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.

Seaward wrote: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.

It doesn't require faith, sure. But it is a belief, in that one believes there that there is only this world, and no supernatural world beyond it, believes that there is no God or Gods.

That is a different thing to a person who says 'I don't know'.

sebster wrote:

Seaward wrote: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.

It doesn't require faith, sure. But it is a belief, in that one believes there that there is only this world, and no supernatural world beyond it, believes that there is no God or Gods.

That is a different thing to a person who says 'I don't know'.

Would you say you believe that pink unicorns who secretly control the world's financial markets from an orbiting space station undetectable by any conventional means don't exist? If so, why does that require a positive belief rather than a negative lack of belief?

Atheism does not require any beliefs. It can quite easily be defined as a lack of belief in supernatural deities. And tiny pink unicorns, for that matter.

sebster 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.

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.

How many examples would you like? I figured a quote from a recent president, a candidate for president should have been enough to show the intolerance towards atheists, and highlight why we need to start holding rallies.

the churches printing wanted posters for doctors? http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6994245.html
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-explores-distrust-atheists-believers.html
http://www.alternet.org/belief/151241/10_scariest_states_to_be_an_atheist/?page=entire
and just yesterday:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/03/local_atheists_are_coming_for.php

Now I'm sure in the UK where you have a much higher % of atheists, most of this kid of stuff doesn't happen. But all of these were just from last year to today. The whole reason theists like throwing atheists into just another belief system, ie religion. Its just a front for their goal of having creationism taught in schools and not evolution. Because from what theists tell me, because I'm a atheists, evolution is my religion.

As we saw in Oklahoma
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/oklahoma-creationism-bill-passes-in-the-house/

Its by no means holocaust envy on my part. The christians play that card over here. Their in the majority and always claiming how their being oppressed.

Do you have a better understanding of whats going on over here now, or do you need more examples?

The comments on the second one made me a bit sick to be honest. I'm certain that it is "Go forth and make disciples" not "Go forth and kill the unbelievers"


Also atheism is a belief, it is only relevant as a negative belief because 84% of the country believes in a diety or religion of some sort. Yes, if you do not believe in leprechauns you are aleprechaun, however when given the comparitive importance of leprechauns vs God in the discussion I think its pretty easy to see why one is important and one is not.

sirlynch the question's that you need to ask yourself is "Why am I an athiest" and "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it...led me to the direction to choose athiesm".

The point is, that the choice to be athiest or religious isn't made in a vacuum. This choice is made based on some sort of influence, and your willingness to accept/believe in this influence.

GG

generalgrog wrote:sirlynch the question's that you need to ask yourself is "Why am I an athiest" and "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it...led me to the direction to choose athiesm".

The point is, that the choice to be athiest or religious isn't made in a vacuum. This choice is made based on some sort of influence, and your willingness to accept/believe in this influence.

GG

I never chose atheism though, it got assigned to me. by the words themselves your either a theist, or an atheist. Since no one can show me evidence of a god ever existing, I see no reason to believe their is one. Just like I see no evidence to believe in faeries, elves, dragons, the easter bunny, or santa clause. I don't need doctrine/dogma/teachings/ or anything to not believe in those things, as they are not real. Not believing in mythological beings does not need dogma,doctrines, or teachings. What docrines/dogma/teachings do you need not to believe in Zeus? or the invisible pink unicorn I have trapped in my basement?

Until you choose to be a theist, you are by default an atheist, so all babies are atheists until they can say what god they believe in. Likewise anyone growing up in a place with no indigenous religions. They don't have a god, they never had the need to invent one, therefore they are atheists as well, no choice needed. Buddhists are atheists for that matter, but they get testy if you point it out to them.

Why don't I believe in the christian god? Well I read the bible. There is no way I could ever support a being like that even if he could be shown to be real. If the christian god could be proved to be real by appearing on Oprah, then I could willing accept the label atheist and disbelieve in him. Should they find a god to appear on Oprah, my money would be his name is Zeus though. At least his 1/2 god 1/2 human son started the Olympics, Jesus just got a few rich guys drunk

For me to believe in a god, you would first have to produce said god. You can't use the bible to prove the bible, that's as ridiculous as me using the harry potter books to prove theirs a hogwarts. the way christians describe their god makes him self refuting and therefore unbelievable. the bible itself is so self refuting you can use it to justify any belief you want. Hardly evidence for any sort of omnipotence being. And lets face it, if their was a god of some sorts, he would have been on Oprah by now

Being labeled an atheist does not in any way describe me or what I believe, its as meaningless a label as me saying "I'm not a tau player", I'm an Atauist . That' why atheist rally's are hard to get going, its not a defining factor for anything, Its not a unifying factor, its a derogatory term theists use. But today, people are making the word atheist their own, and trying to unify others under the atheist banner to fight the idiocies of the church and their religious doctrines they're trying to pass as laws. For the sake of solidarity I will now claim to be an atheist for these type's of debates, but it really irks me.

