An Atheism Thread.

[Sheoul]

So, this is the part of the site where debate and discussion is supposed to happen. Well, here's a topic I'm sure so many of you will be more than happy to jump on.

I have make a quick request of any moderators or admins keeping an eye on the Discussion & Debate sub-forum, and possibly this thread, to not delete or lock the thread despite whatever flaming may occur as a result of it being made. I understand that we want to keep things "civil" but I don't see the point in trying to have a debate if people aren't allowed to get angry once in a while. If we aren't trusted to settle matters ourself, then that obviously would say a lot about the style of moderation on the website. So, please. Just don't hit that lock button.

Anyways, now that's out of the way, I'd like to begin.

In this particular sub-forum on RPG, I've noticed a lot of threads about religion, be it about Christianity, Paganism, what ever. But it seems that, at least in my experience and from what I've seen on such threads, Atheism gets a very cold shoulder kind of response. I think that is something we should discuss, that and the nature of the society we're in which treats Atheism - for the most part- in exactly the same light.

Case in point: does anyone here really believe that if an openly Atheist politician ran for president he'd ever get into office? I sure don't. And that is a big problem in my eyes. Some of you may not think so, but some people do follow certain doctrines that teach we deserve to literally be on fire because of our beliefs.

I'd really like to know what the community here thinks of this sort of thing, especially the more religious members, as their opinion, being from the side that actually creates these problems, this division of people, would be pretty important to the topic and possibly quiet eye-opening.

Oh, and uh, I'd really appreciate it if no one told me I'm going to hell, I'm in no mood to intellectually deconstruct someone's entire belief system with simple reason and logic. At least not for a couple of hours.

[VitaminHeart]

Case in point: does anyone here really believe that if an openly Atheist politician ran for president he'd ever get into office? I sure don't.

This is why I'm rather glad I live in the United Kingdom, which is altogether more secular. I honestly don't know the religious background of most of the politicians, and I don't see why I should or how it would matter. They're not going to be making policies about the spiritual, it's thier temporal viewpoints I'm interested in.

On the subject of atheism, I think there is prejudice agaisnt it to degree, but then a lot of the religious people that hate atheists also appear to hate the other faiths as well. I mean, thinking about it, is an open follower of Islam ran for president there's no way I could see him winning. (Yes, there's all the 'Obama is a muslim' thing, but I'm pretty sure that's all nonsense.) Certainly even over here whgere things are more secular, I couldn't see a muslim politician ever being voted in, regardless of how good his policies are.

Long story short, lots of people are ignorant and irrational, but I'm sure we knew that already.

I myself am an agnostic. I want to beleive there's some sort of supernatural influence on the world, but I'm not sure enough to make a judgement.

Quite a lot of my friends are atheists, a few are christian of various denominations...I think one is a confirmed anglican, one is a buddhist, a couple are pagan, and others are agnostic.

Now I had one friend who I would call an Atheist Evangelist. For some reason, he could not tolerate people he knew being religious, and wanted to try and 'convert' people to Atheism. He would bait my anglican friend for hours with inconsistencies and contradictions for the bible and things about how it couldn't be real and such and such, and I told him I had no idea why he needed to do that.

If, indeed, there is no God, and when we die we are nothing but inanimate wormfood, and religion is just a way for people to delude themselves and make themsleves feel better and have a reason to get out of bed in the morning...well, why kill their party? Religious evangelists at least have some justification, in that they feel they've 'saving people', while if there is nothing, why should it matter?

I mean religious extremeism is a very bad thing and such, but my anglican friend is one of the nicest people you could ever meet, and not in the least bit judgemental towards those who didn't share her beleifs. In fact she was telling us before that that she beleived all of us would still go to heaven despite being non-christian, becuase we were good people, which is a nice thing to keep in mind if I happen to have got it wrong and Jehovah is scrutinizing me closely at the current time.

TL:DR Atheism is a perfectly valid viewpoint, and should be put on the same level as others. Also faiths or the lack of,should be tolerent of the beleifs of others, so long as the beleifs don't hurt anyone (So yeah, you can disapprove of aztecs or thugees.)

[NorthernSoul]

Atheist politicians have been prominently in office in the UK since the 1940s at the very least. Clement Attlee, the PM (1945-51) who set up the Welfare State and the NHS was an atheist. The current deputy PM is an atheist, as is the leader of the opposition, the former Mayor of London and countless MPs and other political figures. It's not a problem at all in the eyes of the general British public.

There's a strong tradition of separation of politics and religion in this country and to be absolutely honest, overt expression of extreme piety (as opposed to the vague assertion of belief in some kind of monotheistic deity) or anything remotely approaching George W Bush-style 'God told me to go into Iraq' sentiment has a tendency to make people feel extremely uncomfortable. And I mean very uncomfortable. There was a huge uproar when Tony Blair admitted his religious beliefs had influenced his decision to join the US in the Iraq War after he left office, for example.

