Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by thanatos144

According to whom? You going to bring up the crusades Hate to tell you this but that had shit to do with religion and everything to do with land. Sure there are asshole who wish to put their nose into everything everyone does like Obama and Islamic fanatics yet that is a small ...Very small percentige of those with faith......Those with the faith of Global warming is far more guilty of this than any Christian religion.
Truth is so called secularists are more nosy than most of those with faith.....

I'd like to see that backed up.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

How asinine. using personal dislike for a person to spread vile on a entire group

Irony Alert!!!

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Well, atheism has an intellectual foundation, with science being important to it. Religion as we know it, is based upon a belief, upon a universe, that does not conform to the scientific view of the world. Yet both share at least one thing in common. Both are systems based upon a construction of thought. Since I cannot see how thought which is of time, can ever touch that which is not of space time, neither one, science, or what we know as religion, can every touch it examine it, dissect it. Science would run up against a brick wall, and only by an inference, could science say, as with dark matter, that it must exist. Or that something must exist, without ever calling it God. They could give it a scientific sounding name, and even deny anything that we generally associate as religious to it. I think eventually this will be the case.

Atheism is a religion against the belief in God ... an emotional and illogical "feeling" to believe what can't be disproved.. Theism is an emotional and illogical "feeling" to believe in what can't be proven.

Basically two religions based upon faith. Agnostic's are logical ... not attempting to deny the possibility of rational explanations of what isn't understood ... nor accepting what "might" possibly be.

Personally I "know" there is a God and have no faith. A God that denies current rational thought, as it would be "personally" irrational for me to believe in what might possibly be. My rational side would place more "faith" in the intelligence of an agnostic as opposed to mostly emotional beings.

Here are three statements from different individuals that pertain directly to this discussion.

One, when an interviewer asked Noam Chomsky the following question: "Do you believe in God?" Chomsky's rather characteristic reply was, "I don't understand the question."

The second statement comes from an American philosopher:

Originally Posted by Michael Martin

If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

The third, a paraphrased quote from a high-profile neuroscientist:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief or disbelief in anything.

Now we have three components of the idea of atheism: one, the absence of definition; two, a definition imposed for religious reasons; and three, the significance of non-existent evidence and the scientific concept of "justified belief".

The problem that Chomsky faced, as an independent thinker, is how to respond to something that has no scientific definition, for which there is no evidence and which seems to live a memetic life of its own in large groups of people. Chomsky's reply seems entirely rational. If someone asks you whether you believe in the flying sphagetti monster, how can you possible answer the question without having even an iota of evidence that such a creature exists. That seems to be the dilemma people face with the idea of a supernatural being.

The second comment above seems fair enough, although some might see it as agnostic rather than atheistic. Yet, negative views are very prominent in some philosophies, especially when it comes to guaranteed rights and freedoms.

The third comment sums up the other two: atheism is a conclusion, nothing more or nothing less.

With these thoughts in mind, I would like to comment on some of the previous statements on this thread.

Originally Posted by ThomBlaze

The scary part is that this where I can see another flashpoint in American society. Hardcore believers will never accept a completely non-theist goverment and harcore athiests will never accept a theocracy. If there were anything that would spark domestic terrorism, it is an unresolvable conflict like this.

I wonder what you base this thought on. Every constitutional government in the world is a secular society in which religion is considered a private matter, including the USA. The very founding of America was based in large part on denying the divine right of kings to rule without consent. The original Tea Party rebellion -- no longer mentioned these days -- was in opposition to "taxation without representation", not to taxation as such. The Religious Wars of Europe were fought to abolish the idea of "Une foi, un loi, un roi," (one faith, one law, one king).

In the Netherlands where I live and in most (at least) Western European countries, secular societies are the order of the day. Religion remains a private matter. I've never heard a Dutch politician use the word "God" in any public context. There is no inherent conflict between the affairs of state and the beliefs of private individuals. This only changes when some individuals want to return the USA to a pre-Enlightenment era. The steady progress of history and the history of ideas suggest that this will never happen. Regressive ideas always lose out to evolutionary (and memetic) progress.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

What we do know from history is that all religions and beliefs have a shelf life. Perhaps the Abrahamic religions are simply approaching the end of their relevancy.

Good point. Religion may have provided a useful survival tool in early human evolution, but it does not seem to serve any significant purpose in a modern, scientific world.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

The atheists have to pushing their brand of hate and bigotry for over half a century.

If you're referring to communist societies, I think the problem is unrelated to modern atheism. Communist states established the State as God, punishing anyone who did not worship it properly -- not so dissimilar to what happens today in some Middle East theocracies.

The Nazis were another matter, however. Their ideas about Positive Christianity were quite horrific.

