Guess what - I'm an atheist.

[bloom]

I must not have gotten the unwritten memo that says that atheists can only speak of atheism is certain ways. So if the way I see it - is that I rejected what I consider to be myths and as well as the ideas of anthropomorphic or personal gods that I was raised with - then that's how I see it. And I don't see it as an insult to myself - as some do - to think of my ideas in those terms.

I was raised in an environment where I was taught things about god that at some point I rejected. Some people might like to frame it differently - but I don't think that as an atheist I should be required to speak of my atheism in the same terms that some other atheists have adopted. And if I expect that there are some other atheists who went the same route that I did - I don't think that is too much of a stretch.

I also don't think that thinking of my ideas in those terms makes me a "self-loathing" atheist, either. On the contrary - I think it is probably more difficult to be raised believing certain things and at some point to decide to reject them than to never have been raised with those ideas and never had the necessity of rejecting them.

I was raised with Republicans - so there are a lot of ideas that I rejected and replaced with other ideas. And I have tried different things - to some extent - to see what I like. Some people go a lot farther than what I did - adopting POVs that not merely reject certain dogmas - but which are stridently opposite.

I see atheism as complex as Christianity. There are many different ways to be an atheist. Some go the philosophic route or the scientific route. Some adopt rituals from past religions like Wicca, some are pantheists, some are satanists, some are nothing in particular - just without belief. Being an atheist doesn't stop anyone from being Universalist Unitarian or a Sufi or a Quaker or Jewish or Buddhist. People might be surprised.

Saying one is an atheist doesn't say anything more specific than that one has no belief in gods. It doesn't say any more than that - just like to say someone is a Christian does not say whether that person is of the Catholic variety a literalist fundamentalist or a Mennonite. By itself - atheism isn't much. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't humanism, it isn't really anything.

I think that everyone has some kind of religion whether they call it a religion or not. We all have a concept of the universe and our place in it and our ideas of what is important - what we spend our time and energy on. Some people include a god in those ideas and some people don't. I am one who doesn't.

If I happen to agree with the principles of people who think of nature as spiritual (Einstein referred to "Cosmic religious Feeling") - to me that is not the same as a belief in "God/dess". And there are plenty of people who like to think in terms of "archetypes ", who don't think that any "God/desses" actually exist.

I think that the prevailing religion is an interesting reflection on what societies value. I think that such books as "When God Was a Woman" and "The Chalice and the Blade" are useful for putting our society in perspective. Ultimately - it becomes a matter of questioning the entire political and social structure - based on what religious and moral values our society has adopted.

I think that as an atheist that I should be able to criticize other atheists just like Christians criticize other Christians. So, for instance, if there is a group of atheists who have a stunt where they give people Porn in exchange for Bibles - I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize that. The exchange of one patriarchal construct for another.

It's funny to me that the biggest insult that some make of me is that I am a Christian. I don't see Christians as the evil that some people seem to - and I see Christianity as something that is pretty flexible. I think that it can be changed by the society to become more liberal and egalitarian or it can be changed to become more rigid and patriarchal. There will probably always be both factions and various things in between - but it mostly is a reflection of society.

A lot of people here reject what our society is doing - so it's not a big surprise to have people reject what the role of Christianity is and has been, as well. I think that it is more important to be FOR something than to be against something - so while knowing what we are against in society is a start - knowing what we are for is far more important. A rejection of the status quo - is merely the first step.

And the idea that people, esp. Christians, do not know what atheists believe should not come as a surprise. Since atheists might believe just about anything - besides the idea that a god exists.

[transeo]

1. Interesting post and a question from a fellow atheist

Apparently I missed the memo too. I guess I have not noticed how we are and aren't supposed to talk about our atheism. What have you noticed on this board?

[bloom]

4. There are some people

who go so far as to call people bigots if you say that atheists "reject" anything. That's a biggie.

Also we are apparently supposed to get very insulted if Christians do not know what we as atheists think.

I think we are supposed to assume that Hitler was a Christian as an adult - not just how he was raised. Otherwise - you might be suspected of being sympathetic to Christians - as opposed to atheists.

That's just a few things. There are others - see R/T in general.

[trotsky]

22. See, that's how you upset people.

You completely twist around what's being said, and when someone calls you on it, you cop this self-righteous attitude.

Please point out to me where someone said you were a bigot for merely claiming that atheists "reject" something. What I *have* seen is accusations of religious bigotry when Christians take it upon themselves to define atheism as the active denial of gods, when not many atheists I have met agree with that.

Also we are apparently supposed to get very insulted if Christians do not know what we as atheists think.

No, you don't have to get insulted. But those of us who do, are only insulted when said Christians ignore what we think and continue to define us with their own limited concepts.

I think we are supposed to assume that Hitler was a Christian as an adult - not just how he was raised. Otherwise - you might be suspected of being sympathetic to Christians - as opposed to atheists.

Total bullshit. To my knowledge, the most that's been said is that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and so we have to take him at his word since there's no consistent way to prove otherwise.

See how you've carefully rephrased statements in here into these nice strawmen for you to be appalled by?

Not to mention how you receive a private message from one particular individual (who has remained nameless of course), and assume that somehow an entire "gang" thinks the same way.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

32. No, it's clearly you doing the twisting.

In the first example, bmus is pointing out that if you expressed the equivalent sentiment about Christians, you'd be called a bigot. She isn't calling you a bigot for saying that about atheists.

And similarly in the second example, that doesn't back up your point either.

Many of the insults has been driven by the claim/suggestion that I am not an atheist - and by some people's apparent persecution complex.

Actually I think it's driven by having been screwed by self-professed atheists in the past. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." kind of thing. When you proclaim yourself an atheist yet tend to parrot some of the narrowest Christian thinking at times and reinforce atheistic stereotypes, I don't think you should be surprised when some people treat you like they do.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

34. Maybe you could begin by taking up your beefs with the individuals

themselves rather than constructing "groups" or "gangs" to villify and attack and then bait with new threads.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

40. You couldn't be more wrong.

Like I said, take it up with the individual who's made you mad.

I'm not the one who is going around harassing people here.

And in case you didn't notice, that wasn't me that PM'ed you. So why not simply take it up with the person who did? Why broadcast your anger and piss everyone else off? Does misery really love company?

[Random_Australian]

53. Unfortunately, I am going to have to say that that is incorrect;

the argument was about the importance of rejection to atheism, and mostly about definitions. (I speak for myself, though I never said you were a bigot, I was in that argument)

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

78. Which satisfies all the criteria for saying there are some large gaps

in communication; I have it on good authority that the insinuator (if I understand correctly who you refer to) would like a truce, but feels that your continual insults to atheists bar that.

Insults? You might ask? (this is where the failure in communication becomes important)

Downthread you talked about atheist 'hate' for Christians, and the atheists all know that they don't hate Christians or Christianity, so it was perceived as insult (much the same as if I called you a FReep, you know you aren't, so it would sound like insult, you see)

Well then, one day we may all get along.

[bloom]

82. It's pretty much useless

to try to post things that back up what my impression is - since posts that demonstrate that are being deleted.

(... the previous - In regards to your questions in post #77 - "The question now is, what makes you think any of us^ hate Christians?")

Generally - the reason that I wrote this:

"And if those who expect atheists to hate Christians would cease and desist from insisting atheists (athEIsts) such as myself are Christians just because I don't hate them as much as you seem to."

...is because of how the whole insinuation that I am a Christian is used as an insult. And because of how I have been vilified because I don't express the same measure of dislike of Christians as others. How that viewpoint has been used as a reason for harassment. How people go to great measures to suggest that I am a Christian, etc. (because I posted a thread on Pantheism :shrug: ) - at the same time saying that I am despicable or doing despicable things or some such.

There are other things that have been said by a variety of people who tend to paint Christianity as being ALL fundamentalistic and ALL worthy of equal ridicule or what-have-you. I consider that as either uncivil or willfully ignorant. Some of that impression is through the arguments that are made and some is through some of the sites that are put up that also seem like the purpose is to portray ALL Christians as fundamentalist nuts - (who all supposedly see all atheists as "evil").

Christians are blamed for quite a lot around here - most of the world's problems. There are some over-the-top Sam Harris things that get posted and agreed with - so I think if people thought about the impression that some of that gives off - they might see where I came up with that.

-------------

Nevertheless - I could try to avoid exaggeration and hyperbole - when it comes to impressions I have about the atheist "group" based on individual OR group actions and responses. As exaggeration and hyperbole doesn't help communication on either side - as you say.

[Random_Australian]

84. ok, lemme see if I can clear a few things up:

Firstly, from the point of view of persons in contention with you as I have perceived it:

1) From previous, it was taken that you dislike or insult atheists in general (a seperate failure of communication)

2) So then some persons believed that the actions as they perceived them would continue

3) So when the pantheist thread came up, persons would expect actions as perceived to continue, as it seemed to those who thought you non-pantheistic atheist that this was a sudden change in behaviour

4) From context, switch away from atheism seemed the next logical step

5) One thing that gets people steamed up is a convert telling them that their beliefs are wrong - basically saying your point of view is crap

6) Therefore, insults and accusations flowed, but not centred around the religion to which it was presumed you would convert (pantheism, incidentally) but presumed actions once it had taken place.

----------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, from what my best guess of your perspective is:
1) Thread started on pantheism, where you espouse what you have thought all along

2) Stuff comes in about spiritual conversion et cetera; which you (as you have not changed your perspective) then take as an atteck on that which you think persons think you are to convert to in their opinion (wow, that was one clumsy sentence!) ie. Christianity

3) It seems like an attack on christianity

4) You post that others hate christianity
---------------------------------------------------------
back to the original perspective:

1) Statements that persons 'hate' christianity found, given that this was never the intent, and far from the truth, it is deemed insult


---------------------------------------------------------

So there you have my first attempt, with these conclusions:
1) No-one hates Christianty

That is enough for now. What next? Ask me anything!

[bloom]

85. well

I don't know if you got it - but I appreciate your trying to sort things out.

From my perspective -

For one thing - I DO react to what I see as over-the-top negative portrayals of Christians.

So I can see where some atheists reacted to my reaction. (I think they went overboard... )

From there - I think it's been one ridiculous assumption after the other - with some people nearly always assuming I'm insulting them.

Sometimes I have brought up negative aspects of atheism. From my POV - it seems that many atheists around here are unwilling to think that there is ever a negative thing that atheists ever do. They could be reacting to what others in the outer world think - but I don't think that is an excuse to act like atheists are good/Christians are bad (sorry - but that's how it often sounds). I think it's reasonable to bring these things up - partly so R/T is not just one big "pile on Christians" forum - which it could easily be. You might notice that even Christians pile on Christians - liberals vs. fundamentalists, generally. I give fundamentalists a hard time, also.

Most of threads that I start - I'm legitimately just trying to see what other people think. Where people went way over the top acting like I was insulting them. Made me wonder who these posters could be who would be so insulted by such things. Seriously.

Worship options - Nature/Abstract God/Mankind ?

The Question - Who has the Answers?

[Random_Australian]

87. Next bit: Foundation of belief not recognised

(I am sorry that I am talking again about some error that I think I see on your part)

Seperation of person and belief:

1)Atheists are capable of bad things; atheism is not (not simply because it is not physical, but because it never says anything about interpersonal interaction)

2) Christians are capable of bad things; Christianity (if I were, for the sake of example, to simplify it to the Bible, and make the interpretation static) is a set of information that reacts with the mind of the responder (as does anything detected in the environment) without intrinsic behavioural outcomes

That is basically what is taken as given by those who have been in contention thus far; however your words make it clear to me (I think) that you do not believe that others believe this, because if you realised that others do, then it follows that the others are not actually attempting to put Christianity in a bad light!

Finally, also from before: "Where people went way over the top acting like I was insulting them" - look, let me put it like this: (PURELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE)

1)You say something that I take as, say, a sophists' viewpoint. (When you are not, in fact, a sophist)

2) I then post something that says that you are a sophist

3) You read something saying you are a sophist, when you are not. (Keep this conclusion in mind for later, referred to as 'conclusion 1')

Now, two other people, both dems & DU'ers. (Again, purely hypothetical, and meant so NO PARALLELS are to be drawn to the two of us)

A says something B does not like at all
B insults A
By what method does B insult A?
By ascribing an untrue adjective
eg "A - you are a FREEP TROLL"

How does A know that it is an insult?
A has read something claiming they are something they are not.
This equals conclusion 1.

Therefore, unintended though it was, when the persons involved read it, it really was an insult!

Innocent mistakes become insults will become habit if we let them alone long enough.

Cheers,
R_A.

[bloom]

98. see-saw

You wrote:

1)Atheists are capable of bad things; atheism is not (not simply because it is not physical, but because it never says anything about interpersonal interaction)

2) Christians are capable of bad things; Christianity (if I were, for the sake of example, to simplify it to the Bible, and make the interpretation static) is a set of information that reacts with the mind of the responder (as does anything detected in the environment) without intrinsic behavioral outcomes

That is basically what is taken as given by those who have been in contention thus far; however your words make it clear to me (I think) that you do not believe that others believe this, because if you realized that others do, then it follows that the others are not actually attempting to put Christianity in a bad light!
____________________________________

I think it may be that we do have some fundamentally different ideas/approaches. I don't think those ideas warrant people attacking me - but again - that is obviously a difference of opinion as well.

There are atheists who seem to want to deny that atheism (as someone put it "acceptance of reality") has an affect. They seem to me to be happy to talk about the effects of Christianity on people - but want to deny that there is any affect of non-belief in God.

I suppose that that is because the default state of being is atheism - and that if people didn't go around adding belief in God to the mix - it wouldn't be an issue. And that does make sense to me.

I suppose that being raised as Christian, and being surrounded by Christians - I tend to see Christianity as the "default position" which some people fight against - that status. So I understand that.

I do diverge when comes to the idea that there should be special privileges where no one can say anything bad about atheists (even if it is atheists themselves saying it ) - while anyone with a religion is fair game. You may deny that it happens - but I think it happens.

------

I was thinking that part of the reason for our differences of opinion is who people see as their foes and who people see as their allies in the world - in general.

