Percentage of atheists should be higher today than ever?

[Quad4_72]

It seems to me that the percentage of atheists today in America should be growing fairly rapidly over the years due to better education, but the polls still show America at only about 3% overall in the population. Being more informed and having more education than at any other time in history, why does religion still have such a grasp on people's minds?

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121

[Wowbagger]

I could be that Freedom of Religion created an environment where relgious memes were forced to enhance their parasitic nature, in order to compete.

Or, perhaps the holes dug by cognitive dissonance are too deep to climb out of, even if slightly better education gives them something of a ladder.

Education in the U.S. might not really have improved, that much, anyway. Especially with the new emphasis on standardized testing, generated by "No Child Left Behind", and other anti-motivational policies. Not to mention all the home-schooled folks.

Or, maybe a lot of them just haven't come out of the closet, yet.

[Quad4_72]

I could be that Freedom of Religion created an environment where relgious memes were forced to enhance their parasitic nature, in order to compete.


This is true. I guess it also comes back to tradition. If you are raised in a religious household it can be very hard to break those beliefs that have been instilled in you even with the proper education. My father is a nuclear engineer and has taught many science classes and made many presentations about various scientific issues. But yet, he still goes to church every sunday and is actually very involved in it.

[Delvo]

Although learning can cause an individual to lose his/her religion, I don't believe that education should be expected to cause a culture to do so. When I was a kid, when my teacher got to the part of the curriculum where she was required to teach us about glaciers, she also threw in a comment of her own about how the same evidence of past glaciation that our book listed for us could just as well have been caused by the great flood instead. Years later, in another town, I was told a story about a local school where a kid asked the teacher, during a lesson about evolution, whether the teacher believed in it, and the teacher said no. If the culture doesn't change and the educational policy does, you just get the same old culture continuing to live under that educational policy; you get teachers who will resist the new policy and, while supposedly "teaching" according to that policy, actually work to undermine it.

[Safe-Keeper]

The US isn't that good an environment to be an atheist in, I think it's as simple as that. If surveys of a country indicate that 40% of the populace wouldn't vote for a non-believer who ran for President... you get the idea.

[Hokulele]

It also depends on which part of the U.S. you are talking about. The numbers of self-proclaimed atheists varies greatly from state to state, region to region.

[Richard Masters]

The US isn't that good an environment to be an atheist in, I think it's as simple as that. If surveys of a country indicate that 40% of the populace wouldn't vote for a non-believer who ran for President... you get the idea.

I'm not sure there are many alternatives to the U.S., other than some European countries.

In Indonesia you have to declare one of five religions, and what you are is one of the first questions you get asked.

One person there told me he worked for a Canadian who told him it is not unusual for people in Canada not to believe in God. He commented to me that he didn't understand how there couldn't be a God. Since it was my first day in Indonesia and didn't want to be misunderstood, I simply stayed quiet.

In Mexico, students generally go to Catholic Church when you graduate from school, and going to Church is basically a part of normal life.

In Vietnam there is a religion that recognizes Communism along with Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam, but even Communism is seen as a religious counterpart.

In Thailand, not only are Buddhism and Islam mainstream, but the Royal family is saluted and honored as if it were sacred on its own.

In Singapore, several ethnic/religious groups coexist, and each has a stake in public education and government.

On the other hand, I do know Mormons who acknowledge that they are not sure about their religion, but believe it has a positive influence nevertheless.

Throughout most 3rd world countries, superstition is still mainstream, I think, in part, as a way to cope with misfortune.

So I'm not sure atheists in the US have it that bad.

[Quad4_72]

I'm not sure there are many alternatives to the U.S., other than some European countries.

In Indonesia you have to declare one of five religions, and what you are is one of the first questions you get asked.

One person there told me he worked for a Canadian who told him it is not unusual for people in Canada not to believe in God. He commented to me that he didn't understand how there couldn't be a God. Since it was my first day in Indonesia and didn't want to be misunderstood, I simply stayed quiet.

In Mexico, students generally go to Catholic Church when you graduate from school, and going to Church is basically a part of normal life.

In Vietnam there is a religion that recognizes Communism along with Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam, but even Communism is seen as a religious counterpart.

In Thailand, not only are Buddhism and Islam mainstream, but the Royal family is saluted and honored as if it were sacred on its own.

In Singapore, several ethnic/religious groups coexist, and each has a stake in public education and government.

On the other hand, I do know Mormons who acknowledge that they are not sure about their religion, but believe it has a positive influence nevertheless.

Throughout most 3rd world countries, superstition is still mainstream, I think, in part, as a way to cope with misfortune.