For the record I am a metaphysical naturalist. See that is a positive label based on what I believe.

generalgrog wrote:sirlynch the question's that you need to ask yourself is "Why am I an athiest" and "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it...led me to the direction to choose athiesm".

The point is, that the choice to be athiest or religious isn't made in a vacuum. This choice is made based on some sort of influence, and your willingness to accept/believe in this influence.

GG

Look at you... trying to witness people online... soo cute...

But seriously GG.... All poking fun aside

Is the idea of belief in god inherent? Or is it influenced by where you grow up?

Do you think the Native americans Inherently believed in Jesus? No right? because "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it" influenced them not to.

Athiesm is a belief like abstinence is a sex position.

Edit: I am an AGreyknightist

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:sirlynch the question's that you need to ask yourself is "Why am I an athiest" and "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it...led me to the direction to choose athiesm".

The point is, that the choice to be athiest or religious isn't made in a vacuum. This choice is made based on some sort of influence, and your willingness to accept/believe in this influence.

GG

I never chose atheism though, it got assigned to me.

You dodged my question.

How did athiesm get "assigned" to you..and how did that happen?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:sirlynch the question's that you need to ask yourself is "Why am I an athiest" and "What doctrine/dogma/teaching/whatever you want to call it...led me to the direction to choose athiesm".

The point is, that the choice to be athiest or religious isn't made in a vacuum. This choice is made based on some sort of influence, and your willingness to accept/believe in this influence.

GG

I never chose atheism though, it got assigned to me.

You dodged my question.

How did athiesm get "assigned" to you..and how did that happen?

GG

nice trolling, did you OCD kick in and you only got that far through my post?

So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

GG

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

GG

What religion are people born in your eyes, GG?

I don't think he means atheist in the sense of having a coherent system of thought on a subject, but more was referring to infants and children are more in a state of tabula rasa: they aren't atheists or theists. Those develop over time from a multitude of sources and influences.

Ahtman wrote:I don't think he means atheist in the sense of having a coherent system of thought on a subject, but more was referring to infants and children are more in a state of tabula rasa: they aren't atheists or theists. Those develop over time from a multitude of sources and influences.

No.

For the love of Christ, quit loading atheism with more than it actually contains. It requires no dogma, no one set of coherent thoughts, nothing. It is, very simply, the lack of belief in deities. It's impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist; children are born one or the other, and unless you're saying they're born with a copy of the Bible in their hands, they're born atheistic.

Seaward wrote:
No.

For the love of Christ, quit loading atheism with more than it actually contains. It requires no dogma, no one set of coherent thoughts, nothing. It is, very simply, the lack of belief in deities. It's impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist; children are born one or the other, and unless you're saying they're born with a copy of the Bible in their hands, they're born atheistic.

Wow, that rock over there, its an atheist.

Seaward wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think he means atheist in the sense of having a coherent system of thought on a subject, but more was referring to infants and children are more in a state of tabula rasa: they aren't atheists or theists. Those develop over time from a multitude of sources and influences.

No.

For the love of Christ, quit loading atheism with more than it actually contains. It requires no dogma, no one set of coherent thoughts, nothing. It is, very simply, the lack of belief in deities. It's impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist; children are born one or the other, and unless you're saying they're born with a copy of the Bible in their hands, they're born atheistic.

THIS!

Religion is a man made idea and so is god. I think thats GGs point. Since we are born with out it and its assinged by the society in which we grow up.

The Problem is... GG is so connected to the idea of religion he can't see things from any other way.

dogma wrote:Wow, that rock over there, its an atheist.

Well played.

But Seward's theory does explain a lot about cats.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
No.

For the love of Christ, quit loading atheism with more than it actually contains. It requires no dogma, no one set of coherent thoughts, nothing. It is, very simply, the lack of belief in deities. It's impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist; children are born one or the other, and unless you're saying they're born with a copy of the Bible in their hands, they're born atheistic.

