you mean what does lack of theism have to do with theism ?

I mean sans theism.

"What does having a lot of money have to do with being poor?"
--Pathos Lágrimas, Archdeacon of DeLuca Beer & Fine Wines

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "What does having a lot of money have to do with
> being poor?"
> --Pathos Lágrimas, Archdeacon of DeLuca Beer &
> Fine Wines


I love Pathos.... he nails it on the head , every time.
Pathos for president I say.

Nothing, really.

Atheism is the response to a claim.

The claim is "God exist" and atheists are responding "I don't believe that"

Well, you can't be a theist without some sort of religious dogma that allows you to move your god-belief from the realm of deism to theism.

Theism requires very specific claims about the existence of a god or gods, and those claims are what qualify as "religious."

Bravo.

To often we fail in this department. Claiming that like the adverb religiously and the adjective religious, the noun religious gets to mean something different. As if the amount of effort or emotion that you put into something will make it somehow a religion. Just because someone is religiously atheist doesn't make their atheism a religion.

We spend countless threads talking about how "new atheism" is a religion or how it requires just as much belief to not believe in god as it does to believe in a god. Theist and not theist, simple as that. Just a question for us all. As Mormons how hard was it to disbelieve the Jehovah's Witness? As Mormons how hard was it to disbelieve Christian Science?

One thing I might add. Many are probably like me and take it one step further. I actively disbelieve every god presented to me and I passively disbelieve every possible god. I do this on principal. That principal is; prove it. I know it seems a bit rude but I don't feel the need to explore the fantasies of others. I make up enough of my own shit to keep me busy for a life time.

Heh.

I admire the tenacity, I do; but insisting our lexicon stick to defined prisons is like insisting on being twenty-one forever:

"When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation."

--Samuel Johnson--
--Johnson's Dictionary--


Because of these kinds of threads, I've asked countless people, "what is an atheist?" I've asked religious people, but mostly I've asked people without a religion because I know far more of those kind of people.

The answer, invariably in my experience, is, "someone who believes (or thinks) God doesn't exist," or variations thereof. No one, even those who call themselves atheists, has used the semantically precise, "those who lack a belief in god."

My follow up question: "well, is there a God?" Mostly I get variations of "how the fuck should I know?"

Well, if anyone should know we should know. But we don't.

The Vanity Of Human Wishes.

Human

Try hanging out with normal people instead of dimwits.

I have never heard any Atheists use your definition.

My guess, then, Dave, is that all your friends are internet friends.

The internet is the only place I see the word "atheist" used in the way you would like it used.

You're using a "Hasty Generalization" falacy.

You're basically saying that because the people you happen to have asked have answered the way you've stated, that everyone, or at least the majority must agree with your experience. (I'm going to assume that you haven't done your questioning under controlled and statistically accurate methods)

Just because your experience is one way, doesn't mean that it's like that everywhere or even that you have a good representation of your target group. Also, the context and the way you ask your question matters as well, what bias have you inserted into your poll?

There's a reason why polls are done the way they are. Your experience really tells us nothing.

My experience agrees with Dave the Atheist. I'm sure that you've seen the arguments enough on the board here to know that almost all of them will define "atheist" with, as you call it, the semantically correct definition. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Also, who cares if the people are on the internet or not. Being on the internet, you'd think you'd have a wider audience and a greater sample size, rather than your unknown "countless people".

Oh geez.


I didn't say anything like "my experience" therefore "all experience". I shared my experience, that is all.


Although I haven't tested the following idea under "controlled and statistically accurate methods", I will go out on a limb and say that no one places their casual conversations "under controlled and statistically accurate methods." That's weird.


And if my experience "tells me nothing" then also your experience "tells [you] nothing." But that's silly, right?


But to the point: there is a difference in how words are used in text and how words are used verbally, you know, where people talk to each other face to face with their mouths.


Cheers.

I see your "Oh geez" and raise you with an "Oy Vey"

"I didn't say anything like "my experience" therefore "all experience". I shared my experience, that is all."

But you didn't just "share" it. You used your experience to back your claim that your definition is more accurate because "countless people" agreed with you. It was the entire point of your argument. If not, then why did you follow up with Dave trying to say that his friends must only be on the internet, because that's the "only" place you've seen it that way. You're implying that your experience trumps his.

So, let me relate my experience. The countless people that I've spoken to call the device that provides drinking water, usually installed near a restroom, is named "bubbler". They do this in writing as well as in spoken language, you know "with their mouths".

