Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:To clarify, I wanted to highlight that I don't think that atheism as it's understood in our pop culture today is meaningfully paired against theism. The "new atheist" position seems to be two-pronged: (1) there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense that there is evidence of the existence of refrigerators or gravity and (2) therefore God does not exist. A lot of religious people, myself included, can agree with the first prong. But we don't think the first prong can ever lead to the second. We often talk here in OT about how the religious perspective dominates how we define atheism. But there is also a sense in which atheist arguments seek to define theist ones. My faith in God is not the same type of phenomenon as my "belief" in gravity. One helpful, I hope helpful, way to talk about it is to use the example of friendship. The key question is not whether your friend exists but whether or not you trust that person. Similarly, the objective existence of God (again, the idea that God's existence can be proven in the same or a similar way to the existence of a refrigerator) is not a certainty for believers. I think this kind of certainty neither precedes nor proceeds from faith.

That was an excellent post.

To clarify, I don't believe in any kind of supernatural being. This isn't because of any rational look at evidence akin to the scientific claims a certain breed of atheist like to make all the time, but because to me, intuitively, the world doesn't look designed, it looks like random happenings that we have attempted to give meaning to.

It isn't faith like a religious person has, but it is an intuitive, instinctive understanding of things that's somewhat similar to it. It's really the only way anyone can address the supernatural - through intuition and personal belief. The idea that we should use science, the study of the laws of the natural world, to form an opinion on the supernatural, is just bizarre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't find any of this troubling. There is some percentage of people out there who would not vote for a Catholic candidate because they are Catholic and I'm okay with that. I wouldn't be okay with not allowing Catholics to run for office, of course. And I'd like chance to explain why Catholics aren't bad political candidates or potential spouses, at least not by virtue of them being Catholics. So I have to conclude that the point of this rally was or should have been held to communicate to the people mentioned by you above that being an atheist doesn't make you a bad political candidate or potential spouse. Given that, how would you rate their success?

You really should find it troubling. You have people who would be perfectly suitable candidates for office, that people would not consider voting for simply because of their religious views. It's overt, unashamed bigotry, exactly the same as someone saying they'd never vote for a black person, or a mormon, or a gay man*.

Now, I agree that the atheist rally didn't improve matters one bit. Because those atheists are going about things in all the wrong ways - standing in a group and being loud and annoying only helps people see you as the 'other'. Instead they should do the same thing that has been steadily working for gay people, go about their lives, be the good, upstanding citizens they are, make friends and all that, and do it while being openly atheist. You teach people that you're no different to them despite your religious beliefs, by being no different to them.



*Not to say that atheists have anything like victimisation those groups have, as people simply aren't denied jobs, or killed, like has happened to those groups. But in terms of being judged suitable for public office, it's unacceptable for people to consider atheism a reason to vote against someone just like any of the above issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:I'm not a fan of militant atheists, they annoy me just as much as militant theists.

Definitely. Ultimately both groups are the same, arguing against pluralism, against the idea that we can believe different things about the supernatural and still get along just fine.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:No, because it denies the existance of people who believe that they simply don't know if there are Gods. They look at the evidence and think it could go either way.

Whereas atheists look at the evidence and say 'and from what I've observed I do not believe in God'.

Someone who thinks it could go either way doesn't believe in God.

The basic question is "Do you believe in God?"

Yes = Theist

I'm going to speak up for the polytheists and object on a technical point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Now, I agree that the atheist rally didn't improve matters one bit. Because those atheists are going about things in all the wrong ways - standing in a group and being loud and annoying only helps people see you as the 'other'. Instead they should do the same thing that has been steadily working for gay people, go about their lives, be the good, upstanding citizens they are, make friends and all that, and do it while being openly atheist. You teach people that you're no different to them despite your religious beliefs, by being no different to them.

Sebster, gay people have had a lot of pride parades. Part of their assimilation and increased acceptance in the larger culture has included increasing their visibility, and making clear that they are not ashamed of or hiding who they are. In Iran they have no pride parades, and their president pretends they do not exist. There is, I think, some legitimate comparison to Atheism here. Atheists are not a group anyone's really worried about offending in this country, and not considered an important political demographic. Thus politicians frequently pander to the side of religiosity, and I do think Atheists may often feel politically invisible.