Wow, that rock over there, its an atheist.

except rocks are not alive...

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

Speaking from the definition, everyone is born an atheist; ie. without the belief in God. However, they are atheists in the sense that a rock is an atheist, unconsidered atheists. In order to advance an atheist position, one must be at least rational, which newborns are not.

That being said, theism pretty much has the uphill battle here. Its very easy to convince someone that something they do not believe in does not exist, its much more difficult to convince someone that something they don't believe in does exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
except rocks are not alive...

Wow, that cat over there, its an atheist.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

Speaking from the definition, everyone is born an atheist; ie. without the belief in God. However, they are atheists in the sense that a rock is an atheist, unconsidered atheists. In order to advance an atheist position, one must be at least rational, which newborns are not.

That being said, theism pretty much has the uphill battle here. Its very easy to convince someone that something they do not believe in does not exist, its much more difficult to convince someone that something they don't believe in does exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
except rocks are not alive...

Wow, that cat over there, its an atheist.

Good Post sir!

dogma wrote:
Wow, that cat over there, its an atheist.

Do you think saying that somehow discredits the definition? I don't believe that cat over there believes in any supernatural deities, either.

If cats, and rocks, and bicycle wheels, and sunflowers, and plastic bags, and planets are all examples of atheists then atheist is not a very useful term. All we really need is theist, it would seem.

Seaward wrote:

dogma wrote:
Wow, that cat over there, its an atheist.

Do you think saying that somehow discredits the definition? I don't believe that cat over there believes in any supernatural deities, either.

No, the definition is what it is. Well, sort of, there are quite a few definitions floating around, and this negation business is rather new (and of course, not at all politically influenced).

The point is that whether or not someone is born an atheist is irrelevant, because we're also not born American, Jewish, Christian, gamers, (probably) gay, or anything else. We're born human, and our genes and experiences (concomitantly) make us who we are after that singular event.

Manchu wrote:If cats, and rocks, and bicycle wheels, and sunflowers, and plastic bags, and planets are all examples of atheists then atheist is not a very useful term. All we really need is theist, it would seem.

Now you're getting it.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:

dogma wrote:
Wow, that cat over there, its an atheist.

Do you think saying that somehow discredits the definition? I don't believe that cat over there believes in any supernatural deities, either.

No, the definition is what it is. Well, sort of, there are quite a few definitions floating around, and this negation business is rather new (and of course, not at all politically influenced).

It's...no. It's not. It's not new at all. The concept that atheism requires faith/belief is quite new, and absolutely politically motivated.

The point is that whether or not someone is born an atheist is irrelevant, because we're also not born American, Jewish, Christian, gamers, (probably) gay, or anything else. We're born human, and our genes and experiences (concomitantly) make us who we are after that singular event.

It's a pretty simple concept, and I'm finding it somewhat amusing that people are having issues with it. Do you believe that babies are born with an inherent belief in deities? If not, they are, by very definition, born atheists.

Seaward wrote:
It's...no. It's not. It's not new at all. The concept that atheism requires faith/belief is quite new, and absolutely politically motivated.

This takes me back, back to my dark days on the "Atheism vs. Christianity" Google group.

You can date the negation definition back to the 18th century, if you're flexible, but it rose to contemporary prevalence in the 70's.

However, you're right, the notion that atheism requires faith or belief (even though it minimally requires the latter*) is new, and it is politically (though primarily socially) motivated.



*It doesn't require a belief in the absence of God/gods, but it does require that you believe certain things regarding the interpretation of evidence.

Seaward wrote:
It's a pretty simple concept, and I'm finding it somewhat amusing that people are having issues with it. Do you believe that babies are born with an inherent belief in deities? If not, they are, by very definition, born atheists.

Its really not a simple concept, its been the subject of much debate for centuries. As with any concept, calling it simple generally means your level of understanding is not high.

@dogma

It's incredibly difficult to explain to someone who believes that intellectual concepts correspond in a perfectly non-hermeneutical manner to the phenomenon they signify that this is not the case.

But I would be up to see you try.

from the american atheists website

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used funny retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints

As already established, snowflakes are atheists.

frgsinwntr wrote:from the american atheists website

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used funny retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints

Like hell we don't have an atheist pope! I have my pope card right here!

Doesn't work. Cats are proof of the existence of the devil. They are evil. EVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLL!