religious faith, and is what I was talking about when I mentioned deduction-based reasoning earlier in the thread.

So saying an atheist is just like a religious person because they both operate on belief is to misuse the word belief. The atheist uses deduction, the religious person uses faith.

Yes they are wrong but, frick man, there are a lot of them. I've been hassled multiple time by "atheist groups" at the bus station. If you'd like to accompany me sometime and tell them they're wrong, PLEASE DO!! I promise won't meet up with another guy if you do :p

They must be a recent infestation. In all the years I used public transportation to work, I never encountered anything like an atheist activist.

[Gilenea]

I actually had a conversation with a kid that went something like this.

"I believe in nature."

"Does that make you an atheist?"

I could be wrong on this, but from what I have gathered thus far, I have formed an opinion and it is as such:

It's none of my business what you believe in, unless you try and push it on me. God, no God, gods, or no gods... It's up to the individual. Most atheists I've run across are little punk kids that dress in black and do everything they can to lead the most depressing life style ever (though I do realize that's not "true" atheism, just kids trying to fit in). Any stance on beliefs that you claim as rock-solid truth can make you look pretty silly, though.

I think everyone needs to just say, "I don't know" and get on with it.

Gil

[Vendetta]

There may not be REAL atheist organizations, but there ARE organization that identify themselves being all about atheism.
Yes, and there are groups that identify themselves as Jews for Jesus. I can assure you they are NOT Jews. Just because a bunch of people are jerks and identify themselves with a group, does that make everyone who believes in that same idea jerks too?

Yes they are wrong but, frick man, there are a lot of them. I've been hassled multiple time by "atheist groups" at the bus station. If you'd like to accompany me sometime and tell them they're wrong, PLEASE DO!! I promise won't meet up with another guy if you do :p
You sure there are a lot of them, or is it just that you're meeting the same bunch of people all the time?

I'd like to point out that I'm not saying that atheists cannot be jerks, I'm simply pointing out that their atheism has nothing to do with their asshattery (if they suddenly found "God" I'd wager they continue to be jerks.)

Any stance on beliefs that you claim as rock-solid truth can make you look pretty silly, though.
Surprisingly enough, I agree. The problem is, a lot of people make this out to be a stricly black and white issue, when it's really not. It's not just atheists and theists (and agnostics, but let's be honest, they're just a bunch of fence-sitters,) but a whole spectrum of degrees of theism or non-theism. No one can claim to be 100% right on either side, really. My only problem has been, that there are more theists who think they are 100% right than folks on the other side of the equation.

I think everyone needs to just say, "I don't know" and get on with it.
Except that's a rather oversimplification of the issue. Some people, while they don't "know" per se, have reason and a good majority of evidence on their side, that would tend to discredit the common arguments from theists, and thereby bend more towards the atheism side of things. So while someone may now know conclusively, they have good reason and evidence to believe in one thing over another.

[LV426]

I have yet to meet the Atheist bus crowd.

[MorganaFang]

Just because a bunch of people are jerks and identify themselves with a group, does that make everyone who believes in that same idea jerks too?

Oi, I'm not saying anywhere that all atheist are jerks.

The people I encounter who are very very affront with their atheism are.
And like the fundy christians, they tend to paint a bad picture for the whole. Y'know? But again I am not saying that is how it actually is for the entirety.


You sure there are a lot of them, or is it just that you're meeting the same bunch of people all the time?

A little overdramatism I am guilty of. But yes I am sure there is a lot of them. A simple googling vomits up a lot. The encounters I have could have been connected but they all presented me with different info. One was a show promotion, another an atheist/anon group and the rest is just presenting some light reading. Bear in mind, the majority of this crap happened outside a church of scientology.

So there you go. Idiot magnet location is key.


I'd like to point out that I'm not saying that atheists cannot be jerks, I'm simply pointing out that their atheism has nothing to do with their asshattery (if they suddenly found "God" I'd wager they continue to be jerks.)


True, I agree. However, like born again theist assholes, atheist assholes tend to use their (non)belief as apart of the fuel to their arguments.

All apart of being some kind of overzealous asshole. Not apart the faith or lack there of, I GET THAT.

If you're not that kind of atheist or theist. That's great, whatever.


Edit: Thinking about it. I'm not really trying to argue a point just stating my experience. I realize I dug myself in a hole with the bus station thing.

When I think about atheism I tend to think about the groups/ organizations that associate themselves with atheism. I see those are virtually the same thing as religion. Ok they are not really apart of atheism, did I not already acknowledge that? However in thinking about the word that's what I associate it with. The overzealous morons.

I'm not an atheist, probably an agnostic but at the same time I just don't care enough to study these things so indepthly to assign myself a particular title.

[Petrone]

Where are these atheist groups? Usually when I mention my *cough* beliefs (I don't open with it though, only if someone else brings the topic up) the reaction is similar to mentioning I have AIDS, or farting.

Except for some websites, I haven't come across zealous atheists anywhere. Tell you what, tho, it's a great way to get rid of Jehovah's Witnesses. One mention of the 'A' word and they retreat, assuming you're all ready damned anyway, and it's infectious.

[dwulf]

Atheism. The belief that all things are mundane and that nothings is sacred. However, this does not take the meaning out of one's life. I'm an atheist. But I've still got religious friends, and it's cool. I just don't talk to an imaginary king as they do.

[MorganaFang]

Except for some websites, I haven't come across zealous atheists anywhere.

Minneapolis is pretty much the center of everything over zealous it seems like somedays. I have to be the religious pamphlet magnet because I have been accosted by pagans, christians, atheist and muslims.

Maybe we should play the camera rule with like the tr00 w3r3 where I have to catch a picture of these "atheist groups" I keep running into. I'm just not convincing anybody :p

[spirit]

most athiest are not zealous. While most religions try to get you to believe in an " imaginary friend(s)" athiests just kinda sit in the corner and laugh at their friends make-believe.

No offense to anyone, just my thought on the subject

[Vendetta]

Minneapolis is pretty much the center of everything over zealous it seems like somedays. I have to be the religious pamphlet magnet because I have been accosted by pagans, christians, atheist and muslims.

Maybe we should play the camera rule with like the tr00 w3r3 where I have to catch a picture of these "atheist groups" I keep running into. I'm just not convincing anybody :p
The point is not convincing anybody, the point is these guys just sound line typical 'chan' jackasses than any sort of real atheist "organization". Again, these people are not jackasses BECAUSE of their atheism, they are just jackasses, and would continue to be jackasses even if they were selling subscriptions to TV Guide.

[MorganaFang]

The point is not convincing anybody, the point is these guys just sound line typical 'chan' jackasses than any sort of real atheist "organization". Again, these people are not jackasses BECAUSE of their atheism, they are just jackasses, and would continue to be jackasses even if they were selling subscriptions to TV Guide.

Yes multiple times I have said I got that. They may not be jackasses because of their atheism but they are jackasses who call themselves atheist, who use it as their driving force to be assholes.

It is an observation yeah they'd be that way if they were Christians too but they are not. They called themselves atheists and telling me over and over and over again that they are not "real atheist" because they don't fit with the definition is not going to change that those fucks exist and annoyed me. That's my soul point, you can completely ignore that and continue to be a condescending dude but still not changing things. More than happy to invite anyone to Minnesota and introduce them to these groups.

Maybe Extremist Secularist groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_orga nizations)


http://mnatheists.org/content/view/13/26/


gonna be picked apart and have things reiterated again... 1...2...3....

[Vendetta]

Yes multiple times I have said I got that. They may not be jackasses because of their atheism but they are jackasses who call themselves atheist, who use it as their driving force to be atheist.

It is an observation yeah they'd be that way if they were Christians too but they are not. They called themselves atheists and telling me over and over and over again that they are not "real atheist" because they don't fit with the definition is not going to change that those fucks exist and annoyed me. That's my soul point, you can completely ignore that and continue to be a condescending dude but still not changing things. More than happy to invite anyone to Minnesota and introduce them to these groups.
I'm not being condescending Genna, I'm just pointing out that using these guys as some sort of example of atheists or atheisms is pretty misleading and makes some unfair assumptions.

