What I learned in the Religion group today.

[Goblinmonger]

1. Carl Sagan, because he is really smart, has the clearest insight into what the word "atheist" means.
2. He has defined atheist as "An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God."
3. That means that nearly half the world's population is atheist

2.2 billion Christians
1.6 billion Muslims
.014 billion Jews
= 3.814 billion of the 7 billion people in the world believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God

I expect all those telling us that Sagan clearly understands what an atheist is to adhere to this definition. Soon there will be more atheists in the world than theists. Prepare.

[libodem]

1. How long ago was

Dragons of Eden written? I loved it. Was it the 80's? The first chapter where he decodes the Adam and Eve story and explains all the symbolic meanings of all the characters was very enlightening.

[Goblinmonger]

2. 1977

I haven't read that but put that on top of my non-fiction list. Thanks.

[libodem]

3. I was thinking I had read it before

I had my kids.

[libodem]

4. I just thought about it a little more

The snake was an important symbol. I can't remember but it has to do with the same reasons a snake is on the medical symbol. Possibly near poisoning bringing on visions and insights. The apple was about the knowledge. The knowledge was female reproduction and the key to making babies that was kept secret and sacred. Once man took a bite of the apple he lost his innocence that intercourse lead to child birth. Once men understood paternity they were about the point of the Hebrews deciding to stamp out the Baal Worshipers. There was all kinds of carnage. Burn the village. Kill the men. Kill the married woman. Kill the boys. Save the females, shave their heads, and keep them in a hut for 30 day them keep them for slaves. Pretty brutal but we evolved into our basic Christian Jewish God worshipers

Wonder what it really said now? That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

[No Vested Interest]

5. Aren't a large number of those 3.814 believers in many gods?

Hindus, shintoists, animists, many others - is it correct to call them atheists because they are not monotheists?

[Starboard Tack]

6. Oops!

Now he's learned 2 religiony things.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Take it up with your wife

It was her thread and she was one that made it clear Sagan knew what he was talking about. I, and many others, thought that definition was horseshit. You and your merry band made it very clear we were dumb.

So what problem do you have with this definition then? And why didn't you voice those concerns in that other thread rather than your decision to be a pain?

[Starboard Tack]

9. I don't get involved in these discussions with my wife.

Or maybe you hadn't noticed. I do watch her back, though, and call out personal attacks and other kinds of assholery when I see it. Definitions of atheist and agnostic don't really interest me. I leave that to those with advanced degrees in english and communications.
You and I probably have something in common there, in that we know better than to discuss religion with our spouses, or anyone close, for that matter. It is a very personal, private thing and is not a good subject for discussion, as can be seen around here. I prefer not to swim with sharks, but I have no problem shooting them when they attack those I care about.
So, if you want me to back off, then you might want to treat my family the same way you'd like others to treat your family, with a little FUCKING respect.

[Starboard Tack]

12. When was your family attacked?

Show some decency, for Dawkins' sake.

[rug]

34. "You and your family are the last people . . . "

Grow up. You're setting a new bar for obnoxiousness.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. "Definitions of atheist and agnostic don't really interest me" Yet you responded to NoVestedInterest

Seems like it captures your interest at least a LITTLE bit there.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Not really.

That was a response concerning the absurdity of GM's logic in the OP. Had nothing to do with defining atheism.
However, FWIW, as a non-believer in any god or gods, I consider myself an atheist. That's what the word means to me. A lack of belief in any deity. Used to have it, but lost it. No biggie. No anger toward believers or any religion. Lots of bad feelings toward many religious institutions and many practitioners of various religious extremism. Disdain for those who display intolerance of others based on their beliefs.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. That is perfectly within the specification of 'atheist'.

By the definition used by Carl Sagan in the thread that started this kerfuffle, you would not be considered an atheist.

Sagan was wrong. It happens.