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, gay people have had a lot of pride parades. Part of their assimilation and increased acceptance in the larger culture has included increasing their visibility, and making clear that they are not ashamed of or hiding who they are. In Iran they have no pride parades, and their president pretends they do not exist. There is, I think, some legitimate comparison to Atheism here. Atheists are not a group anyone's really worried about offending in this country, and not considered an important political demographic. Thus politicians frequently pander to the side of religiosity, and I do think Atheists may often feel politically invisible.

Except in the case of homosexuals, those pride parades were an important part of getting enough recognition, and enough basic legal protection that they could be openly gay without being personally in danger. Once that step was taken then it was possible to be openly gay, and from there they are able to change people's opinions just by being normal, healthy people that happen to be gay. You break down resistance to gay marriage by age and location, and look at places where people can be openly gay, and opposition all but disappears, because most of those people know someone who they know is gay and they know they're just normal people.

The point is that atheist has never had the level of oppression. Living an atheist life will not leave anyone in fear of their life. So all the marches and the like just aren't needed. Atheists can just move on to the next step, changing minds by just be openly atheist, normal people.

EDIT
I mean, I do think there is a place for atheists to comment on overt Christian Dominionist stuff like that Year of the Bible crap. But it doesn't need rallies, spokespeople ought to be enough. And it shouldn't be through atheist groups, but to groups dedicated to pluralism, where the message is that people of all beliefs can make a country great.

Mannahnin wrote:... I do think Atheists may often feel politically invisible.

Do people primarily define themselves as atheist? If so, is that legitimate? Atheism, a lot of Dakkanauts suggest, is merely the absence of belief in God. Is there really an atheist take on healthcare? Or an atheist position on tax reform?

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, gay people have had a lot of pride parades. Part of their assimilation and increased acceptance in the larger culture has included increasing their visibility, and making clear that they are not ashamed of or hiding who they are. In Iran they have no pride parades, and their president pretends they do not exist. There is, I think, some legitimate comparison to Atheism here. Atheists are not a group anyone's really worried about offending in this country, and not considered an important political demographic. Thus politicians frequently pander to the side of religiosity, and I do think Atheists may often feel politically invisible.

Except in the case of homosexuals, those pride parades were an important part of getting enough recognition, and enough basic legal protection that they could be openly gay without being personally in danger. Once that step was taken then it was possible to be openly gay, and from there they are able to change people's opinions just by being normal, healthy people that happen to be gay. You break down resistance to gay marriage by age and location, and look at places where people can be openly gay, and opposition all but disappears, because most of those people know someone who they know is gay and they know they're just normal people.

The point is that atheist has never had the level of oppression. Living an atheist life will not leave anyone in fear of their life. So all the marches and the like just aren't needed. Atheists can just move on to the next step, changing minds by just be openly atheist, normal people.

EDIT
I mean, I do think there is a place for atheists to comment on overt Christian Dominionist stuff like that Year of the Bible crap. But it doesn't need rallies, spokespeople ought to be enough. And it shouldn't be through atheist groups, but to groups dedicated to pluralism, where the message is that people of all beliefs can make a country great.

well atheists fear for their lives in some states more than others. You have people like Pastor Michael Stahl, trying to get a registry of all atheists. because he says that atheists are as bad as, if not worse than the people he cites in his quote: "think about it. There are already National Registrys [sic] for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc.." the same people who hate gays, hate atheists even more, atheists are just harder to identify as we don't hang out together in atheist clubs. Even president bush sr had this to say "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.." Even in this race you have santorums pastor Dennis Terry, saying we should leave the country.

This is why atheists need all the marches, and the rallies they can get, and more than just a few spokespeople. We might not be the most hated group, but where the group all the theists think should leave the country.

sirlynchmob wrote:We might not be the most hated group, but where the group all the theists think should leave the country.

Not quite.

sirlynchmob wrote:

well atheists fear for their lives in some states more than others. You have people like Pastor Michael Stahl, trying to get a registry of all atheists. because he says that atheists are as bad as, if not worse than the people he cites in his quote: "think about it. There are already National Registrys [sic] for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc.." the same people who hate gays, hate atheists even more, atheists are just harder to identify as we don't hang out together in atheist clubs. Even president bush sr had this to say "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.." Even in this race you have santorums pastor Dennis Terry, saying we should leave the country.

This is why atheists need all the marches, and the rallies they can get, and more than just a few spokespeople. We might not be the most hated group, but where the group all the theists think should leave the country.