Because this is my experience, can I then argue that everyone in the US who calls it a "drinking fountain" is incorrect and they should bow to my experience? That's the argument that you're making here. It's a silly argument to make.

This is why polls are done using controlled methods with carefully worded questions under double blind conditions. All attempting to not do what you're doing.

maybe they're keeping it simple for you.

Try asking them if they believe in god, which is usually what people ask (in my experience) - they don't ask "what is an atheist."

The answer will be "no."

Implied in the no is "I don't have the belief."

Or as Dave would say "I lack a belief."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 10:14PM by thingsithink.

Is there some value in insisting that the changing lexicon not change in such a way to erase the meaning of certain words? It is easier to communicate when we use words that mean the same thing for everyone.

That said, if the word religion changes to mean really super excited about something I will accept that. It will suck to say adherent to a specific supernatural entity and the dogma associated with that entity but c'est la vie.

As for god you are spot on. How the hell am I supposed to know if there is a god or not. But just because I can't know doesn't mean that I should invent something to subsequently prove or disprove. Like I said, I make up plenty of my own shit to have to start worrying about shit other people make up.

BTW I am 21 or at least I feel 21 or at least I pretend to feel 21. It doesn't matter, I want to be 21 and that is what matters.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there some value in insisting that the changing
> lexicon not change in such a way to erase the
> meaning of certain words?



Interesting you should say this. My sense is that the insistence that "atheist" is *only* "one who lacks belief..." is an attempt to supplant the older meaning, to "erase" it, as it were.

Since I used Johnson earlier let's see what his dictionary says (1755):

"One who disbelieves the existence of God."

My Oxford at hand (1993) has:

"A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods."

The 2nd meaning goes like this:

"A person who denies God morally; a godless person."


But what does that settle? Nothing.

All I can say is that my sense from a life of reading literature is that "atheist", up until very recently, usually delineated the loaded meanings of Johnson and my Oxford. The insistence upon the precision of "...lack of..." is the attempt to erase the older meaning, often linked to ideas of impiousness.



> I make up plenty of my own
> shit to have to start worrying about shit other
> people make up.

Yup! Me too. I love the way you say that.



> BTW I am 21 or at least I feel 21 or at least I
> pretend to feel 21. It doesn't matter, I want to
> be 21 and that is what matters.

My dick thinks it's perpetually twenty-one, no matter how hard the rest of my body screams at it to "grow up".

"Grow up," it says. "Fine, here you go. Up-grown I shall be. Again."

Human

I'm fine with saying an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god. I'm not fine with saying that atheism is a religion.

I tried to type out a coherent argument but it ended up being a rambling mess. Which I'm sure means that I don't have fully formed and thought out opinions. The bottom line for me is the same as the Mormon/Christian argument. This is a positive/normative discussion. How it is and how it aught to be seem fairly far apart.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a
> positive/normative discussion. How it is and how
> it aught to be seem fairly far apart.

Or, leaving Hume aside, it is a prescriptivist v descriptivist discussion. Both *are*, and both have opposing teams insisting how it ought to be :^)


My constant refrain (refrain in the 2nd commonly used sense) in these threads is the befuddled amusement that a *lack* of something can generate soooooo much discussion, so many books and conferences and movies and ad-campaigns and donation drives and... It's fascinating.

*cue the history lessons ad nauseam --GALELIO!!!!!-- --CRUSADES!!!!!!!-- --INQUISITION!!!!!-- --FISH FRIDAYS!!!!! THE HORROR, OH THE HORROR!*

Cheers Jacob. Always a pleasure. Better get back to earning my daily bread.

Human

Of course "a lack of something" has generated lots of discussion; our society is one in which lacking religion is unusual. "New Atheism" is a reaction to the hitherto unchecked hegemony of religions.

Also, don't you think there were ever conversations between adherents of different religions? Muslims try to convert Christians, Christians try to convert Muslims, and Mormons try to convert both --- if not by persuasion, then by the sword.

"*cue the history lessons ad nauseam --GALELIO!!!!! [sic]-- --CRUSADES!!!!!!!-- --INQUISITION!!!!!-- --FISH FRIDAYS!!!!! THE HORROR, OH THE HORROR!*"
Your disdain for religious history that you find unpleasant, as evinced by this line, looks remarkably similar to some Southerners' insistence that slavery and racism are no longer relevant because 'Look! we have a black President!' Allow me to retort (now with 20% more exclamation marks):

*cue the history lessons ad nauseam -- EVOLUTIONISM!!! -- HEDONISM!!! -- NIHILISM!!! -- HITLER!!! -- STALIN!!! -- CHAIRMAN MAO!!! -- KIM JONG-UN!!! -- POL POT!!! -- LOOK AT ALL THESE BAD PEOPLE WHO WERE ATHEISTS!!!!

