Atheism

Originally posted by Vince_
Pointless semantic discussion?

So you're telling me that if I'm an atheist and I hear a theist accuse me of blatantly false things based on their ignorant interpretation of what an atheist is, I should do nothing, simply because you deem it pointless semantics? Your attitude is the type of attitude that helps perpetuate their ignorance on atheism.

It is absolutly a pointless, semantic discussion.

When you boil down a theists arguments, you get a marriage of pointless semantics and presentation of mythological-adherence-as-fact and unquestioned truth. When you boil down the argument of an atheist, you get some measure of undisputed truth in the batch. The immeadiate realization between the two is subscription to supposed-truth and what can be measured; this typically leads to a flood of mythology-as-fact blurring of reality and real facts butting heads. This is almost always an argument won by mythology-as-fact. The sad reality of the whole conversation is actually the realization that you've spent years arguing the difference between reality and mythology, while allowing the people who subscribe to the mythology to define the argument. It's an uphill battle with a people who choose not to understand. They get this, and recast the entire conversation as though they're arguing with equals. Just as an example, watch how they argue with people of another religion. As long as those who subscribe to religion as a means of explaination define the rules for a forum, the two will be placed at odds in the same forum.

Originally posted by skekUng
It is absolutly a pointless, semantic discussion.

When you boil down a theists arguments, you get a marriage of pointless semantics and presentation of mythological-adherence-as-fact and unquestioned truth. When you boil down the argument of an atheist, you get some measure of undisputed truth in the batch. The immeadiate realization between the two is subscription to supposed-truth and what can be measured; this typically leads to a flood of mythology-as-fact blurring of reality and real facts butting heads. This is almost always an argument won by mythology-as-fact. The sad reality of the whole conversation is actually the realization that you've spent years arguing the difference between reality and mythology, while allowing the people who subscribe to the mythology to define the argument. It's an uphill battle with a people who choose not to understand. They get this, and recast the entire conversation as though they're arguing with equals. Just as an example, watch how they argue with people of another religion. As long as those who subscribe to religion as a means of explaination define the rules for a forum, the two will be placed at odds in the same forum.

You're right it should be fair and balanced and people who support faiths are usually adverse to any type of criticism of what they believe. That isn't fair.

Applying blind faith as a defense won't work, period. Anyone who promotes something that they haven't scrutinized themselves is capable of doing more harm than good. Since other peoples' scrutiny is helpful in discovering the truths that you spoke of I really don't know why people who claim to represent their God take offense to reasonable questions.

The questions posed by anyone be they theists or non-theists deserve answers if they can be answered. If they can't be answered then ignorance should be admitted. It is normal to become defensive when we sense a strong offence but neither are conducive to uncovering truths. Inimalists suggested before that de-humanizing the process is a good idea and I agree. We can't de-humanize it 100% obviously but we can at least remember that humans have a tendency to make light of matters and deem them as insignificant based off of their opinion. Truly humans waste valuable time waiting to look for answers to significant questions.

The flood and Noah's ark story are currently real to me. But by speaking to people who don't believe that science supports this I cannot simply say that they are wrong and that they have to have faith. The burden of investigating the evidence that supports my stance rests on my shoulders. If I do not investigate, or perform a biased investigation then it supports the idea that a discussion with a theist is a complete waste of time. I would rather do an accurate investigation, and if I discover that they are right, admit to them that I agree that they have GOOD reason to believe as they do, and share with them my reasons why I think that. That way we have been honest with each other and the experience was not a waste/pointless.

It isn't a matter of theist or non-theist; it's that atheism isn't the opposite of theism as it has been approached on these and many other forums.

Originally posted by skekUng
It isn't a matter of theist or non-theist; it's that atheism isn't the opposite of theism as it has been approached on these and many other forums.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do you mean that they are not opposites because they are both too vague to pull any specific ideas from? I guess they do both fall into the category of ideas but perhaps you could elaborate on your reason for saying they are not opposites.
Perhaps you mean that they are not opposites just opposing, like pro-choice doesn't mean kill all the babies while pro-life says let them all be born? I just want to be sure of what you mean when you say that they aren't opposites. You're right I'm more familiar with the approach that they are opposites though I feel that you may have a point.