If you want in a lesson in hysteria and generalization all you have to do is read the above....


GG

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:... I do think Atheists may often feel politically invisible.

Do people primarily define themselves as atheist? If so, is that legitimate? Atheism, a lot of Dakkanauts suggest, is merely the absence of belief in God. Is there really an atheist take on healthcare? Or an atheist position on tax reform?

That's a big part of the problem, theists will demonize and discriminate based on just that. Atheist is not a rallying cry, its a label theists use. No one describes themselves by what they are not.

From the theists camp Atheist is our only label needed.
From my point of view, saying I'm an atheist is no more descriptive of me than saying I'm not a doctor.

But to counter the theists and to get a true separation of church and state it is becoming a greater necessity to band together. goals being: have the politicians stop pandering to the theists. To be able to go through life without having theists telling you to leave your country. To not have any of the religions taught in public schools.

I'm not convinced that a bunch of people who travel from all over the place to come to a rally and argue with other people who have come from all over only have the absence of belief in God in common.

generalgrog wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

well atheists fear for their lives in some states more than others. You have people like Pastor Michael Stahl, trying to get a registry of all atheists. because he says that atheists are as bad as, if not worse than the people he cites in his quote: "think about it. There are already National Registrys [sic] for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc.." the same people who hate gays, hate atheists even more, atheists are just harder to identify as we don't hang out together in atheist clubs. Even president bush sr had this to say "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.." Even in this race you have santorums pastor Dennis Terry, saying we should leave the country.

This is why atheists need all the marches, and the rallies they can get, and more than just a few spokespeople. We might not be the most hated group, but where the group all the theists think should leave the country.

If you want in a lesson in hysteria and generalization all you have to do is read the above....


GG

oh please, its a true representation of the state of things. I could fill up pages with examples. but tell me this, name any other group you can just at will say "you should leave the country because you're a X" "lets start a nation registry of X"

Ultra-conservatives tell everyone who disagrees with any of their points that they should leave the USA. (Meanwhile, ultra-liberals are always threatening to leave.) Atheists are hardly unique in that regard.

Manchu wrote:Ultra-conservatives tell everyone who disagrees with any of their points that they should leave the USA. (Meanwhile, ultra-liberals are always threatening to leave.) Atheists are hardly unique in that regard.

Indeed, I think Frazz shouts it at a fellow American who happens to be liberal on a daily basis.

Yes, by "my lawn" he really means "the United States and its territories."

sebster wrote:

Seaward wrote:You can, actually. It's truly very simple: either you believe in supernatural deities or you do not. If you are unsure about their existence, you do not believe in them. If you do not believe in supernatural deities, you are an atheist.

No, seriously, there is a point of difference between 'I don't know if there are supernatural beings' and 'I believe there are no supernatural beings'. These are different things.

And now, dogma will do my work for me...

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
No, because it denies the existance of people who believe that they simply don't know if there are Gods. They look at the evidence and think it could go either way.

Whereas atheists look at the evidence and say 'and from what I've observed I do not believe in God'.

Someone who thinks it could go either way doesn't believe in God.

The basic question is "Do you believe in God?"

Yes = Theist

Not Yes = Atheist

Now, you could develop a means of classification that didn't use binary logic, but I spent a good year or so trying to do that for the hell of it, and none of the ones I came up with were especially good.

It's like I don't even need to be here.

Manchu wrote:Yes, by "my lawn" he really means "the United States and its territories."

Wait, there's a difference?

Manchu wrote:Is there really an atheist take on healthcare?

Of course those Godless heathens have their own take...


"Quick.. lets do some Charlie and then abort everything! And you! Nurse! Put on this gimp mask and get your baps out ... stat!"

dogma wrote:Someone who thinks it could go either way doesn't believe in God.

The basic question is "Do you believe in God?"

Yes = Theist

Not Yes = Atheist

Now, you could develop a means of classification that didn't use binary logic, but I spent a good year or so trying to do that for the hell of it, and none of the ones I came up with were especially good.

How does this apply to people who do not believe in Judeo/Christian "God"? The Hindu, Taoists, Shinto or even animist Native American religions? You would ask them "Do you believe in God?" and they would tell you "No." Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that they are Athiest?

