Here’s What (Some) Religious People Get Wrong About Atheists
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
113 visitors
Though I cannot claim to have ever converted to atheism, the content in this video is important to understand for anyone who wishes to engage an atheist about their belief. Personally, I was never any less an atheist as when I emerged from the womb, regardless of the extensive efforts by others to indoctrinate me into religion.
Dear Hal: Thanks for posting this interesting and informative audio-visual.
Our best chance at living together in peace and harmony is to appreciate the life pathways of others as what they do speaks to them.
It gives us chances to identify and explore common ground.
From there we can build coalitions to achieve commonly held goals and aspirations.
Conversely, straw man arguments which miss the point of what matters to others is not only disingenuous.
It leads to unnecessary and perfectly preventable conflict.
No good comes from conflict.
Things of great value come from understanding and cooperation.
We are indebted to you for sharing this.
E.
Stellar reply. Welcome back just in time for the New Year. I sure hope you are better and healing according to schedule!.
Dear Brother CB: Many thanks.
Dodged another bullet it seems.
Happy to be back.
Looking forward to co-authoring in 2019.
All best wishes for a New Year which is your best yet.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
I am so glad you are back and in your usual great spirit and form, Brother Enoch. Looking forward to 2019 and its 'gifts' to share as well. Peace and diversity to you and all.
Cal/CB
Dear Brother CB: Last night Mrs. E. our daughter and I watched the ball descend at midnight in Times Square on the TV.
When they played "Auld Lang Syne" I suggested a better musical choice would have been Freddie Mercury's, "Another One Bites the Dust".
Our daughter got that. Mrs. E. did not.
So much for American cultural references to usher in the New Year with a joke.
New Year's Resolutions anyone?
One of mine is to buy a Sharpie marker pen.
Then let neighbors play connect the dots on my chest scars.
That should be good for a laugh or two.
Happy, Healthy, Prosperous, Meaningful, and Productive 2019 to One and All.
Enoch.
As in "We are the Champions"? Left standing at the end of 2018?
Good deal on our being here today and "ready to go!"
Dear Brother CB: Super thought.
Way to usher in the new year with hope and the desire to make it all better and better.
Happy New Year, Dear Friend.
Enoch.
The ' atheists hate god ' notion is one of the dumbest allegations I have read regarding atheism. It seems to be purely emotional prattle — a ridiculous explanation for atheism.
An atheist who hates 'God' necessarily believes in said god. A person who believes in a god is not an atheist by definition.
Atheism is an easy notion to understand. An atheist is one who is not convinced that a god exists. One need only turn to the dictionary to understand this basic idea. Per Oxford :
Yeah, that is quite comical too.
Who is this person and why is he spending 12 minutes talking about what religious people think about atheists and atheism? Just get on with his life and days. After reading "a lot" I am still confused by all the variations of atheism (including religious atheists) who hold to and are developing rituals and customs for their "non-faiths" which routinely come together in "teaching" seminars and other aggregations (on the web for instance) to learn and develop in how to speak to religious people about "de-conversion" to (gasp) atheism—okay, Reason.
This young man even has a "donation plate" for his ministry to "deconverting" Muslims. That should go well. . . . Watch this space!
People are of course different. Thus there are different ways in which atheists conduct their lives.
However, regardless of the differences, it boils down to a very simple idea: an atheist is not convinced that a god exists.
Nothing to warrant confusion.
We atheists live our lives a lot like everyone else, but we sleep in on Sunday mornings and we don't pray when something goes wrong. Other than that our lives are SOP.
For every atheist on Youtube talking about atheism, I'm sure we could produce 20 (at least) preachers who propound their views on a weekly basis (or more often). And those preachers talk about atheists, I can tell you from personal experience. Who are they to do that? Why can't they just go home, read their Bibles, and quit asking for donations to send missionaries to convert people?
Or is there maybe a double standard here?
I wish that a few of the ministers who rant on Youtube about atheists would call me and we could sit down for a lovely chat. I'll make cookies and a pot of covfefe and he could get the reality of what life is like for an atheist American because my life is a lot more mundane than what your average atheist is supposed to be living if you believe Christian ministers on YT. I've neve had an abortion, Ive never been to an orgy, I don't eat babies and I've never worshiped either the devil or Hillary Clinton.
We're staying home on NYE because the times that we have gone out it's a crowded and expensive hassle that only causes stress. I just don't understand the excitement of partying till 2:00am because we get a new calendar and my phone changes more than 2 digits. I'll miswrite the date for a few days and then everything is back to relative normalcy. I received a 2019 tax document in the mail today so I have that to look forward to.
New Year's Eve, Christmas, Thanksgiving, 4th of July, Valentine's Day, are societal rituals. You don't seem to care for rituals much, which is your right, but every society that has ever existed has observed group rituals. I am sure it corresponds to an instinct.
New Years is a time for sentimentality and reflection. Personally I've always enjoyed year end festivities. We are "this season's people" and shall not pass this way again. Everyone who is alive on planet earth on Dec 31 2018 comprises a group.
My NYE is pretty boring, too. Scrubbed the bathroom and ran some errands this morning. Came home and started a fire in the wood stove, then took a nap with the dog brought on by a miserable rainy day with pea soup fog (and the nice warm fire).
Leftovers for dinner. I do have some bubbly and snacks for later tonight, but until 11 or so, I'll be doing laundry. None of my snacks include babies, either.
About the only exciting thing I've done all day is jump start my car, because my son left the interior lights on yesterday after he vacuumed it for me.
It a SIMILAR standard, if you really must look for comparison. However, Christianity is a confession and a lifestyle. Atheism has no need for a fundamentalist "wing." Or, does it? The young man in the video has proceeded to the next 'level': Gift-receiving. That is, receiving donations for work on an (atheist) mission field.
My family has always celebrated NYE quietly at home. Snacks, Dick Clark on TV (I miss him), and enjoying the Christmas tree for the last time that winter, because Mom always takes it down on New Year's Day. Maybe stay up another hour or so reminiscing, and then off to bed.
He's not deconverting Muslims. These are people who have already left Islam and are at a loss. Some religions, Islam among them, do not treat those who leave the faith very well. I imagine the newly-atheist teenage or young adult child of devout Muslim parents could probably use some guidance, and in extreme cases, a safe place to live.
Also, this video is a response to such movies as "God's Not Dead", which promote lies about atheism and atheists. He chooses not to allow those lies to stand unchallenged.
it definitely seems that way with some religious people and some non-religious people. Kind of depends on the sub-topic under "double standard" and the parties involved. It can be shown on both sides. The trick is to find the root and cut it off at the pass (if possible).
Now that is interesting, and sweet, episttle. Love it. Happy New Year!
I set new records for my introversion and lack of endorsement for social tradition and rituals. I understand that some people like that sort of thing but I prefer to be left out. I'd like to enjoy it because maybe I wouldn't feel like such an alien, but every time I've tried them I feel tired and stressed out for my efforts.
Than you. I hope that you have a happy and prosperous 2019.
Nothing wrong with knowing what makes you happy and pursuing that. You're celebrating in your own way. If you were stressed out, you wouldn't be celebrating.
I've never liked crowds. Having a bunch of people, especially strangers, in my personal space makes me nervous, and that nervousness often manifests as crankiness. Same with lots of noise. It wears on my nerves, so I avoid noisy, crowded places, and that pretty much includes most NYE celebrations.
Also, if you try to eat out on NYE, well, so is everybody else. It's like Valentine's Day - it's hard to find a place with tables available where you won't wait forever, and the food and service aren't as good as they'd be on a less crowded night.
I made some calls and answered email this morning, but there wasn't much else to do because I'm waiting for others to do their part before I can proceed.
I swept the floors and changed the bed. He brought Indian takeout for dinner so I didn't have to cook. I could do laundry but there isn't a full load of either whites or colds after I did the sheets and towels.
He bought a 6 pack of beer for him and 2 bottles of cider for me but because of the anxiety med that I take(benzos), I am very scared about drinking because as you know alcohol and that class of meds don't play well together. There are some Xmas cookies and fruitcake to snack on, plus chips, crackers and a cheese ball.
I just got trolled by my cat. He wanted wet food so I opened the can and gave him half of it. He proceeded to lick the gravy off of it and walked away. I gave it to the outside cats to finish.
Every individual can use some guidance coming in and out of faiths, religion, and atheism. Nothing new there, nevertheless.
Indeed, a need is being realized by this young man, Ben Drew, for a 'helps' ministry. (That is what Christians call it.) There are only so many different formations these occurrences can take. The world seems to have found them all.
I have not watched, "God's Not Dead" (yet). So I can offer no opinion on its contents for now. (Will look into it, for sure.)
And stress
kills. I like to warn others!
I baked chocolate chip cookies last night (well, I baked what I didn't eat raw. Om nom nom). I also have some cheese and crackers, and I might make some popcorn (on the stove, with lots of real butter).
I also have some egg nog given to me by a colleague as a gift. His words of advice were 1) Shake it well, as it's not homogenized, 2) Don't open it near an open flame, and 3) Don't go making any big life decisions after partaking. I swear there's at least as much bourbon (I think) in there as egg nog, so I've been drinking just a little at a time.
My dog does that sort of thing all the time. He goes to the front door and whines, knowing I'll get up to let him out. What he really wants is for me to come to the living room and sit in the recliner, where he'll jump in my lap, roll on his back, and demand a belly rub.
You look lovely in your 'holiday' gear and your avatar has been my private muse this season! (Smile.)
I made a dozen cinnamon-pecan rolls last night and they lasted about 1 hour until the pan was licked clean. I hate that lately if I even look at sweets I gain 3 pounds, and 2 hours of exercise isn't worth the enjoyment of eating them so I have had to cut back or I'll look like Sarah Huckabee Sanders next year.
My cat is now staring out the picture window at the back of the house watching leaves blow around in the wind.
I'll change it tomorrow but I'm not sure If I'll go back to Hipster Ariel or maybe something new for 2019.
Mine is in the bathroom eating wet food. If I didn't put him in the bathroom, the dog would take it from him, and the cat is timid enough to let him.
You're do marvelous, lovely epistte! And yes, I expect nothing less than sharp knives as needed in the new year!!!
I've only watched enough to grasp the premise. Films like this are fairly popular among evangelicals, and I live in an evangelical area. Many evangelicals honestly believe that these movies put forth good, logical arguments. And that's a problem. They're based on a misunderstanding, either unintentional or deliberate, about what atheists actually believe (or don't believe). They are, at best, perpetuating an unintentional misunderstanding, and at worst, are deliberately feeding into willful ignorance and intentional misunderstanding.
Oh wow! So I got started looking for "God's Not Dead" on all of my services.
First, I found that it is a series (3 movies). The first movie is charging a fee to watch a 2014 film (I won't pay! I have a big enough bill already!) ]
Second, the other two I have free on my services, but who wants to start somewhere else?
Third, I am in 'luck' I have "God's Not Dead" audiobook (Scribd) and "God's Not Dead" the book to 'sync and compare'!
Now the question is how long will it take me to get to the bottom of this 'subject matter'! Well, wish me well for I start now. . . .
My cat does that, too.
Happy New Year! Your NYE sounds way more exciting than mine. I've been in bed for the past week suffering from the flu
I've missed you too! I did not know you were miserably ill, but I certainly missed your 'voice.' (Smile!) How are you weathering now, dear Lady? You should let us know when you are going 'down' so we can send 'soul' food 'in buckets' your way!
A little better, thanks for asking. How were you holidays?