Much has been made of the with friends like you (meaning me) - who need enemies or something to that effect.

I see as my foes - people who don't give a rip about the environment, oppressors of women, and oppressors of people who don't follow the status quo, capitalist line (such as liberal atheists and a slew of other people).

I am not as focused on atheists as a group - or as not a group - being oppressed - as some are.

I see my allies as being liberal-minded environmentalists, feminists (of any gender), socialists and liberal people in general.

To me - it can seem that some atheists are interested in alienating the liberal religious people whom I consider to be my allies. I have a problem with that. I don't see any positive results coming from that. And to me - when people go around insulting me - that is just more verification that they want to alienate allies. I see it as group solidification or something. And since I really don't want to be part of that group - that behaves in that manner - we are at odds.

It may be that atheists think that I am trying to alienate them. But I think that I am just bringing up different points of view - that I think people should be open to - or at least be willing to consider. It has never been my intent to create foes out of the atheists here (or some of them - as the case may be).

[trotsky]

127. You're going to have a tough time getting anyone to consider your view

when you yourself are doing the attacking. You blast atheists as a group for supposedly doing what you really ARE doing.

[bloom]

150. You are going to have a hard time

getting me to pay any attention to what you say when you come up with gems like these,

"You couldn't be more wrong."

That's pretty much a discussion stopper.

:hi:

[trotsky]

153. LOL

Many people take that as a challenge to actually, you know, SUPPORT what they're claiming.

You take it as a personal attack, apparently. By the evil atheist gang. :eyes:

[Random_Australian]

163. I will have to think about most of that post, but here is the exception:

"no one can say anything bad about atheists " Careful where you tread, but on some issues go right ahead. When the last atheist said religion was stupid, myself and a number of atheists had the flak cannons aimed pretty damn quickly. :D

[China_cat]

6. That we are somehow to be 'pitied'

because our lives are empty of a 'spiritual' dimension.

I've also noticed that if you declare a moderate 'christianity' you can criticize the talibornagain but if you say you are an atheist and espouse the same views, you are either ignored or (sometimes not so) politely told that you don't have a dog in this hunt.

Even here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. spiritual experiences, I have found,

are not really connected to a particular religion or religion at all. They just are. If you like that sort of thing, and you have one, then that's great for you! If you've never had one, and are indifferent to them, what's the difference? Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. Unless someone asks for pity, they shouldn't be pitied.

[China_cat]

21. I had one once

it was very real. It was also on about day 10 of an 18 day fast. I got convinced then that they are purely physical manifestations.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Some may be

but it is hard to figure out why you have one when you are fully fed, rested, and in your ordinary environment. Native Americans do a full fast during Vision Quest to help them obtain visions, which are then interpreted by the shaman.

[Random_Australian]

83. I've had quite a few, but they were just hallucinations and whatnot.

*sigh*:cry: No, I am not closing my eyes to anything, I eventually learnt how to tell what was real from what was not - and the experiences were picked up every time.

I would like to add at this point that I am saying NOTHING about the experiences of others, just my OWN.

[Popol Vuh]

2. Welcome fellow Atheist

:toast: :hi:

[bloom]

5. thanks

:hi:

[sui generis]

3. but that's too complicated!

just kidding.

I've thought about that - that you could be an atheist (i.e., not believe in an überdeity, or any) AND be philosophically a christian. I think maybe we could all be a little more zen about our beliefs and/or conclusions. Life is fluid. I would dearly love to see a real ghost or vamp or demon or the hellmouth or some supernatural thing in person, because it would VASTLY complicate my atheistic world and make me re-address what I think and why I think it.

Alas, I am a concluder, not a believer. I would conclude that some scientific explanation existed for ghosts and demons, or some all powerful creature pretending to be all powerful. So what - isn't it cool?

Rigidity is a bad color on any philosophy.

[bloom]

8. I was reading

some "Philosophical ruminations" from an physics standpoint:

How Will the Universe End?

http://www.slate.com/id/2096491/entry/2096506/


"...Well, then, I said, let's stick with the optimistic scenario. Suppose the acceleration does turn out to be temporary and the future universe settles into a nice cruise-control expansion. What could our descendants possibly look like a trillion trillion trillion years from now, when the stars have disappeared and the universe is dark and freezing and so diffuse that it's practically empty? What will they be made of?

"The most plausible answer," Dyson said, "is that conscious life will take the form of interstellar dust clouds." He was alluding to the kind of inorganic life forms imagined by the late astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle in his 1957 science fiction novel, The Black Cloud. "An ever-expanding network of charged dust particles, communicating by electromagnetic forces, has all the complexity necessary for thinking an infinite number of novel thoughts."

How, I objected, can we really imagine such a wispy thing, spread out over billions of light-years of space, being conscious?..."


---

It sounds surprisingly like heaven. I think it just goes to show you that people naturally look for ways to imagine that people/life can keep on going in some form or another - no matter what form cosmology takes.

Some think that ghosts and demons might be explained by different dimensions that we don't know about - and those are scientists saying that.

I would need more information.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Mystics

talk about feeling and understanding that consciousness is far greater than what we can observe with the instruments we have today. Having had several mystical experiences in my life, I personally hold to the concept of consciousness of some sort residing in every molecule and atom and subatomic particle, but it is not based on scientific research, so I don't expect those who hold that as the standard to agree with me. I would applaud any scientific effort done in this direction, however.

[Greyhound]

7. From a strictly formal position, you cannot be an atheist and a xtian

or muslim or hindi etc., they are mutually exclusive. You may follow the tenets of a particular religion and not believe in the supernatural deity, and be an atheist, but lack of belief in the deity excludes you from the religion itself.

[bloom]

10. "but lack of belief in the deity excludes you from the religion itself"

It depends on who you think decides. And it depends on what religion you are talking about.

Some religions/denominations like Quakers can be open to atheists. Unitarian Universalists do not expect people to believe in a god.

Most are not that flexible - at least - they would expect a follower to TRY to believe - in the same way that the group does.

I think a lot of people just wouldn't bother to mention it.

[Greyhound]

28. Isn't that the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

The belief in a supernatural being, that is.

[bloom]

30. Not all liberal religions

expect people to believe in supernatural beings. I think they still think of themselves as religions.


I don't think that only people who believe in supernatural beings should get tax breaks and other perks of having a religion.

[Greyhound]

55. I'm just going by their rulebook. When it comes to Christianity, it is

rule #1. That's why I have the most respect for Jehovah's Witnesses, at least they follow their rules.

[bloom]

62. It seems to me

it depends on how seriously you take rulebooks.

And I don't think it makes sense that people should have to all THINK and ACT exactly alike to be a part of a group.

Of course the liberal groups are more liberal in their expectations. Maybe some people don't get that. :shrug:

[Greyhound]

66. Thinking, believing, and acting in lockstep is the purpose of religion

It was designed, not as any "gateway to salvation", but rather as the most effective means of controlling the sheeple. Every one of them that I talk to tells me that the rulebook is the basis for life and living.

Just look at what goes on here in amerika.

[bloom]

68. You must only be familiar with fundamentalists

or other stricter religious types.

And you are generalizing all religious people to fit your picture.

There are religious groups without hierarchy.

[Greyhound]

70. No I read their books. They are very straight forward in their

insistence on conformity.

All that I'm addressing are the religions themselves, not the practitioners. The individuals will get whatever they're looking for, regardless of the actual texts, as you've demonstrated in this thread.

[bloom]

118. See:

Post #117

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=76955&mesg_id=77315

[Warpy]

14. Some have managed to claim just that

viewing Jesus as a great teacher with great ideas on social issues but rejecting the god myth that kicked him upstairs, Roman style, to become God #2, plus all the ceremonial stuff that's grown up around that myth.

Contrast them with the Chrstians who groove on the myth while ingoring the teachings for a fun mental exercise.

[progdonkey]

9. Santa Claus...

I completely agree with you that atheism isn't much by itself; I'd use the analogy that being an atheist is like not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny: it's a simple statement that you don't believe in those things, but it has no bearing on what your other opinions, behavior, etc. might be. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God/gods or anything supernatural, but that doesn't imply anything else about me; I might be very moral, decent, and good, or I might be very immoral, indecent, and evil--the only certainty is that neither is rooted in a belief in the supernatural.

As a side note: I remember that stupid Porn for Bibles thing, and at the time I was saying it was either some RW stunt to make atheists look immoral or done by some sincere, but really stupid and misguided atheists. I mean, it couldn't be "Trade in Your Bible for some Ingersoll?" or Paine? or Dawkins? It had to be porn? But again, being an atheist doesn't preclude someone from being an utter moran.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Robert Ingersoll would have been a better choice

I think that atheists often get a bad rap because people make too many assumptions about them, the first being that, since they deny the existance of God, they have no moral or ethical standards. Some people think that if you try and follow the Golden Rule (which, as I have said, is found in all major religions in some form or another)you are a believer; but treating others the way you would like to be treated does not imply, in any way, that there is a God; it is strictly talking about interpersonal relations.

I agree, though, that it is sad that some morons who said they were atheists decided to trade Bibles for porn-I think we've all seen people who perport to be religious turn in their holy books, at least figuratively, when they go against the teachings therin and preach hatred and intolerance. (Edited to add:hatred and intolerance are pornographic, imho)

[Zhade]

105. Yes, and you yourself just made such an assumption.

"the first being that, since they deny the existance of God"

Atheists do not DENY the (purported) existence of gods.

[bloom]

126. I guess that depends on if you are a "Strong" Atheist or not:

However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

1. A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. E. Haldeman-Julius suggests that "The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming." 1 This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.

2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists. They use the term "strong Atheist" to refer to a person who denies the existence of one or more deities.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

134. Yes, I should have said "most atheists". An error on my part.

So - gonna take me up on my challenge, or finally admit you're making shit up about being harassed?

[bloom]

149. It is all out there

where you can find it. Some of it has been deleted. Some of it you have participated in.

It's just a matter of perspective. I've got mine - you've got yours.

[Zhade]

168. Right. So you can't back up your bullshit lies.

You specifically said people have been harassing you via PMs.

Then you can't back it up.

Therefore, you lied.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Some very interesting points

Personally, I believe in God, but as One Being, the sum total of everything. As you rightly pointed out, everyone has some notion of the universe and their place in it. Whether someone sees the universe as divine or not is merely their opinion, not one to be imposed on another. The important thing to do in a discussion is to try and treat others with respect.

I like to look at religion as part of the development of human thinking. Relgions, I think, attempt to do two things: one, to explain natural phenomenae and how we should respond to it (this includes sickness and death), and two, as a guide to behavior that is best for the individual and society in general. The latter is what I find most intriguing, for it is said that some variation of the Golden Rule is found in all religions. Sadly, it also appears to be very much in human nature to disregard the teachings of various religions-we Sufis say dharma is decaying when this happens, as part of that process of shattering ideals on the rock of Truth. I know that the religious right is driving many nuts right now; if you consider their actions in light of a larger process of evolution of thinking, it might give some comfort-for their way is, imho, an evolutionary dead end. One doesn't generate new thoughts and concepts from stagnation.

[bloom]

12. The good parts of religion

I see as the part that builds connections between people - and the part that give people a sense of place and peace.

The bad part is what tears the connections down - usually between groups - but can exclude people from within the group as well. And also when religion is used and abused for power purposes.


I know that your philosophy is one where you see everyone as connected. And one problem with that is being connected to people you don't really like. That's part of life though.

I have a hard time thinking that people are really evolving. Esp. as wars and weapons get ramped up.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. ah, you have discovered my secret!

One reason I post here is so that I am confronted with views that are very different than mine, whether from DU posters or from the news articles they post. It is indeed a very hard practice to realize the interconnectedness between myself and someone like, say, Ann Coulter. And yet, if what I have experienced is real, I know that the connection is there-veiled, heavily veiled. I don't always get past the feelings of revulsion that I sometimes get reading of the latest neocon lies, and I do get upset when posters here aren't polite to one another-things for me to work on.

Here's a line from one of my daily prayers, which helps me remember:

Raise us above the distinctions and differences which divide us

[bloom]

20. Rising above divisions

It's funny how there is like this thing where the more people get attached to a group - they less attached (and more distant) they can be from other people.

I don't know if it's possible for that not to happen. It does seem that it takes effort to avoid - at the very least.

Some divisions can seem so artificial and nonsensical. Often over semantics and perceived insults and rejection.



I was noticing a response to one of your posts about Schrödinger and I found this about Ken Wilber - maybe you are already familiar with him - I thought you might like it. (linked from the Schrödinger page)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. Wow

thanks! A feast of food for thought there!

[ozone_man]

15. Most atheists are for rational thinking.

I suppose you can think of it as rejecting superstition, but really it is more about accepting truth. Extraordinary claims such as the existence of God require extraordinary evidence, so it is quite reasonable to not consider God as a reasonable possibility until such evidene should present itself. It is not rejection anymore than the lack of consideration given to countless things in life that do not warrant examination due to their implausibility. So, I think of atheism as accepting reality.

You're right about atheism being a broad tent. Many types. Does this mean that you do not believe in a supernatural being of any kind or just not a theistic God? Also, if you are a pantheist, do you attach any sentience or supernatural aspect to your pantheist feelings, or would you be a scientific/natural pantheist?

[bloom]

25. I can't think of any supernatural "beings"

that I believe in.


I identify with what the scientific/natural pantheists seem to believe. I also think that Einstein was right on in how de described things - connections to the universe, etc. But he apparently did not think of himself as either an atheist nor a pantheist - according to a quote of his that I was noticing today. But I think that that can just a matter of semantics. He may have thought of pantheism as different from how I do - where I think of it as similar to what he described. :shrug:

This sounds like atheism to me:

"The man who is thoroughly
convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a
moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of
events provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality
really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally
little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is
inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he
cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible
for the motions it undergoes. Science has, therefore, been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way
if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=1387


People like to say - I believe this basic thing and they like to know that others believe more or less the same thing. It's a way of being connected - that's mostly what I see Pantheism as being about. But as soon as you do that - you can see where maybe you don't fit in with a certain thinking. Maybe Einstein didn't want to have to worry about how other people defined things.