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but mostly I've asked
> people without a religion because I know far more
> of those kind of people.
>
> The answer, invariably in my experience, is,
> "someone who believes (or thinks) God doesn't
> exist," or variations thereof. No one, even those
> who call themselves atheists, has used the
> semantically precise, "those who lack a belief in
> god."

So I guess you've never asked me. Or the hundreds of atheists I know personally. Seems a bit odd, though, that you've never encountered a single atheist who knows what an atheist is. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps you
> need to expand your horizons?

If by this you mean I should participate in something like this:

http://www.atheists.org/community/national-convention

I'll pass. But thank you. That's definitely one way to know hundreds of atheists, but I don't know why I should want that.

Nothing wrong with atheists, mind you.



> Seems a bit odd,
> though, that you've never encountered a single
> atheist who knows what an atheist is.

Funny how you put that. I believed them when they said they believe or think God doesn't exist, and so took their self-labelling for what it's worth.

Perhaps they need to attend a few meetings and get the party-nomenclature down pat? They didn't seem unaware of themselves as atheists, in fact they seemed well-aware; but a few meetings and some party literature should help get them in line with you and your hundreds of atheist friends and the one and only correct way to define themselves.

I'll mention this next time I come along an atheist who answers the wrong way.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If by this you mean I should participate in
> something like this:
>
> http://www.atheists.org/community/national-convent
> ion
>
> I'll pass. But thank you. That's definitely one
> way to know hundreds of atheists, but I don't know
> why I should want that.

I didn't; I meant you should meet more people.
Not that there's anything wrong with the convention above. But I'm not going, either.

> > Seems a bit odd,
> > though, that you've never encountered a single
> > atheist who knows what an atheist is.
>
> Funny how you put that. I believed them when they
> said they believe or think God doesn't exist, and
> so took their self-labelling for what it's worth.
> Perhaps they need to attend a few meetings and get
> the party-nomenclature down pat? They didn't seem
> unaware of themselves as atheists, in fact they
> seemed well-aware; but a few meetings and some
> party literature should help get them in line with
> you and your hundreds of atheist friends and the
> one and only correct way to define themselves.
>
> I'll mention this next time I come along an
> atheist who answers the wrong way.

Amusing.
Statistically, though, I find your "overwhelmingly" claim dubious. Perhaps there's some confirmation bias involved in your not-really-tracked results? That you only remembered the ones who answered a certain way, much like nurses and police who only remember the "crazy" nights when there happened to be a full moon?
Worth considering, don't you think?

I was amused by this comment:

"Bald is not a hair color."

Or, what does fat have to do with skinny?

or, what does polio have to do with not having polio ?

or, what does night have to do with day?

or, what does laughing have to do with crying?

or, what does dry have to do with being wet?

Well, it's a position (lack of belief) on the claims religions make.
Otherwise...nothing.

Even if an atheist "believes" there is no god, and promotes that belief with "religious"-type zeal, it's still not a religion :)

Maybe like matter and anti-matter, but from a philosophical point of view?

Its a negative, reactionary group identity.

Oh geez, oh pleez, and oi vey. Please don't make me do this.



Tell me what theistic point of view a baby has.

We can quibble between belief and unbelief. We can even spar over having or lacking belief. I just cannot get on board with a...

"Negative, reactionary, group identity"

Atheism and Theism might forever be linked. There may be plenty of discussions that resemble arguments about pineapple not belonging on pizza or balsamic not belonging on vanilla ice cream. But your statements have no basis. At least I can argue that I like a good balsamic reduction on my vanilla ice cream and that fruit on pizza is the worst combination ever.

To be clear negative atheism is something real and positive atheism is something real. Plus people can be reactionary. And I think there are some atheist groups. But theism has the same diversity. So there.

Ugh, I just don't know what to say.