I GET that these dudes annoyed you (and are probably pretty annoying to everyone,) but I don't see what it has to do with atheism. These guys are assholes, REGARDLESS of whether they are atheists or not. I mean you're talking about a group that has a lolcat on their frontpage and protests Scientology.

On the subject of atheist "organizations", there is one loose one I had forgotten about: the Atheist Alliance International. But it's less of a proselytizing group, and more of a way of connection-making/networking with like-minded individuals from all over. But like Chris pointed out, there are no real tenets to atheism, and a lot have widely differing positions on a lot of issues (take the fairly wide gulf between Dawkins and Hutchins for instance.)

[ThrasherCub]

That implies that athiests can't have greater meaning to their life, nor do big things. I pretty sure that isn't the case at all. Einstain, I think, is a good example of this.
I was referring to that far away greater meaning in life that really religious people get rather than something they accomplish themselves. And I never said atheists can't do big things, read it again. I was referencing those people who will never accomplish some massive thing and go down in history, but take comfort in the idea that they are personally loved and cared about by God, the biggest cheese in the universe.

People should cherish and treasure their loved ones while they're ALIVe. I think too many people take too much for granted that they'll be able to see people in the "afterlife". I'd rather live my life and love NOW, rather than wait for some vague hereafter.
I agree, though there are plenty of people who die suddenly and young and those around them weren't quite done cherishing. It gives them a sort of comfort and helps soften the blow to know that who ever they lost is only gone for awhile.

[Vendetta]

I was referring to that far away greater meaning in life that really religious people get rather than something they accomplish themselves. And I never said atheists can't do big things, read it again. I was referencing those people who will never accomplish some massive thing and go down in history, but take comfort in the idea that they are personally loved and cared about by God, the biggest cheese in the universe.
Ahh, OK, that makes more sense then. But then again, as an atheist, while I reject a God that loves me, I DO take comfort in actual physical people loving me, and of course, my reciprocation.

I agree, though there are plenty of people who die suddenly and young and those around them weren't quite done cherishing. It gives them a sort of comfort and helps soften the blow to know that who ever they lost is only gone for awhile.
I'd posit that we're never really truly done cherishing people, no matter when they die. And I see where the desire is coming from, to believe that we'll "see" our loved ones in heaven (or whatever.) But to me, that just seems like a huge copout and a crutch. Grieving is a natural process and helps us deal with life, and dare I say, probably makes us stronger (I'm generalizing here, of course this doesn't apply to everyone.) And this is why I hate fucks like John Edwards, James van Praagh and Rosemary Altea.

[Petrone]

They may not be jackasses because of their atheism but they are jackasses who call themselves atheist, who use it as their driving force to be assholes.

Again, I'd say that they're probably not real paid-up card-carrying non-believers, just another bunch of dweebs thinking they're 'edgy' and 'cool'. (I can't believe how old I sound when I put quotations around those words). The strength of their convictions is only as permanent as the current nightclub trend or popular tv show.

One way to be sure; hold a rottwieler to their nuts and see whether they pray.

[MorganaFang]

Yes keep repeating yourselves, especially to the agnostic who has already said she gets your point each time, that changes everything! Even what these people think about themselves! Because you have said the same damn thing each time, to the agnostic, they no longer call themselves atheist have websites or organize atheists groups.

Please please accept my overwhelming applause for your powers of repetition.

[Vendetta]

Yes keep repeating yourselves, especially to the agnostic who has already said she gets your point each time, that changes everything! Even what these people think about themselves! Because you have said the same damn thing each time, to the agnostic, they no longer call themselves atheist have websites or organize atheists groups.

Please please accept my overwhelming applause for your powers of repetition.
The only reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you do too. You keep saying ATHEISTS are annoying you, and all that's pretty much happening is that annoying PEOPLE are annoying you. I mean you might as well complain about telemarketers (who also might happen to be atheists) in this thread. You see what I'm saying?

[LV426]

Yes keep repeating yourselves, especially to the agnostic who has already said she gets your point each time, that changes everything! Even what these people think about themselves! Because you have said the same damn thing each time, to the agnostic, they no longer call themselves atheist have websites or organize atheists groups.

Please please accept my overwhelming applause for your powers of repetition.

I want to see the video of the bus atheists. I've got to find me some!

[MorganaFang]

I mean you might as well complain about telemarketers (who also might happen to be atheists) in this thread. You see what I'm saying?

See what I'm saying, first. It was an experience that I was prattling off details of. Albeit maybe in a convoluted way.

No need to correct me or open my eyes to anything over and over, got it when chriz posted it first. If you say I didn't, well, babes, you just do not know me.

And Fia, I'll work on that video :p

[LV426]

See what I'm saying, first. It was an experience that I was prattling off details of. Albeit maybe in a convoluted way.

No need to correct me or open my eyes to anything over and over, got it when chriz posted it first. If you say I didn't, well, babes, you just do not know me.

And Fia, I'll work on that video :p

YAY! Bus Atheists!

[greggchamberlain]

i see atheism as more a philosophical point of view regarding existence.

not the same as existentialism...tho ugh the two do have a common point in that both posit the fact that when you die, that is it...game over...the lights go and the crowd leaves...

but atheists at least acknowledge the existence of others while a true existentialist doubts that anything exists without his/her say-so...

so, to my mind, existentialism is a very egoistic philosophy why atheism allows for both individualism and also social responsibility.

do disagree with vendetta on one particular thought...i think "skepticism" is one of the key characteristics of an atheist, going hand-in-hand with "rationalism" as the guides to dealing with the world.

only ever known personally one guy who said he was an atheist...he also claimed to be a "free thinker" but his idea of "free thinking" seemed to entail spending a lot of time badmouthing religions in general, christianity in particular, and heaping abuse on the head of anyone who had faith in the existence of a god or dared to suggest that he was wrong in denying said existence of a god.

in actual fact, whether he admitted it or not, he was, in his atheistic way, a pure and simple bigot...with religion and the religious being the two targets of his prejudice...followed close behind by anyone who dared to suggest that he, a "free thinker" was prejudiced.

[Vendetta]

See what I'm saying, first. It was an experience that I was prattling off details of. Albeit maybe in a convoluted way.

No need to correct me or open my eyes to anything over and over, got it when chriz posted it first. If you say I didn't, well, babes, you just do not know me.
In all honesty, it looks like I missed your edit you made to your post a few pages back, admitting as much. More than likely I had responded before you edited, and didn't go back to reread your post.

However, something you DID say in your edit did bug me:

When I think about atheism I tend to think about the groups/ organizations that associate themselves with atheism.
Again, WHAT groups and organizations? Other than the one on the bus you keep complaining about, I don't know that there ARE many atheist "organizations".

However in thinking about the word that's what I associate it with. The overzealous morons.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure using reason is somehow more moronic than believing in the invisible man in the sky (or whatever diety floats a person's boat.) And yes, NOW I'm getting condescending, if only because you keep reiterating something that you have only gleaned from a bunch of annoying assholes on a bus. But I think you already made that abundantly clear:
I'm not an atheist, probably an agnostic but at the same time I just don't care enough to study these things so indepthly to assign myself a particular title.

[ThrasherCub]

But to me, that just seems like a huge copout and a crutch. Grieving is a natural process and helps us deal with life, and dare I say, probably makes us stronger (I'm generalizing here, of course this doesn't apply to everyone.)
A lot of people need that crutch, either flat-out or because they convince themselves they need that crutch.

Hence, my original point about Atheism bringing up an interesting kind of bravery in my mind. :)

[DarkHunter]

I've met plenty of atheists who are assholes. Not saying that they're assholes BECAUSE they're atheists or that the two things are indelibly linked. I've met Christians who are assholes and those who aren't. The point is, some atheists just ARE assholes and do play the "convert or die" game.

