Atheism

Originally posted by dadudemon
Until Atheists and/or agnostics experience a fully legal "kill" order from a US Governer (reminds me of Order 66 from Star wars and it even has a similar name of "Order 44"😉, and are driven from their homes in thousands, atheists cannot say they have "hate" that compares to the hate of other groups like Mormons or Native Americans.

Severity v. prevalence, as I've always said. It is statistically provable that MORE people mistrust atheists than any other group. The severity of that mistrust is a different matter entirely.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Going back, it wasn't a marginal amount. It was quite significant. If you remove the outliers (because of the population that are Mormon in those states), Mormonism has been vastly underrepresented in Congress forever. I would like to think Romney had something to do with the upsurge in Mormon representation in congress, recently.

Perhaps. But I personally don't care what the climate was like decades ago. Clearly we've changed in some respects. Present-day America, a Mormon could conceivably be President. We're talking about orders of magnitude in present-day acceptance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why don't you do something for public office? How are you oration skills?

Heh. They're fine. But I have no intention of leading the charge, nor do I have more than a passing interest in most political struggles. I have a day job and a healthy self-awareness about the chances of an atheist in the heart of the Midwest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Side note but more on topic: I have noticed that many of my Mormon brethren have atheist friends. I am far from the exception and, instead, have quite the odd amount of atheist friends. Why is this? Is there some sort of commonality between our two groups that makes communication and comfort easier between "our people"? I will say that our mutual belief (fact, bitches) that the bible is flawed (as well as anything written by man) is a decent starting point but I never see that conversation happen.

Never seen or heard of this outside of you. Can't really comment.

Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps. But I personally don't care what the climate was like decades ago. Clearly we've changed in some respects. Present-day America, a Mormon could conceivably be President. We're talking about orders of magnitude in present-day acceptance.

You're absolutely right. I do plan to run for public office and I am very sure I'll succeed. My "mormoness" doesn't concern me. You definitely cannot say the same. But, where I am, just being a religious person is enough. People don't care about whether or not you are a Mormon as much as they would probably care if you were atheist or muslim.

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. They're fine. But I have no intention of leading the charge, nor do I have more than a passing interest in most political struggles. I have a day job and a healthy self-awareness about the chances of an atheist in the heart of the Midwest.

One thing of major concern would be how much in your business things get. Skeletons in the closet, n'all that. Really stupid stuff like, "He was defiant in highschool"...like they did with Bush Jr.

But, yes, I think atheism needs more representation in government.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're absolutely right. I do plan to run for public office and I am very sure I'll succeed. My "mormoness" doesn't concern me. You definitely cannot say the same. But, where I am, just being a religious person is enough. People don't care about whether or not you are a Mormon as much as they would probably care if you were atheist or muslim.

One thing of major concern would be how much in your business things get. Skeletons in the closet, n'all that. Really stupid stuff like, "He was defiant in highschool"...like they did with Bush Jr.

But, yes, I think atheism needs more representation in government.

I wouldn't have many worries. I have a speeding ticket from high school and ran a stop sign in college. No one would have anything bad to say about me, I've been a community volunteer on several occasions, and work for a non-profit organization currently. My record is so clean, it's a bit sad. But **** running for public office; I have enough headaches as it is. Best of luck, though.

There are probably five times as many Muslim politicians in America as there are openly Atheist politicians. Which is to say there are probably thirty Muslim politicians in America.

Originally posted by Digi
I wouldn't have many worries. I have a speeding ticket from high school and ran a stop sign in college. No one would have anything bad to say about me, I've been a community volunteer on several occasions, and work for a non-profit organization currently. My record is so clean, it's a bit sad. But **** running for public office; I have enough headaches as it is. Best of luck, though.

My worst is not wearing a seat belt, at 17, as a passenger. 😐

Since we are both squeaky clean, you'll be my running mate (primaries will be a breeze).