"Tell me what theistic identity a baby has."
Typically the one their parents have and indoctrinate them to believe, which is why no kid growing up in Happy Valley wakes up one day and says, "you know what? Im Muslim!" Just like no kid wakes up in a cave in Afganastan and announces to the world that he is Mormon, because they wouldnt survive. Religion is a survival mechanism, which promotes social cohesion and unity, by artificially dividing people into "groups" of "us" vs. "Them".
Atheists volunteer to be "them" the enemy of "us" (theists).
Like Sam Harris said in, "The Problem of Atheism",
"Its as if theists painted the chalk outline on the sidewalk and Atheists just walk up and lay right down in it."
Like he asks,
What's wrong with not identifying ourselves in negative, reactionary terms and just being a sapient homo sapien, who destroys bad ideas wherever we encounter them, for the rest of our lives.
I highly recommend reading it or listening to it, (skip the 4:00 intro) and answering his questions if you're an atheist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODz7kRS2XPs

"So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them." Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism, AAI '07

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-problem-with-atheism



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2016 04:01PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like he asks,
> What's wrong with not identifying ourselves in
> negative, reactionary terms and just being a
> sapient homo sapien, who destroys bad ideas
> wherever we encounter them, for the rest of our
> lives.

Nothing's wrong with that. It's just that the word "atheist" doesn't mean that. At all. It's really simple:

theist: a person with a belief in a god of some kind

Add the "a-" prefix; that indicates "being without," as in "a person without a belief in a god of some kind."

Individual atheists often DO get really negative and reactionary. Not at all surprising in societies full of god-believers who despise people who don't share their beliefs, and who try to make their beliefs into laws, etc. Harris' point is, basically, that such "negative, reactionary" responses don't have to be the norm, that atheists can and should spend more time on the benefits of life without belief. It's a valid point.

At any rate, as I've mentioned several times, even IF you're an atheist who "believes there is no god," that still doesn't mean you're in a religion, or religious. Even a belief pursued with religious-like fervor doesn't have to be a religion. Just ask Apple enthusiasts :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2016 02:54PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Nothing's wrong with that. It's just that the word "atheist" doesn't mean that. At all. It's really simple:

theist: a person with a belief in a god of some kind

Add the "a-" prefix; that indicates "being without," as in "a person without a belief in a god of some kind."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no problem with people who identify as Atheists, I just don't choose to identify myself in negative terms. 'Being without a belief in God' is negative. I don't believe in Santa but that doesn't make me an "Asantaist" it just makes me somebody who accepts reality.

Even though my world view is closest to Pantheist, I whole heartedly disagree with Dawkins assertion that "Pantheism is just sexed up Atheism". He claims to believe in the god (little 'g') of Einstein (aka, nature), but Einstein rejected "Professional Atheists", like Dawkins.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." Albert Einstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Individual atheists often DO get really negative and reactionary. Not at all surprising in societies full of god-believers who despise people who don't share their beliefs, and who try to make their beliefs into laws, etc. Harris' point is, basically, that such "negative, reactionary" responses don't have to be the norm, that atheists can and should spend more time on the benefits of life without belief. It's a valid point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right. He's all for destroying bad ideas, just not for falling into the old trap of 'us' vs. 'them' tribalism, which just plays into believers 'persecution' complex, as if there's a 'Culture War' that pits 'us' (good theists) against "them" (atheists) who are out to destroy our Christian faith and holidays, which is delusional. I consider myself a humanist and a secularist.
I'm all for separation of church and State, but I'm also a realist. I don't think that "In God We Trust" is going to disappear from our currency any time soon. Just like I don't think "One Nation Under God" is going to get redacted from our Pledge of Allegiance anytime soon. So I just accept that's the way it is in America. The word, "God" is synonymous with "Nature" like it was to Einstein, Sagan and Chief Seattle. It's also synonymous with "Logos" like it was in the original Greek version of the New Testament.
I'm fine with trusting Mother Nature to maintain the balance that's been maintained over the past 3.5 billion years life on Earth has been in existence. I'm fine with reciting, "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since the word is synonymous with "Logos" (the active reason pervading and animating the universe.)
I'm with Carl Sagan who said,
"Yes I believe in 'god', if by the word, 'god' you mean, the embodiment of the immutable laws governing the universe."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At any rate, as I've mentioned several times, even IF you're an atheist who "believes there is no god," that still doesn't mean you're in a religion, or religious. Even a belief pursued with religious-like fervor doesn't have to be a religion. Just ask Apple enthusiasts :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is a 'religion'?
1. a particular system of faith and worship.
2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

I'd say that Atheism is the rejection of the 1st definition but can meet the 2nd definition.

Atheists are just as prone to group think as any other group.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is a 'religion'?
> 1. a particular system of faith and worship.

Atheism (even the "church" ones TMSH mentions) involve no faith and no worship.

> 2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
> supreme importance.