[Starboard Tack]

70. I understand that

Interestingly, many here consider me a "faux" atheist, for various reasons, ranging from my belief that we probably have what is commonly termed a "soul", to my lack of intolerance toward believers, which is used to label me an "apoligist" and "religionist". I find both of those terms laughable, as there is nothing to apologize for and I couldn't be further from religion. I lost all interest in religion 40+ years ago, after many years of searching fruitlessly for a more enlightened path. I concluded that there was no special path to follow, except the one I found myself on, at any particular moment, and that the path itself had little relevance compared to how I traveled it.

As the saying goes, "All roads lead to Rome". Our experience only varies in how we choose to travel those roads. As I write this, I am looking out my window across the Sabine hills toward Rome, which I can see in the distance. Tomorrow I must navigate one of those roads. There are several to choose from, each as beautiful as the next.

[Goblinmonger]

7. The 3.8 billion represents those who believe in the god of Abraham

The rest, then, meet the definition of atheist that Carl Sagan offers. Many of us atheists said that Sagan had a horrible definition of atheist but we were told that he was really smart so he was right. You can hop over to the OP on Sagan not being an atheist if you think that it isn't a good definition. Most of us atheists did not meet with good responses, though, so good luck.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. We have a winner!

[okasha]

10. What I learned in the Religion Group yesterday

1. Carl Sagan was really smart and had degress in sciency things. Unfortunately, he was too dumb to know whether or not he was an atheist,. Fortunately there are people here to make sure that all of us know how dumb Sagan was, since he's dead and they can't tell Sagan himself how dumb he was.

2. Sagan would be thrown out of the AA group and certainly never allowed near the Secret Clubhouse.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Yup! I doubt he would've last 5 minutes in A&A

He was way too sciency for those guys. Never lost his sense of curiosity. Never closed his mind.
And Nurse Betty's knitting group, fugetaboutit!

[Leontius]

14. Something you may have missed is the fact that the man who coined the word agnostic

is wrong too. He was too dumb to know that his definition was wrong because, we don't like it and we'll make our own cause we're the brights.

[okasha]

15. Another one of those sciency dudes.

Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Just imagine how many other sciency snd languagey people there are out there who have NO IDEA what they really think and are just waiting to be enlighened by the superior intellects here on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

16. So who has been blocked from AA for that?

Here's the whole list:
1 LARED
2 rug
3 MarkCharles
4 tama
5 cbayer
6 Starboard Tack
7 humblebum
8 RLBaty
9 struggle4progress
10 hlthe2b
11 arely staircase
12 stone space

Which one of those was blocked because they self-identify as an agnostic? And what about the other people who regularly post in AA that self-identify as agnostic?

Quick building your fucking strawmen just to make AA look bad. Or the hosts to look bad. Or both. Is this the tone you want for the Religion group? Just flat out lying to make a point?

[hrmjustin]

17. Why do you keep people who are ppred on you banned list?

[skepticscott]

19. It seems that some of the biggest assholes on DU

come in to troll AA. A good number of people banned from that group are also banned from the site. What a shock.

[hrmjustin]

20. Markcharles was an atheist and regularly signs up to troll du and the religion room.

[rug]

36. It seems that some of the biggest assholes on DU

use A&A to routinely bash DUers more than to discuss atheism or agnosticism.

You want that list as well?

[okasha]

21. The skulls over the gate are part of the decor.

[Goblinmonger]

23. Are you going to answer

Which of those people was blocked for the reason you stated or are you just going to leave your stinky pant load out in the middle of the thread?

[okasha]

26. Calm down.

I did answer it.

And for a guy with advanced communicationsy degrees, you seem to have a very limited idiolect.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. tone trolling. When done to women it is one of the many symptoms of misogyny.

[rug]

82. Are you actually insinuating this woman is a misogynist?

You're getting desperate, Warren.

[okasha]

83. His good buddy trotsky

called me a homophobe. Maybe desperation is contagious.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. if we alert trolled they way the god squad does your post would be hidden.