There's no way an openly-atheist politician would get elected to major office in the US (which is where I assume you are from). But then again, I don't think this prejudice is limited to atheists... Can you imagine a Muslim presidential candidate? To an outsider like me, political belief seems to be so polarized and heavily identified with religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the United States that the whole political culture is frankly ridiculous.

[Sheoul]

If, indeed, there is no God, and when we die we are nothing but inanimate wormfood, and religion is just a way for people to delude themselves and make themsleves feel better and have a reason to get out of bed in the morning...well, why kill their party? Religious evangelists at least have some justification, in that they feel they've 'saving people', while if there is nothing, why should it matter?

I mean religious extremeism is a very bad thing and such, but my anglican friend is one of the nicest people you could ever meet, and not in the least bit judgemental towards those who didn't share her beleifs. In fact she was telling us before that that she beleived all of us would still go to heaven despite being non-christian, becuase we were good people, which is a nice thing to keep in mind if I happen to have got it wrong and Jehovah is scrutinizing me closely at the current time.

I have to apologise for what I'm going to say, as it may be a little offensive, but I couldn't give two craps if your friend is the nicest person in the world. Being good has nothing to do with being religious. Good people are just good people, and that's it.

As for the first paragraph there, I'd love to just live and let live, I really would. But then I read the bible, and a few bits of the Qu'ran [since those two are the books of the strongest religions, for the most part], and I cannot accept what they say. I cannot condone taking a child to the edge of town and literally bludgeoning them to death with big fuckin' rocks. Now, you could argue "Oh, but they don't believe that bit" well then that only pisses me off further. Religious texts are usually very strict about drawing white and black separations between believers and non-believers. You're either one, or you're not. And that means you have to take the good with the bad, you can't "cherry-pick" your beliefs, because that's not following the religion, that's making your own moral compass using superstition as the basis for it. Anyone that follows a religion that constantly tells you that it's okay to rape, murder, self-mutilate, comit ritual sacrifice (no, really, in the bible, God goes apeshit over blood sacrifices), genocide, racism, sexism, slavery, and also wearing mixed fabrics and shaving is against the rules for some reason, too.

It's not people I have a problem with. It's the immoral and frankly evil bullshit that they think is okay to follow.

[LiarLiarLiar]

I think tolerance is the main thing, but unfortunately, a lot of religions seem to call for their followers not tolerating other beliefs, or even the lack thereof.

Most people are not staunchly Bible-following Christians, as I can tell from my experience. I don't know enough on the topic to defend the Bible, so I won't get into that.

I too am an American atheist, and I absolutely agree with you that an open atheist probably would not be able to be elected. For a developed country, we have an awful lot of prejudices that most cultures have gotten over.

However, as much "prejudice" as there is for atheists, other groups get quite a bit more (such as, like mentioned earlier, Muslims). I think that as our world gains more knowledge, religion is kind of on its way out. I don't think that it will happen for many lifetimes, but slowly, like evolution. It's far more acceptable now, like it is with being homosexual, to be an atheist. Yes, you will have people that don't agree with it to violent degrees, and those people are the problems. No, I don't think, unfortunately, that these people and many others accept either group to the point that they would vote someone who is open about either as president.

Yet, as VitaminHeart said, there are extremist atheists as well. As an atheist, you may not agree with religion, and I have a friend who thinks that religion is wrong altogether and should be abolished. You cannot do that, though. If you stoop to that level you are just as bad as religious extremists.

I think that our world is getting more secular. We no longer have churches that run countries. Unfortunately, people's religious beliefs are going to factor into things for quite some time to come, and atheists or opposers must live with this.

Hopefully that went along with what you were looking for in starting this thread.

[VitaminHeart]

Anyone that follows a religion that constantly tells you that it's okay to rape, murder, self-mutilate, comit ritual sacrifice (no, really, in the bible, God goes apeshit over blood sacrifices), genocide, racism, sexism, slavery, and also wearing mixed fabrics and shaving is against the rules for some reason, too.

It's not people I have a problem with. It's the immoral and frankly evil bullshit that they think is okay to follow.

Regardless what the bible might say though (or more often how questionable people have interpreted the bible to suit their own ends) you can't claim that every christian does it, you can't say that by beleiving in God that they are condoning such tihngs, mainly as many of the things that are done 'In the name of religion' are based on contraditions, sketchy interpretations, or mass hysteria.

Take the bible for example, things contradict. It tells you 'an eye for an eye' it also tell you 'turn the other cheek'. So, in a sense you have to pick which parts to follow to even exist in the modern world. Otherwise every christian out there would have to forsake polycotton, never shave, and hold the beleif that fig trees are an abomination and giant leopard in a crown is going enslave us all imminently.