Positive Christianity was readily supported by the Nazi movement, which promoted its ideals in its journals Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter, both of which stressed the "Nordic" character of Jesus. However, the party was careful to stress that positive Christianity was not intended to be a third confession, nor contradict the traditional theologies of established churches. As early as 1920 the Nazis proclaimed in their 25-point program that the "Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us".[4]

Wlessard
If we shouldn't legislate morals then why are the above considered crimes that are legislated to become crimes?

ThomBlaze answered this point quite nicely, but I would add that there is an essential difference between crimes that involve victims and those that are victimless, such as doing drugs. One has to wonder what right the government has to intervene in personal choices that concern behavior, not force or fraud against others.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

All choices are moral issues. Government ought to concern itself only with those choices that affects another person's property.

Hmmm. I would question your choice of words here. The qualifier "only" is very delimiting. I would think that government is about protecting rights and "establishing a more perfect union", as the preamble to the US Constitution puts it, not solely about property. The idea of explicitly referring to the protection of property in the original US constitution was of course a bit difficult philosophically, given that many of the country's leaders held slaves and women were considered chattel property at the time.

Originally Posted by tsquare

you see no reason why government should control, ban, or regulate everything else on the planet including:
Tobacco
Alcohol
Health care
Trans-fats
Sugar
School lunches brought from home

a government large enough to do everything for you, is big enough to do anything to you.

I could agree with you on a couple of the above points. Of course, there's another side of this "what is the government's business" coin. Consider, for example, how ironic it is that many people believe the State should control reproduction, marriage and death, decisions that only affect individuals; while concurrently advocating little or no control over the environment, the economy and health care, decisions that affect the entire population.

As for Formaldehyde's comments, I agree with many but not all of them. I find it odd that you consider the idea that calling oneself an agnostic is somehow a reasonable alternative to being labelled an atheist. Perhaps you just want to be invited to dinner by Blue Doggy?

If one accepts the definition of atheism given above, it seems to me, there is no need for the idea of agnosticism. It is not as if we are talking about a parallel universe, for which there are some highly advanced hypotheses. The possibility that they might exist is within scientific bounds. But, when it comes to the supernatural, we are talking about the flying sphagetti monster for which there is no evidence whatsoever. As you can see below, the whole idea of calling someone an atheist originated in religious, not academic, circles.

Originally Posted by Micheal h

In the end atheists and Christians are almost EXACTLY the same ... one group believes in God ... one don't.

As I have tried to explain, atheism is a conclusion, not a denial. To deny something, one has to know what it is he or she is denying.

I think Blue Doggy has some good points. I'll try to answer some of them later.

But I will warn him in advance, historically we are all atheists.

Atheism is a conclusion that is a "belief". To submit that one has to know what one is denying ... is to submit that one cannot conclude anything, therefore has no reason to be atheistic or form a conclusion..

Originally Posted by michael h

Atheism is a conclusion that is a "belief". To submit that one has to know what one is denying ... is to submit that one cannot conclude anything, therefore has no reason to be atheistic or form a conclusion..

Your statement ignores the difference between "the existence of evidence" and/or a "justified scientific belief " and the notion of "an emotional" or an "unsubstantiated belief" in something.

An example of the former would be that, given the many millions of possibile universes, it is possible that life on other planets might exist. An example of the latter would be that, given that there is no credible reason to assume that a flying sphagetti monster exists, one must conclude that it is highly unlikely that any such creature exists. That conclusion is what scientists refer to as "a justified belief". Beliefs without justification are -- at best -- highly speculative, and -- at worst -- simply absurd.

If I say that I have concluded that there is no rational reason to believe that the tooth fairy exists, I am stating a conclusion, which is a justified belief.

Your second statement is confusing. As I pointed out, in the absence of credible evidence for something, one simply does not take it seriously. Denial suggests a refusal to examine the evidence. In this case, as there is no evidence, there is no question of denial.

If you have evidence to the contrary, don't be shy.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

An example of the former would be that, given the many millions of possibile universes, it is possible that life on other planets might exist. An example of the latter would be that, given that there is no credible reason to assume that a flying sphagetti monster exists, one must conclude that it is highly unlikely that any such create exists. That conclusion is what scientists refer to as "a justified belief". Beliefs without justification are -- at best -- highly speculative, and -- at worst -- simply absurd.

If I say that I have concluded that there is no rational reason to believe that the tooth fairy exists, I am stating a conclusion, which is a justified belief.

Given an infinite number of universes, both the Fly Spaghetti Monster and the Tooth Fairy exist---as a mathematical certainty.

I find that amusing.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Like Spinoza, his "god" was really nature and philosophy. While some would think this would describe a pantheist, he specially claims he wasn't. If you have to label Einstein the only classification which really makes any sense is agnostic, which is the one he used himself.

