Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Remember Christians that anytime you want to give an atheist crap, You're an atheist too.

Christians are atheists to Islam or Hinduism or any of the other million religions in existance.
The same way, atheists are atheists towards Christianity.

Essentially we are all atheists

atheism is a stance against theism in general. to disbelieve in one particular form of theism doesn't make you an atheist.

This did not deserve an entire thread to say.

Originally posted by red g jacks
atheism is a stance against theism in general.

It isn't at all. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything else is specific to the person. Saying it's "against" something is giving anthropomorphic qualities to a neutral philosophical stance.

Originally posted by red g jacks
to disbelieve in one particular form of theism doesn't make you an atheist.

All he's saying is that Christians don't believe in hundreds of gods. So they're "atheist" toward every god but one.

It's a tired argument. Theists use it about atheists as well. You know the famous Muslim phrase "There is no God but God" (or Allah, in the official language of their text). I've heard Muslims say that atheists are halfway to Islam because they agree that "There is no God..." and all they need to do is convince them of this God's veracity. It's as intellectually faulty as theists and atheists both trying to give Hitler to the other side to win some sort of posturing war.

So...

Originally posted by Firefly218
Essentially we are all atheists

...no, we're not. There are massive, life-altering differences between most theists and atheists. To claim this is to ignore so many things in a fruitless attempt to, I dunno, make some point or other.

Change atheist to agnostic and you might have some logical footing. The sociological differences between religions are gigantic enough that trying to do this even with agnosticism is pretty useless, but in a philosophical sense there's an unspoken base of agnosticism beneath most personal belief systems.

Originally posted by Digi
It isn't at all. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything else is specific to the person. Saying it's "against" something is giving anthropomorphic qualities to a neutral philosophical stance. practically speaking, without the belief in gods in the first place, there would be no such concept as "atheism." maybe if you view the concept in a philosophical vacuum, it is independent of theism. but the reality is that it has manifested as a rejection of theism.
so when you say atheism is a 'lack of belief in god or gods,' you don't mean that it is the lack of gods across the board? you can believe in a multitude of gods and still be an atheist?

i think it would be more accurate to say they are skeptics towards every god but one. to me, atheism is distinct in that it denotes the lack of belief in any sort of deity whatsoever.

Originally posted by Digi
This did not deserve an entire thread to say.

The point seems largely ignored on behalf of theists, especially those who argue that belief is better than disbelief. I'm sure an intelligent individual like yourself didn't need to be reminded, but others did.












I'm actually not making an argument, I'm pointing out a universal truth. Many Christians ridicule atheists for their disbelief in a God, when they themselves disbelieve thousands of other Gods. I don't understand the relevance of this comment.



Yes actually we are. I do understand that theists and atheists have radically distinct ideologies, in a God or no God sense.
However, as you explained yourself, the platform of atheism is to disbelieve in a God. Christians are notorious for disbelieving in other Gods, and are therefore atheists.

My point was, we are all atheists to a certain degree. So theists can stop criticizing atheists and take a look at the validity of their own beliefs/disbeliefs.

Originally posted by red g jacks
practically speaking, without the belief in gods in the first place, there would be no such concept as "atheism."

There is no need to argue on the technicalities of the definition. This thread is aimed at theists who like to criticize atheists for disbelieving their God.

Also for those who say it's better to believe than not to believe. Terrible argument that dumb theists make.

the problem for me is that you have to change the meaning of atheism for this meme to work. you essentially have to make it into the position against any particular god rather than the disbelief of gods in general. this essentially renders the term useless as a descriptive label since as you note everybody would be atheist according to this standard. i think we already have a sufficient term for people arguing against a contentious claim: skeptic.

Setting aside the sociological divide (which is still massive and invalidates this thread's point, imo), there's also the matter degree. Yes, from a numerical standpoint, Christians are "atheists" about 99.999% of gods. But the other thing that ignores is that there's a big, big difference between believing in any god and no god.

It isn't just removing one more god, as the OP seems to suggest. It's an entire mindset of some higher power being there. Eliminate belief in the Christian god and the vast majority of those people would still believe in some higher being. And their lives would be lived under that pretense, maintaining the sociological differences in the process. So Christians aren't 0.0001% away from total atheism. Most of them are so far from it that it can't be accurately quantified.

So no, there's too wide a gap for this point to have any meaning. It's a shallow view of a much more complex topic, and no conclusions can be drawn from observing it. There are valid reasons why Christians shouldn't "give atheists crap" (and vice versa, for that matter). But this is not one of them.

Originally posted by Digi
Setting aside the sociological divide (which is still massive and invalidates this thread's point, imo), there's also the matter degree. Yes, from a numerical standpoint, Christians are "atheists" about 99.999% of gods. But the other thing that ignores is that there's a big, big difference between believing in any god and no god.

It isn't just removing one more god, as the OP seems to suggest. It's an entire mindset of some higher power being there. Eliminate belief in the Christian god and the vast majority of those people would still believe in some higher being. And their lives would be lived under that pretense, maintaining the sociological differences in the process. So Christians aren't 0.0001% away from total atheism. Most of them are so far from it that it can't be accurately quantified.

So no, there's too wide a gap for this point to have any meaning. It's a shallow view of a much more complex topic, and no conclusions can be drawn from observing it. There are valid reasons why Christians shouldn't "give atheists crap" (and vice versa, for that matter). But this is not one of them.

I guess I used the wrong term. By "atheism" I didn't mean literal atheism, I guess I meant agnosticism.

The sociological divide is exactly what I'm trying to narrow. If anything, it is the focus of this thread.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Christians are atheists to Islam or Hinduism or any of the other million religions in existance.


That's not true. I believe that almost all religions have truth and I believe that almost all religions worship the same God I do, even if they are polytheistic or don't even have a concept of deity.

In that regard, I am pretty much not an atheist to any religion.

And of the religions I don't know, I would be agnostic, not atheistic.



You suck at this thing called trolling. Your thread would probably work on Christian Children or stupid Evangelical Christians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not true. I believe that almost all religions have truth and I believe that almost all religions worship the same God I do, even if they are polytheistic or don't even have a concept of deity.

In that regard, I am pretty much not an atheist to any religion.

And of the religions I don't know, I would be agnostic, not atheistic.



You suck at this thing called trolling. Your thread would probably work on Christian Children or stupid Evangelical Christians.

Agnosticism is a degree of atheism. And I don't care about your personal relationship to all religions.

I'm speaking in general.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Agnosticism is a degree of atheism.

No.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

http://www.troll.me/images/facepalm-picard/smh.jpg

There's actually a huge philosophical and operative difference between Christians not believing in other Gods and Atheists not believing in any Gods, because the universal systems proposed in each model are entirely different. In the first, Christians not believing in Vishnu doesn't change the fact that they envision a Universe created and guided by a higher power, whereas with Atheists the vision is (generally) a Universe of random occurrences. I don't think there's any logical contradiction or hypocrisy in Christians not believing in other Gods.

This isn't even about religion, we're practically delving into semantics here.

And well... That's often the case in the religion forum from what I've gathered from different threads.

Originally posted by Firefly218
http://www.troll.me/images/facepalm-picard/smh.jpg

You're going to shit yourself...but...almost every last of those Christians you hate are actually agnostic.

Originally posted by Digi

It's as intellectually faulty as theists and atheists both trying to give Hitler to the other side to win some sort of posturing war ...



hmmm

Who in History Would YOU Choose to Be?
(Ann Coulter versus Al Franken)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
(1 minute 12 seconds)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's actually a huge philosophical and operative difference between Christians not believing in other Gods and Atheists not believing in any Gods, because the universal systems proposed in each model are entirely different. In the first, Christians not believing in Vishnu doesn't change the fact that they envision a Universe created and guided by a higher power, whereas with Atheists the vision is (generally) a Universe of random occurrences. I don't think there's any logical contradiction or hypocrisy in Christians not believing in other Gods.

Once again, I am referring to agnostics. Those who dont believe in God in any conventional sense, but still entertain the possibility of a higher, unknown power.

Same way Christians believe in Christianity rather than Hinduism
Atheists/Agnostics believe in science rather than Christianity

The only difference is that atheists have some evidence

Originally posted by Firefly218
Once again, I am referring to agnostics. Those who dont believe in God in any conventional sense, but still entertain the possibility of a higher, unknown power.

Same way Christians believe in Christianity rather than Hinduism
Atheists/Agnostics believe in science rather than Christianity

The only difference is that atheists have some evidence

Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

Originally posted by Bentley
Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

Atheists are radical agnostics

Originally posted by Bentley
Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

In this I agree. Each position renders an absolute judgment on subjective limited premises. The theists say "God absolutely exist" and atheists say "God absolutely does not exist". But the similarities end there really. Theists use faith to patch the logical holes their position maintains and atheists tend to regard absence of proof as proof of absence.

I've assumed what Wikipedia apparently calls "hard agnosticism"; that is,

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Also, Firefly; you're misusing terms again and creating semantic issues. Google bro.

Considering the claims regarding the existence of a god, there are two possible claims:

God exists
God does not exist
For either claim, there are two positions one can take with regard to belief:

belief or acceptance of the claim
disbelief or rejection of the claim
For claim number 1 (God exists), the theist's position is one of belief, while the atheist's position is one of disbelief.

For claim number 2 (God does not exist), the theist's position is one of disbelief, while atheists can hold either position.

Some atheists actively believe that no god exists while others hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported to justify acceptance. These positions are often labeled strong atheism and weak atheism, respectively. Additionally, some individuals confuse the weak atheism position with agnosticism. There isn't much difference between weak atheists and agnostics. Agnostics are more likely to feel positive about the possibility that God or a higher power might exist. Weak atheists are more likely to believe that God is improbable and weak atheists focus on living life as if there certainly were no God. Weak atheists are likely to argue that if god/gods exist we can't know what they want from us so we might as well live our lives taking only this world into account.

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

The terms are interchangeable, but my point remains.

Athiests/Agnostics don't believe in the Christian God for the same reasons Christians don't believe in Hindu Gods.

Are you sure about that? Most Christians believe in Christ instead of Vishnu or Odin or Juju of the Mountain because of their families and where they were born; not because they've made a logical approach to a situation and found one side wanting over the other.

Also, most atheists are former Christians, meaning that when they did make a decision to evaluate, evidence led them to the conclusion that no gods can be proven to exist versus God A over God B. This is because the evidence to support each deity in history is about the same (Faith-based, hearsay, remote sources of unconfirmed authenticity).

You can equate them in terms of making absolute judgments, but in approach and methodology, they are vastly different.

I like posting this video whenever the discussion is relevant:


sNDZb0KtJDk

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I like posting this video whenever the discussion is relevant:


sNDZb0KtJDk

Awesome video. I think I actually learned from that. thnx man

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Are you sure about that? Most Christians believe in Christ instead of Vishnu or Odin or Juju of the Mountain because of their families and where they were born; not because they've made a logical approach to a situation and found one side wanting over the other.

that's from Richard Dawkins isn't it?


My point is, when Christians hear the beliefs of other religions they balk in ridicule at the sheer strangeness. I, as an atheist, do the same towards Christianity.