"accepting reality" is a positive way to think of it. But I am also aware that some people think of "reality" as negative - just like nature is not without difficulty. I think that atheism is not necessarily a positive thing for people - esp. unless they have some sort of concept that encourages them to see reality as a potentially positive thing.

I think that people have to make an effort to make their reality positive. I don't think that there are gods that are helping out.

[ozone_man]

37. Einstein was clever

and avoided being labeled. I think in his case and that of Carl Sagan, it is much better to read what he has written. From "Ideas and Opinions" in your post, he does seem to be an atheist, and I believe he is. He once said that his God was that of Spinoza, but here he says that he is not a pantheist. But he describes quite well what a scientific pantheist feels. These two paragraphs were good.

"But there is a third stage of religious experience which
belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I
shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate
this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is
no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

.

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science
to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

Personally, I don't think he got out quite enough. Most people who spend quality time outdoors feel this way to a certain extent in nature. That's one of the main reasons I like it so much. He does express it well though. I think he would have been better to leave the "religious" out of the "cosmic" feeling. Transcendent might have been a better choice. What a cosmic guy. :)

Of course, the "cosmic feelings" that he describes were also an integral part of his science work, as they might also be felt through art appreciation as he describes. It's just that being in nature is often the inspiration for these feelings.

[hunter]

26. So most theists are against rational thinking???

Is that what you are implying?

:evilgrin:

Rational thought and, more significantly, rational behavior are rare birds, theist or atheist.

[ozone_man]

31. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Just that the atheist is more connected to the world by reason (rational thinking), while the theist is more connected by faith. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason", said Ben Franklin.

[hunter]

36. Reason is a place where most things are left undefined.

It has to be that way because our minds are too small to embrace the universe.

[ozone_man]

42. What we can't define we can still embrace.

Some mysteries are beyond the grasp of reason, but that makes them even more intriguing and what some may call spiritual or religious in certain ways. I'll let Einstein express it from here, since he does it so well, and is someone who Bloom seems to relate to.

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." - Albert Einstein

[hunter]

46. In contradiction to your Ben Franklin quote...

;)

My own favorite science is evolutionary biology, BTW.

[ozone_man]

56. It's not just Ben.

A few Martin Luther quotes. Of course to believe in his religion, one would have to shut their eye of reason. I think more individual forms of spirituality are compatible with reason and science, such as deism, pantheism, Buddhism, ... It's the religions that have a knowable God and that have creeds based on that "knowledge" that defy the use of reason. It requires blind faith to follow them.

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word....

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.

[hunter]

69. Martin Luther was a loon.

;)

I can say that, I'm mostly Catholic, for about the past twenty years.

My background is Orthodox. In the Orthodox tradition God is utterly unknowable.

[ozone_man]

72. You have applied reason to faith.

What remains of faith after being illuminated by the light of reason is probably worth keeping.

[hunter]

75. My mom was going to be a nun...

...but there was a Roman Catholic Priest who upset her so she got a job in Hollywood, married my dad, and had a whole mess of kids.



Gotta be careful there with that "light of reason."

[ozone_man]

79. Perhaps it's true what they say about

Catholics in bed. When you make sex a sin that is. ;)

[hunter]

81. I hate to go further here, for fear my mom will show up...

But she never told us sex was a sin. Maybe that's why she didn't become a nun.

That picture, btw, is what I thought my mom would've looked like as a nun. Thank God that I wouldn't have been born then!

She did tell us to be sure and bring home any babies we made, especially if we couldn't take care of them. And OMG, horrible brown acid flashback, at one point she had pink lettered "Choose Life" license plate frames on her car.

But the prospect of having even more kids in the family homestead who would essentially become our younger siblings was too frightening to contemplate, so my siblings and I waited a good long time before we had children.

[ozone_man]

91. Even Protestants

like my own family were having four kids back then. Times have changed luckily. We have too many people on the planet as it is, or more accurately, too many people who have not learned to be responsible with the environment yet. One of my gripes with the Catholic Church is that sex for pleasure is a sin. OK if it's for making babies. It's time for this to change and their opposition to contraceptives.

[hunter]

97. Sex is not a sin in the Catholic Church... not for married partners.

Anyone married in the Church may remember that the mandatory preparations for marriage can be quite involved. I'm not certain how this is done in every diocese, but the diocese my wife and I were married in seemed to do everything they could to test a couple's sincerity. By the end of our Engagement Encounter my wife and I were quite testy and ready to run off and elope.

The most remarkable thing about our Engagement Encounter was perhaps the long, long discussion of natural family planning. The couple explaining it all kept going into more and more detail, thermometers and everything, and all these young engaged couples are sitting there raptly or looking around the room nervously, and all of them were certainly thinking "OMG!"

The couple explaining it all kept a calender in their bedroom, and apparently whenever a green dot appeared by a very complicated scientific method they'd jump one another regardless of circumstances. And in a way that made everyone in the room extremely uncomfortable it looked as if there was a green dot on their calender as they spoke.

My wife and I were a few years older than most of the engaged couples and quite a bit more comfortable discussing issues of sexuality, so we were sort of enjoying ourselves observing the social dynamic of the room, and whispering into one another's ears, etc., etc., when a lay minister who was watching from the back of the room snuck up on us and put his hands on our shoulders in an effort to get us back on task. I jumped nearly out of my chair because I have a very strong startle reflex, and my wife instantly swatted the guys hand away from her own shoulder and swung around in her chair to glower at him.

Dead Silence. Everyone was looking at us.

Troublemakers!

But I'm pretty sure the whole lot of them were thinking they'd run right out after Engagement Encounter and get prescriptions for the Pill if they didn't have one already. It was all a very fine demonstration of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

[ozone_man]

100. Sex is a sin if done with birth control.

Is it not?

With so many advertisements and social pressure about birth control, it's difficult as a Catholic to know what to do. Please remember Catholicism does not accept any artificial birth control.

A. The religion Catholicism does not believe in any means of artificial birth control. Artificial birth control includes condoms and the pill. The Catholic approved form of family planning is known as Natural Family Planning. It is believed that artificial birth control takes away the sacred element of intercourse.

What about the amount of children? The Catholic Church does not want you to have more children than you can afford. However the Church wants sex to remain special and with a purpose. NFP is proven to be as effective as artificial birth control.

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/sex/f/faqartbc.htm

The Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) seems to be against pleasure. What business is it of their's to interfere in people's sexual matters?

"The Christian churches were offered two things: the spirit of Jesus and the idiotic morality of Paul, and they rejected the higher inspiration... Following Paul, we have turned the goodness of love into a fiend and degraded the crowning impulse of our being into a capital sin."
- Frank Harris

Aside from the denial of pleasure aspect, it seems oriented towards keeping women barefoot and pregnant, populating the world with more believers to keep the Catholic Church in power. It's time for that policy to end.

[hunter]

103. We're getting off-topic here, but I enjoy sex threads.

;)

Maybe I'll cook up a new thread titled "Religion and Human Sexuality."

[ozone_man]

104. Go for it.

You're right, we are drifting off topic.

[Zhade]

17. If you lack belief in any gods, that's true.

NT!

[saltpoint]

27. Thank you very much for mentioning THE CHALICE AND THE BLADE.

It is a tremendous study. Your take on it is exactly right, in my opinion.

If anyone wants a genuinely interesting and provocative book to read for the summer, THE CHALICE AND THE BLADE is a winner.

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Nice post. I thought you put that all very well. nt

[bloom]

59. Thanks. nt

[Evoman]

39. What do you want from us?

"I must not have gotten the unwritten memo that says that atheists can only speak of atheism is certain ways. So if the way I see it - is that I rejected what I consider to be myths and as well as the ideas of anthropomorphic or personal gods that I was raised with - then that's how I see it. And I don't see it as an insult to myself - as some do - to think of my ideas in those terms."


Yep, your an atheist. I'd welcome you to the club, except..well..there really is no club.

"I was raised in an environment where I was taught things about god that at some point I rejected. Some people might like to frame it differently - but I don't think that as an atheist I should be required to speak of my atheism in the same terms that some other atheists have adopted. And if I expect that there are some other atheists who went the same route that I did - I don't think that is too much of a stretch. "

Of course not. We are all individuals. Nobody is asking you to act like anyone else. It would be nice if you would stop with the accusations that we are some sort of club, and that we are aggressive and keep IMing you.

"I also don't think that thinking of my ideas in those terms makes me a "self-loathing" atheist, either. On the contrary - I think it is probably more difficult to be raised believing certain things and at some point to decide to reject them than to never have been raised with those ideas and never had the necessity of rejecting them."

I don't think you are self loathing. I think you loath the rest of us to some degree. I really don't know why. We are all merely expressing our opinions on an unimportant message board in the corner of the internet. I have to be honest, though... I do find it curious that you keep trying to get out of calling yourself an atheist at certain times...you gotta admit its a little weird.

"I was raised with Republicans - so there are a lot of ideas that I rejected and replaced with other ideas. And I have tried different things - to some extent - to see what I like. Some people go a lot farther than what I did - adopting POVs that not merely reject certain dogmas - but which are stridently opposite. "

See, this is the kind of shit that pisses some people off. Its a passive aggressive way of insinuating that we are all "atheist fundamentilists" or something stupid like that. How can you go farther than rejecting religion? The only way I can think of is killing believers, attempting conversions, or actively trying to destroy religion. Nobody here does that. And your insinuations are, frankly, insulting.

"I see atheism as complex as Christianity. There are many different ways to be an atheist. Some go the philosophic route or the scientific route. Some adopt rituals from past religions like Wicca, some are pantheists, some are satanists, some are nothing in particular - just without belief. Being an atheist doesn't stop anyone from being Universalist Unitarian or a Sufi or a Quaker or Jewish or Buddhist. People might be surprised."

Atheism is not complex. Not at all. Its merely having no belief in a god. Now...people...oh yes, people are complex. That means we are each of us complex creatures and we all have different ideas that drive us. I'd be hard pressed to find anybody like me on this website, even within the atheists whackjob corps. If you want to be pantheistic or a quaker or a sufi, go right ahead. If you want to label yourself or study within those groups, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you, and I wish you the best. I don't need you to conform to anything to take on the label "atheist". Except believing in god, though...because...really. If you believed in god, your not really a true atheist lol.

"Saying one is an atheist doesn't say anything more specific than that one has no belief in gods. It doesn't say any more than that - just like to say someone is a Christian does not say whether that person is of the Catholic variety a literalist fundamentalist or a Mennonite. By itself - atheism isn't much. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't humanism, it isn't really anything."

Completely agree with you.

"I think that everyone has some kind of religion whether they call it a religion or not. We all have a concept of the universe and our place in it and our ideas of what is important - what we spend our time and energy on. Some people include a god in those ideas and some people don't. I am one who doesn't. "

Here is where you become full of shit. See, not having a religion means not having a religion. If someone tells you they have no religion, which I am doing now (I HAVE NO RELIGION), then just accept that. I hate this "everybody has a religion" bullshit. I don't. My concepts of the universe really go now farther than what has been observed experimentally and what is known to be objectively, and reproducibly, true. Other than that, I say "I don't know". That is not a religion. Science is not a religion. And if you keep insisting on it, then yes, you and I are going to lock horns.

"If I happen to agree with the principles of people who think of nature as spiritual (Einstein referred to "Cosmic religious Feeling") - to me that is not the same as a belief in "God/dess". And there are plenty of people who like to think in terms of "archetypes ", who don't think that any "God/desses" actually exist. "

I think that the prevailing religion is an interesting reflection on what societies value. I think that such books as "When God Was a Woman" and "The Chalice and the Blade" are useful for putting our society in perspective. Ultimately - it becomes a matter of questioning the entire political and social structure - based on what religious and moral values our society has adopted.

"I think that as an atheist that I should be able to criticize other atheists just like Christians criticize other Christians. So, for instance, if there is a group of atheists who have a stunt where they give people Porn in exchange for Bibles - I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize that. The exchange of one patriarchal construct for another."

Okay. You criticized them. Thats fine. I thought it was a pretty dumb stunts by a bunch of immature kids. However, I also have a belief that the bible is in many ways worse than porn. That is my opinion. You, however, usually don't just criticize "some atheists".... thats not where you stop.You always go that much farther and start making insinuations about the atheists on this website. Its like you use these ideas as springboards to attack the rest of us.

"It's funny to me that the biggest insult that some make of me is that I am a Christian. I don't see Christians as the evil that some people seem to - and I see Christianity as something that is pretty flexible. I think that it can be changed by the society to become more liberal and egalitarian or it can be changed to become more rigid and patriarchal. There will probably always be both factions and various things in between - but it mostly is a reflection of society."

See again, typical of what you do. Nobody here thinks "Your a christian" is an insult. This is the kind of strawman insinutation that you always make. This is what pisses us off...its passive agressive, and its unworthy of you. You should be better than this...making up shit that no one has said.


"A lot of people here reject what our society is doing - so it's not a big surprise to have people reject what the role of Christianity is and has been, as well. I think that it is more important to be FOR something than to be against something - so while knowing what we are against in society is a start - knowing what we are for is far more important. A rejection of the status quo - is merely the first step. "

Another strawmen. No one here is against christianity...what most of us are against (and I am not speaking for all atheists here) is having to put up with religion in our goverment, in our laws, and in our homes. I don't give a whit what the hell someone else believes...let me repeat that I DONT GIVE A WHIT WHAT THE HELL SOMEONE ELSE BELIEVES. I want to be able the criticize religion if I want to. I find a lot is wrong with religion, and I believe it is completely irrational. I want to be able to say that when I am confronted with religious ideas.

BUT EVOMAN!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU AS BAD AS THE FUNDIES. FUCCKKKK NO! Unless someone bothers me with religion, I NEVER confront other people. THIS DISCUSSION BOARD IS AN EXCEPTION. I feel I should be able to discuss anything here, and criticize religion, because THAT IS WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR.