I'm going to run under the GOP, most likely. But it will be "classic flavor" where my platform is very socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

And I won't take no for an answer. uhuh

I'll get the conservative vote and you'll garner the liberal vote. BAM!

atheist: someone who does not believe in magic and talking animals and invisible parents in the clouds.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

A wonderful look at Richard Dawkins, and not the typical kind of critique of him or his work. I particularly love the last line as a summation of the absurdity perpetuated by many who count themselves among his antagonists.

Amusingly, the comments in the article don't take long to devolve into the normal chaos we'd expect to see in an article about Dawkins. I think I hadn't scrolled more than a couple dozen before I started to see arguments about Hitler's religious leanings. The classics die hard, it seems.

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

A wonderful look at Richard Dawkins, and not the typical kind of critique of him or his work. I particularly love the last line as a summation of the absurdity perpetuated by many who count themselves among his antagonists.

It doesn't seem to be a critique at all, just a long way of pointing out that Dawkins considers all religions harmful.

Originally posted by Digi
Amusingly, the comments in the article don't take long to devolve into the normal chaos we'd expect to see in an article about Dawkins. I think I hadn't scrolled more than a couple dozen before I started to see arguments about Hitler's religious leanings. The classics die hard, it seems.

I managed to get exactly one comment into it before it devolved into people obviously trying to do nothing but get other people angry.

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

A wonderful look at Richard Dawkins, and not the typical kind of critique of him or his work. I particularly love the last line as a summation of the absurdity perpetuated by many who count themselves among his antagonists.

Amusingly, the comments in the article don't take long to devolve into the normal chaos we'd expect to see in an article about Dawkins. I think I hadn't scrolled more than a couple dozen before I started to see arguments about Hitler's religious leanings. The classics die hard, it seems.

Stop reading sh_tty articles Digi, you're smarter than that.

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

A wonderful look at Richard Dawkins, and not the typical kind of critique of him or his work. I particularly love the last line as a summation of the absurdity perpetuated by many who count themselves among his antagonists.

Amusingly, the comments in the article don't take long to devolve into the normal chaos we'd expect to see in an article about Dawkins. I think I hadn't scrolled more than a couple dozen before I started to see arguments about Hitler's religious leanings. The classics die hard, it seems.

I couldn't make it through the article. 🙁

I just couldn't...too much stupidity.

There are far better criticisms of Dawkins and his positions than just the superificial B.S. ones.

I wonder what Dawkins thinks of having an active Mormon as a fan? hmm I do know that he said if Mormons were right, than we would still be wrong (I am extrpolating and paraphrasing like a mo-fo) to conclude that our beliefs MUST be from God: could just be a super advanced alien. All I can say to that is: I thought of that first. uhuh

Originally posted by Bentley
Stop reading sh_tty articles Digi, you're smarter than that.

lol

lol, didn't expect the hate. See my reply to Sym below:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It doesn't seem to be a critique at all, just a long way of pointing out that Dawkins considers all religions harmful.

That's the point, it WASN'T a critique. It was an opinion on why all the Dawkins bashing is somewhat ridiculous, and why our ire is pointed in the wrong direction. I got no sense that the author agrees with Dawkins across the board, but he rightly realizes that Dawkins's brand of "extremism" isn't anything like the opposite end of the spectrum, because what he advocates isn't harmful but empowering. He's speaking out against evil, and is being labeled an equal evil himself.

I find Dawkins to be a mixed bag. Some of his stuff is alright and his criticism I find for the most part to be managable but I feel an almost "extreamist" view in atheism that's just as annoying as the Jehova Witnesses bringing pamplets to my door. Granted no atheist has ever came to my door telling me how silly religion is.

It's almost as if theirs this impression made that if all religion was gone,just imagine how much better things would be. I'm not willing to fall for that,or at least not where I live in my immediate experience.

I try to fall somewhere in the middle here. I find both sides of this coin just as annoying as the other. But truthfully the mainstream atheist may be a tad more annoying just because you get this feeling their screaming "Look over here at me! You're all stupid,stupid,stupid! No i'm not fat like you i'm just big boned!"