Originally posted by Firefly218
My point is, when Christians hear the beliefs of other religions they balk in ridicule at the sheer strangeness. I, as an atheist, do the same towards Christianity. Be careful about generalizing. It's useful only to a point, and if you want to have a proper discussion about this subject it'd be worth noting that many people, regardless of religious denomination, still respect and accept the beliefs of the others. Gaining an insight in to why people believe what they do, and appreciating their initial and continued reason for faith is an invaluable tool when it comes to understanding those who aren't in your camp. And hopefully you're one of those people who want to acquire an understanding, otherwise you'd be just as dismissive and arrogant as the theists you decry.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Awesome video. I think I actually learned from that. thnx man

If what you're attempting is to narrow the divide, as you say, it's a noble enough end. I don't mean to sound overly harsh. I just don't think this is a productive line of inquiry. Even if, as I mentioned earlier, you use agnosticism instead of atheism for this point, you're still ignoring all the stuff that creates the schisms in the first place. A discussion of semantics isn't going to bring anyone together; if anything, it just serves to highlight differences in belief.

I do see this point used by atheists a lot. You're not in terrible company. I just don't see it as the best way to approach it.

I believe in a God that compromises everyone's interests but my own, i.e. I believe in myself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Be careful about generalizing.

My intention was not to stereotype Christians in a negative light.

Atheism, the modern opium of the people.

Originally posted by Astner
Atheism, the modern opium of the people.

You're still talking about, at best, 5-6% of the population, and usually quite a bit less. This is hardly fair as a statistical assessment.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Atheists are radical agnostics

Only if you admit that radicalization will always deform and corrupt the initial premise of the argument. As Astner just implied, there is some idiocy in the generalized admission of atheism as a de facto state of mind for most population.

I do think atheism is "a thing" but I much rather use the word for arguments than for people. Bottomline: there are many different types of atheists -without even trying to stick theists into them!-, and then there are agnostics.

Originally posted by Digi
You're still talking about, at best, 5-6% of the population, and usually quite a bit less. This is hardly fair as a statistical assessment.
So five to six percent are more likely to exhaust their time and efforts on expressing their philosophical beliefs rather than on topic of actual significance such as the state of the economy, healthcare, and education.

I fail to see how your reply discredits my assertion.

Originally posted by Astner
So five to six percent are more likely to exhaust their time and efforts on expressing their philosophical beliefs rather than on topic of actual significance such as the state of the economy, healthcare, and education.

I fail to see how your reply discredits my assertion.

The first paragraph is based on nothing concrete; absolutely nothing. What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that atheists spend less time discussing the economy, healthcare, and education? As it's provable that atheists are, on average, more educated than most other religious demographics (Jewish notwithstanding, who have similarly high marks), I'd say there's a fair chance atheists consider these things more than their religious counterparts. I'm guessing, of course, but at least it's based on more than nothing. /shrug

Also, "opium of the people" implies a lot bigger mass of people (btw, I was being generous with 5-6%...it's more like 2-3% worldwide). Maybe you have a point, but your choice of phrase was either deliberately or unintentionally misleading. But if 1 in 50 people is enough of a critical mass to be an opiate, so be it. But at that point, we have very different ideas of the term. It's also, if I may say so, more than a touch condescending, as though it's just a "drug" of choice and not a valid position like any other.

Originally posted by Astner
I believe in a God that compromises everyone's interests but my own, i.e. I believe in myself.

Points for confidence; nothing wrong with that. But what happens when you're dead? I shudder to think of a universe without your benevolent godhood to protect it.

313

Again, maybe you're just an atheist/agnostic with a strong sense of self-worth. Nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case (and it likely isn't) your delivery, well, leaves a lot of ambiguity.

Digi just made me wonder how much of the world population actually takes opium mmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Christians have an Objective Knowledge of God's existence,

Uber christians are uber uhuh

Originally posted by Astner
Atheism, the modern opium of the people. Nah, that's sports. No modern church or religious denomination can match the devotion and fanaticism of American football.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Nah, that's sports. No modern church or religious denomination can match the devotion and fanaticism of American football.

That's true. Go Pats

Man I sure hope the Seahawks win this year's Olympic Games. Russian footsballers are some of the toughest in America.

