Atheism

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think the bible teaches the world is 6000 years old; if you believe that, then you have an anti-science attitude. I have already explained a multitude of reasons why trying to extrapolate more than that is silly.

You can disagree with science and not have an anti-science attitude. The two are very different.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I disagree; I think everyone should be instructed in science. And if you think the world is 6000 years old, created in seven days, then I think its the duty of any scientifically minded person to disabuse you of that notion.

And that's fine. That's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing religion and those who are anti-science, not whether people should be scientifically informed or not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That said, i've already commented on your annoying tendency to say we should look for a solution to some problem, yet you actually don't do so. Its like saying "we should solve the war on terror by convincing Al Qaeda to be nice". You can say that would be the most ethical solution, as nobody gets hurt; but fact is its not going to happen.

In mathematics, a handy tool for solving complex problems is to use theorems to determine if the problem even has a solution; so you can avoid wasting time looking for a solution that doesn't exist. So I am asking you, what makes you think the "solution" you propose even exists.

I never said we should look for any solution to any problem. Nor did I ever offer any solution to any problem. I'm saying if you want a solution to anti-science people, you should look towards the individuals, not the religions. Removing religion to combat anti-science is like removing the teacher to combat gum chewing. People are not anti-science because their religion tells them to be so.

Here is a quote I ran across:

"The “Where are the bones?” question is really more of a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects taxpayers to support his religion in the school system."

I laughed. That author seems to be just as feisty towards atheists as they are towards people like him. That type of attitude is new to me (seriously). Is this the backlash against Atheists that some people were talking about?

http://www.drdino.com/where-are-all-the-bones-of-the-humans-that-drowned-in-the-flood/

I had no idea a website like that existed. It's awesome...and creeps me out at the same time.

And it is stuff like this that disturbs me:

"...next time your son or daughter brings you a fossil, listen carefully to what they are asking. Are they asking you: “What are these stones?” What is your reply? Too many Christian parents answer: “I don’t know. Ask your science teacher at school.”

You can give a better answer than that. You don’t need to know the scientific mechanism of fossil formation to answer your children. Try this:

I’ll tell you what the stones mean, my son. They were once living creatures, but they are now dead and trapped in the rock. They died very quickly during the Flood. The Flood came because of the wickedness of people’s hearts. But Noah was saved by God. He was saved by grace through faith. He was saved by being aboard a large wooden ark. Jesus is our Ark of Salvation. This stone reminds us that death is in the world because of sin—for the wages of sin are death."

With people running around like this, I can see why some would turn to atheism: it seems so normal and "not crazy" compared to stuff like the above. That's disturbing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is a quote I ran across:

"The “Where are the bones?” question is really more of a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects taxpayers to support his religion in the school system."

I laughed. That author seems to be just as feisty towards atheists as they are towards people like him. That type of attitude is new to me (seriously). Is this the backlash against Atheists that some people were talking about?

http://www.drdino.com/where-are-all-the-bones-of-the-humans-that-drowned-in-the-flood/

I had no idea a website like that existed. It's awesome...and creeps me out at the same time.

And it is stuff like this that disturbs me:

"...next time your son or daughter brings you a fossil, listen carefully to what they are asking. Are they asking you: “What are these stones?” What is your reply? Too many Christian parents answer: “I don’t know. Ask your science teacher at school.”

You can give a better answer than that. You don’t need to know the scientific mechanism of fossil formation to answer your children. Try this:

I’ll tell you what the stones mean, my son. They were once living creatures, but they are now dead and trapped in the rock. They died very quickly during the Flood. The Flood came because of the wickedness of people’s hearts. But Noah was saved by God. He was saved by grace through faith. He was saved by being aboard a large wooden ark. Jesus is our Ark of Salvation. This stone reminds us that death is in the world because of sin—for the wages of sin are death."

With people running around like this, I can see why some would turn to atheism: it seems so normal and "not crazy" compared to stuff like the above. That's disturbing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You've never seen this kind of behavior? This is like 40% of the country: "I don't need no facts, I just need the bible".

I come from the "Mormon" side of things where education is praised and encouraged and ignorance frowned upon.

The shocking part was the extreme brain-washing suggested or directly stated on that site. I found it humorous that they were taking the approach: "atheism is a religion". I guess it is. And some atheists can be very dogmatic.

Kandy's got a point though. Rick Perry just made a campaign video that basically said gays were wrong, and Obama's waging a war on religion. He could very well get elected and never have to regret statements like that. That's the state of the country.

The religion/non-religion debate as it affects society has little to do with people like you dudemon. This is unfortunate, because you're more rational than nearly all of them, but it's not something that can be ignored.

But yes, such willful ignorance is disturbing. We're in complete agreement there. But I think someone who becomes an atheist because of people like that isn't standing on firm ground. That guy's lies are far from the best defense of theism out there, so eventually those reactionary atheists will find themselves in a conundrum and probably eventually be agnostic. Unless you insulate yourself from theistic arguments, which is hard, to actually remain an atheist you have to truly understand the scientific and philosophical mechanisms that debunk a lot of religious claims.

Insulating oneself as a Christian is easier. LOTS more people to hide within.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I come from the "Mormon" side of things where education is praised and encouraged and ignorance frowned upon.

The shocking part was the extreme brain-washing suggested or directly stated on that site. I found it humorous that they were taking the approach: "atheism is a religion". I guess it is. And some atheists can be very dogmatic.

Yeah, while the religious "radicals" might not be the majority (although there's a strong case that they ARE these days), neither are the intellectuals. I have a friend who's in the Jesuit order and is one of the most eloquent people I know. Those people exist, but aren't the majority.

If anything, the majority are the people that aren't particularly hateful or radical, but also aren't very informed outside of their own belief structure. My family is educated, kind, not hateful, etc. and had met and known exactly one atheist before I left Christianity. And we're in the north, not the south...I tend to see them as a "norm" if one exists at all.

I'm tempted to start considering that maybe intellectual atheists aren't the norm either, but I have yet to find a way of gauging that with any statistical or cultural rigor, or see a good argument against it. There's widely-disseminated stats that correlate intelligence with non-religiosity, which can seem elitist when pointing out but doesn't make it less true. But maybe I'm deluding myself somewhat into thinking more are like me (or some of the other frequent atheist posters here on KMC), and less are like the notorious "angry" atheists. But it's just hard to find the "angry" ones. Angy, radical Christians? Read the news from any week, follow politics at all, etc. Angry atheists? I dunno, scattered youtube videos. I usually don't see examples following the stereotyped claims, but if we stereotype the religious, it's easy to find examples (even if they don't represent the best arguments for a philosophy).

I find it ironic that Atheism threads are in the Religion forum.

You just got to feel the love when you include it in a religious forum. lol

Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, while the religious "radicals" might not be the majority (although there's a strong case that they ARE these days), neither are the intellectuals. I have a friend who's in the Jesuit order and is one of the most eloquent people I know. Those people exist, but aren't the majority.

If anything, the majority are the people that aren't particularly hateful or radical, but also aren't very informed outside of their own belief structure. My family is educated, kind, not hateful, etc. and had met and known exactly one atheist before I left Christianity. And we're in the north, not the south...I tend to see them as a "norm" if one exists at all.

I'm tempted to start considering that maybe intellectual atheists aren't the norm either, but I have yet to find a way of gauging that with any statistical or cultural rigor, or see a good argument against it. There's widely-disseminated stats that correlate intelligence with non-religiosity, which can seem elitist when pointing out but doesn't make it less true. But maybe I'm deluding myself somewhat into thinking more are like me (or some of the other frequent atheist posters here on KMC), and less are like the notorious "angry" atheists. But it's just hard to find the "angry" ones. Angy, radical Christians? Read the news from any week, follow politics at all, etc. Angry atheists? I dunno, scattered youtube videos. I usually don't see examples following the stereotyped claims, but if we stereotype the religious, it's easy to find examples (even if they don't represent the best arguments for a philosophy).

A smug atheist is less likely to commit violent acts than a religious extremist but on a day to day basis they're almost as annoying.

You could say they're not real atheists, but since faith isn't presupposed it's harder to draw the line. 😛

Originally posted by Thoren
I find it ironic that Atheism threads are in the Religion forum.