A good book on this is 'A Year of Living Biblically' where the author tried to spend a year following every rule set down in the bible. Simply enough, people thought he was a madman, with a massive bushy beard, wearing robes and poking adulterers with rocks. Many of the laws of the bible were set down in a far more barbaric time, a time when much of the stuff would have been considered downright progressive. (Like not murdering your son for the deity's approval.) A lot of it isn't practical to follow now, but it might have been in the past. For example pork being forbidden as pork goes rotten very quickly and could kill off the followers of said faith.

Additionally there's also the issue that a text like the bible has been altered, re-written, badly-translated and questionably interpreted thousands of times. Many of the books of it originally written were thrown out, it was altered massively by Emperor Constantine at one point. Much of the original message, whatever is may have been, we're never going to know. It's the same with a great deal of religious texts.

If you go by the philosophy of 'Only people who follow every tradition from a religious text are followers of that religion' then I'm guessing a very large majority of the planet would be considered non-religious. Even the insane extreme groups like the Westboro Baptists would be becuase the guys shave. There's rather a difference between Othrodoxic and Orthopraxic faiths. Christianity, Judaism most of the Abrahamatic religions are primarily orthodoxic ("right beleif"), that is to say that so long as someone beleives in the deity, they can be considered on of the faith. If they don't follow all the 'rules' set out they're not neccessary no longer a christian/jew/muslim etc, they're just not a particularly good one. Othropraxic ("Right practise") faiths, like Wicca for example, are entirely dependant on fulfilling certain rituals. For Wicca it's initiation, training, ritual, membership of a lineaged covern, and lots of study (the vast majority of people who claim to be Wicca don't follow the orthopraxy, so are actually neo-pagan.).

I also don't really see the relevance to it though, to be honest...I mean would you rather if, say anglicans followed all the traditions from the bible? Or that they kept on with practising a part of the faith where no-one gets hurt and tolerence is practise? If they don't want to go out and stone adulterers, more power to them to be honest. I'm all for cherry-picking if that what they want to do, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. Feel free to clarify.

I also wasn't saying that my firend being a lovely person had anything to do with her being religious. As I stated in my post, I have lots of friends, many of them are lovely. What I was saying was that it's not as simple as a sense of 'Religious people are intolerent of atheists.' Sometimes atheists can be just as intolerent towards religious people. I really don't think faith is any indication of tolerence in a person. You can have tolerent and intolerent people in every philosophical viewpoint (with the possible exception of some forms of buddhism where part of the doctrine is being tolerent of everyone, of course.)

[Sheoul]

You're missing the point entirely.

The bible says I, and many others, literally deserve to be tortured for eternity because we don't believe. It has nothing to do with actions [as "repenting" is a good loop-hole to get out of hell], purely what you believe. That's the most offensive thing a person can say. Sure, they may be stupid enough to allign themselves with such an atrocious belief system, but the point is that they did. By association, they're giving power to the beliefs that say it's okay to beat men, women, children, gays, etc, to death. You wouldn't want to live in a country where that is legal, so why would anyone want to live under rules that say it's okay? Religion has done nothing to this world but create war and death, corruption and all manner of foul deeds. The fact that some people decide to give to charity because they keep a cross on their wall doesn't excuse the fact that God -- at least their version of him -- is okay with slaughtering millions of people on a whim. I don't want anything to do with people that will stand by that kind of avatar, real or fictitious. It's immoral to follow immoral people knowing of their acts, purely because you think if keep in cahoots with them you'll get the secret to eternal life and blissfil paradise beyond the clouds.

[VitaminHeart]

You seem to be missing my point as well.

For a start the 'You will go to hell if you are not a christian" is another disputed point, with the parable of the sheep and the goats. In that, it was people that perpetuated the corporal works of mercy that were gathered and told they would enter heaven, and people who despite claiming they worshipped Jesus, were turned away because they had not been kind and loving people. Beleif played no part in the story. It was all based on action.

Alternatively, if you go with Dante Alighieri's representation of the levels of heaven and hell from The Divine Comedy, the unbaptized and 'virtuous pagans', as in people who did not beleive in God and yet lived good lives, were not tortured in hell. They went to Limbo, a sort of 'in-between' in that it was paradise as much as mortals could conceive, but was not on the same level as heaven in that is was only as good as the best of the mortal realm.

I also don't see that a christian has to subscribe and agree with everything other christians have ever done in order to follow the faith. Just becuase you follow the same overrarching beleif system of terrible people, doesn't make you terrible by default. I like socialism, Stalin also liked socialism, does that mean I agree with Stalin? Of course not.

Has religion caused war and death? Yes it has. If we're going to abolish it on those grounds those, we should also be abolishing:

-Government
-Trade
-Money
-Science
- Nations
-Property
-Ever leaving the place you were born.

As far as I'm concerned, the nautre of humanity is the problem here, not its beleif systems. I mean however you look at it, if you're going from an atheist viewpoint, it will always eventually come down to people, as they were the ones who formulated religion in the first place.