Originally posted by Digi
The first paragraph is based on nothing concrete; absolutely nothing. What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that atheists spend less time discussing the economy, healthcare, and education? As it's provable that atheists are, on average, more educated than most other religious demographics (Jewish notwithstanding, who have similarly high marks), I'd say there's a fair chance atheists consider these things more than their religious counterparts. I'm guessing, of course, but at least it's based on more than nothing.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the active atheist movement is a waste of time and effort. Time and efforts better spent pursuing political ideals. After all, unlike specific religions, atheists should have no obligation to spread the word.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, "opium of the people" implies a lot bigger mass of people (btw, I was being generous with 5-6%...it's more like 2-3% worldwide).
I'd interpret it as any form of preoccupation that would prevent a significant lot of people from engaging in political activities.

As far as the United States are concerned 20% identify themselves as non-religious.

Originally posted by Digi
Points for confidence; nothing wrong with that. But what happens when you're dead?
Why worry about something I can't do anything about and something I won't have the consciousness to bother with when I'm finally there?

I don't think we all are Atheists. Your making broad assumptions.

Originally posted by Supra
I don't think we all are Atheists. Your making broad assumptions.

Well, what he is saying that people that believe in one from of God, don't usually believe in all the others. Like you may believe that the trinity in catholicism is the god. Or you may believe that Egypt's Ra is a god. Or Allah. But usually not all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, what he is saying that people that believe in one from of God, don't usually believe in all the others. Like you may believe that the trinity in catholicism is the god. Or you may believe that Egypt's Ra is a god. Or Allah. But usually not all.

Allah is God Almighty, there is only one God, he goes by many names. Its up to the believer on what name God has chosen to reveal himself to that person as.

Originally posted by Supra
Allah is God Almighty, there is only one God, he goes by many names. Its up to the believer on what name God has chosen to reveal himself to that person as.

Yeah, most people do not believe that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, most people do not believe that.

But that does not make us all Atheists.

Originally posted by Supra
But that does not make us all Atheists.

No, of course not, it's hyperbole. Atheism is the believe in no God(s). But he's saying that the same thing that makes atheists doubt all Gods is what makes most people doubt all other Gods besides the ones they believe in.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, of course not, it's hyperbole. Atheism is the believe in no God(s). But he's saying that the same thing that makes atheists doubt all Gods is what makes most people doubt all other Gods besides the ones they believe in.

Most Christians and "believers" as well as atheists are extremely stupid and close-minded.

Originally posted by Supra
Most Christians and "believers" as well as atheists are extremely stupid and close-minded.

I guess. But you see where the original poster is coming from?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Once again, I am referring to agnostics. Those who dont believe in God in any conventional sense, but still entertain the possibility of a higher, unknown power.

Same way Christians believe in Christianity rather than Hinduism
Atheists/Agnostics believe in science rather than Christianity

The only difference is that atheists have some evidence
Atheists don't replace religion with science. That's a false equivalence. Atheists don't have anything in place of religion.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Atheists don't replace religion with science. That's a false equivalence. Atheists don't have anything in place of religion.

Yep they are just stupid people walking the earth with no higher level of thinking..

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess. But you see where the original poster is coming from?

No he is just mass generalizing.

But, that's what you just did as well. "Most Christians and "believers" as well as atheists are extremely stupid and close-minded." that's no different, is it?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Atheists don't replace religion with science. That's a false equivalence. Atheists don't have anything in place of religion.

Actually atheists sort of replace religion with non-belief. It's agnostics who don't replace any high belief with anything, they are free from having a conviction on whether or not there is a higher power. Atheist do replace that belief for another belief.

Unless you mean religion in the community sense, if that's the case, yeah, the equivalence is entirely uncalled.

Originally posted by Astner
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the active atheist movement is a waste of time and effort.



Originally posted by Astner
Time and efforts better spent pursuing political ideals.

I was going to give you a thumbs down, but you didn't specify what kind of action was taken to pursue political agendas. That's open enough.