To all you people who call us militant atheists...listen the fuck up, please. I neither "preach" atheism, nor confront people, nor force my ideas on people. I don't even discuss religion unless a)someone brings it up before me or b) I am in a forum where religious discussion are taking place. Do you see why calling us militant is a misnomer. NONE OF US GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE UNLESS IT AFFECTS US.

"And the idea that people, esp. Christians, do not know what atheists believe should not come as a surprise. Since atheists might believe just about anything - besides the idea that a god exists."

HA....thats funny. Because so many people here insist exactly that....that they know what we think. They define us, and when we disagree, they tell us we are wrong. Lol..where are you, dear atheist, when they are doing this? Are you there telling them not to define us. Nope.

Here is my Wishlist to you, Bloom Clause.

1) Be happy with whatever you do. If you want to identify yourself as a pantheist, go right ahead. I wish you luck

2) STOP WITH THE STRAWMEN. Stop it. Your right...we are all individuals, even people you accuse of being in some sort of gang. Your doing exactly what you are accusing us of doing...your giving us labels and your telling us what we are.

3) STOP WITH THE INSINUATIONS. There is no group of atheists. There is no gang, despite the jokes we make. Stop making it seem like we have some sort of campaign against you. Stop with your insinuations that we are all emailing you and we are making life difficult for you. Its bullshit machiavellian/Rove shit your pulling. Only one atheist has ever emailed you...after I made my post asking people who are sending you emails, everyone of us commonly thought of as whackjobs replied that we have never IMed you. I know of ONE person who emailed you...he/she got in contact with me after I posted the thread. He told me exactly what he said to you.....and the idea that your are being threated or coerced is absolute bullshit. And you know it. So please stop with that tired crap.

Thank you.

[trotsky]

41. *APPLAUSE*

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Well said, Evoman. From your fellow "gang" member. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

43. Thank you, Evoman.

It needed to be said.

And you said it very well. :)


There is no Evil Atheist Agenda.

There is no Evil Atheist "Posse".

And since it doesn't exist, said Evil Atheist Posse isn't attacking the op.

[SPKrazy]

107. You Mean The "Evil Atheist Agenda" Doesn't Exist?

Damn,

who will we demonize now?

:sarcasm:

:banghead:

[opiate69]

44. I wish I could nominate this, Evoman!

But alas, I cannot, so I will do the next best thing...

:toast: :beer: :applause:

[SPKrazy]

45. Well Stated Post

One point you made:

BUT EVOMAN!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU AS BAD AS THE FUNDIES. FUCCKKKK NO! Unless someone bothers me with religion, I NEVER confront other people. THIS DISCUSSION BOARD IS AN EXCEPTION. I feel I should be able to discuss anything here, and criticize religion, because THAT IS WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR.

Since a discussion goes both ways, I would hope that if people were to criticize atheists, that you would say, "that is what this board is for" as well.

Now I have no criticism of atheists in general.

And again, a well stated post, I have no questions about where you stand.

[Evoman]

51. Are you kidding me!

Hell, I love when people criticize me....without criticism, we can't grow. Without argument, I can not hone myself into the Souless, Godless Argumentative killing machine I so want to be! HEHE. In fact, I don't dislike anybody on this forum and I want people to call me on my bullshit when I spew bullshit (which I don't, because I am nigh-perfect *grin*). If anything, the posters I find the most bull-headed and who make the most grievious fallacies are my favourite...at the very least, they provide me with a look into the psychology of the average person. At most, they change the way I think about religion.

[varkam]

47. Hot damn

:applause:

Excellent post.

[bluesbassman]

48. Well done Evoman.

I find posts like the op to be childish and insulting. If one has a point to make - make it. Using a pseudo position to illustrate ones position does nothing to validate that position and coarsens the debate, (plus it makes me dizzy trying to keep up).

[NMMNG]

50. Oh Evoman

Can I have like 10,000 of your babies? :rofl:

[Random_Australian]

54. Just to prevent accusations that this is the crew responding to this,I say

Bravo, Evoman! Great post!

And the reason that the responses to this is in no way evidence for the existence of a posse is that only if Evoman's response was not well reasoned & accurate, and many responded in this fashion would it be evidence, and Evoman's post was great.

[bloom]

58. Of course it's the "crew".

Who else would care?

[Random_Australian]

76. Uh, the people who feel attacked by that post, but are not part of an crew

is the answer I felt most obvious, and like I said, there is no crew.

[Zhade]

108. I guess you missed the non-atheist applause above.

Kinda proves your assertion that only "the gang" appreciates Evo's post UTTERLY WRONG.

[bloom]

57. I think it would be great

if those of you who are being uncivil would stop. You know who you are. The baiting, the insults, the snide remarks, the distortions.


And if those who expect atheists to hate Christians would cease and desist from insisting atheists (athEIsts) such as myself are Christians just because I don't hate them as much as you seem to.

It sounds like some of you like to go to sites where atheists sit around and find ways to be angry at the non-atheists. Don't expect everyone to want to join in your games. And I don't want to be criticized because I don't feel like as much of a victim as you do.


It was pretty clear from the list I was sent - who was in on harassing me - of course it's deleted when I post any of it - but it's not like there needs to be a list. It's clear who is doing what. Some have stopped. Some haven't. If you bothered to notice - at least before the things are deleted - you would see it.

Maybe you think this is normal or reasonable behavior. I don't.


And when it stops - I won't be commenting on it anymore.

[trotsky]

60. ...

The baiting, the insults, the snide remarks, the distortions.

bloom, the mirror's right over there.

[Evoman]

74. Ha...this is exactly what I'm talking about

This is a cheap Rovian ploy on your part. This is the same shit that the republicans pulled off when they moved into the white house...."oh the democrats..they did...horrible things. We can't even say what they did". Lol..so we start thinking...man, they must have covered the white house in feces and ripped it to pieces.

The truth is, no such thing happened. And I really don't buy your "I'm being harrassed" bullshit.

I mean..honestly, if it is even happening, why the hell do you come on these threads and keep pointing it out. I'll tell you why..you do it so you can imply that we are all somhow in on this Bloom-Bashing Party. Instead of discussing it with those individuals, you make these broad sweeping generalization, EVEN WHEN YOUR TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO DID NOTHING TO YOU!

For example, you reply to my thread....and instead of discussing what I SAY TO YOU, you make your "group of atheist" comments. I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER either IMED you, or EMAILED you, or said anything that you accuse me of saying.

"And if those who expect atheists to hate Christians would cease and desist from insisting atheists (athEIsts) such as myself are Christians just because I don't hate them as much as you seem to."

HATE THEM!!! AGAIN YOU DO THE SAME FUCKING SHIT. We don't hate anybody on here...but you keep fucking implying that we do. Its utter bullshit. We are not disagreeing wih you because "you don't hate christians as much as we do". We are disagreeing with you because YOUR ARE FULL OF SHIT. See the difference? Hell, I really like most of the christians here. My girlfriend and almost all of my friends are christians. I suspect most of the "atheist whackjobs" have christians family and friends. This is strawman bullshit.

"It sounds like some of you like to go to sites where atheists sit around and find ways to be angry at the non-atheists. Don't expect everyone to want to join in your games. And I don't want to be criticized because I don't feel like as much of a victim as you do."

LOL..this is the funniest yet. Your always claiming your being victimized! A large percentage of your posts are about how you are being victimized by the rest of the athiests. You keep baiting, and distorting, and making insinuations...and when someone calls you on it, you cry persecution. "Boo hoo..the atheist group is victimizing me because I'm different, because I like the christian. Who cares if I keep baiting them and distorting their views and passivly agressively insinsuating that they are all bigotted fundamentalists. Its really the fact that I'm unique that makes them argue."

"It was pretty clear from the list I was sent - who was in on harassing me - of course it's deleted when I post any of it - but it's not like there needs to be a list. It's clear who is doing what. Some have stopped. Some haven't. If you bothered to notice - at least before the things are deleted - you would see it"

Lol...no its not clear. I have no idea who is persecuting you! I have noticed threads when people call you out because of your usual strawmen and baiting. Again, I don't buy it.

You wanna know something...I have actually recieved a attack due to one of my plays once over IM. I responded to that person alone. This is the first time I have ever mentioned it, and will be the last.
Because I have no intention of demonizing the people who disagree with me. I never once put the blame on that attack on anyone else, or on the DU christian community. You, however, do it regularly. And I hope that the christians here realize that most of us atheists are not trying to create division and hate by writing down baseless and generalized accusations.

I'm done with this.

[Random_Australian]

77. No-one hates Christians, no-one hates you, though in flamewar some

have at times been incivil (more proof that the so called 'group' members are no different from everyone else)

One last thing; freak all of the time I spend in R/T (Actually, none of it now I think of it) is spent either bieng angry at or dissing non-atheists.

The question now is, what makes you think any of us^ hate Christians?

^ 'us' refers to the DU community and bars outliers as per stats, as always.

[NMMNG]

86. You have quite a complex there

I think it would be great if those of you who are being uncivil would stop. You know who you are. The baiting, the insults, the snide remarks, the distortions.

I think it would be great if you would stop with the baiting, the insults, the snide remarks and the distortions. You know--the long posts you make about how the Evil Atheist Posse is always doing this or doing that when you have nothing to back up your statements. Then when you get called on it time and time again you act like you're being persecuted.


And if those who expect atheists to hate Christians would cease and desist from insisting atheists (athEIsts) such as myself are Christians just because I don't hate them as much as you seem to.

Who here hates Christians or expects anybody else to? Who here has called any atheist a Christian (and why would it be considered an insult)?


It was pretty clear from the list I was sent - who was in on harassing me - of course it's deleted when I post any of it - but it's not like there needs to be a list. It's clear who is doing what. Some have stopped. Some haven't. If you bothered to notice - at least before the things are deleted - you would see it.

What is this "list"? Is it the same list as the one of people who allegedly have PMd you? If so I don't expect it to ever materialize.


Maybe you think this is normal or reasonable behavior. I don't.


Maybe you think making repeated attacks on a group of people and expecting them to not take offense or defend themselves is normal or reasonable behavior. I don't.


And when it stops - I won't be commenting on it anymore.

Perhaps if you would stop making it your personal mission to attack DU atheists you would see a different situation around here.

[Zhade]

109. Time to put up or shut the everloving fuck up.

If you're being harassed, take a screencap of your inbox (feel free to blur/black out anything you wish to remain private) and post the harrassing PMs.

I fucking DARE YOU to back up your assertion, or rest assured that we can safely conclude that you're yet again MAKING SHIT UP.

Ball's in your court, ace.

[NMMNG]

49. Aye

I must not have gotten the unwritten memo that says that atheists can only speak of atheism is certain ways.

What memo? I received no memo.



I was raised in an environment where I was taught things about god that at some point I rejected. Some people might like to frame it differently - but I don't think that as an atheist I should be required to speak of my atheism in the same terms that some other atheists have adopted.

There isn't a guidebook on "speaking about one's atheism", and atheists don't all go about it the same.



I think that everyone has some kind of religion whether they call it a religion or not.


You think wrong. Not everybody has a religion. I don't have a religion. My friend Mike does not have a religion. Making broad-brush statements about everybody is a good way to get under peoples' skin.




I think that as an atheist that I should be able to criticize other atheists just like Christians criticize other Christians. So, for instance, if there is a group of atheists who have a stunt where they give people Porn in exchange for Bibles - I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize that.

Interesting. You think that you should be able to criticize other atheists just like Christians criticize other Christians. Yet here you are posting a rant about how mean old atheists are criticizing you as an atheist. Does it only go one way?

[Random_Australian]

52. For the most part, I say enjoy, life is varied, our paths are different,

and I believe that no path is inheritly the better.

However, I am going to seek clarification on this (and object somewhere else in the thread)

"I don't see Christians as the evil that some people seem to ", you are not referring to any of the regulars in R/T are you? I would feel that if such a claim were to be made, it would be unsubstantiated. However, specific persons you have talked to in real life (or similar) would of course be fine, but to which do you refer? (As in, are you talking about persons in this forum, or real life persons)

[Strong Atheist]

61. Completely and totally factually incorrect. By definition

NONE of the following are are atheists, as you claim, because they all believe in god(s):

Pantheists:

Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Satanists:

Satanism is a term that may refer to a religious, semi-religious, and/or philosophical movement. The term is normally applied by non-Satanists to those individuals who worship the entity called "Satan,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanist

Judaism:

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people with around 15 million followers as of 2006.<1> It is one of the first recorded monotheistic faiths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

Quaker:

Modern Friends, particularly from unprogrammed meetings, often express this belief by referring to "that of God in Everyone", "Inner light", "inward Christ", "the spirit of Christ within", and many other terms. Early Friends more often spoke of "Truth", "the Seed", "the Pure Principle", and similar terms and expected that each person would be transformed and Christ formed in them.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker

Sufism:

The central concept in Sufism is love. Dervishes—the name given to initiates of Sufi orders—believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe.They believe that God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God looks at himself within the dynamics of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi#Basic_beliefs

Therefore, none of those qualify as ATHEISTS:

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Perhaps you are confused about what it means to be an atheist?

[bloom]

63. I think it's just semantics

What some people call nature - others call God. If someone calls Nature God - but that God is not doing anything different than following the laws of science and physics - is that really God?

I don't see as hard of a line between Atheism and non-atheism - esp. liberal ideas about God - as some people (like You, for instance).

I have been able to have reasonable discussions about it with people who take a less dogmatic approach.


"Classical pantheists generally accept the religious doctrine that there is a spiritual basis to all reality, while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


P.S. There are various people in various groups - as mentioned on the Pantheism page - Judaism, UUs, Christians, Sufis - who have such a liberal definition of God that it wouldn't be recognized as God by a lot of people - and I know Quakers who see God as basically meaning all of us - or that they don't believe in God at all.

So you say - I am "factually incorrect" - I say I have a different opinion.

[Strong Atheist]

65. Yeah, I'm funny that way; not twisting words out of all recognition.

I don't see as hard of a line between Atheism and non-atheism - esp. liberal ideas about God - as some people (like You, for instance).

I have been able to have reasonable discussions about it with people who take a less dogmatic approach.

Naturally, if you mis-use words, don't be surprised when people think you are ....... confused. ;)


Pantheist is NOT synonymous or = to atheist.