Even if tomorrow all faiths disappeared, there would still be war, murder, famine, greed, and people people doing atrocious things to one another. People would just find a different excuse to be cruel to one another.

[Fallacy]

Vitamin Heart, if you don't believe in a god or gods, then you are an atheist -- an agnostic atheist, to be more precise. You probably already knew that; I just wanted to point it out.

As for atheism and politics: no, I don't think an atheist would ever get elected to a position in the US in the current political climate. You might say Muslims (and other hated minorities) are just as, if not more, prejudiced against, but at least there are some Muslim politicians (I think).

Atheism militantism: I'm not particularly a fan of any sort of extremism, but I'd take an atheist extremist or militant over, say, a Muslim extremist or militant any day of the week.

Religion: I tend to mostly agree with VitaminHeart on this point. I think if religion disappeared tomorrow, the world would be better by some margin I'm uncertain of, but there would still be a lot of problems. The root cause of religion is irrational thinking -- if we focus all of our efforts on trying to get rid of that, then religion will fade away naturally as a result.

[dealing with it]

Although I am an atheist, I support every person's right to experiment with different beliefs. Being able to try beliefs out is necessary to any sort of intellectual growth. Part and parcel with that permissiveness is that I must also allow people to take their beliefs as seriously as they want, to believe false things, and even not to experiment at all if they lack interest. So, as much as I disagree with orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, Shintoism, and Wicca, I fully support people who follow these religions. I disagree, not condemn: otherwise, I may as well condemn every younger version of myself.

From what I understand, there is a larger narrative going on in the Bible. It is easy to take things out of context, but doing so is like arguing the writing team of the Lion King advocated fratricide because Scar kills his brother. There is an entire academic discipline known as Biblical hermeneutics which studies the contexts within the Biblical narrative. Educated Christians don't have much reason to take an atheist Rambo seriously.

Consequently, I see no reason to invent false narratives about what others believe. Enough of that happens already in American anti-Muslim polemics. Have a bit of patience, and allow others to speak for themselves. For instance, here is a Christian's take on 5 common problems with atheist arguments. His interpretation does not sound utterly stupid or insane, as he asks for a bit of, shall we say, Christian modesty, in atheist arguments.

As to my own opinion, I see "atheist" as too broad a category to say much of anything about. You can't really build a community on shared disbelief. There is no tie between me and an atheist politician, unless I happen to agree with his political beliefs. Once all the theists have left the room, there's no underlying glue. Due to this, any discussion of atheism can only really stand up as so long as it's argument against something, as opposed to for any particular set of beliefs.

As well, I don't always disagree with theists. Sometimes their beliefs are simply naturalistic views expressed in the only vocabulary they know, and the only thing to disagree with is semantics. (eg. "Should we use the word 'God' or 'Nature' to express the totality of existence?") I prefer using secular, strictly naturalist vocabulary, but it's not absolutely necessary for intelligible communication. Once you understand a bit of knowledge, you can express it in any language you know.

[Sciamancer]

No open atheist could become the President of the USA today. Some of the first Presidents were deists, and for some (like Thomas Jefferson) it is very likely that they were atheists. Thomas Jefferson was quite open about his dislike of organized religion, especially Christianity.

...regardless. Atheists are one of the most hated minority in the USA. Most Christians who hate atheists do not also hate other religions. There is a minority of Christians that believes that all non-Christians should be hated and avoided and discriminated against. There is a bigger group that thinks that as long as you believe in some sort of deity(ies) then you're okay, though not as good as Christians, but certainly better than atheists, who are supposedly sub-human.

[Fallacy]

A relevant link.

Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists. Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. They can’t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently “spiritual” in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.

Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.

As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought.

While many studies show that secular Americans don’t fare as well as the religious when it comes to certain indicators of mental health or subjective well-being, new scholarship is showing that the relationships among atheism, theism, and mental health and well-being are complex. After all, Denmark, which is among the least religious countries in the history of the world, consistently rates as the happiest of nations. And studies of apostates — people who were religious but later rejected their religion — report feeling happier, better and liberated in their post-religious lives.

Nontheism isn’t all balloons and ice cream. Some studies suggest that suicide rates are higher among the non-religious. But surveys indicating that religious Americans are better off can be misleading because they include among the non-religious fence-sitters who are as likely to believe in God, whereas atheists who are more convinced are doing about as well as devout believers. On numerous respected measures of societal success — rates of poverty, teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, obesity, drug use and crime, as well as economics — high levels of secularity are consistently correlated with positive outcomes in first-world nations. None of the secular advanced democracies suffers from the combined social ills seen here in Christian America.

More than 2,000 years ago, whoever wrote Psalm 14 claimed that atheists were foolish and corrupt, incapable of doing any good. These put-downs have had sticking power. Negative stereotypes of atheists are alive and well. Yet like all stereotypes, they aren’t true — and perhaps they tell us more about those who harbor them than those who are maligned by them. So when the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich engage in the politics of division and destruction by maligning atheists, they do so in disregard of reality.

