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.
thegreatchimp wrote: What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?
There wasn't any such time as before time began, concepts like before and after are components of space-time, which only exists within the universe. At the beginning of the universe we calculate a singularity, where certain properties of the universe become infinite. The other place we see singularities is at the centre of black holes. There would be such a huge amount of time dilation, if we were to (hypothetically) approach one of these things, that you would probably never actually reach it, or see anything else reach it, time slows to a stop, or accelerates to the end of the universe (depending on your frame of reference). My suspicion is that these things are in many ways the same thing, and represent different vanishing points in space-time, which we perceive, respectively, as a time (the big bang) and a space (the position of a black hole). However, our perception of the universe has been extremely warped by our evolution, and what we perceive might just be a confusing shadow of what is really there.
I think colour perception is a good way of explaining this, if you can get your head around the analogy... We perceive light as three dimensions of colour (the primary colours), and one dimension of intensity (light to dark). If we arrange these colour dimensions perpendicular to each other, into a three dimensional graph, then every colour that we can see can be expressed on that graph. But what's strange is that every colour we can imagine can also be expressed on that graph. We can't imagine a spectrum with four primary colours, our brain just doesn't have the hardware... The colourwheel is our brains' model of how colours work, and it is a complete construction that closes back on itself, there is no room in the model for anything to exist outside of it. But that does not mean colours don't exist outside of it, in fact we know that they do... Many birds an insects appear to have four dimensional colour vision, and we know that the electro magnetic spectrum expands well beyond what is visible to us (x-rays, microwaves, etc).
By a happy coincidence, we also perceive space-time as three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time (which, given how space is expanding over time, could be "analogous" to a dimension of intensity). So we can make a very similar graph, placing all three spacial dimensions perpendicular to each other (which is also exactly how they look to us), and we can plot any position in space-time (the limits of spacial intensity would be from infinite mass at the singularity, to infinite space where particles are unable to form, or an infinite energy state). Our brain has trouble processing (or even imagining) anything outside of this model, such as "before time" or a five dimensional shape, to us it's a closed system much like the colourwheel. But again that does not necessarily mean things don't exist outside of it: many theories predict more spacial dimensions, and there are hypotheses such as the hologram universe which postulate that all the information in the universe can be expressed in two dimensions, which implies that the universe we can see, might actually be two dimensional.
Going back to Plato's shadows... you might also imagine if we flipped our colour graph around, and looked it at it differently, so that we had blue and red perpendicular to white, with the green dimension replacing intensity. We would end up with something that still 100% works, but it would be extremely confusing and unintuitive for us. I suspect that something like this is exactly what has happened with our perception of space-time. We perceive space as three infinite dimensions, expanding off forever; while we see gravity as a one-dimensional force, which appears to pull mass together into a fourth dimension, perpendicular to our space, until it collapses into a single point. I think if our brain was better able to comprehend how dimensions like space-energy and gravity-mass might actually interact, we might come up with a more intuitive model of the universe which doesn't incur problems like "before time" and "outside space".
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2016/08/04 17:47:44
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Not at all. I was reading about the funny tape the Olympic athletes are wearing and why they wear it. There is no real evidence of any positive effect for wearing them, but there is the very real placebo effect. the athletes think they help them do better, and they reduce pain, so the tapes can do just that.
God is really just a massive placebo effect, people think it helps, and therefore it might help them.
but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question.
Do you believe in a god?
yes=theist
no=atheist
and that is all that is all that can be concluded from those terms. That doesn't put them in a right/left political spectrum, the leftist in the video could very well be a creationist.
there are many reasons for answering no or being unable to answer yes.
you've never heard of this god thing before
you're to young to believe in anything let alone understand the concept of a god type person to believe in it.
you've seen the "evidence" the theists use, and don't buy it. As almost every claim in their holy books don't have any OQE that stand up to any scrutiny.
etc, etc
Until you can understand the idea of god, you can't answer yes in believing in it, to become a theist. #allbabiesareatheists
being an atheist requires no proof, it requires no evidence, they don't need to disproof your beliefs, they just have no reason to believe in the god myth you're selling. If you think they should, then let's see your evidence that you used to disprove santa calus and the easter bunny, the invisible pink unicorn and of course the flying speghetti monster.
