haermm
I have one last question. What lead you to not believe?
It's not that I find it hard not to believe, because truth be told, it's quite the stretch to have faith in something you can't feel, see, smell, or possibly grasp the notion of how a being such as a god could exist, but I've always wondered what happened or didn't happen to people to lead them to believe in no higher power.
Originally posted by inimalist
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 Thoren
What lead you to not believe?
the idea of a God makes little sense in my mind, I see nothing that I would consider even remote evidence for it
its really just that
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I had a discussion with a so-called 'Antitheist' a while back. It was one of the reasons why I'll only directly call myself atheist when stating a technicality or to avoid confusion.
same
I don't understand the idea behind an "atheist" community
lol, atheist book club.
Agreed about the word "atheist." I don't associate with any atheist-related communities, I generally just use the word when I either A. need to shock someone for the lulz, or B. when I'm in an actual discussion on the matter.
In-groups are fun when they don't build animosity toward other groups. But yeah, that's a big reason for the label.
Originally posted by Thoren
Question: are there still global mods? And if so I thought Raz gave them authority to create sub forums?
Globals, yes, sub-forum privileges, no. We also can't appoint new mods, which is why we've had the same set forever. For example, I can ban, warn, make profile notes, delete posts or threads, edit any post, move threads, etc. but not anything higher level than that.
He could make a global a secondary Admin, on level with himself. But he hasn't. Next time he stops in town, we're pushing for that so that one of the globals actually can do this stuff.
Originally posted by Thoren
haermmI have one last question. What lead you to not believe?
It's not that I find it hard not to believe, because truth be told, it's quite the stretch to have faith in something you can't feel, see, smell, or possibly grasp the notion of how a being such as a god could exist, but I've always wondered what happened or didn't happen to people to lead them to believe in no higher power.
You directed this at in, but my own reasons are in the OP:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12794090#post12794090
So there's another perspective. in's answer is much more succinct, though, and is essentially what it boils down to.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, this always seems so strange to me...at least in the circles I run in, it would be so much stranger for someone to believe than not. Is it that you come from a conservative place, or is this an American thing?
It's an American thing. Honestly I feel rather awkward telling people I'm atheist. In my experience, it makes people uneasy or sometimes even offended.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, this always seems so strange to me...at least in the circles I run in, it would be so much stranger for someone to believe than not. Is it that you come from a conservative place, or is this an American thing?
American. Where I've lived isn't even the most conservative areas. I've yet to be met with open hostility, but confusion, worry, concern, incredulity, etc. I actually consider myself lucky that I've always lived in the north...not necessarily in liberal hubs, but also not in the sticks. I shudder to think the reception I might have received in more conservative areas.
And yes, it also creates shock. At one point I kind of overloaded on annoyance from people trying to bring me back to the Christian fold, and just found a way to enjoy their discomfort. A bit dark, granted, but I didn't go looking for situations to make others shocked or awkward. It would only be in response to them accosting me somehow. I'm also fortunate that I'm largely level-headed, and left religion gradually and as an adult. I think "angry" atheists are just those with similar experiences who lash out more fully. It's a social reaction to the reception of their beliefs, not an intrinsic hatred for religion or the religious.
Also, in, invite me to your parties. I need more non-religious friends. I have them occasionally, but especially with dating I liken it to a cute girl at a comic convention or something. Sure, they're not the only one, but their very presence attracts undue attention. So I either have to deal with some awkward, potentially breakup-level religious drama, or fight for the lone chick in the Catwoman costume (metaphorically, unfortunately).
lol, hey, if you are ever in Winnipeg...
can't promise any rocking parties, but I'll get ya stoned real good
EDIT: but ya, wow... I really can't relate to that. Even in the small conservative town I used to live in, people my age seem almost the opposite. Very hesitant to talk about religion, and I've never, never had someone try to convert me to anything, unless they were crazy old ladies screaming on the street.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I have spoke to mormons who were every bit as dogmatic in that issue...
Yeah, we can only compare anecdotes. The only relevant study I can think of was the one that showed Mormons to be fairly educated compared to other "religion" demographics. The Jews and Atheists/Agnostics were the most educated demographic with the...get this...evangelicals being the least uneducated. "The lawd Gawd almeaty be prayzed!" is what comes to mind when I see that.
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).
Yeah, we talked about this before. My personal experience is the "angry, argumentative, atheist" type is far more common than the preachy/angry religious type. Yours is the opposite. I beleive you concluded that it was due to which house we were looking into. If our roles were reversed, we may experience the opposite. Why would an atheist argue with you? Exactly. He or she would want to argue with me. As a Mormon, I get the "rage against those people!" more than other Christians would...but far more is my experience with atheists wanting argue with and tear down my beliefs for no reason other than they are angry and frustrated individuals.
Originally posted by Thoren
I find it ironic that Atheism threads are in the Religion forum.
Atheism can be considered a religion, too. Depends on which definition you want to apply.
A system of beliefs and moral systems? SURE! That can include many types of atheism.
A dogmatic belief system? SURE! That could include many types of atheism.
A system of beliefs in the superstitious and/or supernatural? Well, now were are getting to things that are not so much atheist. Though buddhism (labeled by some as an atheistic religion) and other religions may still qualify.