So I'm not sure atheists in the US have it that bad.

Agreed. I can't imagine being an atheist in some of those countries. While you may get nasty (ignorant) remarks from people in the United States for being an Atheist, in some places you may end up getting yourself killed for proclaiming such a thing.

[slingblade]

Some of us have gotten far worse than just nasty remarks. :(

[six7s]

Being more informed and having more education than at any other time in history, why does religion still have such a grasp on people's minds? If the information is dodgy...

Garbage in; garbage out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGO)

[Dancing David]

Religion has many factors, and mostly they are emotional.

[westprog]

It seems to me that the percentage of atheists today in America should be growing fairly rapidly over the years due to better education, but the polls still show America at only about 3% overall in the population. Being more informed and having more education than at any other time in history, why does religion still have such a grasp on people's minds?

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121


I realise that this is going to be a controversial statement, likely to upset some peoples' most dearly held beliefs, but maybe, just maybe, atheism is not the inevitable result of better education and being more informed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Education in the U.S. might not really have improved, that much, anyway. Especially with the new emphasis on standardized testing, generated by "No Child Left Behind", and other anti-motivational policies. Not to mention all the home-schooled folks.


Mmmm, the data don't quite show that. Here's an Excel spreadheet (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html)(Direct link, because the Census page of educational data (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html) is dry and busy) of educational attainment in the U.S. from 1940 to 2007. Unsurprisingly, 2007 was the 67th straight record breaking year in terms of, for example, people above age 25 with 4 or more years of college.

There are definately problems with too much standardized testing, and inappropriate use of testing by legislators and other policy makers - "You want to use a norm referenced test to determine student grade equvilience as a basis for retention or promotion? Are you drunk?"- but as much as we're stumbling along, we're gettin better.

[DOC]

It seems to me that the percentage of atheists today in America should be growing fairly rapidly over the years due to better education, but the polls still show America at only about 3% overall in the population. Being more informed and having more education than at any other time in history, why does religion still have such a grasp on people's minds?

Because the only long term hope atheism offers is being carted down to the cemetery and having dirt thrown in your face. And more and more likely (because of economics) being carted down to the crematorium.

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

[fishbob]

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

Religion offers unproven absurd hope of eternal life and an alternative to the legitimate idea (and by legitimate, I mean 'supported by data') that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

You got your adjectives misplaced. I fixed it for you.

Joking aside, DOC's statement illustrates why religiosity is so prevalent.
Fear of reality, of death, of the unknown. And unequipped to deal with reality, face death, or learn.

[joobz]

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.
if you had left out "Legitimate" and "unproven absurdity", I would have agreed with you.

[Foster Zygote]

Because the only long term hope atheism offers is being carted down to the cemetery and having dirt thrown in your face. And more and more likely (because of economics) being carted down to the crematorium.

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

As usual, you are wrong. I don't need to believe in a magical sky fairy or that I have a magical eternal consciousness to have long term hope that the love I give to my children will make them better, happier, loving people who will then pass that love on to their own children, and so on.

I don't need to believe in a magical sky fairy or that I have a magical eternal consciousness to have long term hope that humanity will overcome its childish ignorance and work for the betterment of all people's lives.

The difference between my long term hope and yours is that I don't demand that I exist eternally in order to have happiness. Your version of hope strikes me as rather selfish.

[paximperium]

Because the only long term hope atheism offers is being carted down to the cemetery and having dirt thrown in your face. And more and more likely (because of economics) being carted down to the crematorium.

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
George Bernard Shaw

[Psi Baba]

Do religious families tend to pump out a lot more babies than atheist families? Could that be the reason that the percentage is not increasing as expected? (I phrased this as a question because I didn't bother to look up the statistics).

[Lothian]

Would you expect something like this (http://social.jrank.org/pages/927/Religion-in-America--Nontraditional.html)

Net Gain or Loss of Adult Members Due to Switching Religions, 2001

Net gain or loss of members
No religion | 5,504,413
Christian, no denomination specified | 1,386,541
Non-denominational | 678,135
Pentecostal | 610,043
Evangelical/Born Again | 306,290
Episcopalian/Anglican | 154,532
Jehovah's Witnesses | 136,557
Buddhist | 119,488
Muslim/Islamic | 84,526
Assemblies of God | 76,884
Seventh Day Adventist | 70,145
Church of God | 45,563
Mormon | -4,683
Churches of Christ | -53,519
Congregational/UCC | -85,860
Lutheran | -102,231
Presbyterian | -116,050
Judaism | -119,943
Baptist | -218,066
Protestant | -771,822
Methodist | -1,144,374
Catholic | -5,211,003

[Lothian]

TRENDS AMONG CHRISTIANS IN THE U.S


Agnosticis, Atheists, secularists. and NOTAs (none of the above) are growing rapidly.