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question. Do you believe in a god? yes=theist no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 19:24:19
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question.
Do you believe in a god?
yes=theist
no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
agnostics just don't want to answer the question so they answer a totally unrelated question.
the first question is "do you believe in god?" yes or no
the second and unrelated question is "do you know god exists?" yes or no
as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'. Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
sirlynchmob wrote: Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
Not exactly. If God exists, there is no need to 'believe' in God, any more than there is a need to believe in my feet... They exist regardless of whether or not anyone believes in them. If God doesn't exist, then again, belief is irrelevant.
So 'Do you believe God exists?' is an irrelevant question if you consider God's actual existence (or not) to be a more pertinent issue than whether or not anyone thinks a God exists. It's not a 'cop out' to not hold an opinion one way or the other in the absence of evidence either way... it's simply choosing to not form an opinion based on what you consider insufficient evidence.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
sirlynchmob wrote: Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
Not exactly. If God exists, there is no need to 'believe' in God, any more than there is a need to believe in my feet... They exist regardless of whether or not anyone believes in them. If God doesn't exist, then again, belief is irrelevant.
So 'Do you believe God exists?' is an irrelevant question if you consider God's actual existence (or not) to be a more pertinent issue than whether or not anyone thinks a God exists. It's not a 'cop out' to not hold an opinion one way or the other in the absence of evidence either way... it's simply choosing to not form an opinion based on what you consider insufficient evidence.
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
You contend there is no position where one may neither believe nor disbelieve?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God.
An Agnostic doesn't know if there is a God.
Not the same thing. I don't know if there is somebody named 'Kevin' in the building next door. I have insufficient evidence to even make a guess as to whether there is or not.
The Atheist would believe that there is nobody named Kevin next door, as they have no evidence that there is.
The Agnostic would simply not have an opinion, due to insufficient evidence for either option.
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God.
An Agnostic doesn't know if there is a God.
Not the same thing. I don't know if there is somebody named 'Kevin' in the building next door. I have insufficient evidence to even make a guess as to whether there is or not.
The Atheist would believe that there is nobody named Kevin next door, as they have no evidence that there is.
The Agnostic would simply not have an opinion, due to insufficient evidence for either option.
yes I'm familiar with the cop out. if you have no opinion about god, then most likely you don't believe in a god, ergo atheist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 00:09:25
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question. Do you believe in a god? yes=theist no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
agnostics just don't want to answer the question so they answer a totally unrelated question.
the first question is "do you believe in god?" yes or no the second and unrelated question is "do you know god exists?" yes or no
as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'. Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
I disagree with you on two things:
(1) I don't know where you get the idea that Agnostics wouldn't want to answer any question (especially these two). (2) I claim to be flat Agnostic and I'm not using it as a cop out to avoid answering each question.*
* I identify as 'Agnostic'. If you asked me "Do you believe in a God or Set of Gods?" (i.e. the first question), I would answer "No". I could answer "Yes" to this question and still be Agnostic, but I personally answer the question with "No". If you asked me "Do you know if a God or set of Gods exists"? (i.e. the second question), I can also answer "No".
The core concept of being Agnostic is that you think that the existence things such as a God or Gods are unknown and unknowable, so we will always answer the second question as "No". What makes me a flat Agnostic as opposed to an Agnostic Theist is that I answered the first question with "No". The more complicated version of my "No" answer is: "Because the existence of such things is unknowable and the knowledge of such things is unattainable, I cannot believe in any God or set of Gods. Also because of the aforementioned reasons, I still believe that there is the potential for them to exist."
So I'm not coping out of anything or avoiding any questions and yet I still identify as flat 'Agnostic'.
sirlynchmob wrote: ...I'm familiar with the cop out. if you have no opinion about god, then most likely you don't believe in a god, ergo atheist.
It's not a cop-out, it's another standpoint on this topic which is no less valid than Atheism. Also, that conclusion is flawed: We have no opinion on God(s) because we think that their existence and knowledge of them is unknowable.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back.
If this is your reasoning, I honestly suggest looking into Agnosticism a bit more.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 00:19:56
(1) I don't know where you get the idea that Agnostics wouldn't want to answer any question (especially these two).
(2) I claim to be flat Agnostic and I'm not using it as a cop out to avoid answering each question.*
* I identify as 'Agnostic'. If you asked me "Do you believe in a God or Set of Gods?" (i.e. the first question), I would answer "No". I could answer "Yes" to this question and still be Agnostic, but I personally answer the question with "No". If you asked me "Do you know if a God or set of Gods exists"? (i.e. the second question), I can also answer "No".
The core concept of being Agnostic is that you think that the existence things such as a God or Gods are unknown and unknowable, so we will always answer the second question as "No". What makes me a flat Agnostic as opposed to an Agnostic Theist is that I answered the first question with "No". The more complicated version of my "No" answer is: "Because the existence of such things is unknowable and the knowledge of such things is unattainable, I cannot believe in any God or set of Gods. Also because of the aforementioned reasons, I still believe that there is the potential for them to exist."
so you admit there are 'agnostic theists' because they answered yes, than no. So why won't you claim to be an agnostic atheist? because you answered no & no?
like insanic said: "An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God." and you said you don't believe in god. So why drop the atheist part?
sirlynchmob wrote: so you admit there are 'agnostic theists' because they answered yes, than no.
Yes, because I see no problem with this concept. I don't know anyone who falls into this category, but it makes sense.
sirlynchmob wrote: So why won't you claim to be an agnostic atheist? because you answered no & no?
Because the answers to those questions are a lot more complicated than "No" and "No". The over-simplification of the answers leads to the misconception that I am an 'Agnostic Atheist' as opposed to a flat 'Agnostic'.
sirlynchmob wrote: like insanic said: "An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God." and you said you don't believe in god. So why drop the atheist part?
But I never said I do not believe in a God or Gods per se, but rather that I cannot believe in any God or Gods. There's a difference, which is to say that because I haven't ruled out the existence and possible nature of a God or set of Gods, I cannot rule out belief, but I also cannot conform to belief either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 00:34:04
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
But I could also argue that children are Agnostic when they're born because the tick the two broad boxes of Agnosticism:
(1) They don't know anything about God or the Gods; and (2) They don't know whether or not they believe in God or the Gods.
But in the end, regardless of whether or not one of us is right, the one thing that is true is that a child who has just been born cannot possibly be a Theist. Whether they're Atheist, Agnostic, or other is something else entirely.
EDIT: As Peregrine said in the post directly after this post, they have a very good point about the meaningfulness of labeling as infant as something versus labeling an adult as something. They're also very right about the second bit on Agnosticism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 01:08:00
sirlynchmob wrote: You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
This is strictly true by the dictionary definition of the word "atheist", but it isn't a very useful concept. There's a clear difference between a baby who has no concept of "is there a god?" and an adult who has considered the question and concluded "no", and that makes the label "atheist" much more meaningful in the second case than in the first.
Also, I think you're missing the point of what I said about people who identify as agnostic. They aren't just saying "I don't believe in god now but that might change", they're stating that, as a matter of belief, the question can not be answered. That, no matter how much you look for an answer, it will always be "who knows, both are equally likely". That goes way beyond temporarily declining to commit and into coming to "no comment" as a final answer and defining their religious identity by it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Human life is not inherently important, not even to the individuals who possess that life. Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
dogma wrote: Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
I think the idea of Resurrection doesn't even have to find basis in religion at all. All it needs is for a person to believe the idea that there's something after you die (i.e. the continued existence of the "Soul"). To my mind: Religion (with respect to resurrection) only paints a picture of what happens and possibly provides incentive to do something (i.e. the ideas of heaven vs hell), but religion doesn't form the basis for the idea of resurrection.
sirlynchmob wrote: as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'.
On the contrary, there are things I'm less certain about than the existence of god, which I would contend to "know".
If I were forced to concede that I don't know with 100% certainty whether god exists, I would also have to concede all the other things I don't know with 100% certainty, like whether France exists, or whether I myself exist, and other absurd things. Perhaps it is because of the gravity of the question that people stop short of saying they "know", or perhaps it is to politely humour the billions of believers, who don't like to be told that their deeply held beliefs are just made up stories with zero divine input... "sure, there might be a god, who knows right?" ... But the reality is that I do "know": god doesn't exist, I'm certain of it. For it to be otherwise would require god to be actively fething with us, which is even more absurd than the possibility he exists.