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

Dictionary.com wrote:

a·the·ist

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

Can be confused:  1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief.
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.
A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Formatting and emphasis mine.

streamdragon wrote:
How does this apply to people who do not believe in Judeo/Christian "God"? The Hindu, Taoists, Shinto or even animist Native American religions? You would ask them "Do you believe in God?" and they would tell you "No." Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that they are Athiest?

Which is why the question isn't, "Do you believe in God?" but, "Do you believe in deities?"

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

No, it doesn't, unless by some leap of illogic you believe "refraining from belief" to be somehow different from "does not believe".

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
How does this apply to people who do not believe in Judeo/Christian "God"? The Hindu, Taoists, Shinto or even animist Native American religions? You would ask them "Do you believe in God?" and they would tell you "No." Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that they are Athiest?

Which is why the question isn't, "Do you believe in God?" but, "Do you believe in deities?"

Ah, not per the post in my quote. I see your point though.

Seaward wrote:

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

No, it doesn't, unless by some leap of illogic you believe "refraining from belief" to be somehow different from "does not believe".

It's a question of "I KNOW that there is no deity out there" versus "I don't know if there is or isn't". One set has a particular belief, the other has no belief. The two groups are not the same.

streamdragon wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
How does this apply to people who do not believe in Judeo/Christian "God"? The Hindu, Taoists, Shinto or even animist Native American religions? You would ask them "Do you believe in God?" and they would tell you "No." Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that they are Athiest?

Which is why the question isn't, "Do you believe in God?" but, "Do you believe in deities?"

Ah, not per the post in my quote. I see your point though.

Seaward wrote:

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

No, it doesn't, unless by some leap of illogic you believe "refraining from belief" to be somehow different from "does not believe".

It's a question of "I KNOW that there is no deity out there" versus "I don't know if there is or isn't". One set has a particular belief, the other has no belief. The two groups are not the same.

That is grossly, grossly false. Atheism is not an active assertion of belief, it is a passive assertion of a lack of belief.

Seaward wrote:
That is grossly, grossly false. Atheism is not an active assertion of belief, it is a passive assertion of a lack of belief.

Minimally, yes. But lots of people take it further.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
That is grossly, grossly false. Atheism is not an active assertion of belief, it is a passive assertion of a lack of belief.

Minimally, yes. But lots of people take it further.

They certainly do. "Strong" atheism vs. "weak" atheism. But to claim that atheism in its default state requires an active assertion of positive belief that deities do not exist is false.

streamdragon wrote:

dogma wrote:Someone who thinks it could go either way doesn't believe in God.

The basic question is "Do you believe in God?"

Yes = Theist

Not Yes = Atheist

Now, you could develop a means of classification that didn't use binary logic, but I spent a good year or so trying to do that for the hell of it, and none of the ones I came up with were especially good.

How does this apply to people who do not believe in Judeo/Christian "God"? The Hindu, Taoists, Shinto or even animist Native American religions? You would ask them "Do you believe in God?" and they would tell you "No." Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that they are Athiest?

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

Dictionary.com wrote:

a·the·ist

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

Can be confused:  1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief.
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.
A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Formatting and emphasis mine.

the dictionary is only 1/2 right though, that is one definition for atheists. But it also fails to take into account anyone who's never heard of a god.such a person does not deny or disbelieve the existence of a god. What does disbelief mean "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." So to disbelieve in god, you first have to show it is true or real. As god can't be proven there is no reason to disbelieve in him, or believe for that matter.

This is why I've never liked the word, its the same as asking "do you watch nascar races?" if you answer no, do you need a new word to say I don't watch nascar? or "do you collect stamps?" No, so not collecting stamps is your hobby. If anascarist need to be added to the dictionary? How would you define such a word? what would its synonyms be? You just don't watch nascar, that's all the word would mean and nothing else.

but when you put a god into the question, now you need a word for those who answer yes, and a word those who answer no. and then if you think its all cut and dry you're a theist/atheist. Well then all babies are born atheists until they choose to believe in a god. It just gets horrible complicated. And if a baby grows up to believe in a god, would he ever just say "I'm a theist?" no, he'd give a more specific label of what religion he belongs to.

the atheist label normally gets applied by a theist something like this:
Theist, do you believe in god?
me, no
Theist, so your an atheist, here's what your believe, and here's why you're wrong.
me, what you talkin bout willis?


Our language doesn't use labels to describe what we are not. labels describe what we are and what we believe.