[okasha]

84. I'm sure you tried.

[hrmjustin]

87. Sorry but both sides alert.

[Goblinmonger]

22. I think I can speak for the other hosts

To say that none of us keeps track of who gets ppr'd nor do we want to.

[hrmjustin]

24. Oh ok. seems odd though.

[Mariana]

69. It is not odd at all.

Goblinmonger stated that that was the whole list of all the posters who have been locked out of A & A. If some of them were left off, for whatever reason, it wouldn't be the whole list, would it?

[hrmjustin]

79. You mean keeping it up as a reminder?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. yes but hrmjustin is very concerned.

Again.

[hrmjustin]

91. Concerned no but curious.

Actually I was curious because one of those former members signs up over and over and over again.

[okasha]

25. Who's been blocked for not being an atheist?

Er, read over your own list. And according to many of your AA regulars, the members who self-identity as agnostic are really atheists, even if they're too dumb to know it. So they're okay.

AA already looks bad, and doesn't need any outside help to do so. If you want that changed, you're in a position to address the problems.

[skepticscott]

29. Read the list yourself

Tell us who specifically has been blocked solely for not being an atheist, as opposed to those who have been blocked for being dickheads who violated a safe haven, were asked to stop, and kept right on being dickheads?

[rug]

35. 3, 4, 6, 8, 12.

Oh wait, they may not meet your Baltimore Cathechism definition.

[skepticscott]

30. So Carl Sagan was famous and he had a PhD, so he couldn't possibly be wrong?

I know the Argument from Authority plays well among you and your fellow religionistas, okasha, at least when it suits your silly agenda, but any intelligent freshman in Logic 101 would laugh in your face at that. Just like the intelligent people here are.

And Sagan would have been smart enough to know the difference between being an atheist and calling yourself an atheist. A concept that seems to be beyond you and your cronies.

[hrmjustin]

31. I have an honest question.

What exactly about the Sagan thread upset some members here?

[skepticscott]

32. Sorry, that's not an honest question. It was answered many times in that thread, and you know that.

So why are you trying to stir more shit?

[hrmjustin]

33. I didn't read the thread because it did not interest me. I was just wondering.

If you don't want to answer I understand and I did not mean to cause an issue.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. Because it is insulting

The short answer is this:

Sagan made the argument that only people who are absolutely certain there is no god should call themselves atheists, and that this is in and of itself an irrational position as there is no proof of their non-existence. The intellectually honest thing to do, he argued, was call one's self agnostic.

Posters took issue with this because it implies, ipso facto, that those who self-identify as atheists are claiming to know something they do not, that they are by definition irrational; doubly so because Sagan's definition of "atheist" was so ass-fucking-backward that all people of non-Abrahamic faiths would be considered atheists, no matter how many deities they believed in.

Others were rightfully piqued by the shameless appeal to authority in posting the article in the first place. Sagan was a brilliant physicist, but he wasn't a philosopher or an epistemologist. He was no more qualified to speak on these issues than anyone else here, yet he's being tossed around as an authority on the subject. He simply wasn't, and to anyone remotely versed in these topics, this interview was runny, cringe-worthy shit.

[hrmjustin]

42. Thank you very much for explaining it to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Did you read the thread?

Is it not obvious, from orbit, with the naked eye?

[hrmjustin]

46. Not to me.

I read the thread but not most of the responses.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. The OP starts out by quoting Carl Sagan making an error.

An error not entirely surprising, since it was wholly outside his professional field. Carl Sagan was an Atheist (TM). It's a simple question, does one believe in god/(s) or not? It is quite obvious he did not. Disbelief does not require actively disproving every religion ever.

At best, Sagan mis-identified Atheists as Anti-Theists. Which is not terribly surprising or unusual.

That OP was an abuse of a great individual, who is no longer here to defend himself. It was rude, to say the least.