Old argument, and invalid imo. Atheism is obviously relevant to religious discussion in a way that it isn't to other realms. This is where it belongs. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd enjoy hearing why.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In my experience more common are the smug atheists. They're not angry per se but they view their atheism as something that makes them superior than the 'deluded' masses, even when some of them can no better substantiate their beliefs (or lack-thereof rather) than can the religious 'fanatics' they look down on. For me the loss of faith was a gradual process that took years and plenty of introspection and observation. For some of these people it's almost like adopting a fad or being a contrarian.

A smug atheist is less likely to commit violent acts than a religious extremist but on a day to day basis they're almost as annoying.

You could say they're not real atheists, but since faith isn't presupposed it's harder to draw the line. 😛

See, your first three words are your undoing. "In my experience..." I have an experience too, and it's different than yours. But neither one amounts to anything more than a quaint, meaningless anecdote. My problem is that we don't have a good way to actually determine what "normal" atheists are like because A. there's too few and B. they aren't organized like religions are. So we get personal anecdotes and sweeping generalizations based on too little exposure. And usually that little exposure is of the radical extremes, because they yell the loudest. Christians are MUCH easier to quantify and comment on because there's oodles more, and they have defined doctrine, meetings, and organizational structure...and often, agendas in social or political realms.

Also, even if we suppose you're right, annoying but non-violent is infinitely better than the opposite.

Let me see if I got this right, atheism is about not believing in a higher being such as God, or any god for that matter right?

And not believing in any set, or organized religion, where that religion believes in a higher being? And sets store by it's teachings, and or commandments?

And that we never came from anything other than natural evolution?

So if you don't believe in anything, just that we're here, living our lives, and progressing in a natural evolutionary state, why would atheism belong in the religion forum?

I get that you argue, or rather voice opinions (but from some of the posts I've read, it's more arguing) about Spirituality, and why it's got to be debunked by non-believers, but why?

I'm a believer, and nobody will dissuade me, but I don't find the need to cram my beliefs down others throats, and it seems like in a forum dedicated to the talk of religion, and spirituality, there seems to be an odd amount of people who want to bash it, and feel their need to prove it wrong.

I just find it odd is all, maybe you should have a forum dedicated to atheism, because like I've said previously, there seems to be a lot of fighting, and I'm sure posters being banned over the arguments.

Originally posted by Digi
Old argument, and invalid imo. Atheism is obviously relevant to religious discussion in a way that it isn't to other realms. This is where it belongs. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd enjoy hearing why.

See, your first three words are your undoing. "In my experience..." I have an experience too, and it's different than yours. But neither one amounts to anything more than a quaint, meaningless anecdote. My problem is that we don't have a good way to actually determine what "normal" atheists are like because A. there's too few and B. they aren't organized like religions are. So we get personal anecdotes and sweeping generalizations based on too little exposure. And usually that little exposure is of the radical extremes, because they yell the loudest. Christians are MUCH easier to quantify and comment on because there's oodles more, and they have defined doctrine, meetings, and organizational structure...and often, agendas in social or political realms.

Also, even if we suppose you're right, annoying but non-violent is infinitely better than the opposite.

Originally posted by Thoren
Let me see if I got this right, atheism is about not believing in a higher being such as God, or any god for that matter right?

That's the whole thing.

Originally posted by Thoren
And not believing in any set, or organized religion, where that religion believes in a higher being? And sets store by it's teachings, and or commandments?

And that we never came from anything other than natural evolution?

None of this is.
Many forms of Buddhism are atheist religions, as are things like Secular Humanism. Exactly like how a theist could be either spiritual or a member of a religion.
An atheist could believe anything about evolution except that a god or gods are involved.

Originally posted by Thoren
why would atheism belong in the religion forum?

The subject of atheism cannot be extricated from the subject of theism.

Originally posted by Thoren
it seems like in a forum dedicated to the talk of religion, and spirituality

There's your problem. It's a discussion forum, people are here to discuss religion and spirituality. That may mean they disagree with it.

Originally posted by Thoren
Let me see if I got this right, atheism is about not believing in a higher being such as God, or any god for that matter right?

And not believing in any set, or organized religion, where that religion believes in a higher being? And sets store by it's teachings, and or commandments?

And that we never came from anything other than natural evolution?

So if you don't believe in anything, just that we're here, living our lives, and progressing in a natural evolutionary state, why would atheism belong in the religion forum?

I get that you argue, or rather voice opinions (but from some of the posts I've read, it's more arguing) about Spirituality, and why it's got to be debunked by non-believers, but why?