Atheism really isn't enough to push as a religion. It's simply a logical way of viewing the world. There's no evidence of God so it is reasonable to assume there is no God.

But some people still try their damndest.

[Petrone]

I agree, though there are plenty of people who die suddenly and young and those around them weren't quite done cherishing. It gives them a sort of comfort and helps soften the blow to know that who ever they lost is only gone for awhile.

Here's the funny thing about Atheism; while I do not believe in a redeeming Creator figure, that in no way excludes the possibility of some form of existence after death. In fact, there is more anecdotal evidence (including some experiences I've had myself) for some form of soul survival, than there is for Heaven and God. Of course, these experience may be - most probably are - the result of mental chemical imbalance, mis-interpretation, wish-fulfillment, hypnogogia/hypnopompia, etc.

My only point is, beliefs are not all-encompassing. Atheism should not exclude everything we can't immediately prove scientifically, because there's a lot of shit out there we just don't know anything about.

[Vendetta]

In fact, there is more anecdotal evidence (including some experiences I've had myself) for some form of soul survival, than there is for Heaven and God.
Anecdotes are NOT evidence.

My only point is, beliefs are not all-encompassing. Atheism should not exclude everything we can't immediately prove scientifically, because there's a lot of shit out there we just don't know anything about.
Why does everyone insist things are only black or white. Most people who call themselves atheists (and I'm including myself in there) aren't 100% atheists, in that they are not 100% certain of God's non-existence, they just lean that way because of scientific evidence and reasoning.

The point is, some atheists just ARE assholes and do play the "convert or die" game.
Except there's nothing to convert people TO, so I'd posit that these aren't atheists. Now, bear in mind there ARE some atheists who DO argue strongly in favour of eliminating religion because they see the damage it causes. Some might call these people assholes, but they've at least got a fairly solid reason behind their belligerence.

[Gilenea]

Even though this group of Bus Atheists (ha, thanks LV) may be convoluted and incorrect in calling or affiliating themselves in any way, shape or form with atheists or atheism... Bottom line is they still do, and they are harrassing people with their "truth."

Unfortunately, to those who are not learned in the ways of "religion" would accept what these chodes say and take it to heart as their new definition of atheist, since they have and atheist telling them all about it at the bus stop.

Luckily, our Morgana is not one of said noobs and knows that these atheists need a brain colonoscopy, and she has said multiple times that she is of the school that these guys are assholes whether they are athiest or Mother Teresa incarnate.

So can we all just agree on that?

Gil

[ThrasherCub]

Except there's nothing to convert people TO, so I'd posit that these aren't atheists.

It's arguable that there's nothing to convert to, but there's certainly things to convert from, hence conversion. Though personally, I'd say that Atheism is something to convert to. It's converting to a new way of thinking, a new philosophy, to a new religious structure (the lack thereof), etc.

[Vendetta]

It's arguable that there's nothing to convert to, but there's certainly things to convert from, hence conversion. Though personally, I'd say that Atheism is something to convert to. It's converting to a new way of thinking, a new philosophy, to a new religious structure (the lack thereof), etc.
You can't convert to a negative.

That's like saying you'd like to change a glass of water, into a glass of not-water. Not-water could refer to a LOT of things. The same way that there are a lot of reasons and reasonings behind atheism, NOT a specific dogma or way of thinking, other than in the broadest, vaguest sense.

[DarkHunter]

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.


Why does everyone insist things are only black or white. Most people who call themselves atheists (and I'm including myself in there) aren't 100% atheists, in that they are not 100% certain of God's non-existence, they just lean that way because of scientific evidence and reasoning.


Except there's nothing to convert people TO, so I'd posit that these aren't atheists. Now, bear in mind there ARE some atheists who DO argue strongly in favour of eliminating religion because they see the damage it causes. Some might call these people assholes, but they've at least got a fairly solid reason behind their belligerence.

Everybody really should check the Myspace Christianity Chat room sometime. Again, I'm not saying they're the best examples of Atheists in the universe or that their actions are typical of all. But they are there. Even if there's nothing to "convert" to from a technical standpoint, they have the "convert or die" MENTALITY. They're "deprogramming" the same way others will "witness" and "evangelize."

They may have fair reasoning behind their ideas, but that doesn't make them any less retarded than Jerry Falwell.

Atheism is a way of understanding the world. It takes off that lens of self importance and self righteousness (or should anyway) that many people wear because they think God likes them. There's nothing to convert to really, in that you are still free to keep pretty much the same ethics you always had (Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but still embraced very Christian ethics). But it is a conversion of thought, of how one feels about the world.

I never realized how beautiful the world was until I realized it was all here by accident.

[VampHunter]

Everybody really should check the Myspace Christianity Chat room sometime. Again, I'm not saying they're the best examples of Atheists in the universe or that their actions are typical of all. But they are there. Even if there's nothing to "convert" to from a technical standpoint, they have the "convert or die" MENTALITY. They're "deprogramming" the same way others will "witness" and "evangelize."

They may have fair reasoning behind their ideas, but that doesn't make them any less retarded than Jerry Falwell.

Atheism is a way of understanding the world. It takes off that lens of self importance and self righteousness (or should anyway) that many people wear because they think God likes them. There's nothing to convert to really, in that you are still free to keep pretty much the same ethics you always had (Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but still embraced very Christian ethics). But it is a conversion of thought, of how one feels about the world.

I never realized how beautiful the world was until I realized it was all here by accident.


I agree with DarkHunter... there is nothing we can do but accept the way we are... what I'm saying is that we can not convert to anything... that is why we are here on the earth for a reason... we are here to become one fellowship of God(if there is one that y'all believe in[which I believe in a God because I'm babtist])...

anyways the world wasn't made here on purpose... it was made on accident... the reason we were put on this earth is so we can get along and create an ETHIOPIA(not the country[but a place with no wars and no violence])... that is why were here on this useless land... so GOD(or what ever y'all call him) is happy with the destruction he made... HE made something out of it... he made something good out of his destruction... the good is in us all... we just have to release it... :notworthy :notworthy

[BlackRosePhantom]

I agree with DarkHunter... there is nothing we can do but accept the way we are... what I'm saying is that we can not convert to anything... that is why we are here on the earth for a reason... we are here to become one fellowship of God(if there is one that y'all believe in[which I believe in a God because I'm babtist])...

anyways the world wasn't made here on purpose... it was made on accident... the reason we were put on this earth is so we can get along and create an ETHIOPIA(not the country[but a place with no wars and no violence])... that is why were here on this useless land... so GOD(or what ever y'all call him) is happy with the destruction he made... HE made something out of it... he made something good out of his destruction... the good is in us all... we just have to release it... :notworthy :notworthy
One, you sound like a quixotic hippy who needs a reality check with your "humans were made to bring peace, creation and happiness to the world."

Two, humans are doing quite the opposite to the earth when you check into reality land where everything seems less joyous and gay than the fairytales that you heard when you were young.

And three, while I do think that there is no real reasoning behind our existance besides that we the the product of a really long continuing chemical exchange in the universe, I however don't think that anything has happened on accident. There is a reason for why everything happens, it called a chain of events, like a topolling row of dominos. Each one is falling because the one prior to it fell over on it because the first one was pushed over by an external force. Your life is the consiquence of your mother receiving spirm from your father via her vagina, and their lives are the consiquence of their parents making them which continues back into the time of the apes evolving into sapiens which evolved from other mammals due to mutations best suited for new/changing enviornments which evolved from early reptiles, etc. Everything has a reason for who, what, where, when, why, and how it is and its existance in general, but just not in the way that most people like to think. It was not due to some higher mystic power, but is just a part of a large scale continuing chemical reaction/exchange. Well, that's how I at least view everything.

If I lost you up there in that consuing mess of a paragraph, you now know why I usually just stick with "I believe that everything has a logical and scientific explanation."

[ThrasherCub]

You can't convert to a negative.

I'm pretty sure a new belief, new philosophy, new ideas etc., are somethings, not nothings.

[chriz]

I actually had a conversation with a kid that went something like this.