[bloom]

67. I see it as there are pantheist atheists.

Not that one equals the other (you were twisting there).

And I don't think I'm twisting words at all to say that if someone says that there are no supernatural beings - but the person wants to say that nature is God - that they don't really believe in Gods as people are familiar with the term.

As I quoted:

"Classical pantheists generally accept the religious doctrine that there is a spiritual basis to all reality, while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

------------

You are actually proving the point of my OP. You are inflexible and you expect everyone to think like you do - or else you accuse people of twisting. Maybe we just see things differently.

[Strong Atheist]

71. "but the person wants to say that nature is God"

It really is very simple. Atheist don't believe in gods(s). Saying "Nature is god" is = to saying "I am not an atheist, because I believe in god."

Pantheists are NOT atheists.

Edited to add: You are right about the twisting words part. I mis - wrote that. Saying black is white, night is day, and people who believe in gods are atheists is NOT twisting words. It is totally destroying them in an attempt to make them mean the opposite of what they really mean ... helloooo, 1984 ....

[ozone_man]

73. If you believe nature is God,

then isn't that believing in the supernatural? Isn't a god of any type supernatural? Also, if you do believe that nature is God, then you would be a classical or religious pantheist, not a natural or scientific pantheist. If nature does not have a supernatural element, then why call it God. That is a confusion of language. If you don't believe in the supernatural, then nature is just itself, which is still something incredible, an awe inspiring source of "spirituality", but not God.

And I don't think I'm twisting words at all to say that if someone says that there are no supernatural beings - but the person wants to say that nature is God - that they don't really believe in Gods as people are familiar with the term.

As I quoted:

"Classical pantheists generally accept the religious doctrine that there is a spiritual basis to all reality, while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms."

[bloom]

80. RE:

"If you believe nature is God, then isn't that believing in the supernatural?"

I see "Believing in God" and calling something "God/dess" just for the hell of it as 2 different things.

"while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms." - and presumably call Nature "god/dess" - just for the hell of it. ("for the hell of it" might be because it makes them feel more in touch with history :shrug: or some other similar reason).

I agree that it is can seem to be a confusion of language - which would be the main reason why I may not go with that moniker - Pantheism - because it's such a pain - not only is there the confusion - but you also have other people using the word and meaning something else entirely.

But I generally agree with the idea of Nature being the thing which is the most awe-inspiring and inspirational that anything could be. Really the only other things are things that man makes–puts together - and as interesting as some of those things are - the ones of those that appeal to me the most are the ones that are based on the love of Nature.

So it could make sense to say I am a Pantheist-Atheist for instance. Just like someone else on another thread said that she had been a Satanist who was an atheist. If someone wanted to be a Quaker and was an atheist - the way to be clear would be to say that one was a Atheist-Quaker or whatever.

_________

I was thinking about this today. The whole question about saying something is God even though one doesn't believe in the supernatural. So I came up with this scenario:

Say that someone went to the beach and picked up a little rock and carried it in ones pocket. And say that the person decided to say that the rock represented the person's hopes and dreams. Maybe even named the rock. Maybe called the rock God/dess Aster. Didn't expect anything supernatural out of the rock. Didn't expect anything. Didn't worship it. Just liked to have a symbol.

Say someone else carried a photo in their pocket and that photo represented the person's hopes and dreams - a vision of where they wanted to be - and called it Aster. Would there be a difference?

Would the person who carried a rock and said it represented their hopes and dreams and the person carrying the photo be doing anything any different. Would one be an atheist (assuming neither believed in any supernatural gods) and one not?

I don't think that there is a difference. One is more abstract perhaps - but if the rock was actually from a place that the person wanted to live - maybe not so much.

------

I suppose things like this seem silly - but I think that that is often the difference in some so called "religions". Having a more symbolic representation than someone else. I don't think that one is more accepting of reality than the other. Sometimes it's just that some people like to have symbols and other people don't - or if they do - they are less abstract.

Like I said in my OP - some people like to think in terms of God/desses in terms of archetypes. They don't really believe that there are any Gods. I don't think that makes someone NOT an atheist. I think it just depends on how the person wants to think of it. If someone said they are an atheist Wiccan - who am I to tell them that they are not?

[Strong Atheist]

88. And you know what?

You can call yourself a pantheist, like you did in your pantheist thread. I don't care.

Ain't free speech grand?

And you can say that Wiccans and Satanists and Sufis and pantheists and Jews and Quakers (Quakers and Jews! I was flabbergasted by that! ROFLMAO! Why don't you go out and tell them all that they are ATHEISTS, starting with the Jewish and Quaker groups here on D.U.! I am sure they will be surprised.:rofl:) can be atheists too, as you did in the OP. I don't care.

Ain't free speech grand?


BUT...

The rest of the world is not REQUIRED to play along with your .... ideas that words can be made into their opposites; that people who believe in gods are ATHEISTS. In fact, here on D.U., we have permission from skinner himself to disagree with that kind of nonsense and tell you that you are wrong:

Az: A question Do you consider claims that a particular group of people are wrong to be a smear of those people?

Skinner: No. It is not a smear to disagree with someone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=263&topic_id=11400#11749

Ain't free speech GRAND? :evilgrin:

[bloom]

93. Of course - what you don't get

is that there are people who are Jews and Wiccan and Quakers who participate in some aspects of their respective religion who will say that they have no belief in God.


Like you say - with free speech - people can deny anything they want. People can deny the truth if they want. There is nothing I can do about it if you do.

[Strong Atheist]

101. What truth?

There are many different ways to be an atheist. Some go the philosophic route or the scientific route. Some adopt rituals from past religions like Wicca, some are pantheists, some are satanists, some are nothing in particular - just without belief. Being an atheist doesn't stop anyone from being Universalist Unitarian or a Sufi or a Quaker or Jewish or Buddhist. People might be surprised.

That black is white, that up is down, that night is day, that people who believe in gods are ATHEISTS? Yeah, I will deny that kind of "truth" all day...

Trying to change the meanings of "Quaker", "Jewish", "Sufi", "satanist", and "PanTHEIST" to mean the opposite; that they are ATHEISTS, is just NONsense of the first order, and I will happily point it out as such...

[bloom]

117. Truths

Kaplan's theology (Reconstructionist synagogues)

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan's theology held that in light of the advances in philosophy, science and history, it would be impossible for modern Jews to continue to adhere to many of Judaism's traditional theological claims. Kaplan's naturalistic theology has been seen as a variant of John Dewey's philosophy. Dewey's naturalism combined atheist beliefs with religious terminology in order to construct a religiously satisfying philosophy for those who had lost faith in traditional religion. Kaplan was also influenced by Émile Durkheim's argument that our experience of the sacred is a function of Social Solidarity.

In agreement with the classical medieval Jewish thinkers, Kaplan affirmed that God is not personal, and that all anthropomorphic descriptions of God are, at best, imperfect metaphors. Kaplan's theology went beyond this to claim that God is the sum of all natural processes that allow man to become self-fulfilled. Kaplan wrote that "to believe in God means to take for granted that it is man's destiny to rise above the brute and to eliminate all forms of violence and exploitation from human society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Kaplan

(thanks to MrWiggles for pointing out Kaplan on a previous thread)

---------------------------
These was easily found by a Google of Quakers, atheists & Wicca, atheists

Are Atheists Included Under the QUF Umbrella?
By Os Cresson
Published: May 2, 2005


Over the years Quakers have gradually set aside elements of doctrine previously thought to be essential, such as the divinity of Christ, the trinity, and immortality. More recently universalist Friends have helped us address the question of whether Quakers must be Christians. I urge the reader to go one step further and consider whether it is necessary for Quakers to be theists.

Atheists can love and worship and manifest Quaker principles just as well as theists even though they do not speak about it in theistic terms. Traditional Quaker behavior is available to all, including those for whom God is absent. Take discernment, for example: need it be limited to those who describe what they are doing as discerning the will of God? What about loving that of God in another person? This is a characteristic way of behaving and a wonderful one, but can it only be done by people who describe it in a particular way? No, loving can be done by anyone: Quakers, Moslems, atheists, secularists, and many others. Traditionally we have expressed this in the language of theism, and that has worked very well, but it is not the only worldview that can support a true affection for this sort of behavior.

What about unity within the Religious Society of Friends: could it be maintained without agreement on a belief in God? Yes, it could because we are bound together in many ways in addition to how we speak about God. We need not agree on the words with which we frame our faith. We have often said that ours is a religion that does not require a creed; there is no need to follow this with an exception for the belief in God. It is enough to be in harmony with each other, to worship together, and to celebrate our diversity....


http://www.nontheistfriends.org/Essays/p2_articleid/10

Depending upon how you look at Wicca, it is either one of the newest or one of the oldest religions in the world:

Wicca is a recently created, Neopagan religion. The various branches of Wicca can be traced back to Gardnerian Witchcraft which was founded in the UK during the late 1940s.

Wicca is based on the symbols, seasonal days of celebration, beliefs and deities of ancient Celtic society. Added to this material were Masonic and ceremonial magickal components from recent centuries. In this respect, it is a religion whose roots go back almost three millennia to the formation of Celtic society circa 800 BCE.

A follower of Wicca is called a Wiccan. Wicca and other Neopagan religions are currently experiencing a rapid growth in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. This is seen particularly among some teenagers, who are rejecting what they feel is the autocracy, paternalism, sexism, homophobia, and insensitivity to the environment that forms part of some more traditional religions. Many North Americans of European descent, who are keen to discover their ancestral heritage, are also attracted to this religion.

About deities:

Depending upon one's point of view, Wicca can be considered a monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic religion:

Wicca is monotheistic: Some Wiccans recognize a single supreme being, sometimes called "The All" or "The One." The Goddess and God are viewed as the female and male aspects of this single deity.

Wicca is duotheistic (a.k.a. rarely as bitheistic): Wiccans often worship a female Goddess and a male God., often called the Lady and Lord.

Wicca is polytheistic: Wiccans recognize the existence of many ancient Gods and Goddesses, including Pan, Diana, Dionysius, Fergus, etc.

Wicca is atheistic: Some Wiccans view the God and Goddess as symbols, not living entities. Depending upon which definition of the term "Atheist" that you adopt, these Wiccans may be considered Atheists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_intr.htm

[Strong Atheist]

121. Notice that I never included the wiccans in my rebuttals, please.

Aside from that, lack of belief in god is a not a MAINSTREAM or even PREDOMINANT characteristic of either Judaism or Quaker beliefs; thus you are committing the unrepresentative sample fallacy:

http://www.virtuescience.com/logicalfallacies.html

Just go try to tell all those Quakers and Jews that they are atheists!

Seriously, you are getting nowhere with these attempts to make-believe they are, you are just appearing... confused.

Look, it ain't rocket science: People who believe in god, gods, or "god is all"

(most DEFINITELY INCLUDING panTHEISTS: Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)

are NOT ATHEISTS, who lack belief in god(s) COMPLETELY:

(Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

If someone believes in god, gods, or god is all, that person ain't an Atheist; they are just completely factually WRONG in thinking that they are ...

[bloom]

125. And you are practicing

the stuck in the mud maneuver.

I never said that that most Jews or Quakers were atheists - I don't know what the percentage is. So you are arguing against your twisted representation of what I said.

I don't see there being a significant difference that Wiccans can be atheists and people of other religions are not. It seems to me if someone can accept that people from one religion can also be atheists - it's not a big leap to saying that people of other religions can be atheists. It's the same logic. Using the idea of god as a symbol, at best. NOT the belief in god/desses.

As I said before:
Of course - what you don't get is that there are people who are Jews and Wiccan and Quakers who participate in some aspects of their respective religion who will say that they have no belief in God.

For evidence of this reread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=76955&mesg_id=77315

---------------------------------

I would like to know how someone saying that "everything is god" with no belief in the supernatural - is a denial of reality. When it comes to belief - if someone calls everything "everything" if you call everything "god" and you have the same belief either way - that god does not exist in any other way than to assign the word god to everything - what is the difference? How is the concept of everything different?

If you can make a good enough case for that - you might change my opinion. Just saying I'm wrong is not going to do it.

[Strong Atheist]

128. To be completely honest, I don't know enough (or, really, anything)

about wicca beliefs to talk about it intelligently. However, if it is a religion, as wikipedia seems to suggest, and if people in it WORSHIP anything, then they aren't atheists, because atheism is not a religion, and atheist by definition don't worship things. You may not LIKE that definition, but trying to re-write what atheism means is the same as saying up = down.

Atheists don't believe in god(s), they don't belong to a "religion", and they don't worship ANYTHING. That is just the facts. Apparently, there are non-theist religions (whatever the heck THAT means):


Nontheistic religions:
Taoism
Zen buddhism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism


but you will notice those are also seperate from atheism.

If someone belongs to a religion, worships someone/thing, or believes in god(s), they aren't an atheist; they are a theist of some type (or in the Taoist/Zen non theist category, but not ATHEISTS), BY DEFINITION...

[bloom]

129. It seems to me

that atheism by definition means that one does not believe in gods. And I think that that means that one does not believe that there are gods who are active in ones life or in the life of anyone else or that created life, etc.

I think that people - atheists included - can and do worship various things.

Also - I think it affects the definition of atheism - if Some people who are Jewish (perhaps ethnically), Wiccan or Quaker or esp. Unitarian Universalist say that they are atheist - when it comes to belief in god - but that they embrace other aspects of their religion.

If the definition of atheism is the non-belief in god - whatever else someone thinks, believes or does should have nothing to do with it.

_________________________________

I went to the link you put up and I ended up various other places. I think that the nuances that I am exploring relates to

"transcendence" and "immanence".

I think that I am assuming that you are talking about "transcendence" when you are talking about "God". Where I think of "immanence" as a different thing. Maybe you don't. Also - see "Immanence in philosophy". I see it as a philosophy - like this:

In the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience.

So to me - it ends up sounding like people can't have a philosophy and be atheists - which makes no sense to me. (Plus I don't see anything about preventing people from being in groups - and doing rituals - practicing yoga - or whatever people want to do - whether they are atheists or not).