I'm grand and 'special'! A little better? Oh my! We just ordered a team to start packaging bundles of hugs and smooches addressed to you, Trout Giggles. You should be better in half the time remaining now!
awwww.....thanks, CB. I feel much better now!
HA!
I hope that you are feeling better. I've been fighting a low grade cold or something for a week.
Aww, that sucks. Glad you're feeling well enough to hang out with us again.
I see Hipster Ariel won out for the start of the new year?!
I found another avatar but it might not be family friendly, so I reverted to Hipster Ariel.
I could have used that chicken soup, that's for sure.
I get my flu shot every effing year and sometimes I still get the flu. Mr Giggles doesn't get a flu shot, gets the flu and then passes it on to everybody in the house! The bad part was my son and DIL were in from FLA for the holidays and I spent most of their visit in bed.
Next year that man is getting a flu shot even if I have to inject him myself.
Everyone....thanks for the well wishes. Glad to be back here and spreading the Giggles joy
We gleefully reveled in the NY as a loving family with other loving family members, toasting many a tequila shot with plenty of hootin' and hollerin' watchin' the ball drop at midnight. We were actually up till a bit past 2AM watching Tom Petty's last documentary.
Getting too old? Not me, NOT US. Not when we're losing too many around us feeling its way too early for them and that it can't be their time anymore than it is ours. The word and concept of OLD is seemingly just a metaphor for giving up. I won't be giving up till I'm dead.
So we toasted to auld lang syne and sang a happy sayonara to the biggest POS in Merika, DJT!
Here's to y'all, athiests and believers of one or many gods, Happy 2019!
"Life should NOT
be a journey to the grave
with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive
and well preserved body,
but rather to
skid in sideways,
chocolate in one hand,
martini in the other,
body thoroughly used up, totally worn out
and screaming
WOO HOO what a ride!"
Author: Maxine
green chile, stat!
I've never had a green chili cheeseburger.
You should try it at least once.
It's a religious experience
You're too precious, TG!
I might have to make pork chili verde, if I can get tomatillos.
* HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019 *
Well back to the topic at hand!
Are there any atheists who lose faith (are turned off) in God because of hardship? Atheists, I ask you.
I am sure there are atheists who lost their faith as a result of hardship. But they would not be angry at God because they, by definition, do not believe in God.
If you find a self-proclaimed atheist who claims to be angry with God, you have found a confused theist.
An atheist cannot lose faith in God. They don't have faith in God to begin with. Despite your claims, there are no religious atheists.
Apparently, not all religions relate to god or gods. Consider this excerpt from an article I put up last fall:
For example, many forms of Buddhism are essentially atheistic . At most they regard the existence of gods as possible, but often they dismiss gods as simply irrelevant to the important task of overcoming suffering. As a consequence, many Buddhists not only dismiss the relevance of gods but also the existence of gods — they are atheists, even if they aren't atheists in the scientific, philosophical sense that many atheists in the West are.
In addition to old and traditional religions like Buddhism which are accessible to atheists, there are also modern organizations as well. Some humanists call themselves religious and many members of Unitarian-Universalism and Ethical Culture societies are also nonbelievers. Raelians are a relatively recent group which is recognized as a religion legally and socially, yet they explicitly deny the existence of gods, making them "strong" or "gnostic" atheists.
There has been some debate as to whether such forms of humanism truly qualify as religions , but what is important for the moment is the fact that atheist members themselves believe that they are part of a religion. Thus, they do not see any conflict between disbelieving in the existence of gods and adopting a belief system which they consider a religion — and these are, without a doubt, atheists in the Western sense of scientific, philosophical atheism.
The answer to the question is thus an unequivocal yes: atheists can be religious and atheism can occur in conjunction with, or even in the context of, religion.
SOURCE:
The question derives from the video (above). Its context is folks who walk away from faith in God, becoming an unbeliever in god and gods (atheist) because of an occurrence in life strong enough to be a 'turn-off,' alternatively a hardship.
This is so simple. What answer are you looking for other than the correct and obvious one?
If someone walks away from God then that someone was a theist. If indeed this person truly is not convinced a god exists then the person is now an atheist. An atheist is, by definition, one who is not convinced a god exists.
If you want to ascribe 'religious' to an atheist then the meaning of 'religion' in this context is not one which involves belief in a god.
Happy New Year, TiG! First off, I was not addressing you for this intents and purposes , thus I approached Katrix's comment with additional information you have already directly seen in real-time. Secondly, I was reestablishing 'tone' with Katrix in my own manner. Thirdly, I am not ascribing anything to anybody - Austin Cline does on Thought.co :
Experience
Austin Cline is a former writer for ThoughtCo, contributing articles about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism for 18 years. Cline was a regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism. He also acted as a publicity coordinator for the Center for Inquiry On Campus , formerly the Campus Freethought Alliance. Cline lectures on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism. Cline studied theology and philosophy in America, Germany, and in Switzerland.
Mr. Cline wrote the article on religious-atheists. You should or could write him.
You know how this works Cal. Anyone can comment on any other comment.
You included a quote with the following boldfaced:
Why include this in boldface if you are not supporting the notion? It is misleading, right?
Regardless, nobody should be confused about the meaning of the word 'atheist' - even if the atheist is a result of losing one's faith:
If someone walks away from God then that someone was a theist. If indeed this person truly is not convinced a god exists then the person is now an atheist. An atheist is, by definition, one who is not convinced a god exists.
It does not matter how one becomes an atheist. One is an atheist if one is not convinced a god exists.
Accept that I was addressing Katrix, first and foremost at the time. It is really not a point for contention.
The bolded quote is from the article written by Mr. Austin Kline. I placed it here again for consideration by Katrix (you had a chance to discuss it elsewhere in an article). If you doubt its authenticity or point - you should not argue the use of bolding for emphasis, but Kline's reason/s for writing it!
Do you agree or disagree with Cline on this position?:
You first.
You do not realize that I have already answered that question multiple times??
Atheists are by definition irreligious. The only way an atheist could be religious is under the rare secular usage of the word ‘religion’.
Whatever, Tig. Have a nice day.
this seems to be a foreign concept to many religious believers, it's almost as if that since they are religious they feel everyone must be religious in some way - even the non-religious. It's a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
Agreed. Grasping at straws I suppose.
Not even going to answer the question after I accommodated your 'you first' request?
No matter, you clearly agree with Cline even though you refuse to admit the obvious.
I pointed you to Cline, he wrote the article you are referring to as "the rare secular usage of the word ‘religion.'" Your 'issue,' if you have one, is with Austin Cline and not my bolding some words he wrote.
it's a great example of suspension of critical thinking - since they are religious well then everyone **must** be religious in some form as well, even the non-religious must be religious and just probably hate that god that they aren't convinced exists - i guess for some people religion really is an opiate to them.
Why are you so hesitant to take a stand? Your position is implicitly clear, what is the point of dodging the obvious?
HA!
Cline isn't a member here - you are, and you clearly agree with what he said. So you're the one I am addressing.
I don't know why it's so important to you to try to convince people that atheists are/can be religious; this isn't the first time. And you're still wrong.
It is about time humanists and atheists critically discuss the words you write to others! Enough of this "we don't criticize our own, crap"!
Nope. Not buying into this noise in new year 2019! You are still wrong for trying to make Cline, who apparently is a secular humanist, writings and message about me.
What the hell are you talking about? You claim atheists can be religious. You are wrong. What does that have to do with "criticizing our own"?
You posted Cline yet inexplicably cannot bring yourself to admit that you obviously agree with him. What do you hope to accomplish with this silliness?
I (and others) posted several comments on your seed " Can Atheists Be Religious? Are There Religious Atheists? " authored by Cline and was quite critical of his position. So, as katrix notes, what the hell are you talking about?:
Confirmation bias leads to bad conclusions. It is important to process both what you want to be true AND what you do not want to be true.
I think the guy he quoted claimed that, though he appears to be in agreement. The fact is the word "religious" can be used in a secular manner, Merriam-Webster's 3rd definition for religious is "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful" which could be all sorts of things. People can work out "religiously", basically using it as a substitute word for any habit you have. Most men can honestly say when they were in their teens they masturbated religiously.
But to Clines claim, he said "but what is important for the moment is the fact that atheist members themselves believe that they are part of a religion."
This is the part I disagree with. While some atheists may agree with that statement, it is certainly not true for all atheists. Just because their are groups of non-believers who act and gather almost like a religion, it doesn't mean everyone who rejects the God delusion is part of that group or goes to their atheist gatherings.
What the HEAVEN are you discussing? I make no claim about atheists as religious - a secularist-humanist article writer named Austin Cline does on Thought.co which I am perfectly in my right to share and ask questions about! If you choose not to respond to his claims and article that is your business, but you do not get to tell me I can't present his POV as such.
I will not be arguing with you about him for that would miss the point, nevertheless!
Miss me with your emotional 'rant.' This is a non-issue. I have stopped reading your comment about it.
Does not matter. My comment was for the record anyway.
Mine too is for the record.
Furthermore for the record, if you can criticize him 'there,' then you can criticize him 'here.' And, miss me with excessively bogus accusations, outrage, and commentary!
You totally missed the fact that I have disagreed with Cline here?
Now that is some awesome selective reading.
Do you agree with Cline?
My opinion is a non-issue at this point. Maybe you should consider not clogging up this board with excessive 'wordiness.'
Pretty sure everyone here knows your opinion on this. That is what is so fascinating about your refusal to be specific - to take a stand.
Pretty sure everyone here knows your opinion on this. Deflect much? If you spent nearly as much time discussing atheists and secular-humanism points of view as your emotional rants against Christianity, God and world religion perhaps you could aid in dispelling the confusion this young atheist is emoting about on NT! Alas! No chance of that, in my experiences across social media.
Probably. If I have an opinion I try to be clear rather than beat around the bush or attempt to make a point without actually committing to it.
Where do you find me making 'emotional rants' against Christianity? In all this time you do not realize that my focus is on the ill-advised practice of treating the Bible (and other holy books) as divine truth rather than applying one's critical thinking faculties? That is a profound miss in reading on your part — and a bit of fabrication thrown in as well.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It is not a club or a movement. People are not taught how to be atheists, nor are there talking points or scripts. Your attempt to equate atheism with a religion is probably the reason for the confused notions you sometimes offer on this subject.
He does not seem confused in any way. About what do you think he is confused? And why do you think his presentation was emotional? He was quite calm, articulate, candid and logical. Would love to see more of that here on NT. Did you watch the video ... more than a minute?
Ah, you should know by now that I do my 'homework' - I watched the video in its entirety. (You my tech 'buddy' are surely aware how Youtube vids have a setting which can facilitate speed-listening when needed.)
Atheism is not simply the lack of anything when spoken from the soapboxes of emoting mockers and ridiculers (see Richard Dawkins types of;), denial is not a river. But, I digress.
But, I have come to expect (not accept) your condemnation across the platforms and the years we've shared together. Please proceed. . . .
Back to the topic now for me. What else does this young man state which catches my interest?
The evidence often suggests otherwise. Or at least that when doing your homework you are selective in what you acknowledge.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Real simple. Dawkins' initiatives are not atheism - they are acts of an individual atheist. The distinction is important.
Ignoring my questions again:
Well, it explains the "no wonder why" if anything, if you get my drift. Hey, Happy New Year old friend!
Likewise Robin. Wishing you the best for 2019.
Confirmation bias lately?
According to you and some other atheists the implication is the 'poor' people of faith intentionally or too stupidly can not comprehend atheism; then, you write crap as such above. Funny, you not often make this fine distinction-consideration while mocking and ridiculing theism and its adherents.
You do not like or accept my answers, even from the printed page laid out in front of you. I feel no obligation to plead for your acceptance.
As to what remains of your comment, "Ditto."
You probably should look up that term before using it in a sentence.
I have never written anything even remotely close to that. My position is that religious views are not a function of intelligence. Inventing allegations is a very bad practice. I will just assume you made an honest mistake.
When you are out of material it is better to just stop rather than make up negative personal allegations.
** Furthermore for the record, if you can criticize him 'there,' then you can criticize him 'here.' **
It would have saved a lot of "digitization" and drama!
Enough. I am wasting my time here. (You are never, ever, wrong about anything we discuss—not even the minutia!)
I would ask you to stop but you never, ever, do. So I will simply walk away.
Walking away from you . . . .
What point are you trying to make with this? You quoted the quote I provided.
So are you agreeing that I was indeed critical of Cline in your seed but the same sentiment here is not critical?
Or are you claiming that the quote is not being critical of Cline?
Or something else?
Good choice.
I guess I would suggest getting better material.
Atheism is not simply the lack of anything when spoken from the soapboxes of emoting mockers and ridiculers (see Richard Dawkins types of;), denial is not a river. But, I digress.
Dawkins and I are both atheists but he tends to fall under a more harsh version of it than I do.
According to you and some other atheists the implication is the 'poor' people of faith intentionally or too stupidly can not comprehend atheism; then, you write crap as such above. Funny, you not often make this fine distinction-consideration while mocking and ridiculing theism and its adherents.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that the firebrand atheism tends to lead to. While Dawkins has his own statements and codes of conduct, I certainly don't agree with the way he does things.
I think it is important to remember that Dawkins is an individual with loud opinions and a platform to spread them but he certainly doesn't speak for all atheists or even most of them... at least I hope he doesn't. He sure doesn't speak for me.
Thank you for speaking with enough clarity which serves to move this discussion forward a bit.
If an atheist has faith, they are not really an atheist.
I see what you are trying to say, but it didn't quite come out right.
I am an atheist:
I was referring to religious faith. Faith is not needed for the other things you mentioned because we have an understanding of how those things operate. We know the sun "rises" because of the Earth's rotation. We know we won't fly into space because we know gravity keeps us on the ground. We know we can't walk on water because we lack the ability to displace enough water for bouancy. So no faith is required or necessary. Funny how irrational faith gives way to knowledge and rational thinking.
As I said, I understand what you were trying to say, and agree with it.
I was just trying to emphasis that atheists do have faith, since that seems to be one of the accusations that religious people like to throw out. I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that we do have faith, but that the faith is earned and not given blindly.
I apologize if my phrasing made it appear that I was arguing with the point you were trying to make. The examples you give do require a modicum of faith however. There are a number of reasons that the sun may not be there in the morning, none which don't include the death of the human race however. As to walking on water, I am trying to indicate faith that the laws of physics, as we know them, will not change even though there are theories that certain locations in space may have slightly different laws.
Then it's not really faith.
No worries, as I didn't take it to mean you were arguing. I've been accused of having "faith" by believers who use the same examples you provided. My point was it's not really faith, nor is faith required, especially if one understands the details behind those examples.
The sun will be there no matter what, as long as the earth continues to rotate. Even if cloud cover obscures the sun, it's still there because we know the forces which bring it to its viewed position.
The laws of physics are set in stone. So they are not going to change no matter what. That's why they are laws. Again, no faith is required.
What theories would those be? The only location that I can think of off the top of my head where the laws of physics might change is inside black holes (and that's just a guess-I could very well be wrong). But I'd say that would be an exception rather than the rule.
I disagree, it is not BLIND faith, but it is still faith.
Thank you, I am not always as capable of explain things as I would like to be. I try to phrase things to illustrate my arguments, but sometimes miss the subtleties necessary.
This is simply not true. While the natural life span of a start is unimaginatively long, this hunk of rock called Earth will most likely remain until the sun eats it. But there are other theoretical factors which may destroy the sun before that time. Again, I have faith that it will not happen in my lifetime because of the sheer unlikeliness of those occurrences.
No, they are not. The "laws" of physics are just theories which are constantly being updated. The sup atomic world and particles have already been demonstrated to not obey modern physics, so much so that they are developing their own "laws" of physics to explain them. I recommend looking up the double slit experiment for a truly mind blowing example of this.
I'm not going to get into a technical debate about this. Suggest you look up dark matter, dark energy, string theory.
Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests
Are the Constants of Physics Constant?
Are the Laws of Physics Really Universal?
Laws of physics may change across the universe
Can the Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the Universe? Maybe, According to this Latest Research
Faith, by its very nature/definition, must be "blind." Otherwise, it's not real faith.
You're welcome.
It's sometimes hard to be clear or make one's thoughts/feelings easily known when it comes to the written word only.
I was speaking in terms of our mere mortal/species lifetime. But if you want to get technical about it, then yes, once the sun goes nova, it won't be there anymore, especially since such an event will destroy the earth too. If you really really want to get technical, the sun will still "be there" after it collapses from a red giant into a white dwarf star.
Again, no faith is required, as it boils down to simple mathematical probability, that being astronomically small.
Scientific laws and theories are two different things.
The quantum realm is fascinating, as I'm sure Ant-man will attest to
But we're also fairly well set in the "macro" universe, where the known laws of physics do apply.
Again, theories and laws are not the same. Although, concepts like string theory and dark matter/energy are quite fascinating.
I'm sorry but that may be YOUR definition, but it is not THE definition. Definition 1 is the most common definition, #2 is how it defines the work in a religious context. So you can discount the 1st definition if you want, but that is only your opinion and it is not the only one supported in its full definition.
---------------------------------
faith
/fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
-------------------------------------
Ahhh, in that case, please tell me the exact date that our mere mortal/species lifetime will end. With that knowledge I will be able to better address your statement.
You are absolutely correct. However since we will no longer be around, it will no longer be "our" star. But, yes, you are correct that the mass will remain in one form or another.
And yet, not non-existent. And you made my point, the chance being astronomically small is what gives me the faith to believe it will remain tomorrow. Mathematics supports my faith in it. Faith in God has no such support.
No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. There are no scientific laws since our understanding of what you would consider a "law" is always changing and being challenged. Perhaps you would like to list a few of these "laws" for further discussion.
I was considering an Ant Man joke when I wrote it also...
You beat me to it.
It is not a different universe (or quantum realm
) it is the particles that make up everything in this universe. Why would physics change because of the size of the matter? And if it does, does that that mean that elsewhere, where a sun is over a thousand times bigger than our own ( UY Scuti) , it would also have different laws of physics? Black holes have different physics, and they don't even have to be that big.
You are correct, we only have theories, we do not know, and may never know the actual laws. If we knew the "laws", the study for that area of physics would be over since we know all there is to know about it, without doubt.
If you're going to use definition 1, then that becomes more a subject of mathematical probability or certainty. But it's not "faith" in the traditional sense of the word.
What's to address? Yes, the sun and Earth will remain where they are until the sun goes nova. Humans will perceive the sun's relative location for as long as the species survives.
Yes, yes, it's a star. no need for semantics.
Whatever works for you. But a probability so astronomically small is not even worthy of serious consideration or thought. So "faith" in such things is essentially meaningless and/or unnecessary.
This is true.
Scientific laws and theories may be related, but they are not the same. Scientific laws are descriptions of why phenomena occur or descriptions of the phenomena occurring itself. It does not explain the results or the reasons why such phenomena occurs. They are proven observations. Newton's Laws of Motion or the laws of thermodynamics are examples of scientific laws. Are you suggesting those laws can be changed?
Scientific theories, not to be confused with the generic use of the term 'theory,' refer to those that attempt to describe or explain why a phenomenon occurs. It is based on observation. It is still a learning or discovering process before arriving to the conclusion. It uses existing information and known facts to predict or arrive at a conclusion. Scientific theories can become scientific laws if proven.
Yeah, that one just jumped out when I was responding.
It's not the size of the matter alone that matters (get it? Bad joke, I know). It's when you get to the quantum realm when things get weird. But quantum mechanics, while fascinating, is beyond my expertise.
No. A star's size will determine how long it lasts, and how much energy, luminosity, radiation, ect., it puts out, as well as determining if it will go supernova and collapse into a black hole. But the same laws still apply.
There is much we still don't know about black holes. It's mind boggling to think that there are "small" black holes (several solar masses) to supermassive black holes that are millions or even billions times the mass of the sun. That's not even getting into the properties of black holes themselves. Oh, if only I could have talked to Stephen Hawking.
As I explained above, that is not the case.
Not me. I accepted that the mental and physical abuse that I endured as a child was part of Yahweh's "plan" for my life and I was supposed to be "learning" from it.
I was indoctrinated into belief in Yahweh as a toddler. I am now 62 yrs old. I quit believing in Yahweh about 8 years ago because of reading religious debates on Newsvine. Then I began researching the comments and learning about the origins of the Abrahamic religions. Also, I watched videos that actually explained how evolution worked instead of being misled by the Christians who claimed that if evolution were true that there would still be half-men and half-apes running around today.
Giving up the religious belief system that I had been indoctrinated into was a process that took years to finally come to peace with.
At first, I felt kinda sad to give up my belief that EVERYTHING happens because there is a PLAN. Then, I was pissed that I had been lied to ALL of my life by the people that I loved and trusted. Then, I accepted that my loved ones had been victims of superstition and lack of knowledge the same as I had been. I have become very grateful that I live in a time where there is access to resources that allow me to gain understanding of the known history of existence without inserting some group's belief in fantasy as fact.
For me, I don't care what people believe as long as they don't use that belief to harm others. However, the Christian religion is about controlling people's lives from cradle to grave in ways that not only harm the indoctrinated, but also the people outside of their religion as they seek to not only convert them, but to also control others via government.
Loving, kind, tolerant people do not require a religion to be loving, kind, tolerant people.
People, who seek to control / harm /destroy others, need a religion that justifies their abuse of others. They need the division created by religion to make the sheeple fearful of the "other" and to "convert" them into the fold controlled by the psycho/sadist/narcissist.
I am not "mad" at god. I know that Yahweh is no more real than Ra, Zeus, Odin, Apollo and the tens of thousands of other mythical gods that men have created and discarded throughout the history of our species. I have no tolerance for the harm that has been done past and present by any belief system in a barbaric, bloodthirsty god.
It saddens me that you chose to use loaded words which tainted the sincerity of your sharing just now. You 'read' as bitter in spite of your assent to finding secular peace and inclusiveness.
You wrote:
However, the Christian religion is about controlling people's lives from cradle to grave in ways that not only harm the indoctrinated, but also the people outside of their religion as they seek to not only convert them, but to also control others via government. Loving, kind, tolerant people do not require a religion to be loving, kind, tolerant people.
Are you using reverse psychology a bit here or over-generalizing? Reason should inform you, and us, that world religions (of which some atheists participate in (see above)) are not all harmful; if religions were all about controlling people in harmful ways they would have been abandoned a long, long, time ago and never would have been cogent enough to develop a foundation.
And, "conversion" is not a forced practice, people individually reason themselves into a faith relationship. Moreover, religions do a lot of good in the world. One could say that before modern science, world religions kept a myriad of families together when they would have preferred to come apart.
Lastly, loving, kind, tolerant people do sometimes require a faith relationship (found in religion) to be so; otherwise, some people would be crude, vulgar, lying, amoral, or evil. Because they would lack structure in their life. Do not let your. . . disaffection. . .with some church authorities color your ability to be fair-minded in discussion of the same. Peace.
Not at all.
The entire premise of the Christian religion is that people are born sinners and required a god to sacrifice itself to itself so it would not have to torment people for eternity for being the sinners that it created us to be in the first place. Nothing good about it.
In order to escape eternal torment, this god left a book of proven lies and garbled instructions that was created by men who voted on which ancient "sacred" texts should and should not be included. Very little in the book is moral or should be considered moral. Whatever good is in the book is outweighed by the division and judgment and history of violence caused by the war to be the one and only true Christian sect since the religion's inception. There are more peaceful ways to live without the influence of the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is a patriarchal religion that requires women to be submissive to anyone with a penis. The apologists can spin this a societal benefit, but in reality, this is slavery. Nothing good about it.
Maybe a Sunday School lesson from a former Christian who was once a Christian radio announcer with a national following will acquaint you with what is actually in the Bible about the history of the followers of Yahweh.
The Bible is a book of violence and atrocities committed by followers of Yahweh at the behest of Yahweh because Yahweh is an ANGRY, VENGEFUL, BLOODTHIRSTY god continually needing blood sacrifices. Yahweh sounds more like a very needy, mentally ill man than it does a god capable of creating anything beneficial for a society of humans.
Everything in life is about slavery in one form are another, mocowgirl. What community do you dwell in where you are in utter freedom to do as you want—I will join you! But, first you must guarantee me we will be under no one's jurisdiction, not even each other's!
Sorry, I do not have time to watch an hour plus length video right now. So if you can, summarize it. Or, just keep it for your personal archive.
Only if you broaden the definition of slavery so much as to make it meaningless.
"Broaden" away. Words are constructs with (reality) meanings poured in, no?
Sounds like the 5 stages of grief
It was. I mourned the death of the religious belief that had controlled my thoughts and actions all of my life.
I had actually spent my life trying to placate the abusive people in my life who had mental disorders so I would not fry in Hell for eternity for not being "forgiving". I had been gaslighted, hit and raped. I was angry that the Bible told me that I should pray about it and maybe god would "change" the abusers.
This all seems completely bullshit today, but it is what is being taught in evangelical churches even today.
I feel fortunate that I did not waste my entire life trying to aid and abet abusers. In many ways, I have Loretta Kemsley to thank for that. It seems like a lifetime ago, instead of 8 years, that I was defending anonymous rapists who make headlines by declaring on Newsvine that we all know that women commonly lie about rape. Loretta taught me in a no nonsense, take no prisoners comment that I had been indoctrinated to hate women. I licked my emotional wounds for a few days while examining why I was defending rapists after the life that I had led and was still leading. The answer was religious indoctrination. I was still a Christian at the time, but highly suspicious of why my loving god wasn't so loving toward women.
(((mocowgirl)))
Loretta is a good woman
A very good woman.
Yes, she is.
I am grateful every single day that I made her acquaintance. Although she was not raised in the Bible Belt, she had also been raised in a very religious environment that was abusive to women overall and to her very specifically. I felt privileged to have her at my side, holding my hand, and guiding my new path away from the religious indoctrination that was draining my life away. It was a journey that she had been forced to make at a far younger age. I learned to respect and trust Loretta in ways that soothed my soul instead of harmed it. I hope everyday that she is repaid in a thousand ways for the kindness that she has shown me and others.
Loretta is a great woman and I miss her! You are a great woman in your own right and your sharing has been a growth to us all! I will never forget you either and haven't. Happy New Year Mocowgirl!
Thank you for your kindness, Robin. You have also been a blessing in my life's journey.
Happy New Year, Robin!
Can Atheists Be Religious? Are there Religious Atheists?
Religion and Atheism Are Not Contradictory or Opposites
Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious , there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, but atheism is quite compatible with religion. Theists in the West tend to be religious, but theism is compatible with irreligion.
To understand why, it is necessary to keep in mind that atheism is nothing more than absence belief in the existence of gods. Atheism is not the absence of religion, the absence of belief in the supernatural, the absence of superstitions, the absence of irrational beliefs, or anything else along those lines. Because of this, there is no inherent barrier preventing atheism from being part of a religious belief system. It may not be common, but it's not impossible.
So why does the confusion exist? Why do so many people seem to reflexively assume that atheists must necessarily be irreligious, if not anti-religious?
Quite simply, most religious belief systems (especially those dominant in the West) are theistic — they include belief in the existence of at least one and this belief is often a central, defining characteristic of that religion. It would be very difficult (and probably impossible) for a person to combine atheism with adherence to such a religious faith because doing so would require redefining the religion to such an extent that most members might not recognize it anymore.
This is likely the reason why you will even see some atheists assuming that theism and religion are so deeply intertwined that they won't bother to distinguish between the two, using the labels almost interchangeably. However, just because most religions we encounter incorporate theism, that shouldn't lead us to assume that all religions are therefore necessarily theistic.
SOURCE:
Because people like to play semantic games with words. Words have multiple usages and some people think it is clever to use one usage of a word while readers thinking they are actually employing the common usage.
Silly, intellectually dishonest games. I doubt many will fall for this nonsense though.
Because the most common usage (by far) of the word 'religious' is the one that includes belief in a god.
Since an atheist is, by definition, one who is not convinced a god exists, one naturally would find the word 'irreligious' to be quite complementary.
And I am dealing with the most basic definitions of two rather well understood words. So what is the confusion?
Sam Harris is an atheist who writes passionately about elimination of faith in God and accompanying world religions, he even wrote a book about it: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.
is it word-play or confusion on any believers' part to suspect that by 'elimination' of world religions and faith in God, Sam Harris (and secularists who assent to his worldview) hates God? It is common for people to see to get rid of those things they detest.
Sam Harris is concerned (as am I) about the amazingly widespread belief in stories penned by ancient men. Stories that fail to be evidenced even after thousands of years. He is, in a phrase, concerned about the lack of critical thinking.
Religions are brilliant mechanisms for influencing people (instruments of power). I am confident that Sam Harris views the influence to be bad and equally confident that he finds it bad that so many are willing to forego critical thinking and act according to their beliefs. To act, in spite of critical thinking, because someone told them that the grandest possible entity wants them to act this way.
Today the most stark example of why this is terrible are the suicide bombers who think they are serving Allah.
Sam Harris does not believe in any god. He has nothing to hate. He does, however, believe that religions exist. So maybe he hates religions? That is possible.
Are you addressing Cline's article? I am not confused by what Cline wrote there.
Sam Harris does not believe in any god. He has nothing to hate. He does, however, believe that religions exist. So maybe he hates religions? That is possible.
@6.1.2 Because the most common usage (by far) of the word 'religious' is the one that includes belief in a god.
So Sam Harris critically hates religions which includes belief in God? 'God inclusive'? Sam Harris hates God (he does not belief in).
So you do not believe in God. You believe religions exist. You [maybe] hate religions that include belief in a god. TiG, do you hate God (you do not belief in)?
That sentence makes no sense. One can hate religion while not buying that any of them are true. Indeed, one who hates religion is quite likely to not believe in a God. Also, I do not know if Sam Harris hates religion. I just noted that it is possible (and understandable).
Here again, this makes no sense. I am not sure 'hate' is how I would describe my position. I think that religions have more bad than good and would absolutely applaud any religion that drops belief based on what other human beings merely opine.
And, as I have noted, if one is not convinced a god exists, what exactly is there to hate?
It is so strange that this incredibly simple notion just does not seem to sink in. It is as though you really, really, really want it to be true that atheists hate god and are trying everything and anything to make that so. But obviously it is a direct semantic contradiction. Why do you not realize that your goal is flat out impossible?
What are you writing about? You argue what you suggest as my motive (agenda) and then ask me to answer your 'strawman'? That's offensive. Moreover, for the record, insults make poor arguments.
The quote starts with 'it is as though'. That language was placed there on purpose. It has a profound impact on the rest of the sentence.
Instead of complaining, take a stand. Do you want atheists to hate God or are you just trying to find the truth? I think you want it to be true that atheists hate God. If I am wrong, clear it up.
Note that you ignored my response. Nothing to offer on the actual meat of my comment?
This should be easy for you: You could have stated a reasonable position is for you to be tolerant of opposing points of view—hatred of God not being necessarily or serving a a meaningful purpose.
But, you did not do so.
Did I post this article? Am I pontificating in the video above? Did I write the article on religious atheists (No! Austin Cline did)? So you should direct your comments to the atheists 'speaking' throughout this thread. I am at liberty to remark on their points (and I will do so).
Note: I am fully aware that atheists are trained to ask plenty of questions, a variety even, and believers can likewise ask and answer reasonable questions. Moreover, not all questions deserve a reply as silence is its own useful form of an answer in plenty of circumstances.
What do you think this means:
Do you think that means I 'hate' religions? Or, as most human beings might read the words, does it mean that 'hate' is too strong of a word? You do not need me to break this down to a grade school level. Just read the words.
Are you now trying to claim you disagree with Cline?
Trained? Are you serious? If so you need to tone down your imagination.
That's offensive. Moreover, for the record, insults make poor arguments. Just speak straight-forward.
So I should avoid using vague, defensive, deflective, victim-playing language? Excellent advice.
Take it and run with it in 2019!
It seems you're the one who is being offensive and offering up insults and strawmen.
'Take it and run with it in 2019!'
Please take your own advice. As in avoiding using vague, defensive, deflective, victim-playing language. Thanks!
Some things never change
Not buying into it this year, Tesslyo!
Ditto!
That is exactly right TiG. To the lengths these religious indoctrinator-predators guys will go to is fascinating if not totally irrational and irritating though.
Holy Moly!
LOL!
Yeah, the imagination of some people.
So will I see you at the next atheist training session? They plan to explain exactly how to achieve atheism. I think the steps are as follows:
Gonna be challenging.
Is this the atheist training session? This is where people go to learn how to be unconvinced that a god exists?
you slipped up by revealing your own suggestive agenda with the following:
Tig hasn't mentioned anything about hating religion(s) nor hating the god(s) that those religions worship - you put that suggestion into the conversation all by yourself thusly revealing your own agenda of trying to emotionally accuse atheists of "hating" a god that they are not convinced even exists nor believe in.
Here is an appealing site attempting to get up and established (even on Facebook!) to 'drop.'
1.
2.
About
The Atheist Seminary is composed of people who wish to serve as Atheist Ministers – that is, people who help others draw upon a rational, evidence-based world view to fulfill human needs that in ages past were filled by religion and other similar superstitions.
Atheism is not really a religion. We profess no supernatural or otherwise unverifiable beliefs. However, we believe that human beings have certain needs that, in the past, most people have turned to religion for. However, we do not believe that religion is really needed for that purpose. We believe that there is no reason why one can’t draw upon a rational, evidence-based world-view to address these human needs – except that, in many cases, details of how to do so haven’t been worked out. (Religions, on the other hand, have had centuries to do this.)
Furthermore, when someone wishes to fulfill these basic human needs from religion or other superstition, there are plenty of ministers out there who will help them do so. On the other hand, if they need the help of a minister to fulfill those same needs from a rational, evidence-based view, they’ll not likely find any minister to help, as there is no prevalent institution of ministers to help address these needs from a rational, evidence-based world-view.
The goal of the Atheist Seminary is to rectify both of these shortcomings – shortcomings that are not inherent to atheism itself, but rather, to the current status of the Atheist community.