So, yes, from a strict "is this a religion" sense, atheism can be discussed. But the religion form should include "irrelgious" discussion, as well if you are to have proper discourse. Just like in a scientific or historical discussion, you'd want to have a counter position to the items discussed.
Without conceding a point (since we actually don't know) you have as much chance of being right about atheist tendencies as me, dudemon. The reason I wouldn't be surprised if you're right is what I alluded to in my exchange with inamilist there: basically, a lot of atheists feel ostracized so the "angry" is a reaction to that. No one hates religion that much. But they do hate religious people and how they're treated.
Hell, I have a vindictive streak occasionally when it comes to this, and I'm about as calm and rational about it as I've found so far.
So, relating it to the "in group" idea presented earlier, which I agree with, they don't have that support, and they also feel accosted in a way that the majority (Christians) never can. And I'm not saying Christians can't be attacked, just that their system of support is much more active and present. I think if atheists represented more than a marginal 2-3%, we'd see a much different tendency in the atheist population. And we do in less overtly religious nations (see: in's Canadian stories, England where it's notoriously a non-issue, etc. etc.)
I've been trying to think a lot about the root causes of religious-based ignorance, to see if we can pinpoint potential solutions. Mind you, I'm not talking about all religious people. But the fact remains that nearly all of those who are religious are accepting it based on what their parents tell them when they're young. This is not a good practice to instill, because it represents blind adherence to authority with no critical thought. Young children are incapable of such thought, but the practice continues for many into adulthood.
Accepting the Bible as a valid source of objective evidence is a prime example. Or any holy book really, we don't need to limit it to Christianity.
To be clear, my issue isn't with parents teaching children what they believe. Not that we'd ever stop that from happening anyway, but it's not the problem. The problem is not giving them tools to evaluate the religion for themselves. Anyone who goes into a mathematical or scientific field gets a rude awakening at some point in their life about evaluation of evidence, its reliability and veracity, and methods of testing it. And really, I think those skills are vitally important outside those fields, but we don't stress them. We teach what to think, not how to think about it or how to draw a conclusion that isn't set in stone in a textbook somewhere.
"Critical thinking" is a buzzword that is too vague for my liking, so I'd call it evaluation of evidence. Have students take a topic with two defined sides and, presumably, an answer that can be reached through objective means (i.e. not "is abortion wrong?" but maybe something related to a specific effect of global warming, medicine, or evolution).
I bring this up because Michael Shermer, Director (and founder?) of the Skeptics Society is now teaching a college-level course on this sort of thing. It's a step in the right direction, imo, and is where education needs to go if we're going to get away from our hatreds, fears, and prejudices. It has larger implications than just religion, but that is one area that would be affected by such teaching.
And on a smaller level, I have a friend whose parents are, respectively, atheist and agnostic. They have two sons (one, my friend), who are, respectively, atheist and Catholic. Odd, yes, but it's because they allowed their children the freedom to understand religion for themselves, and helped nurture their ability to evaluate different philosophies. That's the right model, because it values the freedom of the individual, not the necessity of imposing one's beliefs on another.
http://shop.skeptic.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=SS&Category_Code=D for some details, though it's also wrapped in their annual giving pitch.
Originally posted by dadudemon
A system of beliefs and moral systems? SURE! That can include many types of atheism.A dogmatic belief system? SURE! That could include many types of atheism.
But this doesn't tell us anything about the category of atheism.
Many kinds of atheism are religions. Atheism itself is not a religion.
Many kinds of theism are religions. Theism itself is not a religion.
You would compare Catholicism not to "Atheism" but to Secular Humanism, which is certainly an atheistic religion.
You would compare Buddhism not to "Theism" but to Judaism, which is certainly a theistic religion.
This addresses a lot of debates I've seen here.
Russell was a great thinker, but it's notoriously hard to make a full argument in such a short space. Knowing some of what he wrote and thought, I could see places where he had to sacrifice a full answer because of how long it would have taken him, and instead he summarized. But in the summary itself, there's holes that only the longer explanation would fill.
But yeah, you're right, there's really only 2-3 essential things the theism/atheism debate boils down to. Lack of evidence being the big one. Again, as per my last post up there, if we were taught how to evaluate evidence (I was not, I had to learn on my own) and compare claims for their veracity, we'd be much more intellectually free as a culture. Presenting evidence to a hardcore, literal Christian means nothing (or even many others), because they were never taught what proper evidence looks like. Their mode of thinking is not based around such approaches, so there's a fundamental disconnect in debate.
There's also fear. Believers fear non-belief, they think it's damned or empty or any number of horrible things, because it's not a system of belief that is taught in our culture. And it's not fearful, but they are unable to see that. The interviewer displays that with her questions in the Russel interview: "Don't you think that some need this...?" etc. etc. And Russell's response is basically "No, that's silly." And it is, but it's hard to grasp from a religious mindset. I love telling a story about an early teen I was giving music lessons to. She asked where I went to church; I told her I wasn't religious and her response was "You mean, like, Jewish?" She had no knowledge whatsoever of the possibility of non-religion. I laughed out loud at that, it was entirely innocent and wonderful, but also indicative of my point(s).