Originally posted by mr.smiley
I find Dawkins to be a mixed bag. Some of his stuff is alright and his criticism I find for the most part to be managable but I feel an almost "extreamist" view in atheism that's just as annoying as the Jehova Witnesses bringing pamplets to my door. Granted no atheist has ever came to my door telling me how silly religion is.

It's almost as if theirs this impression made that if all religion was gone,just imagine how much better things would be. I'm not willing to fall for that,or at least not where I live in my immediate experience.

I try to fall somewhere in the middle here. I find both sides of this coin just as annoying as the other. But truthfully the mainstream atheist may be a tad more annoying just because you get this feeling their screaming "Look over here at me! You're all stupid,stupid,stupid! No i'm not fat like you i'm just big boned!"

Well, the above reactions were a nice microcosm of Dawkins criticism. I post an article that supports him for being the "extremist" who is advocating a completely compassionate and rational thing, and not only does the criticism in his own country drown out his intent, but the reactions I got were all very acerbic toward him and/or the article.

The "the world would be better without religion" argument is unfalsifiable currently, so it's an entirely hypothetical discussion. However, it's not without data points that suggest it's possible. But at the heart of it, atheism isn't about being better. Such subjective arguments don't really apply. It's mostly about following evidence and reason to responsible conclusions, which is removed from the moral argument of better/worse.

Also, I have no idea what "mainstream atheist" means, and I'm somewhat certain no such thing exists. There is no consensus of behavior to determine such a thing. I think what you're referring to by calling mainstream atheists annoying, is the few you choose to identify as mainstream to justify your annoyance.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, the above reactions were a nice microcosm of Dawkins criticism. I post an article that supports him for being the "extremist" who is advocating a completely compassionate and rational thing, and not only does the criticism in his own country drown out his intent, but the reactions I got were all very acerbic toward him and/or the article.

The "the world would be better without religion" argument is unfalsifiable currently, so it's an entirely hypothetical discussion. However, it's not without data points that suggest it's possible. But at the heart of it, atheism isn't about being better. Such subjective arguments don't really apply. It's mostly about following evidence and reason to responsible conclusions, which is removed from the moral argument of better/worse.

Also, I have no idea what "mainstream atheist" means, and I'm somewhat certain no such thing exists. There is no consensus of behavior to determine such a thing. I think what you're referring to by calling mainstream atheists annoying, is the few you choose to identify as mainstream to justify your annoyance.

When I say mainstream atheist perhaps mainstream atheism would have been a better term.
Examples:

1

Even debunking Christianity is on board

2

Or the atheist monument

3

I find it interesting that if one wanted you could say religious intolerance in part began when man built monuments and temples to those things he was experincing within. He then see's what his neighbor put up and decides he's right and his neighbor is evil.
Now the atheist want a monument but since they don't have any set ciriculum,other than their in this together they then have to find their own meaning in such a thing on the individual level and that's exactly what a lot of religious people have already been battling for centuries. I think Peter Gilmore hit it on the head when he said man is a symbolic creature and that's were the atheist movement is somewhat failing. It seems to me a lot of them are already on board a system of thinking.

I guess I put myself more in the though of Neil Tyson in this interview:

tyson

Their are certainly atheist that don't annoy me. Peter Gilmore being one of them.I just don't get the big push were currently seeing or why so many atheist cross over to a completely anti-religious stance.

As for a world without religion I agree with Michael Shermers criticism (though he mostly glowed over Dawkins) that putting so much blame soley on religion is a bit far stretching. All we need is difference for their to be opposistion. One does not have to just think different than someone else,simply looking different is normally justification enough. I think a quest for a world without religion which would usher in a new age of science and peace is just as much a pipe dream as a literal second coming.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
When I say mainstream atheist perhaps mainstream atheism would have been a better term.
Examples:

1

Even debunking Christianity is on board

2

Or the atheist monument

3

So, atheism in the mainstream media? Ok. I'd argue that there's still no consensus of behavior to create any idea of a standardized atheist/atheism, but this is a start at least.