Source:
NOTE: Granted this site is not quite up and going, but how confusing for believers to find a location on the web for an atheist (aka: nonbelievers) 'ministry', when some atheist protest there is 'no such thing!'
Now, who is deliberately mistaken or ignorant?
The mistaken one is you if you think this supports your claim:
You claimed atheists (unqualified) are trained to ask plenty of questions. Trained by whom? There is no grand order of atheism. The only requirement to be an atheist is to be unconvinced there is a god. No training required. No ceremony. No dues. No organization of any kind. Just lack of belief is all that is necessary.
As I have noted. Simple. But you insist on finding 'organized atheism' to support your notion that atheism is a religion. So this is the silliness that results. But I wonder if you realize why what you have offered does not support your claim:
You are arguing a faulty generalization fallacy.
In a world of almost 8 billion people one can expect to find examples of almost anything. Examples do not define the general case. I can find quite a few examples of pedophile priests and societal leeches calling themselves reverend and preaching prosperity gospel. It would be a faulty generalization to argue Aha ... see ... priests are pedophiles, or to argue men of the cloth are societal leeches exploiting the weak.
You found a fledgling facebook site with the name 'Atheist Ministry'. You have a data point. You could Google about and collect a number of these isolated data points. This act would provide evidence that some atheists (like theists) belong to organizations. You are not supporting your unqualified claim that atheists are trained.
Now if you want to revise your claim and say 'some atheists are trained' no doubt you could find some group that has an atheist training program (whatever that might be). Of course you could also claim that some atheists are vegans or some atheists scuba dive or some atheists believe aliens are on the Earth living among us for the very same reason.
You will of course find organizations consisting of atheists and the organizations might do any number of things. Not news.
Bring back evidence that atheists - as a rule - undergo training. Now that would be news.
You sound like (horrors!) an apologist for atheists!!! Next you will declare no such personage exist in the world. Cue up: AronRa below.
Point of clarification! Atheists (example AronRA) co-op a mantle of reason and critical thinking: (There are atheists, of various types, in seminar sessions pervasive around the world.)
Note: There is nothing wrong with training and other forms of growth and development. It is a pretense of not doing so which is disingenuous.
Then you did not read what I wrote. I showed that your argument is simply a faulty generalization. How you could come to apologist from that is quite a leap of imagination.
So do you want to change your claim to: some atheists conduct seminars on critical thinking? Or are you going full bore and leaving off the qualifier to proclaim that atheists (unqualified) co-op a mantle of reason and critical thinking?
Yes. Some atheists conduct seminars on critical thinking. Some atheists conduct seminars on making pastry. Some atheists conduct seminars on thermodynamics. This is all very interesting Cal.
Well at least you did not post another logical fallacy.
AronRA:
I identify as an atheist primarily but I am also a skeptic and I say that because I know atheist who are not skeptics. It is an embarrassing association, but I know atheist who believe in homeopathy, ah, mystical healing, sublaxations and reincarnated extraterrestrials infiltrating the Illuminati.
Not everyone who doesn't not believe in gods has a good reason not to; there are religions that don't believe in gods look at Scientologist, Druids, or Raliens.
So just because you are an atheist doesn't mean that you are rational or skeptical or scientific and that is where the Atheist Collectives includes so many GMO alarmists, anti-v axxers, 9/11 truthers and you know, libertarians.
AronRA lecturing in Regina Saskatchewan, Canada
AronRA:
When I was invited to speak at the Shift to Reason conference in Regina Saskatchewan, other secular Humanist skeptical atheist groups asked me to hop over to a couple cities in Alberta while I was in town. Thanks to the Society of Edmonton Atheists, Center For Inquiry in Calgary, and the Mount Royal University Secular Humanists, the Brainstorm Podcast, and also British Columbia Humanists for collaborating on this tour.
AronRa lecturing in Calgary Alberta, Canada
Source:
People of Faith can be forgiven for getting matters about atheists "just so" because clearly atheists do not get it just right either, frustratingly! Oh, and these are training sessions, by another name.
Observe the word coming out of the mouth of AronRa: "Atheist Collectives." (On the source link.)
Faulty generalization again. Let's go and list all the churches in the USA who claim that homosexuality is an immoral sin - an abomination - and then generalize that into Christians hold homosexuals to be immoral who engage in acts that are abominations. Faulty generalization is a fallacy. Something to avoid.
Do you consider AronRa the king of atheists? If so, you might want to provide the evidence. My guess is that you have not yet looked up 'faulty generalization fallacy'.
Ohhh! So now deflect back to churches and religious folks? AronRa, the king of Atheists (for me)? I do not have to consider AronRa anything special—those training sessions are filled with atheists and not people of faith!
You're so defensive- for someone claiming to be a non-apologist for atheism!!! Are you absolutely sure you are not an Apologist?
Deflection means to avoid the challenge by changing the focus. Addressing the challenge by providing an illustration as to why your challenge is silly is directly addressing the challenge. You should read up on these terms before using them.
And what do you conclude from the fact that AronRa, an atheist, teaches atheists? Is this how you generalized into:
If so I suggest you rephrase as: 'I am fully aware that AronRa trains his student atheists to ask plenty of questions'. By the way, the appropriate response to such a proclamation would be: 'why is that noteworthy?'.
Defensive. Deflective. Derisive. Dismissive.
Cal, you are just tossing out nonsense labels now. Let your argument die with some dignity.
Interesting. "Mr. Never Personal" is feigning concern about my dignity.
How is the weather there?
Pretty funny. You misread even that simple comment. I was referring to the dignity of your argument:
There is so much substantial discussion 'there' shared by an outstanding atheist and you dismissed it all just to 'clapback' (deflect) at Christians and homosexuals. You demonstrate time and time again you can not speak 'ill' of your fellow atheists because you solidly agree with them 99.9 percent of the time. But the Church, People of Faith, and Religion you can 'abuse' all day and night long. You are definitely biased, despite feigning denial.
Well this year will be something different. The expression goes: "Watch this space."
I will take my "argument dignity" back up to the video, if that's okay with you. See ya!
In 2019 my suggestion is that you try much harder to not make things personal. There is an easy method to accomplish this:
In other words, focus on the actual argument and not the person making the argument.
That said ... you could be making any number of points in the Aron Ra portion of your comment. What point did you want to make? Aron Ra was speaking of human nature - honestly noting that atheists are human like everyone else and that they come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and flavors.
Why is this significant?
IMPASSE.
This comes from the opening seconds of the video attached to this article. I would like to ask a question of NT atheists (on this thread):
As an atheist do/are you:
1. Love God. (What God stands for)?
2. Like God. (What God stands for)?
3. Hate God (What God stands for)?
4. Indifferent to God (What God stands for)?
I should think the answer would be obvious.
We are not convinced that god, yours or anybody else's, exists. Our view of him is no different from our view of any other character which is likely fictional.
May I drill down on this? Do/are you: (Choose one.)
1. Love. 2. Like. 3. Hate. 4. indifferent to.
What this 'likely fictional' God stand for?
Which version of it?
The one who condoned slavery, genocide, misogyny, and rape? If that god were a real being, I'd hate what it stood for.
The one who says to love your neighbor? I like what that guy stood for, mostly, whether he was a god or not.
The one who threatens us with hell if we don't believe in him? That guy seems to pop up pretty frequently in the fairy tale, and he seems pretty deplorable, too.
So that is:
Hate. Like, Hate.
That is two or three choices depending on how one counts! If you condense the fairy tale down into one choice (if possible) which would it be?
1. Like. 2. Hate.
What this 'fairy tale' God stands for?
Specify which of god's personalities you want to discuss. I can't give a good answer to a bad question.
That's hilarious. Here let me ask you the same question:
May I drill down on this? Do/are you: (Choose one.)
1. Love. 2. Like. 3. Hate. 4. indifferent to.
What this 'likely fictional' Spaghetti Monster stand for?
So which is it CB? Do you love the spaghetti monster? Do you hate him? Are you just indifferent to his noodly appendage? Maybe as you ponder the answer to that question you'll come to understand the answer to your own.
I kinda prefer Zues as the superhero God out of l the Gods ever imagined.
With that said, I'm finally catching back up a bit here today.
CB, I like you, I do, but you're the one incredibly and ridiculously defensive bordering being offensive. And it's not either a good defense or a rightful offense. TiG is totally right to call out the nonsense. And he's done so with class, as always.
Here's a fact for you I came to my wake up call, not from training by a single atheist but by my Christian training (programming) I didnt even seek any like minded people or fellow atheists out ever. I didnt seek community, but it is the one thing that typically gets lost whe you come to terms about the charade of your religious indoctrination.
I don't hate your God, because it is not any more real than any other mythical god mankind has created. I understand why they were all created, including yours because de I no longer see this from just the inside of Christianity.
I do however hate your religion and the harm it's done and is doing. No matter how kind a Christian believer is, they still believe in armageddon which threatens our humanity. They still believe they must fight for your narcissistic god. The fight is strong between the major religions and has been the back bone source of most wars. So many of the evangelical churches are drumming up the end of days crap and it is alarming. It will not go unnoticed and it will not happen without a fight from those of us that know you are misled although we understand it is your right to be misled. To us non-believers, your dogma is a travesty and a human stain, fettered about in the guise of goodness. When in fact, its ever bit of frightening as ISIS, although the Christians have not yet openly declared jihad, it's right there in your bible. And the white crime that ensues by those using your religion as a ruse to harm others is also very telling. It is not a religion I trust. Nor should it be trusted by anyone.
With that said; when I bring up these facts to my kind hearted Christian friends, they all sort of cower and deny.
What say you about your training?
But Kratos kicked Zeus's godly @ss (God of War reference), Lol
The thing I liked about the Nordic, Greek and Roman gods is that they were defined as flawed. The ancients did not claim these gods were perfect, omniscient, omnipotent. Accordingly, these god characters actually have more definitional credibility than the Abrahamic God who is ostensibly omniscient yet is sometimes surprised by what His creations do (one of many examples).
Indeed. They were certainly more relatable than the Abrahamistic god. But the pantheon of gods also seem to represent different aspects of humanity or the human psyche.
Some of those gods contributed to man's foibles and fails. The difference is, man knew that and didn't make excuses.
1. I can't love something that doesn't exist. And no, I don't love what the Christian god stands for. If it did exist, it would be evil if it were as described in the Bible. If it were human it would be convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.
2. Same as above.
3. Same as above.
4. I would be indifferent if there weren't so many awful things done because of people's worship of God. Not to mention how religion all too often results in stamping out people's intellectual curiosity, critical thinking ability, and intelligence, because learning threatens their faith.
Pardon, you reply is unclear. Please choose from the remaining three choices: (Choose one.)
1. Like. 2. Hate. 3. Indifferent to.
What God stands for.
As has been pointed out by others, it depends on what you claim God stands for. And since the bible is so contradictory, the same god appears as an evil, narcissistic, thin skinned, insane being and also (more rarely) as a loving being. Belief in it has led some people to do good, but has led far more to do horrible things. So it's not a simple "like, hate, indifference" as you're trying to push.
So you do not love the Christian God.
Nevertheless, you are in an "unclassified" state-of-mind when it comes to like, hate, or indifference to a God you say that were it to exist it would stand for evil, and be convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.
Is that accurate?
What the bible says God is like, and what it stands for to many people, aren't necessarily the same thing. To my mom, it's a loving God who will take everyone to heaven as long as they're good people - regardless of whether they believe in it, or worship it, or not. She's not a literalist and doesn't believe in the evil, jealous god depicted in the bible. She cherry picks just the good stuff. So I like what god stands for to her.