Originally posted by Astner
After all, unlike specific religions, atheists should have no obligation to spread the word.

I'd argue that atheism often goes in hand with conviction, most of people that won't feel attached to any particular idea should be agnostic by all means.

But I won't argue that because in my experience, there are atheists who don't care about their atheism, they just "can't believe". Which is enough for me to be qualified as an atheism.

See how I just contradicted the paragraph I posted as an answer to OV?

Originally posted by Astner
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the active atheist movement is a waste of time and effort. Time and efforts better spent pursuing political ideals. After all, unlike specific religions, atheists should have no obligation to spread the word.

One of the political issue that one may pursue is to limit the influence of Religion on public life however. And one way to achieve this can surely be to convince people that there is not God, would you not agree?

Originally posted by Bardock42
One of the political issue that one may pursue is to limit the influence of Religion on public life however. And one way to achieve this can surely be to convince people that there is not God, would you not agree?

Sounds oddly like an authoritarian regime

Originally posted by Bentley
Sounds oddly like an authoritarian regime

You feel minority grassroots movements aiming to effect change against the norm sound like an authoritarian regime?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You feel minority grassroots movements aiming to effect change against the norm sound like an authoritarian regime?

You want to destroy groups of influence because they don't fit your agenda, that sounds like an authoritarian regime just fine

Originally posted by Bentley
You want to destroy groups of influence because they don't fit your agenda, that sounds like an authoritarian regime just fine

Again, you think peacefully convincing individuals of a group that their believes were incorrect is similar to what authoritarian regimes do?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, what he is saying that people that believe in one from of God, don't usually believe in all the others. Like you may believe that the trinity in catholicism is the god. Or you may believe that Egypt's Ra is a god. Or Allah. But usually not all.

After I have described the theological implications of others gods or spiritual beliefs, of devout and evangelical Christians', being manifestations of the same God, not a single person has disagreed with me. OP, from my perspective, is explicitly wrong.

Edit - I also think people go out of their way to polarize religious or a-religious beliefs when it is not intellectually, philosophically, theologically, or theosophically sound. I will be the first to admit that Christians are usually the offenders, in this case.

I think the people that frequent this forum are not a sample representing the masses. Generally if you ask "So you think Zeus exists and actually did what he is said to have done" you will get a "no", probably even here.


In abstract terms we like to agree "yeah, one life force, god, universe" but when it comes to specifics, not so much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, you think peacefully convincing individuals of a group that their believes were incorrect is similar to what authoritarian regimes do?

Identical? No. Similar? The intellectual violence of imposing ones culture to others for the sake of a theory has already wrecked havoc in the 20th century.

Originally posted by Bentley
Identical? No. Similar? The intellectual violence of imposing ones culture to others for the sake of a theory has already wrecked havoc in the 20th century.

Ridiculous! The similarity is so superficial you may as well say they are similar because they are both comprised of people. Organisations as I describe it are vital to, and encouraged in, democratic discourse, comparing them to authoritarianism is silly hyperbole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ridiculous! The similarity is so superficial you may as well say they are similar because they are both comprised of people. Organisations as I describe it are vital to, and encouraged in, democratic discourse, comparing them to authoritarianism is silly hyperbole.

If you're imposing a mindset into the population because of some abstract theory, you're not really using democracy. Otherwise people would get to choose their own groups of influence, religious or not. How are you convincing them again?

Also, if people were as evolved as you present it when enforcing laws and making choices, religion wouldn't be a problem anyway.

If you are using force rather than reason, then yes. However nowhere did I say anything like that. I said "convince". Your comparison with authoritarianism is completely unfounded.

And even if you believed that, you would have to apply it to every other group as well. People who want better roads, people who want health care, people who want tax breaks...

If anything the part that Astner proposes is the more authoritarian part, working on policy change (but even then it is a cornerstone of free democracy). I just said that it can also be worthwhile to convince people of your beliefs.