Though I'm a bit flummoxed at why you wouldn't want to identify with that first one. It's remarkably unoffensive, given its intent.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
I find it interesting that if one wanted you could say religious intolerance in part began when man built monuments and temples to those things he was experincing within. He then see's what his neighbor put up and decides he's right and his neighbor is evil.

Now the atheist want a monument but since they don't have any set ciriculum,other than their in this together they then have to find their own meaning in such a thing on the individual level and that's exactly what a lot of religious people have already been battling for centuries.

This is some massive cart before the horse. Want to know the difference? There isn't organized atheist-movement-driven violence. When there is, then you'll have a point. Until then, the idea that trying to gain some notoriety in a community is somehow religious intolerance...doesn't really hold up. They're not part of the problem of intolerance because they have a monument. They'll be part of the problem when they're actually intolerant or when their views marginalize or adversely affect others. Until then, this is a false claim.

Taoist monks have monuments too. We can cherry-pick examples to say anything here. But you're not proving anything. You're suggesting an outcome based on a vague hypothesis and selectively biased examples.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
I guess I put myself more in the though of Neil Tyson in this interview:

tyson

Neil's great; no qualms with his response. But. Everyone forgets his audience. He does one thing: promote science and reason. And he's got millions of people hanging on his words. And he reaches across the religious aisle with that influence with tons of people. That's an incredible responsibility. And you know what would f*** the whole thing up? Saying he's atheist. He literally can't say that word or he'd get dragged down to a place where he wouldn't have the same influence...he'd be vilified like Dawkins by many, ignored by others as possessing an agenda, and the whole scientific enterprise he's advocating would suffer a sever blow.

Any atheist "doesn't know for sure" so we're all technically agnostics. But I guarantee you NDT doesn't believe in a god or gods. He could easily identify as atheist.

Frankly, it's fine if you agree with him, but his response was so carefully constructed to be politically correct, that the most impressive thing about the whole video is his PR acumen, not anything having to do with his beliefs.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
Their are certainly atheist that don't annoy me. Peter Gilmore being one of them.I just don't get the big push were currently seeing or why so many atheist cross over to a completely anti-religious stance.

What exactly are we currently seeing, as you say? Again, I haven't seen anything to suggest there's a central tenet of behavior that we can point to. All we have is a vague assertion that atheists are somehow becoming more anti-religious.

Second, you ask why they'd have such a big push, and why we see some being anti-religious. Fair question...

Look at the LGBT movement. Look at the massive good it's done. They're not even close to equal yet, but the past five years have seen exponential growth in acceptance and legislative equality.

Now add that to this: More people in the country mistrust atheists than any other demographic, religious or otherwise. This is proven and the data has been repeated ad nauseum. Is it any wonder why there's a push, or why there's some anti-religious sentiment? I think the real question should be why there isn't a bigger push or more outcry. Compared to what they could be doing (or should be doing, according to many), the "movement" is practically turning the other cheek, to borrow a religious phrase.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
As for a world without religion I agree with Michael Shermers criticism (though he mostly glowed over Dawkins) that putting so much blame soley on religion is a bit far stretching. All we need is difference for their to be opposistion. One does not have to just think different than someone else,simply looking different is normally justification enough. I think a quest for a world without religion which would usher in a new age of science and peace is just as much a pipe dream as a literal second coming.

A common mistake, and you flirt with it here, is to point to other ways evil can occur, and use that to poo-poo the argument that the world would be better without religion.

Whether or not, say, skin color can create intolerance (and it can), that fact has NO bearing on the central question: better with religion or not. Of course there would still be evil. Maybe Dawkins doesn't acknowledge this enough, but he's not stupid. You talking about a "new age of science and peace" is just arguing against a straw man. Make an actual case against the idea, then we'll talk.