Well, that is playing a little fast and loose with the truth. He was speaking in a scientific context when he expressed that sentiment. In another famous exchange with another scientist he said "god does not roll the dice with the universe." Implied in that statement is the belief in one who has the power to play dice with the universe, i.e., implied is the belief in god. Or do you have another take on that quote?

What is consistent about Einstein's expressed ideas on the subject is that he was a deist rather than a theist.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

An atheist ... cup is full, and they filled it by their own authority. No room for the new in full cups. Hence they are doomed to their own mindset and beliefs. I think this is unintelligence, which both atheists and organized religious folks share. Yes indeed, they are very much alike, very much alike.

I'm not so sure. One reason I reject atheism is that it is a negation of a belief rather than a belief. In other words, a unifying philosophy is not a list of what one does not believe but what one DOES believe. I cannot answer the positive question of what an atheist believes. For myself, I am comfortable with the term humanism as it states a positive.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I believe that the path to truth, is pathless.

That is obviously because you accept contradictions.

Referring to the greatest teachers in the history of the world, Jesus and the Buddha:
* Jesus, through the Bible said that "fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom," although I am quick to point out that it is not the end of wisdom.
* Buddha said "the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name."

So, A is A, as Aristotle said; a path is not pathless. Above are two critical paths to begin the search for truth.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Your statement ignores the difference between "the existence of evidence" and/or a "justified scientific belief "

If you have evidence to the contrary, don't be shy.

Many confound the role of science and philosophy/religion as you do here. Science is about evidence. Religion and belief is a world view in the absence of evidence. Hence the two will never meet. As Bertrand Russel pointed out, science always gains and religion always retreats - as evidence comes to light.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Your statement ignores the difference between "the existence of evidence" and/or a "justified scientific belief " and the notion of "an emotional" or an "unsubstantiated belief" in something.

An example of the former would be that, given the many millions of possibile universes, it is possible that life on other planets might exist. An example of the latter would be that, given that there is no credible reason to assume that a flying sphagetti monster exists, one must conclude that it is highly unlikely that any such creature exists. That conclusion is what scientists refer to as "a justified belief". Beliefs without justification are -- at best -- highly speculative, and -- at worst -- simply absurd.

If I say that I have concluded that there is no rational reason to believe that the tooth fairy exists, I am stating a conclusion, which is a justified belief.

Your second statement is confusing. As I pointed out, in the absence of credible evidence for something, one simply does not take it seriously. Denial suggests a refusal to examine the evidence. In this case, as there is no evidence, there is no question of denial.

If you have evidence to the contrary, don't be shy.

I haven't seen many cases of claims to people having seen a spaghetti monster ... though I cannot deny its existence it seems implausible .. much the logic an atheist would use ... with the elimination of the implausible in place of certainty. On the other hand there have been many claims of spiritual contacts over man's history. Based on the claims one doesn't know what one is denying ("To deny something, one has to know what it is he or she is denying") ... how can you form a conclusion without a subject and the conclusion is denial ... yet is twisted to a non denial conclusion?

Simple example "There is no God" ... how you feel about the conclusion reached does not change the statement. "I don't take it seriously" "It's not a justified belief" "Highly speculative" "Simply absurd".

Rational thought examines the evidence and makes a determination ... there is no God ... and emotionally responds to a world in which God lovers rule ... and says as fact "there is no God". Much to the point of trying to dismiss the emotion involved in making the statement.

If you have evidence of the lack of God's existence, don't be shy. I await your evidence. So many tools and so little light.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

U.S. News - Atheists bill big names for 'coming out' party in Capitol

Let's see the Phelps protests this. It's about time.

Amm, what??
Maybe I should specify my outburst; U.S. founders were nowhere nearly as religious as the current religious lot.
-So in a way, your Cultural aspects have backtracked.

I think even the many of the believers in the country are getting tired of this culture war. There is simply no need for a goverment to legislate morals.

Goverment does legislate morals, always have.
-The notion that morals come from religions, is simply faulty. Morals are the collective `right thing to do and act´ according to the Cultural Sphere of influence.

The scary part is that this where I can see another flashpoint in American society. Hardcore believers will never accept a completely non-theist goverment and harcore athiests will never accept a theocracy.

Saudi-Arabia is hardcore theocracy. Would you like to live in a place like that?
-Moreover, which faith-system would be the dictating one?

If there were anything that would spark domestic terrorism, it is an unresolvable conflict like this.

From the fanatical faithful, sure.

The good news is that the Christian base is shrinking while the non-thiest base is growing which means we may at some point be able to start fixing this country rather than squabble over oetty issues.

I personally think this is a good thing too, U.S. has been overly religious for too long. To the point where religious dogma is breaking the advances of society.

That is if we do not start suicide bombing one another first.

Not likely.