As with other national minority groups, atheism is enjoying rapid growth. Despite the bigotry, the number of American nontheists has tripled as a proportion of the general population since the 1960s. Younger generations’ tolerance for the endless disputes of religion is waning fast. Surveys designed to overcome the understandable reluctance to admit atheism have found that as many as 60 million Americans — a fifth of the population — are not believers. Our nonreligious compatriots should be accorded the same respect as other minorities.

Gregory Paul is an independent researcher in sociology and evolution. Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College, is the author of “Society Without God.”

[VitaminHeart]

Interesting piece, though it seems to be speaking as if secularism and atheism are one and the same. I mean you could, conceivably have a country entirely populated by religious people that was secular, so long as the people had the sense and clarity to keep their religion out of the political arena. It's hard for me to compare really as I've always grown up in a secular society. I'm not sure there's neccessarily more atheists here than in the US,(Well, proportionally obviously.) it's just considered altogether less important.

As far as the UK goes, Islam is viewed far more negatively than Atheism is. Atheism is, if anything, neutral. I think if anything it's something that applies to the US rather than Europe, Austrailia etc, as the USA is one of the few countries in 'the west' which still put a lot of emphasis on religion or lack of it. I do wonder why this is.

[ImmortalD]

I find this topic interesting also, what caught my attemtion most was that VitaminHeart posted something about getting rid of Religion, Government, Money, Nations, Property, etc as a response to Sheoul.

What I would like to add, is something known as the Marxist Movement. Conceived by Karl Marx, it was designed to remove Nations, Property, Government, Religion, etc, and in its place, every man, woman and child, from the lowly street sweeper to the highest power of office would be equal under this sceme. every person had a say in how the country was run, every person was paid exactly the same as everyone else, everyone has exactly the same chance of getting a job as everyone else. Oddly enough, Karl Marx actually invisioned it to be implemented in the West first, so that would have been the USA and the UK.

What happenned next changed the course of history. Instead of being implemented in the West, it got twisted, re-shaped into Communism, and thus the USSR was formed, other countries that also took the "Communism" twist were China, Japan and Korea (Then one country). this eventually led to an East/West Divide. In the West we had "Democracy" and "Government" and in the East they had "Communism" and "Autocratic Rulers".

The tension got so bad that eventually the two World Superpowers, America and the USSR were inches away from bombing each other with Nuclear bombs.

[Fallacy]

The true Agnostic cannot know for sure either the positive that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers exist or the negative that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers do not exist.

Yep.

For the true agnostic, any religion, including atheism,

This is a mistake I've seen you make before, and it annoys me. Atheism is not a religion. Weak atheism, which is the most popular form, is the non-belief in any gods.

Atheism is has equal possibility of being true or false.

There are a lot of things wrong with this statement. The first is that a "true agnostic" (your words) does not need to think the existence of a god or gods as a 50% probability. The second is that atheism is not a positive claim, so it can't be proven true or false. The third is that the majority of agnostics are atheists, which ties into my first two points.

The true atheist,

I'm curious as to why you keep using the word "true". To me, it sounds like you're close to making a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[The true atheist,] on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers do not exist.

No, that's strong atheism. Weak atheism is equally as valid.

A theist believes that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers does exist.

Yes.

I believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution, and find absolutely no contradiction between the Bible, which I do believe is God's word, and the discoveries science has found for us. I'm also politically very liberal, which makes me something of the black sheep in the congregation.

You have to do some mental aerobics to reconcile the Bible and modern science.

I have a question for you: why are you a Christian? To be honest, it is a little disappointing that someone as smart as you is, and doesn't even seem to know what agnosticism and atheism are.

[Ylanne]

The true Agnostic cannot know for sure either the positive that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers exist or the negative that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers do not exist.

Yep.

For the true agnostic, any religion, including atheism,

This is a mistake I've seen you make before, and it annoys me. Atheism is not a religion. Weak atheism, which is the most popular form, is the non-belief in any gods.

Atheism is has equal possibility of being true or false.

There are a lot of things wrong with this statement. The first is that a "true agnostic" (your words) does not need to think the existence of a god or gods as a 50% probability. The second is that atheism is not a positive claim, so it can't be proven true or false. The third is that the majority of agnostics are atheists, which ties into my first two points.

The true atheist,

I'm curious as to why you keep using the word "true". To me, it sounds like you're close to making a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[The true atheist,] on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers do not exist.

No, that's strong atheism. Weak atheism is equally as valid.

A theist believes that a god/gods/goddess/goddesses/other powers does exist.

Yes.

I believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution, and find absolutely no contradiction between the Bible, which I do believe is God's word, and the discoveries science has found for us. I'm also politically very liberal, which makes me something of the black sheep in the congregation.

You have to do some mental aerobics to reconcile the Bible and modern science.