"I believe in nature."

"Does that make you an atheist?"

It certainly could, if you didn't believe in a specific nature god (Demeter, or somesuch) but just believed in a broader nature concept. That would be a form of deism which isn't incompatible with atheism. It doesn't make you an atheist, but it doesn't prevent you from being one, either.

Again, atheism isn't the disbelief in everything supernatural or even divine. It's the disbelief of (or lack of acceptance of the belief in) any specific godlike entity or individual.

Atheist deists are fairly common. It's what most people who call themselves "agnostic" really are. The term "agnostic" itself is pretty useless, since none of us has any actual knowledge of the nature of the divine.

[greggchamberlain]

does atheism allow for belief in the supernatural though?

seems to me that any professed atheist who believes in ghosts or any supernatural entity then must have a subconscious belief in a divine entity or entities along with allowing for the possibility of an infernal opposite.

[Vendetta]

I'm pretty sure a new belief, new philosophy, new ideas etc., are somethings, not nothings.
I didn't say nothings, I said negatives. It's not the same thing. Did you not understand the "not-water" analogy?

EDIT: I'm going to (hopefully) clarify my position a bit with regards to atheism, or at least what I specifically believe (because I wouldn't dare assume I speak for all atheists.) I subscribe to what is casually referred to as the Principle of Laplace. Laplace was a French mathematician and astronomer in the 1700s, who said: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Carl Sagan would later make a similar statement.

Also, regarding the asshole atheists that keep being brought up: I've said a number of times already, but maybe I'm not being clear. These people are assholes regardless of their atheism. Stop using the apellation 'atheist assholes' because one has nothing to do with the other. I don't go around calling people "my Catholic coworker" or "my Secular Humanist neighbor". It's stupid. Call these people 'assholes', because that's what they ARE, but to call them atheists, as if it's some sort of identifier is ignorant at best, or worse disingenuously bigoted. Also, since some of you keep comparing them to religious zealots, you'd find that they are, like their theistic counterparts, a VERY small minority.

I hope that helps.

[Gilenea]

the reason we were put on this earth is so we can get along and create an ETHIOPIA(not the country[but a place with no wars and no violence])...

No one else caught this? I cannot BELIEVE no one else caught this... C'mon, people. You're slacking.

Kid, the word you're looking for is "eutopia."

Gil

[DarkHunter]

I agree with DarkHunter... there is nothing we can do but accept the way we are... what I'm saying is that we can not convert to anything... that is why we are here on the earth for a reason... we are here to become one fellowship of God(if there is one that y'all believe in[which I believe in a God because I'm babtist])...

anyways the world wasn't made here on purpose... it was made on accident... the reason we were put on this earth is so we can get along and create an ETHIOPIA(not the country[but a place with no wars and no violence])... that is why were here on this useless land... so GOD(or what ever y'all call him) is happy with the destruction he made... HE made something out of it... he made something good out of his destruction... the good is in us all... we just have to release it... :notworthy :notworthy

The word you're looking for is "utopia." And most ideas for utopian societies are the most unnatural things one can imagine.

Funny though that you substituted "ethiopia" in.

Do you realize you have contradictory notions? So God exists and this world just accidentally came to pass too? God's just a raving lunatic whom we should all be in fellowship with?

BlackRose thats more what I meant. Not accident exactly. Everything has a CAUSE so to speak and the world is very intricate. But nothing has a REASON for its existence.

There's room for atheists to believe in the supernatural (as atheism is simply defined as before stated: not believing in gods/goddesses). Some embrace a more logical, pragmatic view however and don't make everything spirits and bugaboos. Everything is within nature, but things are outside our understanding. That is the supernatural.

[chriz]

does atheism allow for belief in the supernatural though?

seems to me that any professed atheist who believes in ghosts or any supernatural entity then must have a subconscious belief in a divine entity or entities along with allowing for the possibility of an infernal opposite.

Why? Belief in, say, human telepathy isn't dependent on a belief in God.

It's all in the word. Atheism = non-theism. Theism = the belief in a specific god (mono-) or set of gods (poly-).

[Vendetta]

No one else caught this? I cannot BELIEVE no one else caught this... C'mon, people. You're slacking.

Kid, the word you're looking for is "utopia."

Gil
Uhhhh.... :D

And I didn't get that far down the post before I stopped reading.

[Gilenea]

Uhhhh.... :D

Eutopia. (http://dictionary.reference .com/search?r=2&q=eutopia)

Utopia - an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.

Eutopia - a place in which human society, natural conditions, etc., are so ideally perfect that there is complete contentment.

Utopia isn't a "real" word. It was made up for a story. The correct, "original" spelling is "eutopia." The prefix "eu" meaning "true," and "topia" meaning place. If you take the 'e' out, you leave "utopia," in which "u" means "not," and "topia" means "place."

It was adopted because of the popularity of Utopia. You can spell it either way.

But, hey. A for effort, Venny.

Gil

[VampHunter]

No one else caught this? I cannot BELIEVE no one else caught this... C'mon, people. You're slacking.

Kid, the word you're looking for is "eutopia."

Gil

Thanks... that's the word... (Bangs head)
hey here we go... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Now i feel better about my stupidness... at least I knew it started with an E... thanks Gil... that is EXACTLY the word I was looking for
(mumbles "how stupid am I?") anyways yes an Eutopia is what were here for... no war or fight's... just peace for everyone... in everyone... around the world...

Oh and btw I am now VampHunter... no longer called Chris Guhlin... Chris Guhlin does not exist on this forum anymore...

[GhostBat]

Oh and btw I am now VampHunter... no longer called Chris Guhlin... Chris Guhlin does not exist on this forum anymore...

He does if you keep mentioning him. :p

[VampHunter]

He does if you keep mentioning him. :p

thanks Ghostbat... hey Ghostbat, thank Chriz for changing my name

[Vendetta]

Eutopia. (http://dictionary.reference .com/search?r=2&q=eutopia)

Utopia - an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.

Eutopia - a place in which human society, natural conditions, etc., are so ideally perfect that there is complete contentment.

Utopia isn't a "real" word. It was made up for a story. The correct, "original" spelling is "eutopia." The prefix "eu" meaning "true," and "topia" meaning place. If you take the 'e' out, you leave "utopia," in which "u" means "not," and "topia" means "place."

It was adopted because of the popularity of Utopia. You can spell it either way.

But, hey. A for effort, Venny.

Gil
I submit that Utopia is actually the correct word. Eutopia is a perfect place that is REAL, a utopia is a perfect place that does not EXIST. Unless you are saying that somewhere out there, there is a true eutopia.

[VampHunter]

I submit that Utopia is actually the correct word. Eutopia is a perfect place that is REAL, a utopia is a perfect place that does not EXIST. Unless you are saying that somewhere out there, there is a true eutopia.

That is exactly what i'm saying... there is a True Eutopia out there somewhere... maybe a thousand lightyears away... but at least there's a True Eutopia...

[Vendetta]

That is exactly what i'm saying... there is a True Eutopia out there somewhere... maybe a thousand lightyears away... but at least there's a True Eutopia...
Awww, aren't you just the cutest.

:rolleyes:

[VampHunter]

Awww, aren't you just the cutest.

:rolleyes:

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! !!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Be caureful about what you say... I'm a boy btw...

[Galliard]

okay, I have to ask; are you high?

[VampHunter]

okay, I have to ask; are you high?

NO... WHY DO YOU EVEN ASK... I'M NEVER HIGH... (Talks to self[calm down... why do I get so angry?]) Ok... why are you asking that? I might take meds but they're under my real name... which is CENSORED btw... and if you really want to know my real name... I gave you a BIG hint(CENSORED)

[Vendetta]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! !!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Be caureful about what you say... I'm a boy btw...
Why? What are ya gonna do? And by boy, do you mean a girly-boy?! Or do you just like dressing up in mom's heels and playing dress-up?

I'm just curious.

[VampHunter]

Why? What are ya gonna do? And by boy, do you mean a girly-boy?! Or do you just like dressing up in mom's heels and playing dress-up?