_________________________________

Note that there is Transcendence in religion and in philosophy - which may be different things - depending on the religion (and the philosophy)...

Transcendence (religion)

Buddhism
In the various forms of Buddhism--Theravada, Mahayana (especially Pure Land and Zen), and Vajrayana--the notion of transcendence is of more difficult application. Except for Pure Land and Vajrayana (where a certain return to Hindu-like personifications of the spiritual world is countenanced), the role played by transcendent beings is minimal and at most a temporary expedient. The notion closest to transcendence, much in the spirit of Western "theologia negativa", is perhaps that of of shunyata (emptiness, void). Suffice it to say that one of the marks which set Buddhism apart from Hinduism in the beginning, and continues to serve as distinctive, is its reluctance to allow language to approach or speak of transcendence. For many, this appears to amount to atheism; for others, it would be better termed agnosticim. At any rate, for the Buddhist, if anything ultimate or transcendent is to be "known" at all, it would have to be directly experienced and not talked about, and that is the end of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29

Transcendence (philosophy)

Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond the world, as contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world. This meaning originates both in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-material self-consciousness that is outside of the world, and in the Jewish and Christian idea of God as a being outside of the world who created the world out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). In contrast, philosophies of immanence such as stoicism, Spinoza, Deleuze or pantheism maintains that God is manifested in and fully present in the world and the things in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)


Immanence in philosophy
The term "immanence" is usually understood to mean that the divine force, or the divine being, pervades through all things that exist, and is able to influence them. Such a meaning is common in pantheism & panpsychism, and it implies that divinity is inseparably present in all things. In this meaning immanence is distinct from transcendence, the latter being understood as the divinity being set apart from or transcending the World (an exception being Giovanni Gentile's "Actual Idealism" wherein immanence of subject is considered identified with transcendence over the material world). Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza and, it may be argued, Hegel's philosophy were philosophies of immanence, as well as stoicism, versus philosophies of transcendence such as thomism or Aristotelian tradition. Gilles Deleuze qualified Spinoza as the "prince of philosophers" for his theory of immanence, which Spinoza resumed by "Deus sive Natura" ("God is Nature"). Such a theory considers that there is no transcendent principle or external cause to the world, and that the process of life production is contained in life itself. <1>

When compounded with Idealism, the immanence theory qualifies itself away from "the world" to there being no external cause to one's mind.
In the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience.

The French 20th century philosopher Gilles Deleuze used the term immanence to refer to his "empiricist philosophy", which was obliged to create action and results rather than establish transcendentals. His final text was titled Immanence: a life..., spoke of a plane of immanence.<2> Similarly, Giorgio Agamben writes in The Coming Community (1993) : "There is an effect something that humans are and have to be, but this is not an essence nor properly a thing: It is the simple fact of one's own existence as possibility or potentiality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

-----------------

The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World

by Vaclav Havel

...A modern philosopher once said: "Only a God can save us now."

Yes, the only real hope of people today is probably a renewal of our certainty that we are rooted in the earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This awareness endows us with the capacity for self-transcendence. Politicians at international forums may reiterate a thousand times that the basis of the new world order must be universal respects for human rights, but it will mean nothing as long as this imperative does not derive from the respect of the miracle of Being, the miracle of the universe, the miracle of nature, the miracle of our own existence. Only someone who submits to the authority of the universal order and of creation, who values the right to be a part of it and a participant in it, can genuinely value himself and his neighbors, and thus honor their rights as well.

It logically follows that, in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion, convictions, antipathies, or sympathies - it must be rooted in self-transcendence:

• Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe.
• Transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all this constitutes a single world.
• Transcendence as the only real alternative to extinction.
•
http://www.newciv.org/whole/havelspeech.html

-------------------------

I'm just going to start a whole other thread about that.

[bloom]

133. The definition at this link - links immanent pantheism & atheism

The doctrine of Pantheism, however, is much more ancient than the name which is used to identify it. Because of Pantheism’s long history, one must therefore distinguish among the diverse meanings it assumed throughout the ages.The first meaning of pantheism refers to “transcendent pantheism”, a quite general idea according to which the world is considered to be a mere manifestation of God. This form of pantheism sees the divine only in the innermost parts of things, and in particular in the soul. As a result, the creature can “become” God only insofar as it liberates itself from the material shell of sensitiveness. This vision dates way back in time to the Vedanta doctrines of India and found its highest expression in Western Neo-Platonism.

The second meaning of pantheism is an “atheistic or immanent pantheism” (or monism) and considers the divine as a “vital energy” which animates the world from within, thereby leading to naturalistic and materialistic consequences.

Finally, pantheism also assumes the meaning of a “transcendent-immanent pantheism”, according to which God not only reveals himself, but also realizes himself in all things. Such is the pantheism for example of Spinoza, and that which, in diverse forms, will be of interest to various idealistic currents of Modern Age.

http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/92.asp

But at any rate - the debate about whether pantheism (esp. scientific and naturalistic pantheism) is also atheism did not start here - nor will it end here.

[ozone_man]

95. To avoid a confusion of language

I think we should reserve God for supernatural applications. One can call nature God, but it is not a correct usage if there is no supernatural basis for nature.

I think you are correct when you suggest that it may make some feel more in touch with history, but it is the same need for a protector that caused us to create God in the first place that makes one use God in this context. It's a reluctance to let go of God.

I see "Believing in God" and calling something "God/dess" just for the hell of it as 2 different things.

"while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in scientific terms." - and presumably call Nature "god/dess" - just for the hell of it. ("for the hell of it" might be because it makes them feel more in touch with history or some other similar reason).

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Einstein

I think Einstein's comment that his God was Spinoza's God, made in 1921, reflected an earlier part in his life, from where his views evolved to weak atheism/agnosticism. He is much clearer here. So, he is an agnostic atheist with pantheist tendencies. I am pretty much the same, but with some of that "crusading spirit of the professional atheist). ;)

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AEinstein.htm

[PabloLego]

89. What's the difference then between...

an atheist and an agnostic? Please, please correct my understanding: I think an atheist is someone who rejects the possibility of the existence of God (in whatever form), and an agnostic is someone who believes that we can never know with certainty that God exists so belief is irrational. I have been well schooled so far in my limited exchanges on this forum and I have to say that, as a Christian, I have found much of the atheist positions, while well articulated, seem to cross over into agnositicism as I understand it. Please clarify for me. Thanks!

[Random_Australian]

90. Alright, you are within a nick of starting a flamewar. Here is what the

various things are (no flames from me, yet, but be VERY careful about defining atheism)

Atheism is simply the abscence of belief in God, NOT the rejection of the possibility. (Technically, weak atheism, the most common version here, is the one that best fits that description, Strong atheists are a bit more unusual, so when we talk of atheism it is common to refer to weak atheism)

Atheists in general do NOT reject the possibility of God. Not at all.

Agnostic is one who is either uncertain or certain that we cannot know if there is a God.

Agnostic persons, in my experience, do not believe that belief is irrational (though I am open to testimony to the contrary - I must admit to not knowing many agnostics!)

Atheism basically states:
1) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2) Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence
3) Belief in existence follows evidence. Therefore there is abscence of belief (but not belief of abscence) in atheism.

There you go.

About the flame stuff, in R/T people will probably get angry at you a few times before you learn the necessary way to phrase things to not offend - there are many minefields here, butgood once you are a little used to it. Enjoy your stay!

(Btw, a good reference is TallahaseeGrannie, 'TG' who is almost always quite fair, and religious enough so it is not bias from me being an atheist speaking)

[PabloLego]

113. still a bit confused on the difference.

Thanks for the clarification. The definitions I originally posited as accurate were not my own, but what I cobbled together from positions argued (as I understand them) by Gordon Stein and Kai Nielsen. Could it be that, like Christians debating theology, atheists have their own protestants, and indeed even heretics?

As you stated, the absence of evidence corresponds to uncertainty of being able to know or certainty that we cannot know of the agnostic, which still leaves me confused as to the difference. Perhaps I'm getting hung up on the semantics and need to read more.

As for offending, I DO NOT wish to offend anyone but I know it's inevitable, if for no other reason that the limitations of this medium. I don't let concern about offending someone primarily determine my phraseology, as I hope no one else does either.

[Random_Australian]

120. Hmmmm, for phraseology, it may not be the primary concern, but

don't forget to be polite. (I'm sure you won't)

Atheism - abscence of belief
Agnosticism - may believe all they want (or might not) but just are not certain about things. An uncertain believer or non-believer if you will.

As for atheism, it has NO heretics, as atheism does not have any standards against which one can blaspheme or similar.

However, if for instance (No, I am not referring to you, bloom, no worries mate) someone claimed to be an atheist and started spouting anti-atheist things like "atheists have an evil conspiracy to destroy the world & should be watched by police all day every day" then needless to say, they would not be popular, but it would be not a collective rejection like heretics, no atheist can tell any other atheist what to think about someone, there is no authority in any place in atheism to make anyone a heretic.

But yes, people can get unpopular.

As for protestant metaphor - again, no heirachy, more importantly, no collective. There are no groups (in atheism, though I would point out that groups of people with different ideology (who are also atheists) will form groups) for people to adhere to or be excluded from. (Again, in the actual atheism part there is no group, however, people readily adhere to groups that espouse particular philosophies)

Finally, you will get the idea that there are groups of atheists here, that is because we have people who are similar (DU'ers) talking as atheists, thus appearing to be an atheist group. Careful of that!

P.S. Nothing in here implies that atheists are better, or Christians are worse... again, limits of the medium only, not authorial intent.

[Strong Atheist]

92. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

As Random_Australian says, you are entering firey waters. Put your flame-proof suit on!

[bloom]

94. Here is ayeshahaqqiqa's definition of God:

God is everything. God is every particle, atom, subatomic particle, every particle that hasn't been discovered yet. God is the laws of science and physics that have so far been discovered, and also those laws waiting to be discovered. God is action and inaction; God is the void and that which fills the void, all at once, as light is both a particle and a wave. God itself is continually evolving, changing, growing, creating-out of God. God can never be totally known; perhaps God can be experienced-in the splitting of a cell, a breath, the movement of planets.


The way I see it - is with a definition like this - you can't deny the existence of everything (OK - some philosophers get into debates - but that is their own universe) - so it is just a matter of whether you want to call everything God or not.

There is nothing to be agnostic about. Everything is Everything. or Everything is God. It's just semantics at that point.


I would say that ayeshahaqqiqa's definition is also basically the Pantheistic idea of God. Again. Call Nature.... "god" or say that nature is "reality". It's all the same to me.

This might keep me out of the atheist "club" - but I don't care. It was never my intent to join any clubs, A/A, or religions anyway.


So I don't get into any atheist/agnostic debates. They don't make sense to me. The only debate that I see is whether it makes any difference whether you call everything God or not. Since the belief in reality is not really debatable, AFAIC.

[greyl]

96. That definition is outright bs.

Would you like to cite her definition of dowsing as well?

Before any productive discussion of the existence of a God takes place, the definition needs to be agreed upon.
The definition you are defaulting to is rhetorically, utterly, meaningless.

It's bullshit.

I'm sad that you are fooled by cool sounding language which has little meaning in our shared reality.

Mind you, I'm not coming from the angle that our minds aren't powerful, but from the direction that our minds are very powerful. Delusion exists.

[bloom]

99. I think people are deluded on all sides.

And I think that the people who do not think that are deluded - may be the most deluded of all.


I also think that ayeshahaqqiqa's definition - or something very similar - is what most liberally religious people think. So if we are to be discussing God/dess and it's definitions - and modern day religion - I think we should keep that in mind.

[greyl]

102. I won't argue with your subject line.

"God is everything.
God is every particle, atom, subatomic particle, every particle that hasn't been discovered yet.
God is the laws of science and physics that have so far been discovered, and also those laws waiting to be discovered.
God is action and inaction.
God is the void and that which fills the void, all at once, as light is both a particle and a wave.
God itself is continually evolving, changing, growing, creating-out of God.
God can never be totally known; perhaps God can be experienced-in the splitting of a cell, a breath, the movement of planets."

I said the definition was bullshit, because it never states what "God" does, or what God cares about, or what help that God can provide to creation after creation. That littany of definitions does a disservice to metaphysics, theology, prose, and psychology.

It's hollow poetry only, with no relation to reality. Some people get revved on hollow poetry, but I don't.
Some people are willing to pay money to attend a conference on dowsing, but I'm not.

I think your attraction to the definition is that, at first cursory glance, it sounds groovy.

I earlier implied that defining the concept of God is vitally important before entering into an honest discussion about the concept, and sorry but "god is action and inaction" is totally meaningless bullshit.

Thoughts?

[bloom]

111. It is not bullshit.

What is bullshit - is your insistence that people with such a definition necessarily believe that God/dess "does" something - as a supernatural being. Or that the person's idea of God/dess "cares about" anything. Or that the person thinks that God/dess continues to have a hand in creation or each person individually.

My idea of "god is action and inaction" is that it is just another way of saying that God/dess is everything.

I think that there are a lot of people who seem to be in denial that there are a LOT of liberal people who have decided to define God/dess as something that has nothing to do with the supernatural.

I'm not saying that ayeshahaqqiqa does or does not believe in the supernatural - you would have to ask her. I just think that a LOT of liberally religious people do not.

And I think that they do not because they want to hold on to traditions and at the same time go forward with whatever is known scientifically, realistically, today - and to be grounded in reality.

And I think that atheists of all stripes should be happy about that - instead of trying to argue people out of it. It one thing to ask for clarity. It's another thing for people to be taking offense about it.

[greyl]

123. Well, yes it is.

It isn't coherent, it's conceptually meandering, and practically useless.
If it was simply, "God is everything", that would be a decent place to start a theological conversation about what that means, but it isn't simply "God is everything", is it?

[greyl]

132. Plus, it includes at least one scientific error.

Not surprising because of the crippled McPhysics that that sort of philosophy depends on.

[greyl]

122. We should defer to the majority opionion? No thanks.

Besides, I don't think it's the majority opinion.