I have a question for you: why are you a Christian? To be honest, it is a little disappointing that someone as smart as you is, and doesn't even seem to know what agnosticism and atheism are.

Please let me clarify my statements from the other thread.

Yes, you are right in saying that "The third is that the majority of agnostics are atheists, which ties into my first two points" however I would amend that statement to read "the majority of people who call themselves agnostic." There is a distinct and important difference between agnosticism and atheism, regardless of whether you consider yourself one or the other or neither. Thus, those folks who consider themselves to be agnostics but are in reality atheists are not actually agnostics -- they call themselves that. You can draw a parallel (albeit not the best example, but one nevertheless) with folks who claim to be Muslims who believe that blowing themselves up will get them to heaven (they're not Muslims) or that folks like Fred Phelps and Terry Jones, who call themselves Christians, are not actually Christians. Similarly, anyone who called him or herself a Christian and in the same breath asserted that no god exists is not in fact a Christian. Christianity and the belief that no god exists are irreconcilable by definition.

This is why, returning to that point, that I make use of the term "true." It is not intended to insult or offend and I apologize if I did so inadvertently. You state that "The first is that a "true agnostic" (your words) does not need to think the existence of a god or gods as a 50% probability." I never made the claim that a "true agnostic" does need to think in these terms. Agnosticism, by definition, means lack of knowledge. The agnostic believes he cannot know one way or the other. He might want to be an atheist or want to be a theist, but cannot believe in either atheism or theism. Hence, a true agnostic (who represents a minority in the group which calls itself agnostic) cannot be an atheist (or a theist) although you are correct in stating that the majority of people who claim agnosticism are in fact atheists. I would suggest that yes, words can become fluid in their usage and meaning, and in that sense, then they are welcome to call themselves agnostics; however, if they were to examine the actual meanings of the two terms of agnosticism and atheism, it is evident that atheism is not synonymous with agnosticism and that the two do not overlap in actual beliefs. I'm honestly not sure how clear I am being, so please let me know if I haven't explained this thoroughly enough.

You write "This is a mistake I've seen you make before, and it annoys me. Atheism is not a religion. Weak atheism, which is the most popular form, is the non-belief in any gods." (Out of curiosity, you've seen me make this claim where else?) I disagree, naturally, otherwise I would not have made this statement. It seems we are defining religion differently. I am defining "religion" as "any set of beliefs or doctrines related to the nature of life, the nature of the spiritual, and the nature of the supernatural." By this definition, atheism is in fact a religion. "Weak atheism" is, as you wrote yourself, "the non-belief in any gods." I believe you are defining religion as either "an organized institution which tends to promote the belief in one or more deities" or "the belief in the divine or in one or more deities." By that definition, you would be right in saying that atheism is not a religion. But as I mentioned, I was not using that definition and do not use that definition when I refer to "religion."

You also made a distinction between what you term "strong atheism" and "weak atheism." When I use the term "true atheism" I am referring to what you call "strong atheism."

Lastly, if I have addressed all of your other statements or questions (and I believe I have), you wrote " why are you a Christian? To be honest, it is a little disappointing that someone as smart as you is [a Christian?]" You seem to suggest that it is difficult or impossible for intelligent people to believe in a god. I've encountered this sentiment in many places, as I am a member of American Mensa and socialize with many people who would consider themselves (or be considered by others) to be intellectuals. I find it a little disappointing that many very intelligent people believe it is impossible to reconcile modern science and intellectualism with theism (and specifically Christianity.) I certainly respect the beliefs of others, and most of my close friends are atheists and Muslims. I do not believe in proselytizing (in the most commonly understood way) and will not spend the rest of this paragraph making an argument that Christianity is true. What I will say is that I have come to my present beliefs through many years of self-reflection, study and reading, and many, many doubts. I'm not asking you to agree with them, but merely to respect that instead of blindly accepting teachings someone else has given me I can and have come to my beliefs on my own and with full knowledge of their consequences.

I hope I have sufficiently addressed the concerns you raised with my post in the other thread.

[Queen of Ice]

Why don't people like atheists (and to an extent agnostics)?

Maybe it's because of people like you, Sheoul, who make us look like angry, hateful, cynical, jerks who can't participate in civil discussion without being disrespectful toward others' beliefs.

Maybe it's because of the way so many atheists act all high and mighty like people who follow a religion are dimwitted, gullible morons.

Maybe it's because you come off as so rude and pretentious that it's hard to be on your side, coming from me, an agnostic (though leaning toward atheism at the moment) myself.

On the other hand, there are equally rude people who believe and say some things I'm sure their deity of choice would not appreciate to people who don't believe that make atheists act that way. Personally, I believe that the separation has come from the petty bickering between the two groups that has given them negative connotations in the opposing community. I even did it right there with the word "opposing". Negative connotation- like it's a fight. We have differing views, and if more people would treat each other with a little more respect and accept and respect the differences of others, atheists and the religious people would probably get along just fine, and we might even be able to have a nice discussion about our differences and both benefit from it, rather than making it into an argument and trying to prove each other wrong. It seems every discussion degenerates into a silly argument. I've participated in many discussions where I've tried to go in with no bias and being kind, and come out absolutely pissed and flaming people.

It seems you cannot question a Christian's logic without getting, "WELL YOU'RE GOING TO HELL AND I'M NOT AND I'M HAPPY SO HA AND I DON'T CARE!"

Nor can you disagree with an atheist without getting, "HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE SO STUPID!"

If we could learn to actually talk to each other and discuss rather than debate, it would begin to eliminate the negative connotations and help us move toward less hostile treatment.

[dealing with it]

Thus, those folks who consider themselves to be agnostics but are in reality atheists are not actually agnostics -- they call themselves that.

Agnostic atheist - eg. "I can't be certain if any God exists or not, but I'm going to behave as if no god does by not going to church or working hard to get into heaven."
Agnostic theist - eg. Anyone who thinks we ought to make Pascal's Wager. Skeptical about God, but willing to go through all the motions for the sake of a cookie.

As to your confusion over weak and strong atheism, here's the positions laid out. Atheism is the "default" position: someone who has never been exposed to any belief in God is an atheist, even if they don't explicitly believe that all belief in god(s) is false. I'm not sure if someone can even be on the fence about theism. Unless you have the positive belief in god(s), you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not an alternative third position: the theism question is bivalent. The Law of the Excluded Middle applies. If it's not one, it's the other. You're either p or not-p.

I am defining "religion" as "any set of beliefs or doctrines related to the nature of life, the nature of the spiritual, and the nature of the supernatural."

By this definition, atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" or "doctrine". It is lack of a single belief. I'll give you an example of why lack of belief isn't a belief or doctrine. I don't, for instance, believe that 2 and 2 added together equals 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9.... And, not believing in any of those answers does not immediately imply that I believe, correctly, that 2 and 2 added together equals 4. Not only do I not have an infinite number of positive beliefs by lacking an infinite number of negative beliefs, my lack of these infinite beliefs does not necessitate any particular positive belief.

Atheists can be religious, though, if they are Buddhists, for instance. Buddhism makes several doctrinal positions. It makes some positive statements.

Secular humanism, a common atheist position, makes a few doctrinal claims (about, for instance, the intrinsic value of human beings), but an atheist is not automatically a secular humanist. And anyway, that is more of a philosophical position than a religious one. The definition you chose doesn't make any clear distinction between religions and philosophical positions, so I think it's a very poor definition to use in the context of this argument. Is a scientific empiricist religious? Since you're stuck saying "yes", I think you should choose a definition that lends itself better to common sense. Definitions, especially dictionary definitions, should not restrict you into making counter-intuitive statements. Always balance definitions with examples.

[Ylanne]

Dear dealing with it,

I am not nor was I ever attempting to make an argument in the post above; I was responding to Fallacy's response to my original post in the "Converts" thread. You ask "Is a scientific empiricist religious?" My answer is, in fact, yes. I stand by my original definition of religion, which you quoted in your post. That is how I use the term. Of course, not everyone uses the term in the same way, but I do offer my own definition to provide others a context within which to understand better the statements I make.

Because I have defined "true atheism" as above as what Fallacy defines as "strong atheism," belief that there is not a god(s) or other deity(ies), atheism by this definition is a doctrinal claim. Both the belief that there is a hell versus the belief that there is not a hell are doctrinal claims. The negative belief -- the belief that there is not a hell -- is a doctrinal claim because it makes a claim about the truth of something (whether or not one agrees with it.) Thus, the belief that there is not a god is also a doctrinal claim; it also makes a claim about the truth of something (in this case, that it is true that a god[s] does not exist.)

Blessings and peace,
Ylanne

[Fallacy]

Please let me clarify my statements from the other thread.

Yes, you are right in saying that "The third is that the majority of agnostics are atheists, which ties into my first two points" however I would amend that statement to read "the majority of people who call themselves agnostic." There is a distinct and important difference between agnosticism and atheism, regardless of whether you consider yourself one or the other or neither.

Yes, there is. They are two separate positions.

Thus, those folks who consider themselves to be agnostics but are in reality atheists are not actually agnostics -- they call themselves that.

How are they not agnostics? They don't believe in any gods, and they say that they can't know for certain whether a god or gods exists.

You can draw a parallel (albeit not the best example, but one nevertheless) with folks who claim to be Muslims who believe that blowing themselves up will get them to heaven (they're not Muslims)

Yes, they are. No True Scotsman fallacy.

or that folks like Fred Phelps and Terry Jones, who call themselves Christians, are not actually Christians.

Yes, they are. No True Scotsman fallacy.

Similarly, anyone who called him or herself a Christian and in the same breath asserted that no god exists is not in fact a Christian.

Not a conventional Christian, but atheistic Christianity is something that actually exists.