I'm a believer, and nobody will dissuade me, but I don't find the need to cram my beliefs down others throats, and it seems like in a forum dedicated to the talk of religion, and spirituality, there seems to be an odd amount of people who want to bash it, and feel their need to prove it wrong.

I just find it odd is all, maybe you should have a forum dedicated to atheism, because like I've said previously, there seems to be a lot of fighting, and I'm sure posters being banned over the arguments.

- Nobody's gotten banned because of religious debate in years, or even warned, that I'm aware of.

- New forums don't get made, Raz has been MIA for the better part of the last 2 years.

- Nobody's "cramming" anything down anyone else's throat. This is an open, public forum that people visit voluntarily, and we keep discussion in allotted threads so that we're not hijacking other threads.

- Ironically, we're actually discussing the culture of bashing that you seem to want to lump a lot of us into. But we're discussing how it affects society, whether or not this should be considered the norm, etc. etc. Some are here to make a point or try to convert, but the vast majority just enjoy engaging in the discussion. Disagreement doesn't have to include animosity, and most of the regulars are good at separating the two.

- "Nobody will dissuade me" is an absolute statement. It's likely no one ever will, but that represents a position of dogmatic adherence, not a willingness to engage new ideas.

- Again, religious debate is relevant to atheism, atheist debate is relevant to theism. To say it's solely about biological evolutionary forces is wrong. There's personal, sociological, and philosophical implications of the debate between the two.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Meaningless? I don't think I said "in my experience skippity-doop" 😛

You did not. Would've been funnier though.

Question: are there still global mods? And if so I thought Raz gave them authority to create sub forums?

I don't see what benefit the atheism forum would be beyond moving this single thread to it... and it seems a far greater magnet for the type of "arguments" and "bashing" that you are trying to avoid than things are as is...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In my experience more common are the smug atheists. They're not angry per se but they view their atheism as something that makes them superior than the 'deluded' masses, even when some of them can no better substantiate their beliefs (or lack-thereof rather) than can the religious 'fanatics' they look down on. For me the loss of faith was a gradual process that took years and plenty of introspection and observation. For some of these people it's almost like adopting a fad or being a contrarian.

A smug atheist is less likely to commit violent acts than a religious extremist but on a day to day basis they're almost as annoying.

You could say they're not real atheists, but since faith isn't presupposed it's harder to draw the line. 😛

I've noticed this too. Could just be because I am a theist and as such notice the smug atheists more, but I have noticed that there have been atheists themselves who have called atheists out on it.

South Park even had an episode making fun of it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In my experience more common are the smug atheists. They're not angry per se but they view their atheism as something that makes them superior than the 'deluded' masses, even when some of them can no better substantiate their beliefs (or lack-thereof rather) than can the religious 'fanatics' they look down on.

I'm sure I've mentioned this to you before, but I'm nothing if not repetitive...

There is a great talk by Sam Harris, to an Atheist Alliance meeting, where he describes why adopting the term "atheist" is probably not a good idea in the long run.

However, the woman who introduces him is almost exactly as you describe to the point of it being just totally surreal. She has essentially traded the Bible for whatever new book Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris has written, talks about needing to push it onto her friends, how she dotingly follows it, etc. It is really crazy... good talk too, I'll find it again and post it if you haven't seen it.

In social psych (I know, I know, but it isn't that bad) it has been consistently found that a need for belongingness is one of the most powerful motivators of human behaviour. For some reason, we need a group to identify with to help us make sense of and fit into the world. Its why people primed with the concept of their own death become more patriotic. Without it, we undergo massive amounts of stress. Being an atheist is no different. With no religion to fall back on, we have to find some other type of thing to belong to (which, during the Harris talk, someone actually says to him point blank during the question period, ie: I need to belong to something, I need something to call myself). The inability to tolerate any type of ambiguity on who one is in terms of what they belong to is really upsetting.

I mean like, even knowing this, being aware of it and trying to not fall into the trap, there are still things that I feel I belong to: I feel I am a "scientist" or part of the "scientific community", I feel I am an "Anarchist", etc... crazy brains....

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see what benefit the atheism forum would be beyond moving this single thread to it... and it seems a far greater magnet for the type of "arguments" and "bashing" that you are trying to avoid than things are as is...