I'm just curious.

nothin' but tell the admins probably... and NO... I AM NOT A GIRLY-BOY... I AM A REGULAR TEENAGE BOY... with disabilities(special needs)

[Galliard]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Your approach to other people is atrocious.
Your way of describing yourself is disturbing.
Half the time, you're flighty and the other half you're moody.

You're worse than when I first hit puberty and had mood swings that rivaled Rita Repulsa's.

You make no sense in most of your posts.

I'm not attacking you, but the only people I ever knew who act and respond the way you do were on drugs.

And, kid, have you ever thought that being overly medicated would bring about the damn emo problems you're having? You know, 'cause you're being a hypochondriac?

[Vendetta]

nothin' but tell the admins probably...
Wait, you're going to tell the admins that I called you "the cutest"? Oh shit guys!

Look, go back to the California thread and be a moron in there, adults are talking in here.

[VampHunter]

Wait, you're going to tell the admins that I called you "the cutest"? Oh shit guys!

Look, go back to the California thread and be a moron in there, adults are talking in here.

I HEARD THAT... VENDETTA!

[Galliard]

And he's reeeeeaaally going to care. Except for not. Until you learn what to say, what not to say, and how to say it, he's going to pick on you.
You make it easier by whining.

[VampHunter]

And he's reeeeeaaally going to care. Except for not. Until you learn what to say, what not to say, and how to say it, he's going to pick on you.
You make it easier by whining.

Thanks Galliard. Btw I'll be on the Lycan Bloodlines thread now.

[ThrasherCub]

I HEARD THAT... VENDETTA!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/ThrasherCub/Bashing/1214500565805.jpg

[VampHunter]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/ThrasherCub/Bashing/1214500565805.jpg

good one ThrasherCub... that's exactly what I need

[ThrasherCub]

good one ThrasherCub... that's exactly what I need

That was my way of calling you pathetic.

[VampHunter]

That was my way of calling you pathetic.

hey ThrasherCub, check the other thread. Then you'll see the truth... the REAL TRUTH.

[ThrasherCub]

hey ThrasherCub, check the other thread. Then you'll see the truth... the REAL TRUTH.

I'd ask which thread, but it doesn't appear to matter. You are constantly re-informing us of all the various ways in which you are pathetic: you don't understand things, you have mental disorders and proclaim it with pride, and you think caps lock will impress people.

The Truth: You Suck.

[VampHunter]

I'd ask which thread, but it doesn't appear to matter. You are constantly re-informing us of all the various ways in which you are pathetic: you don't understand things, you have mental disorders and proclaim it with pride, and you think caps lock will impress people.

The Truth: You Suck.

I'm really saying I'm the true lone one... not you. ok?

[ThrasherCub]

I'm really saying I'm the true lone one... not you. ok?

My statements still stand. Seriously, if you're so lonely you compulsively go on-line to make an ass of yourself buy a pet fish and talk to it or something.

[VampHunter]

My statements still stand. Seriously, if you're so lonely you compulsively go on-line to make an ass of yourself buy a pet fish and talk to it or something.

I found a game I could play. It's Ricochet Lost Worlds. so I'm no longer lonely... for now... and if you wanna play it go to this url, and have FUN. ok?

http://www.arkanoidgames4pc .com/

[chriz]

Keep it on topic, folks, or I'll close the thread.

[VampHunter]

Keep it on topic, folks, or I'll close the thread.

yes sir, Chriz. Sorry though...

P.S. I'll send you a message... if that's ok about this

Ok Back on topic... I think Atheists are really weird about not believing in a God... or a higher being. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings... but I think Atheists are just crazy. In other words, Atheists Do not believe in God, but they know there is a God.

[BoxedCat]

yes sir, Chriz. Sorry though...

P.S. I'll send you a message... if that's ok about this

Ok Back on topic... I think Atheists are really weird about not believing in a God... or a higher being. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings... but I think Atheists are just crazy. In other words, Atheists Do not believe in God, but they know there is a God.

It sounds like you're trying to describe an agnostic, with limited results.

[BlackRosePhantom]

yes sir, Chriz. Sorry though...

P.S. I'll send you a message... if that's ok about this

Ok Back on topic... I think Atheists are really weird about not believing in a God... or a higher being. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings... but I think Atheists are just crazy. In other words, Atheists Do not believe in God, but they know there is a God.
That is incorrect and just idiotic. Atheist don't believe in any higher power what so ever. We do not think that there is one. There is absolutely 0 evidence that supports the existance of some higher power which mystically created everything. I am not sorry, and you fail with your thinking. I'm not saying that your belief in god is stupid, unjust, or even 100% wrong. All I am saying is that science suggest that your belief probably is wrong. The only type of higher powers that I know of are the ones in the imaginations of human beings.

[ThrasherCub]

I think Atheists are really weird about not believing in a God... or a higher being. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings... but I think Atheists are just crazy. In other words, Atheists Do not believe in God, but they know there is a God.

I think they're a little weird for not believing in God, but I think the exact same thing about the exact beliefs of most people who who do believe in a God too. :p

However, I'd certainly like to hear you back up your claim that all Atheists know there is a God.

[VampHunter]

That is incorrect and just idiotic. Atheist don't believe in any higher power what so ever. We do not think that there is one. There is absolutely 0 evidence that supports the existance of some higher power which mystically created everything. I am not sorry, and you fail with your thinking. I'm not saying that your belief in god is stupid, unjust, or even 100% wrong. All I am saying is that science suggest that your belief probably is wrong. The only type of higher powers that I know of are the ones in the imaginations of human beings.

That's exctly what I mean. there is a God but no proof...

EDIT: gotta go to bed

[BoxedCat]

I think they're a little weird for not believing in God, but I think the exact same thing about the exact beliefs of most people who who do believe in a God too. :p

While quite a sensible argument, it also begs the question of why this particular argument doesn't draw the same scrutiny amongst the population as a whole:

:D i would LOVE 2 have a tail... even though it would be weird... btw, i am a real HUMAN born werepyre(part werewolf, part vampire)and i am new 2 the forums... anyway's i think i am a half-blooded lycan because i am really hairy from the waist down, especially on the legs... too much... which is true in a sense because i was born loving wolves and i do believe i am part wolf... i howl at the moon, i stay up late when ever i can, and i LOVE the dark.... so MAYBE I AM A LYCAN... WOOHOO!!!!!!!! all this stuff is true btw.

I only ask because of the "equal time for nutjobs" etiquette the mainstream media seems to operate under.

That's exctly what I mean. there is a God but no proof...

How does this prove the existence of God? Just on your say-so?

[ThrasherCub]

That's exctly what I mean. there is a God but no proof...

If there's no proof, then how the hell do atheists "know there is a God"?

[BlackRosePhantom]

That's exctly what I mean. there is a God but no proof...
No it isn't. What you mean that I think is a possibility that their is a god, but I really don't at all, and until I'm confronted with actual evidence, but until then, the lack of proof is my proof that there is no god. More evidence against the existance of god or gods is the existance of so many different religions all with different factions that they've been broken down into. With so many conflicting fronts for the higher power it makes it all the more less likely that any one of them is correct, thus strengthening my belief that their isn't any god or gods or higher power.

You're just confused. Go back and reread every sentence I wrote in my last post very, very slowly until you absolutely understand it, which might take a few times. If it takes you less than fifteen minutes then you've gone to fast and/or haven't read it enough. It should take you somewhere between a half an hour and an hour. Well, that's my estimation at least. Then you can try and restate what I wrote in your own understanding of it and I'll see if you still don't understand or not, because right now it seems as if you don't.

[DarkHunter]

I think Theism is a form of insanity. Not necessarily an extreme form (although it obviously can be). It just doesn't make any sense though.

The whole "eutopia" scenario where its "out there somewhere" is just another form of Theism and delusion.