That might apply to some atheists; however, as mentioned above, pursuing something with religious-LIKE "zeal" does not make something a religion.

> I'd say that Atheism is the rejection of the 1st
> definition but can meet the 2nd definition.

So in a secondary way, some atheists are sorta like some other things that are pursued zealously. Fine. Atheism, itself, is not. It doesn't require, ask for, or promote any "supreme importance." So atheism doesn't fit #2 either, though some atheists might.

> Atheists are just as prone to group think as any
> other group.

Of course. Which doesn't make atheism a religion. Notice there's no "group think" anywhere in your definition above?

ificouldhietokolob,
I really appreciate your insights here and your clear headed answers.
I'm not disrespecting Atheists at all. I respect the Atheists on this board, like you and every other Atheist. We have a hell of a lot more in common than most people.
I don't agree with anybody 100%, but I agree with Sam Harris about as much as I agree with Niel deGrass Tyson or Bill Nye, about 99% of the time. None of whom identify as Atheists, for reasons they've made quite clear. Same reasons as Einstein didn't identify as an Atheist. He had nothing good to say about Professional Atheists like Dawkins, whom I agree with about 95% of the time. The 5% I don't agree with is his hostility towards people who are religious. He's different from the 3 other scientists I mentioned, who have very little interest in Dawkins militant brand of Atheism with a capitol, red, A!
I think the whole concept of "New Atheism" became absurd once Sam Harris, the reluctant 'leader' of the movement, denounced it as ridiculous, in the speech he gave in 07 at the AAI, 9yrs ago. He slammed "New Atheism" and none of the other "4 Riders of the Apocalypse" had anything to say about it. Dawkins still has that speech canonized on his website.
Has any New Atheist had any answers to the questions he asked?
What the hell makes New Atheism any different from Atheism? or is Atheism now "Old Atheism"? It was a failed 'gimmick' made up by some Madison Avenue PR firm to give Atheists a good name, since studies have shown Atheism is the most hated group in America. Americans hate Atheists more than they hate rapists. Worse than Muslims or Mormons.
Why would I go from people hating me because I'm Mormon, to even more people hating me because I'm Atheist?
Why give most of your fellow men a good reason to hate you?
What's it worth?
I became a Nihilist on 9-11.
The first thing I said was, "Nietzsche was right. God is dead."
I turned in my resignation to the Mormon church on 9-11-02, in protest, of the PRofit having NOTHING to say a year earlier, or since about 9-11.
Fortunately I didn't have to wait long before I emerged from that pit of dispair, to seeing the good in people, in response to the terror of 9-11. I was reminded of the overwhelming good in society, which contrasted starkly with the dark reality religion produced.
I think New Atheism came mainly as a response to 9-11, specifically from Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith", which to me was a game changer. Thank goodness for his great response. I agree with Sam Harris 100% on just about everything the man has had to say. He is very much of a realist and a scientist. As real as you can get. But he doesn't discount all religions the way most Atheists do. He doesn't discount Eastern religions, just Western, Judeo Christian religions, which are clearly based on a fairy tale of creationism and have now become the greatest force inhibiting progress in science, as a result of science deniers defunding scientific research, especially in America.
He doesn't discount Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confuscism, all of which are still alive and well. He doesn't level all religions down to nothing. They're not. They're all something. They exist. We have to coexist with them. We all have to put apocalyptic thinking behind us by debunking these bogus myths and narratives that end in apocalypse.
And he doesn't discount a lot of Western philosophies, bordering on religion, like Stoicism, Pantheism or Epicureanism.
But mostly he's just a humanist, a scientist, a neurologist and an eloquent speaker, in addition to a lot of other roles he plays successfully in his normal every day life. I thought he had the best response to 9-11, up until I read the Dalai Lama's, which is poetry to my ears.
Christians call Zen Buddhism an atheist religion, because they don't worship a personal God. To them 'god' is synonymous with Tao, the way of nature.
The Greek Stoics called it "Logos"
The Romans "Genius"
I like those words better than the word, "God", but they're all just symbols, for the mysterious forces that combine to create, sustain and animate life on Earth, including the "Dark Matter Energy" since we don't have a better name for it, than "good", or "god" for short.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Atheism (even the "church" ones TMSH mentions) involve no faith and no worship.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buddhists are atheists, by Western, Judeo Christian standards. They have faith and worship. So are Shinto, Confucists, Taoists, the list goes on. I think these discussions about Faith vs. Doubt tend to be Eurocentric, as if Judeo Christian ideas are the only form of wisdom that is of any value.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
> supreme importance.