Human life is not inherently important, not even to the individuals who possess that life. Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
You didn't comment on the importance (or not) of human life, you took a line out of my post isolating it from its context and made snide remarks that disparaged my ability.
Explain your 'logic' behind your personal attack or man up and apologise. Lets try again:
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
You should never be a suicide counselor.
Explain yourself, and if you want to critique what I wrote as evidence take it in the context of the post it was written and not as a snip. You have a bad habit for creative editing.
feeder wrote: You contend there is no position where one may neither believe nor disbelieve?
correct, if you don't believe, than you don't believe. Until you say "I believe" you're not a theist, and therefore an atheist.
Don't get caught on the semantics please. An 'a-theist' is a 'non-theist', hence the origin of the word. However the practical and current definition of atheist differs from that
Lets take another example to show how outdated semantics as forced definitions tends to not-work . 'Gay' means happy, 'queer' means unwell or odd. Those are facts. If you read old books you will find the earlier classification used for both words. Tolkien uses the word queer alot in Lord of the Rings, queer was also a negative term used to label homosexuals, just as gay was originally a self identification term. Both are now mainstream labels to the extent that their original usage has largely died out beyond preserved media.
Nobody would say they are feeling gay today, but are entirely heterosexual, they would use another word. Nor could it be implied that because they were happy by definition they would be gay, which would be true, and therefore by definition they are homosexual.
You are applying similar spurious logic here. If someone is an agnostic and is not a theist, but if you claim they are an atheist due to the enforced application of outdated semantics; you must be consistent and apply the same logic to believe that the same person changes their sexual orientation depending on how happy or well they are at the time. Unless of course they are formally defined in separation as homosexual, in which case, no change.
You cant have it both ways, your call.
I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That is highly loaded.
1. Not everyone with concerns about atheism is a 'religious nutjob'.
- For example, Maoist atheism and its 'religion is poison' dogma, heavily persecutes people of faiths often to death.
- A large number of atheists want to abolish religion actively. How do such moves to abolish a worldview pan out historically.
2. Its not (just) Christians who have made an 'us vs them'.
- Jews and Moslems express concerns also. Though in America those two faiths are more difficult to criticise for different reasons and Christians are an easier target.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
- Excepting isolated desperate individuals, of which can be found for any combination of beliefs there is no movement to root out atheism from schools. There is no move to remove tax exemption status from atheistic secular charity movements. Large numbers of atheists want both those things for religious institutions, especially Christian ones.
3. Petty jibs and insults.
- Those are individual responses, often from groups that mainstream Christianity disown. like Westboro Baptists. You dont see bishops or spokespersons of major faiths doing this.
- Petty jibs and insults flow the other way, but the assault is more mainstream. In fact the mainstream of atheist movement is defined by this. Hitchens was defined primarily by his sardonic put downs, it is arguably his most visible contribution to the atheist movement, and he was certainly a leader.
4. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
- This is true and your original premise is sound.
- However blaming it on Christians is grossly unfair. You have to look at this more open mindedly and own and acknowledge what atheists do.
- The vast majority of religious offense to atheism comes from other religions with a more direct action approach, especially Islam; from unstable individuals and publically disowned fringe churches.
- You could even look at Dakka for evidence. Religious people (and agnostics) dont disparage their rivals as dupes or idiots. The other way around however happens rather a lot, to a page on religion threads, when some names turn up, as they have, you can tell that there is going to be some anti-religion hatespeech coming. Often persistent vitriol on page after page and far more intensely worded than for which other posters on other topics have got a thread warning and a personal ban.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 12:08:57
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The reason 'Christians' are targetted is that most of the rules and laws (basically most of the power) in the western world (primarily the US) lies in Christian hands and benefits Christianity.
I don't really see any athiests here trying to remove all religion, but rather getting rid of the special priveleges that Christianity has that turns people of other or no faith to second-class citizens.
skyth wrote: The reason 'Christians' are targetted is that most of the rules and laws (basically most of the power) in the western world (primarily the US) lies in Christian hands and benefits Christianity.
I don't really see any athiests here trying to remove all religion, but rather getting rid of the special privileges that Christianity has that turns people of other or no faith to second-class citizens.
Really. People of other on no faith second class citizens? Lets examine that.