Then we had other people wander in, double down, and declare that atheism is a positive belief in no gods. Which is offensive to the max.

[hrmjustin]

49. But he did say these things?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. The quotes in the op? Yes.

I said it quoted him making an error.

He made an error. It happens.

[hrmjustin]

51. But if he said it then it is fair game here.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Ah, but then the pearl-clutching when we point out the error, and correctly identify him as an ath

eist.

Carl's statement about him not being an atheist is by a measure that is not correct.
"“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”"

That's not true. To be an atheist all one must do is discard all current claims of a supernatural god. Such a god can exist even, who knows. I've explained this many times. It's a Boolean condition. Either you believe in god(s) to some degree, or you do not.

Not believing in the current claims of XYZ gods, defaults to the position 'atheist' even if you hold out the possibility there may be an as-yet un-demonstrated god(s).

A positive claim that there is not, period, never was, never will be, a god(s) is not required to be an atheist (tm).


Sagan was wrong. He was identifying a very specific and non-standard subset of gnostic atheist. A class to which even Christopher Hitchens, one of the most vociferous anti-theists you'll ever see, did not belong.

[hrmjustin]

53. This all seems like it can be debated in a reasonable manner. You seem much more knowledgeable on

it than I.

My poiny is it can be debated. Just because he is dead doesn't mean it can't be debated. There was no issue in posting the op.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. It was debated. Extensively.

The person that posted the OP makes it obvious.

"Plus both atheist and theist have taken on much greater meanings than they were ever intended to have, and much of that is heavily layered with very strong emotional content.

I like believer, non-believer and "i just don't know", but I am sure that will have trouble as well."


When some of us attempt to point out the original use of the term atheist was broken, it starts all over again.

[hrmjustin]

55. Do you object to it being posted?

[AtheistCrusader]

56. I object to the material in the post, by the author of the material as disingenious and dishonest.

Wildly so. And the manner in which it was furthered along.

[hrmjustin]

57. Ok so you disagree with Sagan on the issue and you disagreed with those who agreed with him.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. For starters, yes.

Also with the author of the material trying to suss out 'what he really believed'.

"“Carl acted like an atheist but rejected the label. I guess it seemed too absolute to him. He always tried to be open to new evidence on any subject. I am reminded of Bill Nye answering a question about what could change his mind about evolution : ‘evidence’.”"


Carl was an atheist. Nye is an atheist. *I* by the same measure, am an atheist. I continue to hold out the possibility of evidence. Doesn't change the fact that I am an atheist, until and unless I accept some such evidence and rise to belief.

[hrmjustin]

60. Thank you for explaining your thoughts. I was trying to get a feel for why that post went downhill.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. There is a common gambit used by some believers to frame atheism as a belief system.

The point of such behavior, is to shift burden of proof onto us.
It is extremely transparent.

[hrmjustin]

63. I don't believe there is a burden on anyone unless you are trying to convert someone.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. There is an issue of credibility.

For instance, when a certain religious sect goes to court to attack the ACA over contraceptives because 'god said so', I feel they ought to come correct with real evidence of such claims.

I don't get to claim exemptions to such things because my digestive system gave me a feeling I should.

When same said sect lobbies to keep physician-assisted suicide illegal, they have made the credibility of their faith my business, in a very, very bad way.

[hrmjustin]

65. Well legal issues are a different storry and proof is important.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. This is a political board.

As one poster pointed out recently, go to the column on the left and you'll find nothing but issues upon which we agree.

But on THIS issue... No, because churches across the country are politically active. Within a religious context. That is the only reason I bother with this. You won't see me assailing the Amish here, because they keep to themselves. They have all sorts of religious doctrine and precepts to which I do not agree. But membership is elective, and they do not push their beliefs on others via political lobbying.

So there is no interest in me conflicting with them. Live and let live.

The contentious issues here are mostly driven by conflicts between politically active religious doctrine, and political affiliation.