That might apply to some atheists; however, as mentioned above, pursuing something with religious-LIKE "zeal" does not make something a religion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's not anything. That's just the thing. It's not a 'world view', its not a philosophy, it's not a political movement, it's just a reaction to religious over reach into society. I get that, but in reality when you're already the most hated group in the US, why just make people hate you more by insisting that having "In God We Trust" written on your money somehow violates your freedom and offends you?
Why not just accept the fact that "God" is on every dollar bill you have ever seen or ever will see and reframe it in your mind to something more reasonable than Santa for adults?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So in a secondary way, some atheists are sorta like some other things that are pursued zealously. Fine. Atheism, itself, is not. It doesn't require, ask for, or promote any "supreme importance." So atheism doesn't fit #2 either, though some atheists might.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right. It's really not a thing at all.
Its nothing except the most hated minority in America.
So why take that position in a debate if it makes 90% of the people in the room tune you out the second you announce you're an Atheist?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course. Which doesn't make atheism a religion. Notice there's no "group think" anywhere in your definition above?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
True

Under normal circumstances, atheism should have nothing to do with religion. But some atheists are blurring that line by creating "atheist churches" which essentially duplicate the community, group teaching, shared ethics, and meetinghouse looks found among other religions.

http://seattleatheist.church/
https://www.facebook.com/SundayAssemblyBayArea/

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under normal circumstances, atheism should have
> nothing to do with religion. But some atheists
> are blurring that line by creating "atheist
> churches" which essentially duplicate the
> community, group teaching, shared ethics, and
> meetinghouse looks found among other religions.

Yes, but not because they want to be a religion.
Because the way the law works, this is a way to get tax-exempt status, and the ability to visit people in hospitals, prisons, etc. (if you're an ordained "minister" of that church, access that's denied if you're "just" a non-profit charity).

If the laws of the US weren't biased towards "religions," there'd be no need to do so. However, they are.

Maybe we should go with the legal definition of a religion. I have no idea whether or not I'm an atheist. Dawkins says pantheism is just "sexed up atheism", but he's not a lawyer.

Or, maybe a parallel can be drawn with Aether theory. It was settled in the early 20th century that Physics works perfectly well without the Aether. The Standard Model is going on a century, solid as ever. No Aether required. The actual existence or non-existence of the Aether is irrelevant. It's just not on the table when there's actual work to be done.

Dawkins is a cool guy. I like his Davie Jones voice too. He does come across as a kind of evolutionary biology zealot, though. Living and glass houses and all that.

One big difference is that atheists are not 'organized'.

Right. Atheism isn't anything.
It's just a name for something that's nothing, except the most hated identity in America.
So if the goal of life is peace, love and happiness, why pick that identity out of all of the other choices that are not hostile to the vast majority of your fellow men who are believers?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if the goal of life is peace, love and
> happiness, why pick that identity out of all of
> the other choices that are not hostile to the vast
> majority of your fellow men who are believers?

You seem to have that backwards.
It's not the label (or the atheist) that is hostile to the vast majority (although no longer so vast) of believers...

It's the believers that are hostile to the label and the people who choose it.

Which, I think, may be a damn good reason to use the label. :)

You seem to have that backwards.
It's not the label (or the atheist) that is hostile to the vast majority (although no longer so vast) of believers...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd say 3/4 of the population constitutes the vast majority.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/12/22/US-belief-in-God-down-belief-in-theory-of-evolution-up/24081387762886/

The label, Atheist, automatically pits "A-theist" against the 3/4 of society that consider themselves to be "Theists" or believers. Choosing to call yourself an atheist seems to me like a way to clearly distinguish one's self from 'theists', believers, by saying, "I'm not one of you. I reject your belief and belief in general, completely. It's all bullshit. Deal with it."

I appreciate that sentiment, especially when it comes to theist over reaching into my children's classroom, or favoring one religion over all others. That's bullshit and deserves pushback. Denying science deserves a lot of pushback. Denying people services based upon your own personal beliefs deserves push back. But I work for a lot of believers, who are damned good people and if I went around telling everybody I was against their beliefs, by identifying myself as an atheist, I probably wouldn't be able to earn a living the way I do now, working mainly with believers, of one stripe or another.
I see zero upside to identifying myself as an Atheist.
I know Dawkins thinks it's like being gay and that all of us "Nones" ought to quit being such cowards and come out of the closet. But that's so wrong on so many levels.
#1. You're born gay. It's not something you choose typically.
#2. Even though "Nones" choose "No Religion" and they're the fastest growing religious identity in the US, most of us still believe in 'god' in one form or another.
#3. What good does it do anybody to willingly identify themselves with a label that ID's them as a member of the most hated group in that society?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's the believers that are hostile to the label and the people who choose it.