[SPKrazy]

106. I Think Calling Someone's Beliefs BS Is Wrong

whether you agree with them or not is another issue.

It's fine to disagree.

But ayeshahaqqiqa's beliefs are her beliefs.

You can call BS on Bloom for stating it as a "definition"

But I would think twice before calling someone's beliefs BS

[bloom]

110. It certainly is a definition.

People can deny reality if they want. The ironic thing is people going around denying reality and then insisting that their "religion" is reality. Go figure.

[SPKrazy]

112. Okay, It's Her "Definition" Of Her Beliefs

if you want to get caught up more in semantics

it is her defining statement of her beliefs

as for the rest of your post, I don't get what you ar talking about "deny reality"?

[PabloLego]

114. garden variety pantheism, but if it works for you...

I wouldn't say her definition is BS at all. It's her own definition. I would argue that, as a basically Pantheistic definition, it's so general as to be meaningless. If everything is god, then so what? And anyway, how do you know that to be true? What do you measure infinity (a possible defining aspect of God) against itself to know that it is infinite? If it works for you as a definition, great. Doesn't work for me.

[SPKrazy]

116. HUH? n/t

[bloom]

115. denying reality

I've just gotten to noticing how some people who insist that they have a lock on reality end up insisting that other people are wrong - which when you are talking about religion (or non-belief or whatever) usually means that the person "denying reality" is saying that the other person does not have a right to their opinion - or in some cases - their own definition.

I think that people should be able to define their beliefs/reality - for themselves. That esp. in this age of flux - a lot of people are sorting things out for themselves.

[SPKrazy]

119. Okay

didn't know if you were responding to me specifically, or just making a statement

[greyl]

124. I didn't.

Anyway, based on her definition, my reply is God.

[SPKrazy]

130. You "Didn't"

and your reply is "God" (based on her definition)

I'm sorry, you lost me.

[greyl]

131. My reply satisfies 3 parts of the "definition":

God is everything. check
God is every particle, atom, subatomic particle, every particle that hasn't been discovered yet. check
God is action and inaction. check

[SPKrazy]

137. Okay

but you called her beliefs "bullshit" didn't you?

how is that cool?

[greyl]

138. Nah,

I said the definition was bullshit.
I'm pretty sure it's not like sacred scripture to her, she was ad libbing.

[SPKrazy]

140. If You Are Pretty Sure

then that makes everything okay

right?

[greyl]

142. I'm not getting the feeling that

you understand.

But anyway, are you suggesting that I needed more evidence? ;)

[SPKrazy]

144. I Think I Got Lost A While Back

because as I try to find the energy to go back and look at the thread

I just can't find it!

peace

[Zhade]

135. SPK...buddy...we've been through this before.

No one's beliefs are exempt from criticism, even strong criticism.

Everyone has a right to believe (or not), but the beliefs are not immune from discussion and even criticism.

:hi:

[SPKrazy]

136. Calling Someone's Beliefs "Bullshit" Goes Beyond Criticism

into the realm of personal attack

really, a person's beliefs are not appropriate to attack the person for by saying "it's bullshit"

so, buddy, we will disagree if that is what you think

:hi:

[greyl]

139. That didn't happen though, did it?

Furthermore, would you be ok with me saying the definition is totally useless and devoid of value? Or is the dirty word the problem? It's certainly no personal attack to criticize a belief.

[SPKrazy]

141. It's Personal To The Person You Are Criticizing!

If I say to you your ideas and beliefs are bullshit

that's personal

[greyl]

143. No, it isn't.

Listen, first of all the person has me on ignore. She's oblivious to what I said, unless someone was mean enough to PM her and hurt her feelings.
Second, the person didn't even make the originating post.
Third, I don't care if you call a belief or idea of mine bullshit - it's not a personal attack, period.

edit: and finally, I didn't call her beliefs bullshit!

[SPKrazy]

145. If You Say So

I realize that you called the definition of God (what I call her beliefs)of a poster "bullshit"

and so we may be arguing semantics, as I see it as her defined beliefs.

that may not be the case

and as I said in another post

I'm a little lost on the whole point of this argument as it has made me tired.

:crazy:

and a little unsure of what I'm even trying to say anymore

peace

[greyl]

146. I think your point was

that some people are emotionally hurt when their beliefs are called into question, and I agree with you there.:)

Take care of your goodness.

[Zhade]

147. No, it actually isn't a personal attack.

Saying "you're an idiot for believing such bullshit" is a personal attack.

The difference is that in that case, the person holding the beliefs is including in the criticism (or attack, if you prefer), whereas saying "___ is bullshit" doesn't include the person who believes what is being described as bullshit.

Now, I know a common argument is "but the belief is a part of the person!" Well, no. The belief is chosen. The ability to believe isn't, but the belief can be chosen (if it couldn't, you'd never see people convert from one religion to another, or drop it entirely).

I will agree that "bullshit" is not as conducive to discussion as other descriptions would be, but then there's no requirement that the discussion be approached without passion.

I think it is wrong to attack a person for believing, but the beliefs are not off-limits. I value free speech too much to impose restrictions like that (and I think you do, too).

[bloom]

152. It sounds like you are justifying people acting like jerks.

And calling things bullshit is not discussing at all. It's sounds like more of an attempt to end discussion.

And it doesn't sound passionate - it just sounds like the person doesn't really have anything worth saying - that they enjoy being rude - and have no substantial remarks or argument.

[Random_Australian]

155. An attempt to end the discussion? What makes you think that?

Calling BS at something, as opposed to someone, states how you feel about it, makes it so that the respodnder needs to justify inclusion, et cetera.

g2g peace

[bloom]

157. His post

in it's entirety was clearly designed to shut down discussion.

Comparing the definition to dowsing. etc. Sorry. But I don't have anything to say to people like that and I don't think that he wanted to discuss anything either - or he wouldn't have been so rude.

Maybe that is how some people think you are supposed to discuss things - but it says to me that he doesn't. I think that people who want to discuss things do not speak so rudely. There was no attempt at understanding - for one thing. And every indication that that way of communicating would continue into the future - esp. taking into account his subsequent posts.

And it's no excuse on his part to be rude (as he said) because he thinks that the person has him on ignore (because he has been rude to her before perhaps ?). That is no excuse for rude behavior. I read it. Other people read it. And I think his rudeness was directed at me anyway.

Her definition or concept was not meaningless. And like I said - I don't think it is as unusual as people think.

And I am partly going into this - because it is being defended so vigorously - and it is basically the topic of the thread. Can people discuss things or not - with people that have different opinions without insults, etc. Some people can. Some people can't or don't want to.

And now - he has defaulted into snide, meaningless remarks. :shrug:

[greyl]

161. I think my concept of bullshit may be more nuanced than yours.

Have you ever read "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt? I recommend that you do.

Regarding dowsing, that person strenuously believes in it fyi.

And again, if the oft repeated but unexamined phrase "everything is God" is taken to be true and meaningful, where does one get the right to condemn the existence of anything, including a post on a message board? In previous postings, ay. has said that everyone is an expression of God. You don't think that includes me?

Ironically, this much of this sub-thread is on a personal level, when it began with my criticism of a definition.
I don't see any direct support of the definition at all, which is what I'd expect to see if someone wanted to have a frankly authentic discussion about it.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

148. I think you are right to call him on it.

He was being beyond rude.

There was nothing that was bs about her definition for one thing. If that is how she wants to define God - then that is how she wants to define God.

It may be a problem for someone because it is difficult to argue against. But that is no reason for someone to act like a complete jerk about it.

That all goes back to the OP. People have different definitions and this business about attacking people because their definition is not something that one likes is no excuse to be uncivil.

If people are not willing to try to discuss something with respect - I think they should just go find some other thread to discuss something else or something.

When you have some atheists calling people "bigots" for not using their preferred definition of atheism and other atheists who call people's definition of God "BS" - it doesn't sound very good for the atheists. Esp. when these same people attack in groups.

[greyl]

151. But, but, but..

My reply is God. :shrug:


(Unless the definition is bullshit, of course)

[Zhade]

159. "Esp. when these same people attack in groups."

Prove it, if you can.

(You can't, of course.)

[bloom]

165. I think

that what happens on these two threads - just by way of example - is harassment by the "group".

The group not taking the subject seriously - and seeming to be offended by the topic (neither of which were offensive IMO) - so you are left with a serious of snide remarks. You might think that that is all very clever. I think it's obnoxious. That is the difference in the "group" mentality and the rest of us.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=64063

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=74211

---------------
ha·rass (h-rs, hrs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

(French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

[Zhade]

169. That wasn't your claim. You said people were sending you harassing PMs.

You will not back up your accusation, likely because it's a complete fucking fabrication.

[bloom]

170. I've posted them before.

They are deleted.

It was one person who sent them - who acted like he was speaking for 7 named people. There were 2 that were sent.


You are making a bigger deal out of it than I did.

[Zhade]

173. You made a false accusation. OF COURSE I'm making a bigger deal than you.

I tend to get irate when people lie about being harassed, especially by people I admire.

If it's NOT a bullshit accusation, you can prove it. "They will be deleted" is a poor excuse, since you don't have to NAME the alleged harrasser, just prove that any harassing PMs exist.

So far, you're batting 000.

[Random_Australian]

171. That second one was harassment? WHAT?

:wow: How so? What the hell?

[bloom]

174. Does that mean

that you admit that the first was is? :o


In the 2nd thread how many posts are discussing the content of the OP? Maybe 2 out of 130. What is that about?

I would agree with the idea that there was not the level of discord as in some threads - but I included it - because of the overall aspect of ignoring what the thread was about and the discussion about nonsense. And the focusing on one aspect that didn't have anything to do with anything.

[Random_Australian]

177. I didn't read the first; so no admission. ;)

Yeesh. Anyway, the OP was nothing about anything, nonsense in it's own right and flamebait to boot, and what is more, people discussed it adaquetely. Most of the thread was about it. (Or at least pointing out the flaws in the logic of the OP)

[Random_Australian]

154. Isn't that just her perception of God?

Rather than a definition?

[bloom]

156. She called it

her concept of God. This is post in context with the link to the larger discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=67459


Let me try and understand you

You say you don't believe in any of the "faces" of God-I assume by that you mean concepts of God. Yet the concept of God you use as an example is one that separates God from the kids. The one who throws the comic book in the trash says that these superheros don't really exist-and he, again, is coming from the concept that the superheros in the comic book are separate and different from him and the other kids.

This concept of God as being separate from individuals, perhaps endowed with superpowers, is a common God concept, I agree. But it is not the only concept of God a person can have.

Here is my concept of God. I would be interested in your analogy that refutes it-and this isn't flamebait. You most certainly have the right to say it is bunk, and I will not dissuade you. It's just that when I explain my concept of God I've never had an atheist come back with a refutation of my concept, and I'm curious as to what that refutation may be.

God is everything. God is every particle, atom, subatomic particle, every particle that hasn't been discovered yet. God is the laws of science and physics that have so far been discovered, and also those laws waiting to be discovered. God is action and inaction; God is the void and that which fills the void, all at once, as light is both a particle and a wave. God itself is continually evolving, changing, growing, creating-out of God. God can never be totally known; perhaps God can be experienced-in the splitting of a cell, a breath, the movement of planets.

This is my concept of God at this moment; it may, and probably will, change, as I have more experience. I sincerely wish to hear your comments about this concept of God.

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

I've read quite a bit about all of this stuff recently - in regards to these threads mostly. I think it's reasonable for atheists to understand that the concept of God has been evolving for a lot of people - in relation to advances in science and whatnot.

"About 400 years ago, before the discovery of electricity and only 150 years after the invention of the printing press, a barely literate German cobbler came up with the idea that God was a binary, fractal, self-replicating algorithm and that the universe was a genetic matrix resulting from the existential tension created by His desire for self-knowledge...

Böhme treatises were mostly Gnostic and kabbalistic in nature. His concepts often reflected Eastern spiritual concepts that were not widely known in Germany at the time. Böhme began with a radical rethink of the traditional Judeo-Christian God. He threw out the traditional picture of a guy with a beard and long robes in favor of an abstract, formless deity....

...In other words, Böhme's God evolves with the passage of time, in sharp contrast to the traditional Judeo-Christian view of a perfect, complete and unchanging figure who exists outside the normal flow of time.,,,"

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/jakob-bohme/

Böhme was an ancestor of mine - and I think that's kind of cool. The person who started the Quakers was inspired by him as was Hegel and other people.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jakob-b-hme

[Random_Australian]

160. "faces" of God? I never mentioned faces!

"the concept of God I use" - I haven't told you! (Yet, but it is forthcoming in this post, but near the end)

(This next bit is not flamebait.... hopefully! :)) My post was that rather than the quote bieng her definition of God, it was her perception (and her concept), so:

- As a concept, it is fair enough, though I might point out that it does not lend itself to easy communication, but then, that is more from the limits of words, and the medium through which we send them.

- As a definition, it's usefulness is severely limited by the amount of interpretations we are allowed of the words.

Finally, as for my concept of God, I can sum it up in three words - a pre-axiomic infinity.

I don't really know how I can explain this, so perhaps the best approach is for you to ask questions, but it covers things like not having to follow the laws of physics, and even the smallest part bieng beyond human comprehension. It is pretty thorough, but means that we can only attempt to ascribe characteristics through what that God has revealed to us.

Because the google of pre-axiomic won't give you anything (I think), then let me give you this quick example:

(Axioms, by the way, are things that are self evidently true)

One of the identity axioms is "There is no thing that is both A and not A"
Another is "A is not B, unless B is A"

Now, we see that there are three 'facets' in Christian belief, the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost.

How can they be one? How can something that is the Father also be the Son?
Normally, any A(son) is not B(Father) unless B(Father) is also A(Son), in other words, if Father were just another name for Son, which it isn't. However, if the axiom about A & B does not hold, it is quite acceptable for two things that are different to be the same.

[Random_Australian]

dupe.

[Random_Australian]

172. Hey! Let's all respond to the OT one and ignore this one, shall we?

Sheesh.

[bloom]

175. The OT one?

I'll assume you mean that you wanted feedback on this:

Finally, as for my concept of God, I can sum it up in three words - a pre-axiomic infinity.