Originally posted by Digi
So, atheism in the mainstream media? Ok. I'd argue that there's still no consensus of behavior to create any idea of a standardized atheist/atheism, but this is a start at least.

Though I'm a bit flummoxed at why you wouldn't want to identify with that first one. It's remarkably unoffensive, given its intent.

This is some massive cart before the horse. Want to know the difference? There isn't organized atheist-movement-driven violence. When there is, then you'll have a point. Until then, the idea that trying to gain some notoriety in a community is somehow religious intolerance...doesn't really hold up. They're not part of the problem of intolerance because they have a monument. They'll be part of the problem when they're actually intolerant or when their views marginalize or adversely affect others. Until then, this is a false claim.

Taoist monks have monuments too. We can cherry-pick examples to say anything here. But you're not proving anything. You're suggesting an outcome based on a vague hypothesis and selectively biased examples.

I think you totally missed what I was saying here. I was going more on an idividiual vs the system here but I would say their are those who are intolerant. And i'm not quiet sure what Taosit monks have to do with this.

Neil's great; no qualms with his response. But. Everyone forgets his audience. He does one thing: promote science and reason. And he's got millions of people hanging on his words. And he reaches across the religious aisle with that influence with tons of people. That's an incredible responsibility. And you know what would f*** the whole thing up? Saying he's atheist. He literally can't say that word or he'd get dragged down to a place where he wouldn't have the same influence...he'd be vilified like Dawkins by many, ignored by others as possessing an agenda, and the whole scientific enterprise he's advocating would suffer a sever blow.

Any atheist "doesn't know for sure" so we're all technically agnostics. But I guarantee you NDT doesn't believe in a god or gods. He could easily identify as atheist.

Frankly, it's fine if you agree with him, but his response was so carefully constructed to be politically correct, that the most impressive thing about the whole video is his PR acumen, not anything having to do with his beliefs.

TO some perhaps. But it's all in how you say it. I think Dawkins loves the villian role.

What exactly are we currently seeing, as you say? Again, I haven't seen anything to suggest there's a central tenet of behavior that we can point to. All we have is a vague assertion that atheists are somehow becoming more anti-religious.

Second, you ask why they'd have such a big push, and why we see some being anti-religious. Fair question...

Look at the LGBT movement. Look at the massive good it's done. They're not even close to equal yet, but the past five years have seen exponential growth in acceptance and legislative equality.

Now add that to this: More people in the country mistrust atheists than any other demographic, religious or otherwise. This is proven and the data has been repeated ad nauseum. Is it any wonder why there's a push, or why there's some anti-religious sentiment? I think the real question should be why there isn't a bigger push or more outcry. Compared to what they could be doing (or should be doing, according to many), the "movement" is practically turning the other cheek, to borrow a religious phrase.

A common mistake, and you flirt with it here, is to point to other ways evil can occur, and use that to poo-poo the argument that the world would be better without religion.

Whether or not, say, skin color can create intolerance (and it can), that fact has NO bearing on the central question: better with religion or not. Of course there would still be evil. Maybe Dawkins doesn't acknowledge this enough, but he's not stupid. You talking about a "new age of science and peace" is just arguing against a straw man. Make an actual case against the idea, then we'll talk.
Then what may I ask is evil if it even exsist?

Some of my mates are Atheists and some are agnostics and some believe in a higher power like Christians, Muslims, Hinduism and Jewish people and also Buddhism.

Personally I believe in God (Christianity). I'm a Catholic but that doesn't mean that I like most of the stuff they do. No pill, no abortion, no condoms and such, but I'm had 2 brain injuries (bad ones) Coma for 3 weeks and before that, half of my skull damaged whereby the surgeons had to cut a quarter of the skull out and fix it with titanium screws. For 2 months I had to wear a helmet.

Anyway, I should be dead to rights...after 2 full extensive brain injuries, but I'm still alive and very mobile. I ain't the same for sure, but surely God saved me for something! I'm not sure for what at this moment, but I hope and pray it's for something good.