You're trying to play semantics, as always, and overcomplicate things to make ... I don't even know what point you are ever trying to make.
Dear Friend Katrix: Your dear Mother, You and I once more share common ground on this point, as on so many others.
To the three of us, as to so many others, the G-d of our Scriptures and commentaries, our heritages is one who welcomes all the righteous, whatever the do and do not believe to the world to come.
It is by good deeds the world gets better, one at a time.
We need not be perfect.
None of us are or can be.
What we believe is best known by how we act.
If there is a mismatch between what we claim to believe and what we do, go with the actions.
That most truly reflects what actually we believe.
The G-d before whom I stand in Awe, not fear is one filled with Mercy.
El Ma'aleh Rachamim.
Happy, Healthy, Fulfilling, Prosperous, Meaningful New Year in 2019 to You and Yours.
Enoch.
I've never understood those who think God wants them to fear it - and who worship it despite that! Happy New Year to you and yours!
Dear Friend Katrix: Many thanks.
I too don't get the fear thing.
From Rosh Ha Shanah (Birthday of the World) until Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) are the Yomim Ha Norayim (Days of Awe).
Note that they are NOT the Yomim Ha Pachadadim (Days of Fear).
It is important for many of us to stand in awe of the G-d who accepts repentance and atonement by one and all.
Not out of fear.
Rather out of awe and as a role model to follow.
My, your and other Scriptures and their commentaries read very differently in the original languages when not misinterpreted 100% literally than they do in translation; and as if they are technical writing device repair manuals.
A little honesty and avoidance of straw person arguments by those with nefarious agendas goes a very long way in making this life more harmonious for those who wish it to be so.
To knowledge and good will over ignorance and hatred in the hearts for a better future in 2019 and far beyond.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always to You, Yours and All of Us Who Ever We May Be, and Choose to Become.
Enoch.
Amen. (So be it.)
I am sorry, but I do not recall mentioning your dear Mom. I repeat:
So, you do not love the Christian God.
Nevertheless, you are in an "unclassified" state-of-mind when it comes to like, hate, or indifference to a God you say that were it to exist it would stand for evil, and be convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.
Is that accurate?
God and 'what God stands for' are quite different. One cannot love/like/hate God if one is not convinced that God exists. So the question makes no sense. However, loving/liking/hating what God stands for is different. Trouble is, whose god is 'God' and what specifically do you think the god stands for? That needs to be clear before anyone can provide an answer.
To me, Yahweh stands for subjugation and most people probably hate subjugation. Jesus stands for Love (at least in the big picture). So I think most everyone would love or like what Jesus (big picture) stands for.
But if you want to focus on what something stands for why even mention the 'God'? If asking atheists these questions just skip the God (a character of fiction) aspect altogether and ask about the clearly stated factors for which you think God stands.
As for God itself, to me this is a reference to a character in a book. It has no more meaning to me than Voldemort of Harry Potter, John Snow of Games of Thrones or Froto of the Lord of the Rings.
But outside of the books, there might indeed be a god. Trouble is, we know absolutely nothing about this god.
The God of the Bible has multiple personalities. He apparently stands for different values at different times, depending on who's acting as his scribe.
Most gods would be highly medicated if they were human because of this.
Possibly institutionalized. For all the drownings and smitings, you know.
The Abrahamic god makes Charles Manson or Jim Jone's crimes look like a teenage misdemeanor. Even David Koresh would have been an amateur. Why anyone would want to worship such a psychopath is beyond me, but it seems as long as you are taught to fear him and be told that he loves you, despite the facts, people can manage to do anything.
I saw a very sarcastic meme on Facebook last night that asked who was Jesus praying to because the Bible says that he was God? He would have also impregnated his own mother which takes the idea of incest to a new level of perversion.
Normally, I would call the "proceedings" (above) mockings and ridiculing, but intellectual and rational people, I'm repeatedly told, even in the video above, as atheists and skeptics do not stoop to such tactics to discredit matters of a religious nature. Because atheists and skeptics want to make the conversation between us all better.
"What should be taken away from this is that the solution to all of these ridiculous statements is genuine empathy. If [theists] put yourself in an atheist shoes you could see how they could just as easily hurl these ideas in your direction. If you show empathy towards us you'll actually ask us what we think and believe rather than asserting it before you even try to understand.
I encourage atheists to have the same empathy toward theists as well. Don't belittle others with statements like these, and if you want to have any productive dialogue with those who believe differently you're going to have to listen before you speak."
— Genetically Modified Skeptic
To have an intellectual conversation one must put forth comments / questions that can be taken seriously. Vague, seemingly undirected questions will be taken seriously (answered) for a while but at some point people will start finding them pointless.
It is easy enough to have a discussion / debate with most atheists. If you make a claim then back it up with evidence and logic. Be honest, steer clear of fallacies and intellectually dishonest debate tactics; avoid trying to maneuver people into using select words that can be used out of context as part of an: 'aha' declaration. Things like that.
In this latest discussion, you asked questions that seemed to go nowhere. The point was (and remains) unclear. Three atheists provided direct, honest, fair answers to your questions. You then demanded more specificity without increasing the clarity of your questions. For example, you should answer: what does God stand for in your mind? If you want people to be more specific you need to be more specific.
Maybe follow Enoch's lead?
I'm listening to Genetically Modified Skeptic in the video above at #1 lie. He is giving an honest assessment about atheists and hardship. He insinuates (using his anecdotal life story as example) atheists only become so during good and balanced states in their lives.
1. Do the atheists on this thread agree with GMS's suggestion?
2. Has there been a de-convert to an atheistic worldview due to a hardship/s?
No, he doesn't. He says that he became an atheist during a good time in his life. He objects to the generalization often made by believers that nonbeliever stopped believing because they were going through a bad time in their lives.
And what difference does the anecdotal experiences of an individual atheist make?
Given there is no process for becoming an atheist (no ritual, no counseling, no rite of passage) and no special criteria required, it seems silly to analyze the views of individuals and infer that what might be true for one or some defines atheism itself.
After all, an atheist is simply a person who is not convinced a god exists.
Why do some try to make this more complicated than it is? What, ultimately, is the point?
Possibly because they can't fathom lack of belief.
Sometimes, as we often see, the point is to paint atheists in an unfavorable light.
I think for a lot of people it is just confusing. I don't quite understand why but when people ask me about it they just can't seem to fathom how it happened.
Makes sense. If one cannot imagine how easy it is to not be convinced a god exists, one might be driven to try to solve the mystery. The search for the fatal flaw common to atheists? What makes them so mentally unbalanced that they would willingly choose an eternity of damnation rather than an eternity of bliss in Heaven with a loving God who has no problem damning His creations to eternal suffering simply because they did not believe He existed based on zero positive evidence and an plethora of negative evidence?
In contrast, I do understand why people believe in their various gods. I can -for the most part- summarize this complex phenomena with the word 'comfort'.
Hi Repojam!
I think part of that is the lack of questioning built into most religions. Questioning (i.e. thinking critically) is translated into 'losing one's faith' and faith is deemed to be a good thing ... a great thing ... something to which one should aspire. And of course some religions go so far as to teach that any critical analysis of one's beliefs is giving in to Satan.
In result, I suspect many (if not most) religious people simply accept a god exists and do not really give it much thought. Implicitly they might be thinking: why would anyone think otherwise?
I google "most peaceful religions". It comes down to Jainism - a religion where people work on themselves, and themselves only, and allow others to do the same. Unfortunately, there are only a few million people on
the planet who are capable of following the tenants of Jainism.
Hi Repojam. See @8.
AronRA:
I identify as an atheist primarily but I am also a skeptic and I say that because I know atheist who are not skeptics. It is an embarrassing association, but I know atheist who believe in homeopathy, ah, mystical healing, sublaxations and reincarnated extraterrestrials infiltrating the Illuminati.
Not everyone who doesn't not believe in gods has a good reason not to; there are religions that don't believe in gods look at Scientologists, Druids, or Raliens.
So just because you are an atheist doesn't mean that you are rational or skeptical or scientific and that is where the Atheist Collectives includes so many GMO alarmists, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and you know, libertarians.
Most religious believers do not even observe or consider that there is 'warfare' going on between new-atheists and fundamentalists-Christians.
Since 9/11/2001 the "struggle" between the two groups has come up in a big way in this country and online! There are parties trying to drive wedges between religion and science, church and state (government), and remove all of what one side (new atheists) consider pseudoscience and world religions from the "systems of this world." The vehicle for executing this: reason and science. Aka: Scientism. (The belief that science can solve all of life questions (including moral questions, alone.)
Most church people are oblivious to what is happening. Church people simply focus on their passion which is a personal faith in God. I likewise, until I stumbled across what ultimately became contentious and protracted 'battles' online with various 'factions' of atheists, secular-humanists, skeptics, and others
Most church people are oblivious to this happening. They simply focus on there passion which is faith in God. I likewise, until I stumbled across what ultimately became me joining in on contentious and protracted 'battles' online (2013 thereabouts) did not know just how clearly drawn the lines were for both 'camps 'with fundamentalists-Christians and a variety of 'factions' of atheists, secular-humanists, skeptics, and other nonbeliever groups—all of the latter having in common a mostly anti-theistic stand and holding to the same arguments.
What can become exhausting is the 'distractions,' 'piling on' and 'cliquish behavior,' to identify just a few of the challenges, to getting these nonbelievers to explain themselves straight-forward to believers who are not a 'threat' factor to them. I have several years of attempts at doing this one thing with limited success.
It is difficult-extremely difficult-to learn about people who are not open to talking about themselves, while saying the wildest things imaginable about what someone else considers of value. But that happens here a lot! One difference between me and many of my fellow believers—I take the time to engage, interact, read, and research the subject matter of all involved.
NOTE: I think it is important to point out for you at this time: I am a Protestant Christian without a church home and a non-fundamentalist.
Jainism is likely the most peaceful religion (of any magnitude) on the planet.
ADDENDUM: It is notable for me to state that a majority of the atheists writing into this "discussion," I have known for several years going back to several years on NewsVine. We 'came over' together! We are not new to one another. The odd thing is I feel as though I know as little about their atheistic points of view now as then. Time has not improved our communication or depth one iota.
Probably because lesser peaceful sects get annihilated by the followers of violent religions doing the bidding of a vengeful, bloodthirsty god who seems to lack a more peaceful way of communicating with people. Followers who believe it is better to work over others instead of work on themselves.
I absolutely agree. Pacifism is a very tough way to go. I am confident that we are not yet evolved enough as a species to enable a foundation of pacifism.
That was a great video. Funny how many of those within the Abrahamic (Western) religions basically ignore the tenets of their holy books (and history) and regard their religions as peaceful - representative of a loving God. Confirmation bias — acknowledge only what you like and ignore the rest. Its corollary is what we see often in discussions / debates — fit the evidence to the desired conclusion rather than following the evidence to wherever it leads.
I think most of us have been pretty clear. We aren't convinced that your god, or any god, for that matter, exists. And that's it.
You make this much harder than it needs to be by assigning views and motivations to us that do not exist, much like the theists who are the subject of the seeded video above.
Consider what you're saying here. We do not drive a wedge between religion and science. The facts are what they are. If religion says the Earth is 6000 years old and that all species came into being within the time frame of a few days, it is not incumbent on science to find a way to agree with that. If those myths aren't able to be supported with fact, then they're myths, and they don't deserve the same status as fact. That's not driving wedges; it's declining to put fantasy on the same footing with reality.