I don't really know how I can explain this, so perhaps the best approach is for you to ask questions, but it covers things like not having to follow the laws of physics, and even the smallest part being beyond human comprehension. It is pretty thorough, but means that we can only attempt to ascribe characteristics through what that God has revealed to us....

I don't know what to say - except that your post kind of makes me think about how difficult it is to put these things into words that make sense to other people - but I do think it is worth trying anyway.

I think that there is a lot of chaos and random chance to the world. I think it makes people strive for stability - just so it doesn't seem too crazy.

I looked and I was surprised that there isn't a more developed philosophy based on chaos. (Your mention of physics reminded me - I had been researching this the other day).

There is Discordianism - which is pretty crazy - and this is a pretty funny to read through - but it wasn't what I had in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

[Random_Australian]

178. The OT one was you & greyl arguing about something else, when

I was still wondering about #156, esp. "You say you don't believe in any of the "faces" of God" when I never mentioned faces.... wigging a bit :). (and you can add "Yet the concept of God you use (...) seperates God from the kids" )

And then you & greyl launched into a 'nuances of BS' discussion, leaving me hanging so to speak, and much to my dismay.

Edit: Preaxiomic infinity is not all that much like chaos, but encompassing enough to nab whatever properties you want from it.

[greyl]

162. Guess who said "You most certainly have the right to say it is bunk".

In a nutshell, that stream of consciousness definition is simply describing the universe.
God isn't distinguished at all, no distinct propertie of God are stated. I think that's because there's nothing to distinguish. It's the sort of definition one may arrive at after losing faith in other Gods but still wanting to believe in God despite the lack of evidence.
It's a way to attempt to evangelize to atheists by offering up a non-descript, non-falsifiable description. It's a semantic trick that attempts to prove to atheists that they do believe in God.
It's bunk, aka bullshit.

[bloom]

164. This is what I think about that.

I think that people's idea of God/dess IS what they think about the universe.

Maybe other people don't see it in those terms - but I do.

And it also has to do with how you see positives and negatives and the best way to try to deal with life.

I think some people call their interpretation of the universe God/dess and some people don't - but that everyone has one - an interpretation that is.

I don't assign the term God/dess to my interpretation - but I think that I could. And that is why I don't see myself as being/thinking fundamentally different from ayeshahaqqiqa.

I think that people, such as myself, can consider some of the same ways of thinking about the universe - and differences - even though one of us calls it God/dess and one of us doesn't. For instance, ayeshahaqqiqa includes all things in her idea of God/dess - the good and the bad. I don't. The way I see it - there are many cool and awesome things about Nature. I like to think about the awesomeness of if - and I don't think that that is worship - or anything religious - it's just my POV. The things that Man chooses to do - that he wouldn't have to - like murder, creating toxic waste, acting like jerks - is not a part of what I consider to be among the awesome parts of Nature.

There is probably somebody somewhere who has called what I believe some form of philosophy or religion - but I don't know what it is necessarily. I think Pantheism is close - but it doesn't really matter - it's just interesting to consider how other have framed their views.


You may be right that your "concept of bullshit may be more nuanced" - but I think I know whether someone seems to want to discuss something or whether they don't. Or at least - I don't expect to discuss things with people who totally dismiss what I say - as if it's nothing.

[greyl]

166. About what?

I don't think you're directly responding to what I've said. It's almost as if you aren't interested in a real discussion. ;)

I want to tie this subthread up by saying:
1. I was following the Golden Rule. I wish people to be directly open and honest with me, rather than too timid to express their truth. Affected veneers of "politeness" make me cringe.

2. I think this should be continued in a thread about what God is rather than in a thread about what you are, because this passive aggresive personal bullshit is tiresome.

[bloom]

167. The subthread....

TO recap:

The Question that started this section was:

What's the difference then between... an atheist and an agnostic?
-----

I provided ayeshahaqqiqa's definition/concept and added:

So I don't get into any atheist/agnostic debates. They don't make sense to me. The only debate that I see is whether it makes any difference whether you call everything God or not. Since the belief in reality is not really debatable, AFAIC.
-----

I wasn't really interested in arguing about whether ayeshahaqqiqa's definition was meaningless or not - I think that what other people think has meaning - at least to them - and to me that is what is important - not whether you think that someone else's concept has meaning or not.

While you could say that I am saying what you said does not have meaning - this isn't about you.
-----

You wrote:

In a nutshell, that stream of consciousness definition is simply describing the universe....It's a semantic trick etc.
-----

And I responded:

I think that people's idea of God/dess IS what they think about the universe.

...I think some people call their interpretation of the universe God/dess and some people don't - but that everyone has one - an interpretation that is.

I don't assign the term God/dess to my interpretation - but I think that I could. And that is why I don't see myself as being/thinking fundamentally different from ayeshahaqqiqa.etc.
______________________

As far as "passive aggresive personal bullshit" - that sounds like projection.

And I don't think "it's a semantic trick" (maybe that's what you want to argue about - people's intentions). I don't know what to tell you. You can either think that people are discussing what they really think - or you can believe that people are making up shit just to bug you. :shrug: (I think that is ridiculous - but that's me - I'm not speaking for anyone else.)

[greyl]

176. Ok, refocusing:

So I don't get into any atheist/agnostic debates. They don't make sense to me. The only debate that I see is whether it makes any difference whether you call everything God or not. Since the belief in reality is not really debatable, AFAIC.

My point of view is yes, it makes a difference. If God has no distinguishable properties from any other concept in the universe, how meaningful is the concept? Some quality must be attributed to God specifically, verifiable or not, for the concept to mean anything, otherwise lo and behold "there is no God!". One thing I know about the concept is that it's supposed to be important to those that often talk about it favorably. If the definition needs improvement, why not give it some thought?

Earlier when I said "the definition is bs because..." and then listed 3 things, those 3 things are in no way sufficient conditions for a definition to be bs, it was just a quick few. One more is that if God isn't distinguishable from empirically derived reality, rational thought, critical thinking, and the scientific method, shall we consider any future whining about requests for proof and examinations of faith as being nothing more than the temporary pains of outgrowing unwarrented beliefs and superstition?

I don't assign the term God/dess to my interpretation - but I think that I could. And that is why I don't see myself as being/thinking fundamentally different from ayeshahaqqiqa.etc.

I hope I'm not parsing "fundamentally" too much - do I need to say that I don't see myself that way either? I never lost hope that some authentic understandings would be reached.

I don't assign the term God/dess to my interpretation - but I think that I could.

What definition of God would you use? Why would it be appropriate to call what you are interpreting "God"? Is it appropriate to consider yourself an atheist if you believe in God?
Should you take an agnostic test mayhaps? ;)

And I don't think "it's a semantic trick"...You can either think that people are discussing what they really think - or you can believe that people are making up shit just to bug you.

False dilemma. I didn't receive the unwritten memo stating that I had only those two choices of response to 'all this'.
I've been trying to show how it is a semantic trick(specifically designed) that falls apart under analysis and I notice a few of my favorite points have been overlooked upthread in favor of passing moral judgment on my choice of words. I base that opinion on posts in the Science forum and this one which you have quoted yourself that indicate a challenge to atheists, which you have been kind enough to be a surrogate for.

Ps: It's interesting to me that in a thread titled "I'm an atheist" you say you aren't concerned about debates between agnosticism and atheism, yet are concerned with assigning gender to God, which you don't believe in.

[bloom]

179. The gender thing and other considerations

As I mentioned originally:

If I happen to agree with the principles of people who think of nature as spiritual (Einstein referred to "Cosmic religious Feeling") - to me that is not the same as a belief in "God/dess". And there are plenty of people who like to think in terms of "archetypes ", who don't think that any "God/desses" actually exist.

I think that the prevailing religion is an interesting reflection on what societies value. I think that such books as "When God Was a Woman" and "The Chalice and the Blade" are useful for putting our society in perspective. Ultimately - it becomes a matter of questioning the entire political and social structure - based on what religious and moral values our society has adopted.

Since I think that one's religion/view of the universe is influenced by/influences what words are used. So just to even talk about the concept in terms of God instead of Goddess reinforces the male supremacy viewpoint. I don't think that is valid - so I try to remember to avoid it.

People get to using such concepts as Wicca - I think - because they want a connection to the past. It doesn't have anything to do with God/dess - except (IMO) maybe to redefine God as Goddess - because of how that part of history has been left out. So it's a reclaiming of tradition and voice.


As I've said other places - I think that to think of the universe by using language that includes words like God/dess is mostly a matter about whether one wants to connect to historical traditions or not. I understand it if people don't - because of the advanced changes in scientific understanding..... And I understand it if people do - and figure that when the myths of the Bible were written - the creation story was based on what was known at the time. Now we know more. We probably don't know as much as we think we do - but we know a lot more. So it makes sense that ones "interpretation of the universe" (how one defines God/dess ) includes what is known. I think it's always been that way. (And why we had the Dark Ages - so knowledge would not interfere with that interpretation). There is much less of a need to think of things supernaturally, now. Though when you read about scientists and their dimensions - it starts to sound pretty supernatural - IMO.


Another thing I was thinking about - a "fundamental" difference. I tend to think that whatever someone thinks about religion is what they think about religion. I think it's interesting to hear about how people think differently - but to discuss it is not a matter of argumentation. I think the goal should be understanding - not confrontation.

Philosophers have more of a history of arguing and proving everything. I suppose it seems like fun and games (or serious inquiry, as the case may be) - but I think it's quite a different frame of mind to think that everything is about "I'm right and you're wrong", etc.

Where this intersects with politics - is I extend this "goal of understanding" to people who believe in things liberally - who seem to have other people's well-being in mind. IMO - people's whose politics and religion/philosophy do not have other people's well-being in mind - who have no concept of the social contract outside of their group (whatever it is) - deserve to be challenged - because that frame of mind puts all of us at risk.

[greyl]

181. A 60 year old anti-religion religion is a connection to the past?

In addition to getting the feeling that you're guided by a battle between male and female rather than a pursuit of sexless cosmic understanding, I think we're talking past each other. I don't remember one question or point of mine that you've responded to directly.

[bloom]

183. I think Wiccans

consider it a connection to the past - to before when the Church went on their murderous rampages against witches/women.

I've read some of the what inspires them. It doesn't inspire me - but I totally get where they are coming from.


We may be talking past each other. To me it seems like you look for fights where there do not need to be fights.

[greyl]

184. White supremacists believe "wrong" things too.

Wicca didn't exist when the Church went on witch hunts.

[bloom]

185. I don't know

what's up with comparing Wiccans to "White supremacists". (Flamebait ? You have something against Wiccans ? What ? )

While I don't expect people to share my ideas exactly or some of the ideas of the Wiccans - I don't know why someone would compare them to "White supremacists" unless that someone liked to create unnecessary arguments/friction.

Whether you want to think so or not - many (most?) Wiccans see themselves as reclaiming traditions. Some say that there has been a continuous Wiccan tradition - I didn't say that - and I don't see how any of this is relevant to anything we have been discussing (I wrote: I think Wiccans consider it a connection to the past....) Wiccans have readopted Beltane and Samhain and covens and all sorts of things that relate to pre-Christian European religion.

For example - from a site about Wicca:

What is Wicca?

Wicca is a neo-pagan religion based on the pre-Christian traditions of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Its origins can be traced even further back to Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess. Cave paintings found in France (and dated at 30,000 years old) depict a man with the head of a stag, and a woman with a swollen, pregnant belly. They stand in a circle with eleven mortals. These archetypes of the divine are worshipped by Wiccans to this very day. By these standards, the religion that is now called Wicca, is perhaps the oldest religion in the world.

In 1951, the laws against Witchcraft were repealed in England. A man named Gerald Gardner was the first to come into the public eye with a description of what modern witches were practicing. His information came from the traditions of a coven called the New Forest Witches, and from Ceremonial Magick and the Cabballah. He began what is now called the Gardnerian Tradition of Wicca. From Gardnerian came Alexandrian Tradition, and a host of other offshoots that today number in the hundreds.

http://www.msu.edu/user/rohdemar/earth/whatwicc.html

II. Traditions/Branches/Gatherings/Sub-Groups/Interpretations/etc.

A. Gardnerian:

Started by G. Gardner, in England, in the mid 1950's, this Tradition claims to have existed, in secret, since the Witch-Burnings began during the Middle Ages. While there is some doubt as to whether or not it is as old as it claims, there is no denying that the Gardnerian Sect has been one of the most Influential of the Traditions. In fact, many of the groups which follow were started by people who had been introduced to Paganism and the Worship of the Lord and Lady as members of a Gardnerian group....

F. Traditionalist (Welsh, Scots, Greek, Irish, etc...)

Like Dianic, this is a sub-class. Each Traditionalist group is based upon the traditions, literature, myth, and folktales of that particular geographic/demographic area. This is evident in the Names of the God/dess used by individual groups.

The Wiccan Rede: "An it harms none, do what thou will." is almost universally accepted amongst the groups. Most groups tend to be polytheistic, animists, pantheists, ect. One is not "converted" to Wicca, rather, the new comer feels a sense of "Coming Home", or, more poetically, "The Goddess calls to Her own". Nature plays a big part in most Traditions, either as direct personification of the God/dess, or as aspects of them. There is no counterpart to the Devil, as such, in the Pagan religions... no personification of All Evil, rather, the choice is there for all to make. However, there is the Law of Three Fold Return, which states "That which thou dost send out shall return three fold", so good begets good, and evil befalls those who are evil (a horrendous understatement / simplification, but true).

http://www.msu.edu/user/rohdemar/earth/trads.html

[greyl]

186. Oh c'mon.

I was trying to illustrate the bottom of the slippery slope of refraining from criticism of beliefs.

My beef surrounding Wicca is the myth that it's ancient. Animism deserves that credit.

[greyl]

180. Absolutely not.

It is a series of words.

[Random_Australian]

182. Ok, you got me at reification, more literally "It appears to be her

attempt to articulate her perception of God" and then you can argue that it is A) Not a definition (as was my intent) and B) Poorly or incomprehensibly worded.

Anything else?