- Jews are not second class citizens in the US. In fact if any religious group should be logically labeled as privileged it would be the Jews. Jews enjoy vastly disproportionate power to their demographics. Heard of 'J Street'.
- Laws that protect Christians also protect other faiths, and have done so from the outset. Back in 1776 having a singular state religion was normal, the US could easily have followed suit, yet was founded with freedom of worship as a core principle.
- As for Christians, which Christians? Denominational bias also has to be taken into consideration. Is America Protestant or Catholic, you could argue it is Protestant as a follow on from the UK and because religious freedom works out better in reality than it does in Catholic countries. Catholic and Protestant don't see eye to eye sadly enough. America rose above that because it had freedom of worship without a denominational bias. Also America has cultivated a milieu that allows Amish to remain, in a way that would be impossible in another nation with a specific denominational bias.
The USA doesn't have a denominational bias because it had a secular state, with the strongest religious culture within being non-sectarian.
- Scientologists, like them or not - have successfully tapped into their religious rights. No second class citizenry for them, at least in terms of external pressure.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Even though atheists always rank worst in public opinion polls, it's probably not helpful for us to claim a second class status while there are groups in the US who actually do live as second class citizens, and if we whine too much because people don't like us so much, it makes us seem blind to the more meaningful problems that groups such as LBGTQ, black people, women, etc deal with on a day to day basis. Just my two cents.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Christians are most definitely NOT the injured party. We have the 1st amendment in the US, which, for some reason a fairly significant number of Christians thinks applies only to them. I mean, look at school districts in the bible belt that are continuing to teach biblical creationism as science, counter to SCOTUS rulings. Look at the horribly written text books for "history" classes in Texas, claiming that Moses (of the 10 commandments) was "instrumental in the founding of the US".... Then, there's this whole thing of there having been around 40 something Christian presidents.
We can also look to Christians at political rallies with signs exclaiming that Muslims need to get out of the country, or expressing a desire to outlaw the religion from the country, despite that same 1st amendment.
Yes, a lot of us atheists have problems with Islam, but when it comes to public policy and domestic governance, in the US, the power is held almost exclusively by Christians. Therefore, that is the "exclusive" target.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Christians are most definitely NOT the injured party. We have the 1st amendment in the US, which, for some reason a fairly significant number of Christians thinks applies only to them. I mean, look at school districts in the bible belt that are continuing to teach biblical creationism as science, counter to SCOTUS rulings. Look at the horribly written text books for "history" classes in Texas, claiming that Moses (of the 10 commandments) was "instrumental in the founding of the US".... Then, there's this whole thing of there having been around 40 something Christian presidents.
We can also look to Christians at political rallies with signs exclaiming that Muslims need to get out of the country, or expressing a desire to outlaw the religion from the country, despite that same 1st amendment.
Yes, a lot of us atheists have problems with Islam, but when it comes to public policy and domestic governance, in the US, the power is held almost exclusively by Christians. Therefore, that is the "exclusive" target.
Almost all Presidents were Christian or some form of. It's even been used as a platform. Imagine the reaction if someone ran as a Muslim/Jew/Atheist/Hindu. Also, if someone says they're Christian, the reaction is usually positive or indifferent. Not so if someone says they're Atheist.
Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
feeder wrote: You contend there is no position where one may neither believe nor disbelieve?
correct, if you don't believe, than you don't believe. Until you say "I believe" you're not a theist, and therefore an atheist.
Then we disagree. I am not a binary machine. I contend that the answer to "Do you believe?" is not a yes/no, but "I cannot know".
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Sure, it's easier now to be anything other than Christian, but it's a pretty big fallacy to say that Americans are against Christianity.
I was addressing the point of christians being an "injured party" in regards to atheist activism working against religion. America as a whole certainly is Christian, if not in practice, then at least in custom. What I was saying is, of course atheists are "targeting" Christianity in the US. if you want to change how things are done, you don't target a group of people without power. That would've been like MLK marching for civil rights by targeting the Latin community.
And, I put "40 something" up because we pretty much know that Washington and Lincoln were deists. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that Lincoln went to church twice as an adult: once to get married, and once to get buried. And I don't think I need to explain that deism =/= christian. But beyond those two, I either don't remember, or don't know where their religious/spiritual leanings were.
~1.5k