In literary circles, saying "a wizard did it" is generally considered a poor choice of plot. I'd say its a poor choice of philosophy. We're not all omniscient beings and our knowledge has points where it doesn't reach, but that doesn't mean to assume illogical explanations. Reason and logic should be used, synthesizing understanding from our current base of knowledge and what we observe.

I fail to see how "god" factors in.

[Destiny]

Technically, atheism is specifically only a refutation of the existence of specific gods (even if it's all gods). The refutation of a generalized, nondescript, "cosmic force" kind of god would be called adeism or antidesim or something.


Oh, okay. That makes more sense now. I did mean that basically. I read what you said to Gil about how if you believed in nature that could make you an aethist...That is what you said right?


Only if you use the vague sense of the word "believe," as in "I have reason to think..." But religious belief is a specific kind of mental behavior where evidence is irrelevant to the final conclusion. One doesn't have faith in God because there's evidence of or logical reason for his existence. One believes in God despite the lack of such evidence, or even because of such a lack.

On the other hand, one believes that if he lets go of something, it will fall to the ground, specifically because there are mountains of evidence to support such a belief (including past experience). This is very different from religious faith, and is what I was talking about when I mentioned deduction-based reasoning earlier in the thread.

So saying an atheist is just like a religious person because they both operate on belief is to misuse the word belief. The atheist uses deduction, the religious person uses faith.


I didn't mean that an aethist person was like a religous person, and the way I thought I used the word belief was correct, though people might not have interpreted "belief" the way I do. So yes, now, I see it more as exactly what you said. "The atheist uses deduction, the religious person uses faith."

[BlackRosePhantom]

I think Theism is a form of insanity. Not necessarily an extreme form (although it obviously can be). It just doesn't make any sense though.

The whole "eutopia" scenario where its "out there somewhere" is just another form of Theism and delusion.

In literary circles, saying "a wizard did it" is generally considered a poor choice of plot. I'd say its a poor choice of philosophy. We're not all omniscient beings and our knowledge has points where it doesn't reach, but that doesn't mean to assume illogical explanations. Reason and logic should be used, synthesizing understanding from our current base of knowledge and what we observe.

I fail to see how "god" factors in.
I can see why there was once religion, but I fail to comprehend why there still is besides ignorance. I believe that religion stirred itself up when people long, long ago wondered why things happened the way they did yet couldn't find answers. People used basic logic to identify that it took force to create waves, move air, shake earth, and create fire. They also knew that it would take much more force than any creature could create to make giant waves, fierce storms, terrifying earthquakes and devastating volcanic eruptions. They knew that these enormous forces must have come from somewhere, somewhere unknown from beyond mortal observation. These events were unexplainable and gave a great sense of fear or anger. the combination of labeling them supernatural and personifying them with what they fought to juxtapose with great anger and rage, they created their first deities or demons which they feared, revered and worshiped.

Now that they had their original deities, it only takes a bit of simple creativity to explain what these forces, beings, were like. They gave full personalities and superior cognitive abilities to match their superior power. The first actual gods were formed by this tribal group thinking and quickly spread as explanations to the questions that all humans have once wondered. Different views on the traits of these gods and goddesses created differing and opposing religions, though it wasn't till a while more where people started thinking that one supernatural being could create all of these forces which man witnessed before their eyes, having all the amplified abilities of man and more. Since these gods had many and/or all of the abilities of man, it wouldn't be a far stretch to think that they would share other, physical, characteristics with man and thus many of them took on a similar forms to the humans.

But now we have science, which is slowly but surely giving natural explanations to why/how these mighty and enormous forces happened. People just seem to have thought that the god(s) explanations were so good and covered just about everything that they believed them "with heart and soul," mentally blocking out any other explanation for why these things happen, since these gods have evolved far beyond just explaining why these forces happen, but to give us a reason for being, a purpose, a sense of being higher than other seemingly mindless animals. Who would want to give up that sense of feeling to listen to someone else's different explanation which would make you feel less than you did with the one you currently have? A damn crazy bigot who thinks way too much and is too curious for their own good with their independent thinking, that's who!

[chriz]

It's easy. Science is the process of gaining knowledge through a process of observing, testing, making guesses, testing those guesses for credibility, and swallowing ego and bias in order to achieve an accurate result. In other words, work.

Religion is the process of gaining knowledge (such as it is) through a process of believing what an authority figure tells you to think, gaining acceptance by believing that authority while risking ostracism by refuting that authority.

Put another way, science is eating right, counting calories, making sure you get your veggies and greens, and avoiding sugar and other fattening food. Religion is eating whatever tastes good, as long as you compliment the chef.

Keep in mind, knowledge isn't the end goal of most people. Knowledge is only valuable in proportion to its usefulness for a comfortable survival, for most of us. If you go down the science path, there are very few comforts. There is no God. We don't have souls. When we die, we die. We're not special, as far as the universe is concerned. We're not here for any discernible purpose. We're not loved by anyone other than each other, and that rarely.

Religion tells us we're special, God exists and loves us, or at least has a special purpose for us, and we have immortal (or eternally rebirthing) souls. It's a much more comforting way of thinking, and if enough people think like you, then it actually enhances your day-to-day survival. We are social creatures, after all.

[ThrasherCub]

I can see why there was once religion, but I fail to comprehend why there still is besides ignorance.

Because, for whatever reason, it just makes sense to some people. But really, genuinly try to see both sides of the coin:

Science: Science is the study and explanation of the way things are, which makes things like God seem silly since it's able to explain so many things without it and there's no sign it will ever be needed in an explanation. However, there is nothing to say that things end at the physical and science may be doing little more than cataloging the manifest side of a highly spiritual universe.

Theism: God, magick, and other metaphysical things make a hell of a lot of sense if you've experienced them first hand. When science says something you just did is impossible, naturally you'd want to tell science to shove it and assert that there is indeed some higher power. However, using magick as an example as it is what I know best, who the hell is to say there's actually anything mystical or spiritual going on? They say that any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic, and while this isn't technology the idea still applies. For all we know it is something perfectly mundane which will one day be understood, measured, and down right dissected by science.

Both have merits, both have limits, and once a side has been chosen many people lose the ability to acknowledge this. It makes me want to punch these people.

[DarkHunter]

Because, for whatever reason, it just makes sense to some people. But really, genuinly try to see both sides of the coin:

However, using magick as an example as it is what I know best, who the hell is to say there's actually anything mystical or spiritual going on? They say that any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic, and while this isn't technology the idea still applies. For all we know it is something perfectly mundane which will one day be understood, measured, and down right dissected by science.



And that is how an atheist is able to explore the supernatural.

[chriz]

It's important to understand what it means to know something.

It's illogical and irrational to say "because I don't know X isn't true, then I have some degree of knowledge that X is true." This usually comes in the form of "you can't prove God didn't make the universe a certain way, so therefore God might exist." It sounds like a sensible statement, but it doesn't actually lead you anywhere in terms of knowledge.

Knowledge is information you can use to make reliable predictions about something. That's essentially it. Guessing is not a prediction. Guessing which head will come up when you flip a coin 100 times and being right 50 times does not mean you predicted anything. It means you guessed and were randomly correct according to the laws of probability. A knowledge-based prediction can show the path from the initial prediction to the end result, and explain, using objective data, why that prediction was accurate.

[Tempest]

I can see why there was once religion, but I fail to comprehend why there still is besides ignorance.

Because, just like God can't be proven to exist, science can't prove that there is no higher being. It's not impossible for people to be religious and scientific. Not everyone is a Fundamentalist.
In fact, I think that a knowledge of science can strengthen faith in God. When you see how intricate the human body is, how delicate the ecosystem is, how amazing the process of evolution is, it can be hard to believe that everything works like a well oiled machine on accident. Science doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Saying that God does or doesn't exist just is a product of reasoning things out for yourself, because we aren't ever going to really know the answer while we are alive.

[chriz]

I think the atheist position is that since we can't know if God exists or doesn't exist, he's irrelevant. And that that same argument can be applied to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you accept the possibility of God's existence simply because you can't prove his nonexistence, then you must do the same for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Godzilla, Mr. Hanky, Superman, and so on.