We here in the US live in a secular society, by design. That protects the lives and freedoms of many - those who are attracted to others of their same sex, for example. The Abrahamic religions would oppress folks like that - deny them freedom, civil rights, and sometimes even life itself.
I don't know of anybody who believes that science can solve all of life's questions.
As has been explained to you ad nauseum, we don't believe that God (yours or any other) exists, due to the lack of evidence for him (or them). It's a pretty simple concept. There is very little reason for you to misunderstand it, other than those you fabricate yourself.
I think in many cases an atheist point of view might surprise you.
If we were to sit down over coffee or a beer, I believe you'd find we have a lot more in common until we hit the point of believing in a higher power. That's where we differ.
I don't have any issues with the idea of churches or the support they provide to their communities or to their parishioners. Many people use their religious principles to work on themselves and to become a better person. I think that is a good thing for them.
If someone really, really wants a particular belief to be true, a great method of personally achieving that end (or at least the illusion of it) is to gather as many tiny bits of data that can be correlated with the belief as possible. So if one would like atheism to be a religion, for example, one could Google to find rare cases of secular organizations that have some resemblance to organized religion (by having a mantra, conducting instructional meetings, etc.). Take those few data points (no matter how obscure compared to the whole) and declare AHA! -- yes -- I knew it! This is proof that atheism is a religion.
Trouble is, when one applies these ill-conceived 'proofs' to real atheists one will quickly find that the targets rebut these claims of atheism as a religion or atheists-hate-God as ridiculous. Even when the rebuttal is clearly explained by several people -and from differing perspectives- the notion WILL NOT BE dislodged. By 'God' atheism is a religion that hates God - I know this!! - I just have to find better proof.
To wit, the problem is not that atheists (in general) withhold information. The problem is that the information provided clashes with what the 'filtered-listener' wants to hear.
In a lot of cases I believe we have to take things into context and remember that religious texts for the Abrahamic religions we encounter most are typically on the order of 1300+ years old with the Book of Mormon being the outlier. Even in that case, the book of Mormon is almost 190 years old.
The world changes a lot between now and then and it's one of the reasons that I try to remember context of when the book was written when comparing "peace" by today's standards.
Consider the Eastern religions too.
Hinduism is arguably the world's oldest religion. Buddhism is ancient as well. Even Jainism dates back to the 6th century BCE. These are among the most peaceful religions (of any notoriety) compared to the younger Abrahamic religions.
Hi TiG, somehow I missed this one in my reply fest.
I think this is much more common than people think. When you're raised religious and with churches that frequently serve your community members and neighbors, it likely adds to the reinforcement. You're used to seeing everyone at church on a Sunday and it becomes the norm.
When someone falls outside the norm, for whatever reason, I think the question of "why are they like this" may be the first thing that comes up... especially when it flies in the face of a lifelong norm.
Agreed.
I completely agree. Having lived my entire life surrounded by Christians (friends, family, etc.) I see most of them conducting their lives with religion as pretty much an afterthought. Sure a number of them go to church, pray before eating, etc. but most simply believe in 'God' and hold 'God' to be a rather abstract notion. Not a lot of serious thinking / questioning going on.
In fact, it is easy to see just how little most of those in my circle understand about their respective religions. My conclusion is that they are content to hold the belief that there is something beyond this life and that there is something that ultimately will make everything right - a master plan and the power to carry it out. Beyond that comfort, I really do not think they give this much thought (in general).
Two speedy points:
1. Christianity in its true form, respects liberty . And, only a subset of Christians are 'young Earthers.' An area of fundamentalist Christian study I rarely engage in discussion because I have no interest in it whatsoever. Regarding homosexuality, the discussion continues to be an obstacle to peace between people for many. Not for me. In my background I have lived that lifestyle sufficiently, and now voluntarily choose to walk a path more conducive to a standard spiritual path. Consequently, having looked at life from both sides now, I can trust other people to choose their own path and in the real world I explain my truth to other believers: Just relax and "Let God" save a life and a soul in God's own time and in God's own way.
2. Scientism . This is what the "system" is called and it is real. In my opinion its discussion here similiar to young Earthers would be beyond the scope of this article.
3. My Christian faith is not a threat to you. Granted we are clear and well-rehearsed on the meddlesome political activities of some fundamentalists-Christians and some Evangelicals, but I have just as clearly explained and demonstrated that ain't me. I am an embodiment of the "other" Christians. But, I digress.
You are refreshing and interesting. Nice to meet you, Repojam! Perhaps. . . .
That is a matter of opinion. IMO, it does not.
You can choose to ignore YECs, if you like. That does not mean they don't exist, and in fairly large numbers. Throw in the believers in ID, and you still have a fairly large number of Christians who believe superstition over fact. Those same Christians would hold other religions' creation myths to be just that - myths. And yet recognizing your favorite myth as a myth is "driving a wedge between science and religion".
And? So is Young Earth Creationism (as a belief, not as an actual fact). I'm willing to bet there are more Young Earth Creationists in this nation than those who think science has the answer to every question. And yet you'd gloss over YECs.
I have not glossed over anything, Sandy. There are plenty of worldviews in our world which are real and can be explained by the folks holding to the views. It is my norm, to demonstrate a lack of interest by not stepping into those discussions. I see one going on and do not 'stop-by.' It is real for its participants.
Scientism is real. I have seen the technique in action in a specific example by Dr. Harriet Hall ("the Skepdoc"):
Dr. Hall is a real treasure in this 10-part series of lectures on science-based medicine. Until, the listener catches on that the Skepdoc is virtually telling her listeners to not trust other "traditional" forms of medicinal therapies (she "audits" in the series).
Frankly, and to be clear, this series is very good. However, I strongly disagree that to encourage people to hold to science based medicine all other traditional and cultural forms of therapies she disputes found in this country and other parts of the world must be jettisoned!
NOTE: The links to the other nine videos can best be viewed on Youtube! She "tackles" or tears down each alternative medicine and therapy in its own 30 minute separate video. After listening to several the pattern is established that she means for these other forms to disappear from society.
You're the one complaining about nonbelievers "driving a wedge between science and religion". I just gave one example which is frequently encountered that illustrates why this is not so. I understand why you'd like to ignore it (it doesn't support your position), but frankly, tough beans. Nobody has to separate science and religion. As we come to know more about our world, religion, with its lack of evidence, is eclipsed by science, which demands evidence.
You don't get to introduce a topic and then shut it down when your position is revealed as weak.
Except that she didn't. She specifically stated that science is not helpful when it comes to questions like "Do I love this person" and "Is this picture beautiful?" Your summation of her position is false.
And she's right about CAM. If it worked, it would be called "medicine".
Whatever. On the otherhand, I can not compel you to 'speak' out about issues and circumstances which you have no opinion about either. So there is that.
There is a 'true form' of Christianity?
If there is, I would be interested to see the highly redacted version of the Bible it uses.
(What utter nonsense, eh?)
Ditto on seeing their Bible. I've never understood the idea that Christianity promotes liberty. Liberty is rarely spoken of, if at all. Christians are told to respect authority, even to be good slaves, if slavery is their lot in life. And there is certainly no room for liberty of thought.
I think, based on my lifelong experiences, the average Christian knows surprisingly little about what is in the Bible. And those who do/have studied the Bible in more depth and remain Christian (many now atheists claim to have lost their faith as a result of deeper learning) do so through confirmation bias. One can see this in religious debates. Take the recent debate on slavery and the resultant inexplicable declaration that slavery was actually a good thing. It is, I suspect, yet another application of fitting the facts / evidence to the desired result rather than objectively following the evidence to wherever it leads.
It is telling that 99.9 percent of the atheists on this thread, who repeatedly tell us that atheism is nothing-very little-everything simultaneously can not push-back against the gravitation of obsessing over hateful and dumb, world religions. Apparently, atheism is nothing-very little-everything when negatively looking out at others to oppose. Funny, how tolerant atheism which is nothing-very little-everything simultaneously in the hands of activists tangibly becomes aggressive and intolerant.
What we keep telling you is that atheism is a lack of belief in gods. You counter by asking if we love or hate god or what god stands for. Rinse, repeat. You get frustrated when you don't get an answer you like, because you're repeatedly asking a really bad question that ignores the very definition of atheism, and also ignores your own religion's scriptures.
And then you start criticizing atheists for not just nodding and agreeing with your mythology, and you get pushback that you don't like.
Some advice - watch the video, and actually pay attention to what it says, not what you want it to say. This video was made for the benefit of theists who make the same sorts of assumptions and comments that you do.
I did watch the video, and some advice to you as well, it is instructive to all assembled here. My "frustration" is contained. And, not anything you should indulge in concern. Wash-rinse-repeat as often as needed that is my motto. (Smile.)
Apparently not.
If it were, you wouldn't be asking if we hate God.
Okay, now we're just being indulgent. I am done with this! Until we 'meet up' again. Too-da-loo!
Yes, I agree that the nonbelievers here have indulged your refusal to pay attention to the seeded video and repeated bad questions (which, BTW, are good evidence that you haven't heeded the video) for quite long enough.
Too-da-loo!
I was gone all day so I am now just catching up.
Confirmation bias ultimately demands one violate/suspend the principles of logic to retain the resultant ill-conceived viewpoint. If one is willing to go that far (violate/suspend the principles of logic), not only are facts ignored (the confirmation bias) but logic itself is not respected.
Nothing will ever register.
True, unfortunately. But on the bright side, this discussion illustrates the video's point quite well.
Because we call a spade a spade. You don't and won't. You're obviously a glad-handing denier of the roots, history and intent of Christianity which is led by your Bible. You love your version of the God you want rather than what he really is depicted as being. Jesus, who no more bears resemblance of your OG (original god) himself from the Old Testament, or his father, depending on which passage you cherry pick to make your case. And isn't that one weird phenomenon. Episette pointed out, to have it that way, requires an act of incest, right?
As the saying goes, I like your Jesus, I don't like your Christian's who are more like the narcissist sociopath god of their indoctrination. If you were all liberal and truly living like Jesus, there'd be no need to worry about talk of armageddon or end of days but that isn't the truth now, is it.
Other than Brother Enoch, who I know means very well, very few of the peeps here who claim to be Christians are nothing close to Jesus in being like-minded or good-hearted. How do you explain that? How do you live with the hypocrisy of the racism, bigotry and selfishness when you look in the mirror or at your fellow so-called Christian?
Holding the Bible as divine coupled with denial of what it says is probably that which motivates me most to engage in religious debate.
It is the (apparently unrecognized) suppression of critical thinking in matters of faith that (to me) is the biggest problem with religions in general.
Probably the most stark example of this is the profound moral problem of the OT in the area of slavery. Throughout the OT and the NT, slavery was replete - it was a critical part of the fabric of ancient societies. The men of the time would see it as normal and acceptable, but the supreme entity - the arbiter of objective morality - certainly would know better. But, since the Bible is the work of men (not a perfect god) the Bible (appropriately) reflects the values and mores of those ancient men.
So instead of condemning as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property, the OT God makes rules for proper enslavement and the NT God is essentially silent.
The Christian defense of this is varied but always very disappointing. It shows how far people will go (abusing logic, cherry-picking, equivocation, etc.) to defend what they 'know' must be true rather than recognize that maybe it is time to rethink one's premises. The misguided defense: 'slavery was not really so bad back then' is truly amazing (and disgusting) to behold.
To that I offer:
Funny, how tolerant atheism which is nothing-very little-everything simultaneously in the hands of activists tangibly becomes aggressive and intolerant.