Correct on the second part, with out the subtle suggestion that atheism is vague or illogically defined. By translating atheism in to "non-theist", you're still defining the debate on theistic terms. The mental disconnect always seems to come when the concept of no human being, living in the sky who has to cut his nails and decide when your grandmother gets killed in a car accident, comes into the discussion that it is no longer a conversation of equal concepts. The need for a god is very human, I yeild that point. It's when the humans involved in defining that god have to ascribe it anger, gender, purpose or even 'C'onsciousness that there suddenly ends up being a confrontation. To incorporate this realization, theists decided to toss in the whole "you can't know god, so ust take our word for it" aspect. But, that is still defining the debate on their own terms. There is always room for debate, but not when one half is making all the concessions simply to address the other on it's own terms; in terms it is even willing to comprehend.

Originally posted by skekUng
Correct on the second part, with out the subtle suggestion that atheism is vague or illogically defined. By translating atheism in to "non-theist", you're still defining the debate on theistic terms. The mental disconnect always seems to come when the concept of no human being, living in the sky who has to cut his nails and decide when your grandmother gets killed in a car accident, comes into the discussion that it is no longer a conversation of equal concepts. The need for a god is very human, I yeild that point. It's when the humans involved in defining that god have to ascribe it anger, gender, purpose or even 'C'onsciousness that there suddenly ends up being a confrontation. To incorporate this realization, theists decided to toss in the whole "you can't know god, so ust take our word for it" aspect. But, that is still defining the debate on their own terms. There is always room for debate, but not when one half is making all the concessions simply to address the other on it's own terms; in terms it is even willing to comprehend.

As it stands though it does seem as though you feel that it is not worthwhile to have any type of respectful discussion with a theist like me. If that is your opinion then it's yours to have. 😮‍💨

Nope, you're still framing the debate by supposing that my position is vague.

Originally posted by skekUng
Nope, you're still framing the debate by supposing that my position is vague.

e.g. I'm a dude. That's a vague description despite telling you that my stance is specifically that of a guy's.

As an atheist you may share one belief with all other atheists but have disagreements with them on what evidence causes you to believe it.

Of course as you already know I disagree with the outlook entirely and am currently in discussion about why. Someone may jump to the conclusion that I am beyond accepting evidence that I am mistaken but that remains to be seen as I am a lone individual who's free to change my mind on any stance I take.

So far in researching the story of a worldwide flood I have come across evidence for and against it. I'm certain that bias could be involved in any evidence for it so I must see if any of that evidence actually exists. Seashells on every mountain range would be considered evidence to me but if there is another explanation then I'm open to it. Also what proof do I have yet that there ARE seashells found on the highest mountains? I need to investigate more in order to feel as if I am not being thrown a bone that is actually misleading.

I found a good website quickly. There's a scientific explanation for the shells.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Originally posted by The MISTER
Seashells on every mountain range would be considered evidence to me

Are you trying to mock your own position?

I don't even know where to start with people who encountered this sort of "evidence", and then just stopped. When you read about this creationist "evidence", did you even consider looking further into tectonics, geology or even the very basic development of the Earth? Did you look into the miserable science that "disproves" those findings and consider it absolute simply because it substantiated your beliefs?

You keep speaking like you and I just see things differently and that is something we can get past, but your comments illustrate that very willful ignorance I've been talking about since first we interacted, along with the tactics you're used to employing when dealing with people with whom you might disagree. You had to have tried to understand the other side of the argument before you can even begin to pretend you care what it has to say. PM Zeal, he seems to know what you should be talking about.

Originally posted by skekUng
Are you trying to mock your own position?

I don't even know where to start with people who encountered this sort of "evidence", and then just stopped. When you read about this creationist "evidence", did you even consider looking further into tectonics, geology or even the very basic development of the Earth? Did you look into the miserable science that "disproves" those findings and consider it absolute simply because it substantiated your beliefs?

You keep speaking like you and I just see things differently and that is something we can get past, but your comments illustrate that very willful ignorance I've been talking about since first we interacted, along with the tactics you're used to employing when dealing with people with whom you might disagree. You had to have tried to understand the other side of the argument before you can even begin to pretend you care what it has to say. PM Zeal, he seems to know what you should be talking about.

I have a lot to learn admittedly but that's cool with me, theres no shame. We do see things differently but you keep using ridicule tactics, while accusing me of tactics. I'm not going for that bait though, it's a waste to call you names cause we disagree.

Edit: Hey I noticed that you quoted me out of context! No fair! Lol I swear you're doing this on purpose just for kicks! Oh well.. you've kept this interesting at least. Ha ha....you got me good..

Not out of context. I just never got further down the page than your seashells comment. Good for you.

So the following post is my take on the "Atheist Discrimination" thread, and leads into a current story from my life that pertains to religion somewhat. I post it in its entirety because I feel like it's relevant to this thread anyway, even though only a portion of it applies to the anecdote beneath it.

Originally posted by Digi
Alright, Christ, here goes:

[b]I. Severity vs. Prevalence
- First we need to make a distinction between what I will term Severity and Prevalence. Discrimination against atheists is NOT more severe than against most other antagonized groups. What it is, however, is more prevalent than many.
- I'd argue that if you conducted a nationwide survey (in the US, this is) with the question "Do you trust {____}?" for various cultural groups, atheists would be trusted by less people than traditionally discriminated groups such as blacks or Jews. I am not guessing at this theory either, there are numerous studies to support this conclusion. I will discuss them further in future posts when I have the time.

II. Cultural Anecdotes
- Several states still have laws on the books preventing atheists from holding public office. And to put it into context, consider the state of voting and political rights for literally ANY other group of people...no parallel exists. It's doubtful these laws would be upheld if challenged, as many are simply old and not changed. But their existence is telling enough.
- Fox News recently ran a long piece on a man they villainized and linked to numerous scams and injustices throughout Washington and the world (Glen Beck actually made news because of the story recently for some inflammatory comments contained in it). By the end of the segment, the man was reduced to a level normally reserved for Hitler-level evil. And the very, very first thing we learn about this man in the segment was that he was an atheist. His atheism wasn't related to anything in the piece. Yet it was mentioned at the forefront. I wonder why?
...most will read that and say "Well, consider the source!" But that's my point. Fox News reflects and influences a huge chunk of the popular zeitgeist. It's an indication of a much larger sentiment.

III. Personal Anecdotes
- I've lost friends over my leaving religion, had girls break up with me upon finding out (no further than a month or so into the relationship, but still), and am on numerous prayer lists for me to find God again so that I'm not damned to Hell. The first and third of those don't bother me...such "friends" aren't worth having, and prayer lists are harmless, much like the attempted re-conversions that often accompany them. The second is a bit troubling, however. "Non-religious" make up roughly 12-20% of the population (depending on your source and definition of nonreligious). Atheism is considered at the extreme end of even that spectrum, and often associated with the aforementioned mistrust and misunderstanding. Many "spiritual but nonreligious" people will shun atheism as wholly as a Christian might, and certainly more than would be rebuffed by, say, an agnostic. Frankly, it's f*cking hard to date, and is an unfortunate consequence of my lack of religion. Hardships between different beliefs is nothing new in the world, but the stark contrast in terms of the percentages and perceptions means that atheist + {anything else} is about as difficult a pairing to make work as could exist in the country right now.

- Holidays are uncomfortable, as are things like my mother stressing 'God' in God Bless You when I sneeze, but only when she says it to me. I can't rag on my mom much, because for her very strict upbringing, she's been cool about the whole thing. But it's not easy on her, and it's a strain on me as a result because it's always something in the background of our relationship that I know she'll never be comfortable with.

....

Take from that what you will. Almost anyone can claim some sort of discriminatory status and have a chip on their shoulder as a result. I don't list any of this to pretend like my plight, or atheists' plight, is worse than that of any other. My financial, physical, and social well-being are much more intrinsic to my overall contentedness than anything having to do with religion. But it exists for many, and to pretend otherwise is laughably false. [/B]

...so anyway, the important bit for this story is about the dating thing. And my current girlfriend is cool and such, but "IT" isn't there, so it's just a matter of time. She's also very religious. So, lacking "normal" reasons to break up with her, and being at the point where we should know our religious preferences anyway, I thought dropping the A-bomb might help soften the blow, because I don't want to be a d*ck and just drop her without warning.

...and it was ok with her. She was like "meh, whatever" then we had a nice long talk about our experiences with feeling outcast somehow or knowing those who were. So it....backfired?

So the "it's hard being atheist" is not a catch-all observation about the state of my dating life. It has been historically, yes. But apparently the reverse is only true when I don't want it to be.

😬

Originally posted by Digi
So the following post is my take on the "Atheist Discrimination" thread, and leads into a current story from my life that pertains to religion somewhat. I post it in its entirety because I feel like it's relevant to this thread anyway, even though only a portion of it applies to the anecdote beneath it.

...so anyway, the important bit for this story is about the dating thing. And my current girlfriend is cool and such, but "IT" isn't there, so it's just a matter of time. She's also very religious. So, lacking "normal" reasons to break up with her, and being at the point where we should know our religious preferences anyway, I thought dropping the A-bomb might help soften the blow, because I don't want to be a d*ck and just drop her without warning.

...and it was ok with her. She was like "meh, whatever" then we had a nice long talk about our experiences with feeling outcast somehow or knowing those who were. So it....backfired?

So the "it's hard being atheist" is not a catch-all observation about the state of my dating life. It has been historically, yes. But apparently the reverse is only true when I don't want it to be.

😬

Haha, sorry, man.

I was reading God is Not Great last night, and I noticed something that must've slipped my notice the first time around. Hitchens says that "religion stops being relevant, the moment it becomes optional". Well, I humbly disagree. I would argue that a person's faith is even more meaningful when it isn't mandatory. In a society where religion isn't a choice (like Medieval Europe or modern Saudi Arabia), there's bound to be a bunch of closet Atheists, or Jews, or adherents of other faiths who only pray in public and adhere to the majority religion to keep from getting decapitated. But in America, modern Europe, or Japan, where you can believe or not, its more easy to identify a genuine believer.

I'd agree with you

Yeah, you're not saying anything terribly disagreeable there Quiero, though I feel obligated to point out that you're just cherry-picking there, which is easy to do with any author if you're looking hard enough.

Anyway, to play a small devil's advocate, his quote is about religion, your rebuttal deals with belief. They are separate phenomenon.

Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, you're not saying anything terribly disagreeable there Quiero, though I feel obligated to point out that you're just cherry-picking there, which is easy to do with any author if you're looking hard enough.

Anyway, to play a small devil's advocate, his quote is about religion, your rebuttal deals with belief. They are separate phenomenon.

I'm not cherry-picking and I wasn't looking hard at all. I decided to kill some time by picking up a book I hadn't read in a while. So as I was reading, the line stood out to me. It's not like I sought out the sentence; I just happened upon it. And it is disagreeable, since Hitchens obviously does.

Belief and religion go hand-in-hand, and he was talking about organized religion and personal faith. I'll look for the entire paragraph, so it makes more sense. But I wasn't knit-picking one line "out of context". That one sentence basically wrapped up the whole page.

Heh. Playing devil's advocate is just that, playing devil's advocate, not taking an actual contrary position. Like in, and for a change, I'm actually in agreement with you on this particular point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I was reading God is Not Great last night