Which, I think, may be a damn good reason to use the label. :)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It goes both ways.
They both need each other or they would have no reason to exist.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd say 3/4 of the population constitutes the vast
> majority.

So I guess "vast" is entirely subjective :)

> Choosing
> to call yourself an atheist seems to me like a way
> to clearly distinguish one's self from 'theists',
> believers, by saying, "I'm not one of you. I
> reject your belief and belief in general,
> completely. It's all bullshit. Deal with it."

That's funny, I thought it just meant I don't believe in god.

> But I work
> for a lot of believers, who are damned good people
> and if I went around telling everybody I was
> against their beliefs, by identifying myself as an
> atheist, I probably wouldn't be able to earn a
> living the way I do now, working mainly with
> believers, of one stripe or another.

I see. So your decision is purely self-preservation among a group of bigots who make decisions based on belief in god or not. How sad for you. Me, I rather enjoy being accurate & honest, and I really don't care if other people don't like it. Oh, and it's never, ever impacted my ability to make a good living. Oh, well!

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So I guess "vast" is entirely subjective :)
-------------------------------------------------------
'Vast' may have been an exaggeration, clear majority would be more accurate.
-------------------------------------------------------
That's funny, I thought it just meant I don't believe in god.
-------------------------------------------------------
Maybe that is what it means to you, but it is still a way to differentiate yourself from believers, by saying you're not one of them. I get it and I empathize with the sentiment, I just don't share it.
-------------------------------------------------------
I see. So your decision is purely self-preservation among a group of bigots who make decisions based on belief in god or not. How sad for you.
-------------------------------------------------------
No. It's not sad nor is it based purely on self-preservation, it's based on accepting reality. When we're still in the dark about the vast majority of the universe (96% of which we call dark matter/energy for lack of a better term) I think the reality is that most of the universe remains undetectable to us and a complete mystery. Until the majority of that is cleared up, it's kind of arrogant to rule out any kind of a higher intelligence responsible for creating and maintaining order in the Cosmos, to the point where life could take root and evolve as it has.
If you think about the timelines of evolution, life on Earth has been here for about 3.5 Billion years. Life could have easily gotten a 100 million year head start on another planet in our galaxy. If they're a 100 million years more advanced than us, life on Earth could easily just be a simulation on some aliens computer. That Alien would meet the description of a creator, God.
-------------------------------------------------------
Me, I rather enjoy being accurate & honest, and I really don't care if other people don't like it. Oh, and it's never, ever impacted my ability to make a good living. Oh, well!
-------------------------------------------------------
Really? Are you 'accurate and honest' when a Mother of a homely baby asks you what you think of her baby?

People treat their beliefs like their babies.
If you insult their babies, they'll be your enemy from that point forward.

I'm not out trying to make enemies. I say, Live and let live. I'm not going to identify myself in negative terms, just because most other people in society identify themselves in the opposite term. Like I said, Atheism wouldn't exist w/o Theism.
It's a false distinction that only exists as a rejection of what most people in society believe.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When we're still in the dark about the
> vast majority of the universe (96% of which we
> call dark matter/energy for lack of a better term)
> I think the reality is that most of the universe
> remains undetectable to us and a complete mystery.
> Until the majority of that is cleared up, it's
> kind of arrogant to rule out any kind of a higher
> intelligence responsible for creating and
> maintaining order in the Cosmos...

Now I feel even more sad for you.
Because, a) being an atheist doesn't mean "ruling out" anything. I just means I don't believe the claims other people make about "god" things, mainly because there's no evidence for their claims...and b) arguments from ignorance are really, really silly ("there are things we don't know, therefore...there's a higher intelligence responsible for creating and maintaining order in the Cosmos...").

"We don't know" means "we don't know." It doesn't mean "We don't know, therefore we do know, and it's a creator-thing."


> Really? Are you 'accurate and honest' when a
> Mother of a homely baby asks you what you think of
> her baby?

Yes, actually, I am. In fact, I've had several good laughs over that very subject, pointing out that "um, I'm sure the child is full of love, but you have to admit, it's not the cutest baby ever born," and having the parents laugh and agree with me, and then let me know they feel exactly the same way. You should try honesty. It's not all that horrible.