[hrmjustin]

67. Good points. I will catch tomorrow my friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Good night.

[AlbertCat]

92. So Carl Sagan was famous and he had a PhD, so he couldn't possibly be wrong?

See... the religionists have a deep abiding respect for the notions of the science-y people. Always have!

Can't you see it?

[mr blur]

77. What's a "degress"?

Seeing as you're so smart

[okasha]

85. It's a piece of paper you get

for learning sciency and communicationsy things.

[djean111]

27. Sagan's definition of an atheist is quite incorrect.

Neither atheists not theists have any compelling evidence.
I really do not see the point in debate.
Whenever I read anything about atheists in the religion thread, I feel like the end game is to somehow convince atheists that they really are theists, they just are misguided or something. Shrug.
Also do not think some theists understand that atheists do not spend much time thinking about stuff they do not believe in.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. One of the two groups you identified has no burden of showing compelling evidence.

Despite wild threshings in the Sagan thread, attempting to deposit that burden at our doorstep.

[djean111]

72. I know. The need to deposit that burden mystifies me.

Illogical at best.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Oh my goodness, I completely misread your post.

That was a quote. Sorry, I thought the bold bit was your point. My bad. It was late. I am stupid.

[djean111]

86. No, not stupid, your reply makes sense bearing in mind it was not clear I was quoting.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

28. You know what I learned in Religion today?

I learned that you can call someone an asshole and not get your post hidden (Starboard Tack), but asking for respect is worthy of a jury hide (cleanhippie).

[rug]

37. That's about all you get out of - or contribute to - the Religion Group.

But since you like Meta so much, that was a richly deserved hide.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. yes it is quite ok to personally attack atheists.

we are very bad overly emotional people and deserve every bit of abuse we get.

[Starboard Tack]

88. No we are not. Nice try at broad brushing us Warren.

However, what you say does apply to many, not all, anti-theists. Most atheists are pretty chilled decent people who don't go around insulting believers.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Care to provide a link to where I called a member an asshole?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

93. Link

Or maybe you hadn't noticed. I do watch her back, though, and call out personal attacks and other kinds of assholery when I see it. Definitions of atheist and agnostic don't really interest me. I leave that to those with advanced degrees in english and communications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=139723

[hrmjustin]

90. I can't find that thread, do you have a link?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

94. Link

Or maybe you hadn't noticed. I do watch her back, though, and call out personal attacks and other kinds of assholery when I see it. Definitions of atheist and agnostic don't really interest me. I leave that to those with advanced degrees in english and communications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=139723

[hrmjustin]

95. Thank you.

[okasha]

97. Could you clarify

how this post "calls someone an asshole?"

It refers to obnoxious behavior as "assholery" but doesn't attribute it to a specific person.

[Rod Beauvex]

38. What I've observed is that most people don't truely believe.

It's more that being a non believer is still socially unacceptable in many parts of the country, though this is finally slowly changing.

As an aside, a lot of people go to church for the social aspects.

[okasha]

39. Got data?

[hrmjustin]

40. Do you mean that believers have doubts but don't want to say it?

I can say we do have our doubts and some of us have a healty skepticism of our beliefs.

But to say we don't really believe is rather insulting.

[EvilAL]

98. "We do have our doubts and healthy skepticism"

Isn't that not REALLY believing? How is that an insult? How is someone going to interact in a non-insulting way if someone says they have doubts and skepticism about a belief. If they told this person that he/she actually believed it even with their doubts, wouldn't that be an insult as well?

[hrmjustin]

99. No, it is natural for believers to have doubts at times.

[EvilAL]

100. Ok, So

how should someone respond when someone says they have doubts and skepticism? Confirm their belief by saying "It's OK man, everyone has doubts" or by saying "All these doubts makes me think that maybe you don't really believe as much as you think you do."

[hrmjustin]

102. if someone has doubts I would ask why and listen.