How do I explain other Christians, their beliefs, and activities? Well, let me be clear, I am not obligated to be an explainer of believers who walk in liberty after their own fashion in denominations, respectively. It is evident that believer can divide themselves into groups emphasizing what is important and notable to their groups, as often as atheists can walk individually, in liberty, and as collective cells together.
Lastly, and I mean this kindly, when I look in the mirror, I do not see myself the way you imagine me. But, you really do not know me—as a Christian or anyone else, do you?
This is exactly why they are truly dangerous, collectively. No matter how much lip stick is put on this pig, there's no denying its underlying facts of fear and hate tactics. Anyone excusing slavery or fomenting the annihilation of mankind cannot and should not be trusted.
I know many atheists, who like myself, were early life indoctrinates who hold more Jesus consciousness in our piggy toes than most Christian's can shake a stick at. The Christians want to claim they have the moral compass and we have none. Yes, there is a sect who actually sets out do do good and no harm but that doesn't excuse what is actually underlying their intent to seduce the unsuspecting into doomsday. How can they run from this fact? I, for one, wont stop at comfortabilitlity and polite conversation to appease.
I believe it's in mankind best interest to pay attention. And that takes some talking the critical thinking aspects of our consciousness it's called Realism.. That IS our moral compass and why we are an evolving species. Our innate sense is to help survive our species, not destroy it.
Do you know many Christians in favor of slavery?
How exactly can one be seduced into doomsday?
Amazing you have to ask this. It's the basic tenet of the Christian belief. I don't believe you don't understand the meaning behind Jesus will come again, aka the Rapture and the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse.
It was bore into me in my youth, as it is now in today's youth. No difference as it's ever been. I see it, the Christian's I know, do admit to it too. Are you claiming its false?
It's the whole framework of their fear indoctrination. Every single Christian cult practices that biblical prophecy. They are all awaiting the Rapture. There is not a damn thing metaphorical about their intent either.
I can't link today, but I highly encourage you to rent the documentary "Constantine's Sword". Written by a 25 year former Jesuit Priest. He lived its rituals and intended wishes for it to be true. You will see many militarized christian groups practicing today. Ready to go to for war for their Lord. They just don't call it jihad, but it's the same damn thing.
So how many Christians do you know that favor slavery? Pardon my ignorance in this, but I have never met any Christian in favor of slavery. In fact, I don't know anyone in favor of it at all. perhaps we just run in different social circles.
Whether you choose to believe or not isn't a concern of mine at all. I gladly let people believe as they wish regarding God and religion without remark.
Nor have I ever attended any church--which includes Episcopal, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist. Not once have I ever heard any minister or preacher refer to "doomsday", not have I ever heard it being taught as something to be feared.
IExcuse me, but I don't believe you were never taught about the end of days. They all practice that. I was once a Christian. Sought many denominations out in my youth. They all bandied it then and still are if you're paying attention. Sure, there's some preachers that stick to the love of Jesus in their sermons. I guess you got those types.
I also guess you missed the recent argument bandied here about slavery being a good concept. Personally, I don't know a single one myself that I'm aware of. That isn't the point that it's being spread out there mainly by evangelical bible thumpers. An excuse for its existence comes from the bible. Tell me you weren't taught that too? You are aware of Jim Crow laws right? Where in the world do you think the excuses of that came about? How about Southern Strategy? Any idea?
I was taught about it, but never taught to fear it for myself or others. Why would anyone fear it? If you believe in God, it's cool, abd if you don't, then there isn't anything for non=believers to worry about, right?
I guess I did miss it. Please let me know the title of the article, and I will take a look at it. Which evangelical bible thumpers are spreading it? Are bible thumpers anyone quoting from the bible? You say that there is an excuse for its existence in the bible, and I asked how many Christians you know that believe in slavery, and you know NONE? And no, I certainly was never taught that slavery was right. What church taught you that?
I am well aware of racist Jim Crow laws passed by Southern conservative Democrats, and an glad we were finally able to get rid if them. Southern strategy? You mean trying to appeal to voters, like every political party does? What about it? Do you think the southern strategy had anything at all to do with slavery?
Robin may be referring to this article: Slavery in the Bible
The discussion continued (below) until it was abruptly broken off there too, before it could reach a positive conclusion. (The group below is started by me, CB.)
The Treatment of non-Isralite Slaves from Moses to Moses Maimonides
STILL defending slavery ? that is quite amazing.....
I will not discuss any of this with you here.
Pretty sure you will not find many people who are going to support your position that ancient slavery was moral. It is not just Phoenyx who finds that position to be inexplicable.
Do you prefer an audience that rubber stamps your ideas instead of a critical audience?
Why not? Phoenyx asks a valid question. It's a yes or no question.
Doubtful, as she was referring to Christians justifying slavery through the bible.
Looks like TiG seeded that article.
In the comments you will see Christian(s) defending ancient slavery as moral. The motivation was to argue that Yahweh's apparent support for slavery (the owning of a human being as property) was actually a good thing. This was a rebuttal to the observation that nowhere in the OT or NT does God condemn as immoral the highly prevalent practice of owning another person as property (He instead made rules for proper enslavement). Even if God were to allow slavery for other reasons, He did not rise above the mores and values of ancient bronze and iron age men and instruct his creations on the basic moral idea that owning another is immoral.
Slavery continued throughout the entire period of the Bible and well beyond without moral words of wisdom from God. The rebuttal to that fact was largely to equivocate on ancient slavery (ignoring that God's biblical stance was still around without revision for subsequent slavery such as our own) and try (fail) to make it appear as though slavery was a good, loving thing.
I wrote the article. The comments are where the debate took place.
Good for you!
If you need a higher power to convince you that slavery is wrong, I feel for you.
I never needed that from anyone or anything to know it is wrong.
By 'you' I presume you mean 'one'. That is, you do understand that my position is that owning another human being as property is immoral.
Agreed. So imagine my surprise when I observed someone actually attempting to spin ancient slavery as a good thing to explain why God never condemned the practice (and even now has not condemned the practice).
Painting a picture using only one color is rather bland.
Why don't you try giving some examples of any present-day Christian churches advocating slavery?
Do you personally believe in God?
I have no idea how this platitude relates to anything I wrote. What, specifically, are you trying to express?
What would be the point of trying to do that? I did not posit that modern Christians support slavery. Indeed, my position is that most every Christian on the planet recognizes slavery as immoral. That is why it was so amazing to observe a Christian equivocating on ancient slavery.
No. There might be a god but I have yet to see evidence supporting that conclusion. When I speak of God (rather than 'a god') I am referring to the biblical god Yahweh / Jesus using the familiar label: 'God'. Why do you ask?
You appear to be painting all Christianity one color based on one thing you read in the Bible.
Why would something that happened thousands of years ago be relevant to modern-day Christianity?
You claimed Christians are defending it, so I asked which church.
I ask so I can understand your posts better. What I really don't get is how someone who doesn't even believe in God can question God or the Bible. How do you believe that an entity you don't believe exists can condemn anything? That is extremely illogical.
Where do I do that? I made no statement about 'all Christians ...'.
Why invent words for me when you can just read what I wrote? No, you have this completely wrong. I was referring to Christian defense of ancient slavery as moral in the comments of the article. You have inexplicably translated that into a claim I did not make: that there are churches who advocate slavery as immoral. That comes from thin air - has absolutely nothing to do with the point made in the article and what I have written here.
Now you are moving to the point of the article. The answer is because God never condemned the owning of another human being as immoral. The Bible is used today as a moral compass yet the God of the Bible who weighed in on eating shellfish, bestiality, etc. never condemned the owning of another human being as immoral. Arguably, the OT God did the opposite. Christians today clearly understand slavery to be immoral. Yet from ancient times (and indeed throughout our own history of slavery in the USA) the Bible has provided the opposite of good moral direction on slavery. The arbiter of objective morality is silent on slavery (being generous here) yet the Bible is still considered divine.
Why does this confuse you? People hold the Bible as divine. There are profound problems with that. Exposing the problems is precisely what one should do. Indeed, it requires one who does not hold the Bible divine to actually propose the problems. Right?
The question is how someone who believes in the biblical God not recognize the profound disconnect in the area of slavery. I personally am quite comfortable I understand why God did not condemn slavery. It was because God is a character in a book. The authors of the book lived in a world where slavery was commonplace and normal. Of course they would not condemn it as immoral. Indeed if the Bible had condemned slavery as immoral that would be an indication of wisdom and perspective that is unlikely to come from the minds of ancient men. But, as you know, God's position on slavery correlates with what one would expect from ancient men pretending to be God.
So, in short, the question is why did God -the arbiter of objective morality- not condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property? If God is merely a character in a book, the answer is obvious. If God is the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving grandest possible entity and arbiter of objective morality then why is there no moral condemnation on owning another human being as property?
Thanks TiG, that was it exactly. It brought further awareness and was very frightening. And the reason why I must always state there's a real rational fear to be had over this religion, as well as the other Abrahamic religions as well. They all want doomsday and will do all they can to see it happens.
It is passive/aggressive behavior on the biggest scale in the world and all created by fearful people, ancient and new age.
I'm going to bow out here. From your replies, you're either being obtuse, or willfully ignorant. It's not worth my time to play games. Example: You know damn well today's teaparty Repubs are NOT Lincoln Repubs but are the hangover of the Dixiecrats and they still are the good ole southern strategists who love subjugation of any others that doesn't look, walk or talk exactly like them. I see no good purpose to go on with you. I also gave you a link to just one of many sources to look up the militarization of today's evangelical churches who are quite effective in their hell, fire and brimstone, end of days browbeating. I do not buy your passive/aggressive mythology or the excuses you will use behind it.
Tig, if you guys want to carry on, then I'll be glad to reply when there is something relevant to add.
TO Texan,
Here's a link of some of your fine upstanding loving Christians who are so damn Jesus like-minded, it's uncanny.
i wish i could say i was surprised by your dodge and avoidance.
Put up or shut—
put up what ? I'M NOT defending slavery - yet YOU ARE defending slavery and seem to think it's perfectly great to own another human being just because.. well.. god, right ?
Nope. Not going to happen in here. "Bowing out."
Split Personality - But this is okay; in fact it started the processs. . . . .
I simply tried to abide by the topic of the article which is NOT slavery by directing to the 'spot' where it can be discussed, and I get ticketed?
People have been redirecting or pointing out group discussions all along here, even I have done so multiple times in 2018.
I merely completed Robin's thought (and correctly as she has confirmed). I provided information.
You, in contrast, are demanding that people go to your article and continue the discussion there.
See?
Slavery
Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock
.
Source: NOTE: For some additional context. Hope it helps!
<
Do you disagree?
Actually, I am only providing additional context to where this kind of 'discussion' stems from to enhance Texan1211 (if interested in it). You and I have already 'been there-done that' and you walked away from my article/thread (see The Treatment of non-Isralite Slaves from Moses to Moses Maimonides ).
I am not in interested in re-hashing this subject matter on a thread " . . . about atheists ."
My article did not come from EvilBible.com nor have I ever gone to that website. My article came from personal knowledge, logic and directly from the Bible itself. So that is not where this 'discussion stems from'. Your comment is incorrect and misleading.
Further I do not consider the Bible to be 'evil'. Errant, man-made, not divine?: Yes. Evil?: No.
If you comment on something —especially if you put forth a totally false claim such as 'this idea came from EvilBible.com'— it is likely that someone will respond to it.
Clearly (and demonstrably via history) you disagree with the passage you quoted — ignoring the actual contents of the Bible.
Locked due to derails and absence of any moderation by the seeder