The guy next to me in my coma 2 years ago, he died and his head injury wasn't as severe at mine. What I was told my Dr. Nurses and family, he and I got a lung infection in our coma's and that killed him.

I could have been in a vegetable state the rest of my life, twice actually, but I wasn't and I'm sure God was looking out for me.

I don't knock anyone who is a atheist. I have mates are like that, as I written beforehand.

Originally posted by wilco
Anyway, I should be dead to rights...after 2 full extensive brain injuries, but I'm still alive and very mobile. I ain't the same for sure, but surely God saved me for something! I'm not sure for what at this moment, but I hope and pray it's for something good.

The guy next to me in my coma 2 years ago, he died and his head injury wasn't as severe at mine. What I was told my Dr. Nurses and family, he and I got a lung infection in our coma's and that killed him.

I could have been in a vegetable state the rest of my life, twice actually, but I wasn't and I'm sure God was looking out for me.

and how many Sundays have you spent giving praise to medical science or the doctors who performed the operations?

Originally posted by wilco
Some of my mates are Atheists and some are agnostics and some believe in a higher power like Christians, Muslims, Hinduism and Jewish people and also Buddhism.

Personally I believe in God (Christianity). I'm a Catholic but that doesn't mean that I like most of the stuff they do. No pill, no abortion, no condoms and such, but I'm had 2 brain injuries (bad ones) Coma for 3 weeks and before that, half of my skull damaged whereby the surgeons had to cut a quarter of the skull out and fix it with titanium screws. For 2 months I had to wear a helmet.

Are you actually Catholic if you only believe some of what the Catholic Church says? Keep in mind, it's not intended as a buffet religion, but the actual true church of God. Sounds to me like it's your own version of Christianity, and you only identify as Catholic for possibly familial or cultural reasons.

Conveniently discarding ugly aspects of your religion doesn't deal with them. It allows them to exist. You're tacitly endorsing the things you disagree with by taking this stance. See, some belief systems - non-denominational, agnosticism, many others - allow for variety. Catholicism is not one of those.

Don't get me wrong, pretty much 100% of the Christians I know don't fully agree with their religion. You're not alone. But that's the ridiculous part. It's the Word of God, and they pick and choose because some aspects of it are inherently, instinctively, not right. But instead of speaking out, they just ignore it for the sake of appearances. it's incredibly sad.

Originally posted by wilco
Anyway, I should be dead to rights...after 2 full extensive brain injuries, but I'm still alive and very mobile. I ain't the same for sure, but surely God saved me for something! I'm not sure for what at this moment, but I hope and pray it's for something good.

The guy next to me in my coma 2 years ago, he died and his head injury wasn't as severe at mine. What I was told my Dr. Nurses and family, he and I got a lung infection in our coma's and that killed him.

I could have been in a vegetable state the rest of my life, twice actually, but I wasn't and I'm sure God was looking out for me.

I don't knock anyone who is a atheist. I have mates are like that, as I written beforehand.

First, this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
and how many Sundays have you spent giving praise to medical science or the doctors who performed the operations?

Second, clearly the other guy's injury was as severe as yours, and more so. He's dead. You're not. Sounds more severe to me.

Originally posted by Digi
Any atheist "doesn't know for sure" so we're all technically agnostics.

😍 love2

Originally posted by Digi
ADon't get me wrong, pretty much 100% of the Christians I know don't fully agree with their religion. You're not alone. But that's the ridiculous part. It's the Word of God, and they pick and choose because some aspects of it are inherently, instinctively, not right. But instead of speaking out, they just ignore it for the sake of appearances. it's incredibly sad.

I think it is more about the person disagreeing with a human's interpretation of God's intentions rather than directly disagreeing with God Himself. That's how most view it. So it is not quite like, "He disagree with God!" but that is definitely how it is portrayed if you do not follow some of the rites and creeds. Trust me, I am a Mormon. 😄