[EvilAL]

104. That is a nice thing to do,

but what would you say? How would you act towards a group of believers that always have doubts and skepticism about their belief(s). That would have tens of thousands of sub groups of the belief(s), other than, "maybe they don't really believe"?

[hrmjustin]

106. I would not judge them. they would have to follow their heart.

[EvilAL]

108. I don't know if I would call it judging

someone. I don't know if you meant it was insulting to YOU personally, or insulting to all believers. I should thought to ask that first..

[hrmjustin]

109. It is insulting to believers as a whole to say most of them don't really believe.

[EvilAL]

110. Really have no way of knowing if someone does or doesn't believe anyway.

Some REALLY do, a little too much. Some just do and do their thing. Some don't, but go through the motions. I don't know the percentages.

[hrmjustin]

111. I have no dou t some are going through the motions but I don't think it is a majority.

[EvilAL]

112. It probably isn't the majority

but I can see how it would seem that way to some people. I just don't understand how it would be insulting.

[hrmjustin]

113. it implies we are lying.

[EvilAL]

114. Only if you take it that way.

I mean how far can belief(s) be branched out and changed and interpreted before it really loses all meaning to an outsider or former believer. One person will say another doesn't believe properly, or in some cases is faking their belief, yet they both claim to believe.

[okasha]

101. Having doubts"

about your marriage isn't getting a divorce.

"Having doubts" about your job isn't a resignation.

"Having doubts" about a political agenda isn't joining the opposing party.

Capice?

[EvilAL]

103. No, I don't understand, please give me more examples.

[okasha]

105. So you have doubts about your reading comprehension?

Is it okay to insult you now?

[EvilAL]

107. Nah, I'm pretty good with it,

I don't doubt it at all. I am also good at reading between-the-lines comprehension.

[longship]

71. Well, this group has many people of many opinions.

For instance, I am a lifelong atheist who is not an anti-theist, at least with respect to those who profess to believe in gods, the so called pew potatoes. I take the Dennett tact. Hate religion; love the believer. But hold those in the pulpit, those who have allegedly been educated in their trade, to a standard. When a believer says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, where do they get that idea? It comes from the pulpit, not the pews.

I really like the diverse posts in the Religion group. A few of them have an anti-atheist bias, often with simplistic rhetorical arguments. They don't worry me too much other than for ridicule. But I also do not bust people's chops merely because they believe in gods, just like the vast majority of the world. I am often tempted to respond to a religious holiday thread with an appropriate Bach tune composed for the occasion. Nope. I do not believe. But there is an undoubtedly cultural thread which one cannot deny. Both the positive (Bach?) and the negative. Did Bach even really believe in God? How about Mozart? (I think yes for the former and no for the latter, but I cannot prove either.)

In the end, one cannot know what's in another's mind. To presume so is to make a tragic mistake. And both believers and non-believers do it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Digression: Both Bach and Mozart were fervent believers, actually

Bach's tendency to compose devotionals was partially the result of a high demand for such pieces, but his involvement with the Lutheran church went well beyond writing music for them. He took a job as a the choir director at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, where he was responsible for bringing children through the Lutheran Catechism.

Mozart was a bit more complicated. Raised in Austria, he was a lifelong member of the Catholic church, but anyone who knows anything about the man would question his dedication to Catholic doctrine (he was a Freemason, for starters, and had a marked fondness for dick and fart jokes). In all likelihood, he was a liberal believer who accepted the general tenets of Christianity but found the doctrine of the Church too restrictive.

In a letter to his father dated February 2, 1788, he wrote that he felt non-believers were generally good people, but that he had nothing in common with them whatsoever.

[longship]

78. You are probably right about that.

The Freemason thing always bothers me though, as Mozart was clearly one. Regardless of whether he believed or not it certainly would be in his own interest to express a belief in god in that era. But maybe it's just that I would like to think of him as an atheist.

He was a bit of a mischievous character.