Is there anything you can do to demonstrate God's existence? Citing the intricate nature of evolution won't cut it. That's supposition. You're saying that evolution is so intricate that it couldn't have existed without God, then using that conclusion to justify the existence of God.

[RQ]

This is exactly what I wanted so far you guys.

Chriz, you've got some brilliant posts in here, I have to say, and nobody is taking things or attacking personally. Objective debate. <3

[greggchamberlain]

Quote: from chriz
Originally Posted by greggchamberlain
does atheism allow for belief in the supernatural though?

seems to me that any professed atheist who believes in ghosts or any supernatural entity then must have a subconscious belief in a divine entity or entities along with allowing for the possibility of an infernal opposite.

Why? Belief in, say, human telepathy isn't dependent on a belief in God.

It's all in the word. Atheism = non-theism. Theism = the belief in a specific god (mono-) or set of gods (poly-).


concepts like telepathy or anything else involving mental/psionic abilities i would class under the heading of "paranormal" with "paranatural" covering phenomena like...oh...say...th e mystery "booms" that are part of local folklore in some places.

"supernatural" to my mind would cover ghosts and similar phenomena that involves belief in and acceptance of an afterlife, which all religions allow for. poltergeists would go in the "paranatural" category unless there was other "anecdotal" information or evidence to slide it over into "supernatural".

now, chriz, perhaps your definition of supernatural also includes telepathy, which is fine.

but if you exclude psionic phenomena, then again i ask, is an atheist able to accept the existence of the supernatural or does he/she automatically discount it as illusion or delusion?

[chriz]

concepts like telepathy or anything else involving mental/psionic abilities i would class under the heading of "paranormal" with "paranatural" covering phenomena like...oh...say...th e mystery "booms" that are part of local folklore in some places.

I think the difference between "paranormal" and "supernatural" isn't as distinct to most people as it appears to be to you.

"supernatural" to my mind would cover ghosts and similar phenomena that involves belief in and acceptance of an afterlife, which all religions allow for. poltergeists would go in the "paranatural" category unless there was other "anecdotal" information or evidence to slide it over into "supernatural".

See, even here you're blurring the lines between the terms. If a poltergeist is a kind of ghost, then it should be in the same category as a ghost.

But even still, I think if you ask 10 people what the difference is between paranormal and supernatural, you'll get 10 different explanations. Both paranormal and supernatural are outside of the rational.

now, chriz, perhaps your definition of supernatural also includes telepathy, which is fine.

It would, but supernatural is synonymous with paranormal to me.

but if you exclude psionic phenomena, then again i ask, is an atheist able to accept the existence of the supernatural or does he/she automatically discount it as illusion or delusion?

If the supernatural phenomenon in question requires the existence of a God or gods, then an atheist can't accept it, or at least the element of it that requires a god. But ghosts don't require God. Just because most theist religions include an afterlife doesn't mean you can't have a functioning afterlife "theory" without theism.

[Tempest]

I think the atheist position is that since we can't know if God exists or doesn't exist, he's irrelevant. And that that same argument can be applied to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you accept the possibility of God's existence simply because you can't prove his nonexistence, then you must do the same for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Godzilla, Mr. Hanky, Superman, and so on.

Is there anything you can do to demonstrate God's existence? Citing the intricate nature of evolution won't cut it. That's supposition. You're saying that evolution is so intricate that it couldn't have existed without God, then using that conclusion to justify the existence of God.

I think you may have assumed that I'm religious. I don't adhere to any religion, but I'm not atheist, either. I'm just kind of undecided. I can see both sides of this debate.
I never said that people accept God's existence because we can't disprove God. I said that, since we can't prove or disprove God, people are left to reason it out for themselves. People don't have religions devoted to the Easter Bunny or Superman. Those stories don't explain miracles, mysteries, or the supernatural like religious mythology does. They are made up specifically for bed-time stories. Therefore you can't really compare it to the belief in a higher being that people devote entire lives to.
Saying that the world is complex and it's hard to think that it was all an accident isn't me showing proof that there is a God. I'm just giving an example of how people may use science to strengthen their faith. Like I said, you can't prove the existence of an invisible, uncomprehendable being. Again, I'm not religious at all. I'm just showing a different side of the story :)

[greggchamberlain]

okay, gonna use underline text to distinguish my replies or comments from chriz' original quoted text...

I think the difference between "paranormal" and "supernatural" isn't as distinct to most people as it appears to be to you.

there it seems more a question of personal semantics, i would say....some folks use the terms "supernatural", "paranatural", "preternatural" and "paranormal" almost as interchangeable synonyms.

i grant that i do try to limit the category parameters but, as you observe further below, even that can get a bit tricky.


See, even here you're blurring the lines between the terms. If a poltergeist is a kind of ghost, then it should be in the same category as a ghost.

here is where it gets tricky. poltergeist cases have become, by default, i think, lumped into the supernatural/ghostly phenomena class through most of the popular books on hauntings and movies like Poltergeist.

and also through the fact that "poltergeist" is German for "noisy ghost".

but as many paranormal researchers have determined that poltergeist phenomena does take place in settings which have no background of supernatural or preternatural history or previous occurrences. those are the cases when a teenager, usually going through puberty, seems to be the focal point of the phenomena.

then, the "poltergeist" activity is often posited to be some kind of psychic reaction of the teenager to whatever stresses are in his/her life. or possibly a display of latent psionic ability that fades as the teenager matures, the stresses go away, and/or the teenager does nothing to try to get control of any possible latent mental ability and exercise and strengthen it.

so, poltergeists fall on the borderline of "supernatural" and "parantural" phenomena.

yeah, i know...almost seems like i am trying to have my cake and eat it too as the saying goes.

But even still, I think if you ask 10 people what the difference is between paranormal and supernatural, you'll get 10 different explanations. Both paranormal and supernatural are outside of the rational.

granted.

It would, but supernatural is synonymous with paranormal to me.



If the supernatural phenomenon in question requires the existence of a God or gods, then an atheist can't accept it, or at least the element of it that requires a god. But ghosts don't require God. Just because most theist religions include an afterlife doesn't mean you can't have a functioning afterlife "theory" without theism.


okay, now THERE is another topic for discussion...can you have Heaven & Hell without God and the Devil?

[LV426]

okay, gonna use underline text to distinguish my replies or comments from chriz' original quoted text...




okay, now THERE is another topic for discussion...can you have Heaven & Hell without God and the Devil?

I guess that would depend on what your definition of heaven and hell are.

[ThrasherCub]

okay, now THERE is another topic for discussion...can you have Heaven & Hell without God and the Devil?

Sure, why the hell not? Using Karma as an example, it's not some divine punishment/reward system like people think. It's the idea that everything you do leaves an impression on you and enough of one kind of impression begins to shape you (like pressing into clay). This factors into incarnation because the general belief is that your soul will be shaped in such a way that it will only fit into one form or another. Assuming souls exist, karma certainly could too without any need of a God.

If souls exist (and I see no particular reason why they couldn't), then it is reasonable to think that perhaps they do continue on to other realms and this is just a normal part of life. It is very well possible that a karma-like system directs you to either a heaven or a hell in a like-attracts-like sort of way.

[spirit]

found a website that may answer a few questions. Not completly sure how credible it is though,
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/afraidofhell.htm

[chriz]

I never said that people accept God's existence because we can't disprove God. I said that, since we can't prove or disprove God, people are left to reason it out for themselves. People don't have religions devoted to the Easter Bunny or Superman. Those stories don't explain miracles, mysteries, or the supernatural like religious mythology does. They are made up specifically for bed-time stories. Therefore you can't really compare it to the belief in a higher being that people devote entire lives to.

The Bible explains no miracles or mysteries, either. It merely supposes miracles. Moses turning the Nile to blood or Joshua stopping the sun's path through the sky are no different from Superman pushing the moon out of orbit or Santa Claus managing to drop off presents in every house in the western world all in one night.