Seaward wrote:

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
That is grossly, grossly false. Atheism is not an active assertion of belief, it is a passive assertion of a lack of belief.

Minimally, yes. But lots of people take it further.

They certainly do. "Strong" atheism vs. "weak" atheism. But to claim that atheism in its default state requires an active assertion of positive belief that deities do not exist is false.

This is where the appeal of ternary logic comes in. Believing in the absence of gods doesn't necessarily require you to not believe in the existence of god.

Basically, it isn't a progression. A person looks at the evidence, or lack thereof, and concludes that he believes in a god, doesn't believe in a god, or believes there is no god. He doesn't start at disbelief, and move to the active belief in the absence of.

Adam from Mythbusters was there I read somewhere. Awesome.

BTW new Mythbusters episodes every sunday! Yeaaaaah!

sirlynchmob wrote:well atheists fear for their lives in some states more than others. You have people like Pastor Michael Stahl, trying to get a registry of all atheists. because he says that atheists are as bad as, if not worse than the people he cites in his quote: "think about it. There are already National Registrys [sic] for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc.." the same people who hate gays, hate atheists even more, atheists are just harder to identify as we don't hang out together in atheist clubs. Even president bush sr had this to say "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.." Even in this race you have santorums pastor Dennis Terry, saying we should leave the country.

This is why atheists need all the marches, and the rallies they can get, and more than just a few spokespeople. We might not be the most hated group, but where the group all the theists think should leave the country.

Seriously, arguing there is this one guy that really hates atheists, and that one President had a poor opinion of atheists but never did anything about it does not make you an oppressed class.

This thing where everyone tries to be the most downtrodden social group is just weird. I have a friend who calls it holocaust envy, which is harsh, but certainly gets the point across.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:And now, dogma will do my work for me...

Funnily enough I've argued this with dogma before as well. The definition the two of you are arguing may sound like it makes all kinds of great sense when laid out, but as I already said, it completely fails to differentiate between two vastly different beliefs. Any set of definitions that fails to differentiate between 'I believe there is no God' and 'I don't know if there is no God' is a failed set of definitions.

sebster wrote:
Funnily enough I've argued this with dogma before as well. The definition the two of you are arguing may sound like it makes all kinds of great sense when laid out, but as I already said, it completely fails to differentiate between two vastly different beliefs. Any set of definitions that fails to differentiate between 'I believe there is no God' and 'I don't know if there is no God' is a failed set of definitions.

Only if you continue to ignore the fact that atheism encompasses a passive lack of belief in deities.

Seaward wrote:Only if you continue to ignore the fact that atheism encompasses a passive lack of belief in deities.

Here's the thing, you can play fun little games with words derived from their meaning, and invent all manner of definitions for all kinds of things and have a wonderful time, and end up with an intellectually rigorous complete set of definitions. And when you go out and use them people will just get confused with the invented meanings you've given to words with common understandings. Because language doesn't work like you're trying to make it work,

Or you can go out and say 'I'm atheist' and people will know you mean 'I believe there is no God' or say 'I'm agnostic' and they will know you mean 'I hold no belief about the existance of God'.

That atheism may technically be argued to be inclusive of a passive lack of belief is beyond irrelevant, and all these word games ever do is confuse what should be a very straight forward pair of definitions.

sebster wrote:Any set of definitions that fails to differentiate between 'I believe there is no God' and 'I don't know if there is no God' is a failed set of definitions.

It does differentiate between the two, sort of.

The argument is that the absence of any belief in God/god is required to believe that there is no God/god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Or you can go out and say 'I'm atheist' and people will know you mean 'I believe there is no God' or say 'I'm agnostic' and they will know you mean 'I hold no belief about the existance of God'.

That atheism may technically be argued to be inclusive of a passive lack of belief is beyond irrelevant, and all these word games ever do is confuse what should be a very straight forward pair of definitions.

The whole thing is, ultimately, a word game. Reasonable people don't care whether or not you believe in God/god, because it doesn't matter in any practical sense. The people that do care substitute "God/god" for "all those things I believe".

sebster wrote:That atheism may technically be argued to be inclusive of a passive lack of belief is beyond irrelevant, and all these word games ever do is confuse what should be a very straight forward pair of definitions.

That would be great, if one of your definitions wasn't patently incorrect.

Frankly, you seem to be trying hard to make the point that atheism requires faith. It doesn't. All it requires is a lack of it.