> People treat their beliefs like their babies.
> If you insult their babies, they'll be your enemy
> from that point forward.

You sure seem to care what other people think about you. I really don't. I especially don't care what people who would declare themselves my "enemy" simply because I don't share their irrational beliefs think. They're not people I'd want as friends anyway. Same for dishonest people. And many more.
If that's how you want to live, great -- enjoy being a dishonest suck-up to an irrational majority.
That's not what I want.

> I'm not out trying to make enemies. I say, Live
> and let live. I'm not going to identify myself in
> negative terms, just because most other people in
> society identify themselves in the opposite term.

Since you're proceeding from a false premise, it's not wonder your conclusions are all over the place.
Atheist is not a "negative term" identity. Except in the addled minds of the delusional, irrational, and uneducated idiots that I want no part of anyway. And for those people, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

I worry that, had you been living in 1930's Germany, you'd have kept your mouth shut, raised your right arm in salute, and worn a cute little party pin...because, you know, the vast majority of the people around you were that way, and you wouldn't want to make any enemies, right? :(

> Like I said, Atheism wouldn't exist w/o Theism.
> It's a false distinction that only exists as a
> rejection of what most people in society believe.

Sure it would. However, the label for it would just be "what everybody is." It's not any "false distinction," and it's honest and accurate. I don't give a crap what "most people" in my society believe, and I think it's really sad that you let what other people believe shape YOUR life.

Wow, that couldn't be more ironic.
I'm not the one who identifies myself in terms of what others believe, you are if you identify yourself as an atheist.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, that couldn't be more ironic.
> I'm not the one who identifies myself in terms of
> what others believe, you are if you identify
> yourself as an atheist.

Still haven't figured out what the word atheist means, huh?
Even though it's been pointed out to you over and over again?
What was that other thread you started, about delusion being persisting in some belief stance despite clear evidence you're wrong...? Maybe you should go read it.

Hint: the existence of theists isn't required to be an atheist.

I can see this conversation has devolved to name calling and insulting one another over meaningless labels. My whole point is that I agree with every word Sam Harris said in "The Problem With Atheism" and everything Niel deGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Sagan and Einstein had to say about Atheists, which is why I'm not an atheist.
Once you answer the questions raised by Sam Harris, 9 yrs ago, when he demolished the New Atheist movement, he reluctantly started, in one speech, let me know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 10:11AM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see this conversation has devolved to name
> calling and insulting one another over meaningless
> labels. My whole point is that I agree with every
> word Sam Harris said in "The Problem With Atheism"
> and everything Niel deGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Sagan
> and Einstein had to say abiut Atheists, which is
> why Imnot an atheist.

Yes, we know, you're endlessly quoted them (often out of context and without actually *understanding* what they meant), in some unfortunate version of the appeal to authority fallacy.

And the funny thing is, they're all (or were) atheists. :)

Funny thing is, they all reject the Atheist label, because of Atheists who think being an Atheist entitles them to be an asshole towards non-Atheists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 04:03PM by koriwhore.

If you lack belief in claimed god-things, you're an atheist.
Whether you "believe" in the label or not.
It's like science that way.

Einstein vehemently rejected that label and identified as an agnostic, so did Sagan, Tyson and Nye.
Like Sagan said, "An Atheist would have to know far more about the Cosmos than me."
I'm with Sagan, "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the cosmos."

"Vehemently?"
That's more than a stretch, it's downright false.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Which makes him an atheist. Even if he didn't like being called one.


As for rejecting "atheist:"

" "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

So he didn't like the "crusading spirit of the professional atheist." That's hardly a "vehement" rejection, and it's actually quite specific, and doesn't back up your characterization.

At any rate, as I've pointed out dozens of times, I hope you realize that these "authorities" having their set of beliefs does not make their beliefs "true." Or even "authoritative."
Their beliefs are no more authoritative than mine. Or yours. Or anyone else's.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Yes I believe in god, if by the
> word, god, you mean the embodiment of the
> immutable laws that govern the cosmos."


You made me do it.

Yes, I believe in hamburgers, if by the word, hamburgers, you mean sushi.

It seems to me that it's the word itself that is creating some confusion. Yes, without theism, the word atheist is meaningless. The 'a' in front of the word theist or theism signifies a lack of, or without. The 'a' in front of a word, especially evident in medical terminology, such as 'afebrile', which means without fever present and words such as aphasia, aphagia, anesthesia. Help me out here, gatorman :)