Christianity and the belief that no god exists are irreconcilable by definition.

^ See above.

This is why, returning to that point, that I make use of the term "true." It is not intended to insult or offend and I apologize if I did so inadvertently.

Don't worry -- you didn't offend me, and I wouldn't care, nor expect you to care, if I was offended.

You state that "The first is that a "true agnostic" (your words) does not need to think the existence of a god or gods as a 50% probability." I never made the claim that a "true agnostic" does need to think in these terms.

Then what did you mean when you said this: "For the true agnostic, any religion, including atheism, has equal possibility of being true or false"?

Agnosticism, by definition, means lack of knowledge. The agnostic believes he cannot know one way or the other.

Cannot know for certain. He may believe that there's a solid 99% probability that no gods exist.

He might want to be an atheist or want to be a theist, but cannot believe in either atheism or theism.

You don't "believe" in atheism. You simply are an atheist, or you aren't. In any rate, no, an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist.

Hence, a true agnostic (who represents a minority in the group which calls itself agnostic)

I have a strong feeling that you're making another No True Scotsman fallacy.

cannot be an atheist (or a theist) although you are correct in stating that the majority of people who claim agnosticism are in fact atheists.

Why can't an agnostic be an atheist (or a theist)? What's mutually incompatible about both positions?

I would suggest that yes, words can become fluid in their usage and meaning, and in that sense, then they are welcome to call themselves agnostics; however, if they were to examine the actual meanings of the two terms of agnosticism and atheism, it is evident that atheism is not synonymous with agnosticism and that the two do not overlap in actual beliefs. I'm honestly not sure how clear I am being, so please let me know if I haven't explained this thoroughly enough.

You've explained your thoughts on the matter, but you haven't given me any good reason to believe they are correct, and I've even squarely refuted them.

You write "This is a mistake I've seen you make before, and it annoys me. Atheism is not a religion. Weak atheism, which is the most popular form, is the non-belief in any gods." (Out of curiosity, you've seen me make this claim where else?)

On your character skeleton. Under the religion section, you said something along the lines of "Put your character's religion here (atheism counts)".

I disagree, naturally, otherwise I would not have made this statement. It seems we are defining religion differently. I am defining "religion" as "any set of beliefs or doctrines related to the nature of life, the nature of the spiritual, and the nature of the supernatural."

I define religion as an ideology that deals with the supernatural, so it seems we have pretty similar definitions -- and under both of our definitions, atheism does not count as a religion. It is not a set of beliefs or doctrines; it's not even a single belief. It's a lack of a belief.

By this definition, atheism is in fact a religion.

'Fraid not.

"Weak atheism" is, as you wrote yourself, "the non-belief in any gods." I believe you are defining religion as either "an organized institution which tends to promote the belief in one or more deities" or "the belief in the divine or in one or more deities." By that definition, you would be right in saying that atheism is not a religion. But as I mentioned, I was not using that definition and do not use that definition when I refer to "religion."

Once again, even using your own definition atheism is not a religion -- not even strong atheism, as that is only a single belief, and it would be foolish to call every belief a religion.

You also made a distinction between what you term "strong atheism" and "weak atheism." When I use the term "true atheism" I am referring to what you call "strong atheism."

Why? Why not just call it strong atheism, the term that most people understand it by? It causes much less confusion and doesn't sound like you're making a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Lastly, if I have addressed all of your other statements or questions (and I believe I have), you wrote " why are you a Christian? To be honest, it is a little disappointing that someone as smart as you is [a Christian?]" You seem to suggest that it is difficult or impossible for intelligent people to believe in a god.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. I realize that many intelligent people can and are religious -- but they're intelligent despite their religious beliefs.

I've encountered this sentiment in many places, as I am a member of American Mensa and socialize with many people who would consider themselves (or be considered by others) to be intellectuals. I find it a little disappointing that many very intelligent people believe it is impossible to reconcile modern science and intellectualism with theism (and specifically Christianity.)

It's not impossible, but I would rather theism be thrown out altogether rather than be reconciled with modern thinking.

I certainly respect the beliefs of others,

I don't respect beliefs, I respect people.

and most of my close friends are atheists and Muslims. I do not believe in proselytizing (in the most commonly understood way) and will not spend the rest of this paragraph making an argument that Christianity is true.

I wasn't asking you to argue that Christianity is true -- I was asking you why you believe in Christianity. I'm not asking this to take an opportunity to try to rip your beliefs to shreds; I'm simply curious as to why someone as yourself would cling on to such primitive beliefs.

What I will say is that I have come to my present beliefs through many years of self-reflection, study and reading, and many, many doubts. I'm not asking you to agree with them, but merely to respect that instead of blindly accepting teachings someone else has given me I can and have come to my beliefs on my own and with full knowledge of their consequences.

Can do.

I hope I have sufficiently addressed the concerns you raised with my post in the other thread.

I think so, yeah.