What miracle outside the Bible does the Bible explain? And if the Bible only self-references, how is that different from any other fiction?

Saying that the world is complex and it's hard to think that it was all an accident isn't me showing proof that there is a God. I'm just giving an example of how people may use science to strengthen their faith. Like I said, you can't prove the existence of an invisible, uncomprehendable being. Again, I'm not religious at all. I'm just showing a different side of the story :)

But that's not really "using science" to strengthen faith. If one was to use science, one would have to make some observations, record those observations, form one or more hypotheses to explain the basis of those observations, and work toward forming comprehensive theory. Saying "well, I can't prove he doesn't exist" doesn't qualify as science.

[ThrasherCub]

The Bible explains no miracles or mysteries, either. It merely supposes miracles. Moses turning the Nile to blood or Joshua stopping the sun's path through the sky are no different from Superman pushing the moon out of orbit or Santa Claus managing to drop off presents in every house in the western world all in one night.

What miracle outside the Bible does the Bible explain? And if the Bible only self-references, how is that different from any other fiction?

Multiple religions have similar myths and did before their respective cultures came into contact. I was reminded by you referencing Joshua because more than one set of beliefs has a story about the sun being stopped for a day.

Might not make it different from any other fiction, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Multiple religions have similar myths and did before their respective cultures came into contact. I was reminded by you referencing Joshua because more than one set of beliefs has a story about the sun being stopped for a day.

Might not make it different from any other fiction, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Yes, and there's a reasonable explanation for this. As Native Americans will admit, every story teller tells their story a bit differently and that no story is ever repeated exactly the same, and they've integrated that into their culture. They think of it as sort of having their stories evolve through time. The same thing happened over in Europe, Africa and Asia, its just that sometimes when the same story had its details tweaked a bit, the different version was labeled as a different story. This is most persistently seen in the Bible, Torah, and Koren.

[ThrasherCub]

Yes, and there's a reasonable explanation for this. As Native Americans will admit, every story teller tells their story a bit differently and that no story is ever repeated exactly the same, and they've integrated that into their culture. They think of it as sort of having their stories evolve through time. The same thing happened over in Europe, Africa and Asia, its just that sometimes when the same story had its details tweaked a bit, the different version was labeled as a different story. This is most persistently seen in the Bible, Torah, and Koren.

Er, BRP, that doesn't explain what I was talking about. They may evolve, but that doesn't have anything to do with the stories overlapping before contact between the different cultures.

[Tempest]

The Bible explains no miracles or mysteries, either. It merely supposes miracles. Moses turning the Nile to blood or Joshua stopping the sun's path through the sky are no different from Superman pushing the moon out of orbit or Santa Claus managing to drop off presents in every house in the western world all in one night.

What miracle outside the Bible does the Bible explain? And if the Bible only self-references, how is that different from any other fiction?

Religion explains miracles as divine interference. I can't say if the Bible says this, since I've never read it and have no desire to, but you don't have to look hard to find people crediting God for miracles. Whether it's prayer curing disease or being lucky in a car accident, religious people often attribute miracles to God.
I'm not even saying that the Bible is true. I agree with you that it's a work of fiction. *shrug*

But that's not really "using science" to strengthen faith. If one was to use science, one would have to make some observations, record those observations, form one or more hypotheses to explain the basis of those observations, and work toward forming comprehensive theory. Saying "well, I can't prove he doesn't exist" doesn't qualify as science.

I guess I could have been clearer. I didn't mean using science to prove or disprove anything. I meant that it's possible that having a knowledge of science can strengthen faith. It can contradict mythology of course, too. That's when you get into taking religious texts metaphorically instead of literally.
Blah, I hope I'm not getting too off-topic.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Er, BRP, that doesn't explain what I was talking about. They may evolve, but that doesn't have anything to do with the stories overlapping before contact between the different cultures.
Cultures have always been contacting one another. The Native Americans were in contact with both Europeans and Asians when the ice bridges were still over the northern oceans. Middle Easterns, many Africans, anf quite a few Europeans and Asians were nomads and traveling to quite the tourist hot spots. Just because their was a period where groups of cultures weren't in contact with one another when most people were getting used to settling down doesn't mean that there wasn't any contact prior, does there?

[chriz]

Which stories overlap before the cultures made contact? I know there's something about the Native Americans having flood stories, but that's not at all the same thing as them having The Flood in their mythology.

And besides, floods (to stick with this example) happen just about everywhere. It's not particularly surprising that people all over the planet have stories about the same kinds of phenomena that they all experience.

[ThrasherCub]

Cultures have always been contacting one another. The Native Americans were in contact with both Europeans and Asians when the ice bridges were still over the northern oceans. Middle Easterns, many Africans, anf quite a few Europeans and Asians were nomads and traveling to quite the tourist hot spots. Just because their was a period where groups of cultures weren't in contact with one another when most people were getting used to settling down doesn't mean that there wasn't any contact prior, does there?
One word: Isolationists. Those exist. Also, has it occurred to you that even if there is "prior contact," that the stories may have been recorded before that?

And besides, floods (to stick with this example) happen just about everywhere. It's not particularly surprising that people all over the planet have stories about the same kinds of phenomena that they all experience.
Story I used was the sun stopping (which doesn't tend to happen). Hopefully the household expert on myths will help me out with this after he wakes up.

[Vendetta]

I wonder why no one has considered the possibility of coincidence. I mean you know, Occam's Razor and all.

[ThrasherCub]

I wonder why no one has considered the possibility of coincidence. I mean you know, Occam's Razor and all.

Plenty of people do. My point was mostly that for people who already believe these myths those sorts of coincidences are thought of as pretty supportive to their myths.

[Vendetta]

Plenty of people do. My point was mostly that for people who already believe these myths those sorts of coincidences are thought of as pretty supportive to their myths.
But people who believe those myths aren't generally applying logic or rationality to their reasoning anyway. So yeah, that's not incredibly surprising.

[DarkHunter]

Myths overlap for a variety of different reasons:

A) Considering we're all hardwired in similar ways, we're bound to react to things in similar ways (fire scary). Symbols tend to hold similiar meanings when you cross cultural boundaries. Its called a collective unconcious.

B) As chriz points out, things like floods happen to everybody. Of course we're all going to make up stories about them.

C) Even if its not a matter of common phenomena, there's other explanations. Take modern day mythmakers for instance. Lord of the Rings is a rather popular story. Its not everyday that one finds an evil relic, a lost king with a magical sword, etc. But everybody is writing about it (look at a fantasy shelf and compare plot synopsis. I'm sure you could come up with one for every book you find).

There's some things that just take hold in our minds.

Finally there is the whole "cultural diffusion" deal. Why do Christians now play the duality game with God fighting a Serpent? A variety of reasons, though part of it COULD be the ancient Jews interaction with the Persians and Zoroastrians who told them that God fights a Serpent monster.

Definitive? Not necessarily. But it suggests that either someone learned from someone else or the stories grew out of a similar source.

Not necessary for the reasons cited above. Groups like the Egyptians were quite insular and myopic, tending to shun the influence of outsiders. Yet even they contribute to the myth pool and its various archetypes.

[chriz]

Story I used was the sun stopping (which doesn't tend to happen). Hopefully the household expert on myths will help me out with this after he wakes up.

So there are multiple unconnected sun-stopping myths? By unconnected, I don't mean simply one religion inheriting it from another, the way many Christian myths are just carried over from Judaism.

BTW, an eclipse story would fall into the same category as a flood story. Eclipses happen everywhere, so it's reasonable to expect eclipse myths everywhere.

[ThrasherCub]

So there are multiple unconnected sun-stopping myths? By unconnected, I don't mean simply one religion inheriting it from another, the way many Christian myths are just carried over from Judaism.

Correct. I forget most of the details but there's a story like that in the far east (Japan I think), a couple of native American ones, and one from I think Babylon. Assuming I have enough free time before I leave on my trip I'll get the details for you since I thought it was pretty damn cool when I heard that.