At the present rate of change, most Americans would identify themselves as non-religious or non-Christian by the year 2035 CE.
Source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm)

It wont be long before the situation in America is similar to Britain (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece).

Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour


...The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers’ pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die...

[six7s]

I realise that this is going to be a controversial statement, likely to upset some peoples' most dearly held beliefs, but maybe, just maybe, atheism is not the inevitable result of better education and being more informed.I think you'll find that the most offensive part of your post is your rude and/or ignorant assertion that atheism is a belief system

I think you'll find "the inevitable result of better education and being more informed" is, erm, being "being more informed"; if you have ANY evidence to support ANY theism, please do present it. Otherwise, please stop farting - people are trying to think in here

[Quad4_72]

Religion offers legitimate hope of eternal life and an alternative to the unproven absurdity that life is the result of a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

And what is your evidence that legitimate hope is offered? How many people have you heard back from who are living eternal life?

[Malerin]

I think you'll find that the most offensive part of your post is your rude and/or ignorant assertion that atheism is a belief system


How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution

I suppose it's logically possible to be a creationist atheist or immaterial atheist or atheistic dualist, but have you ever met one? The people I've talked to here, at least, are almost all materialist atheists who place tremendous "faith" in the scientific method, the validitity of evolution, and the reducibility of mental states to brain states. They also scoff at mediums, psychics, and the existence of the paranormal in general.

When I talk to a fundie Christian I can almost make their arguments for them, I've heard them so many times. I know their belief system, in other words. Same thing with atheists- I know I'm going to get a disdain for religion (like I've already seen in this thread- as if education somehow disqualifies one from having faith), near-worship of science, and rolling eyes on the existence of anything paranormal.

It's been my experience that atheists CLING to their beliefs just as much as any other fanatical group you can name.

As far as education and belief in God, here's some food for thought:

"NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 20, 2004--A national survey of 1,100
physicians, conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein
Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological
Seminary in New York City over the past weekend, found that 74% of
doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73%
believe that can occur today.


The poll also indicated that American physicians are surprisingly
religious, with 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a
reliable and necessary guide to life."

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med/2004-12/2272.html


"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.

...

"The study is based on responses to questionnaires mailed in 2003. It is to appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine and was released online to subscribers earlier this month."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n14678743

[Foster Zygote]

And what is your evidence that legitimate hope is offered? How many people have you heard back from who are living eternal life?

Not only that, but according to DOC, there are a great many false religions that offer illegitimate hope to their followers.

[six7s]

How is atheism not a belief system?
Why do you ask, when you - with, literally at your finger-tips, access to the greatest repository of information in the history of humankind - could so easily figure it it out for yourself?

Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of soulsWrong

- existence of physical matterWrong

- nonexistence of miraclesWrong

- belief that the brain is the cause of the mindWrong

- validitity of the scientific methodWrong

- theory of evolutionWrong

If nothing else, you're consistent :)

The people I've talked to here, at least, are almost all materialist atheists ...So what? Please note: having a limited world view probably means you have an inaccurate world view.
(See above for an easy remedy... or simply go outside and meet some other people)

It's been my experience that atheists CLING to their beliefs just as much as any other fanatical group you can name.Try reading up on 'confirmation bias (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=define%3Aconfirmation+bias&btnG=Search)'

As far as education and belief in God, here's some food for thought:Sorry, I gave up swallowing woo for lent

[Malerin]

Why do you ask, when you - with, literally at your finger-tips, access to the greatest repository of information in the history of humankind - could so easily figure it it out for yourself?

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong



Uh huh. So you really believe there are atheists out there that believe in miracles, souls, and psychics? Do you?

[Malerin]

"Unfortunately, it sure looks as if "souls" do not exist. I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like when you study all the claims and arguments and look at all the facts without regard to what you want to be true."

"As materialists, we atheists hold that matter is fundamental. Whatever else may exist, if it exists, it depends on matter. Thus, if mind exists, it must be a function of matter."

"Rather, almost everything we learn about the human mind points to the likelihood that everything there is about our conscious, aware "Selves" is contained in the brain and nervous system."

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8756.htm

I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

[six7s]

Uh huh. So you really believe there are atheists out there that believe in miracles, souls, and psychics? Do you?
Why do you ask? Are you trying to pretend that's what you said?

For those with the attention span of a goldfish:
atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:Note the subtle yet significant difference and, if you feel that you need to ask your question again, I suggest you consider why you feel such a need

[arthwollipot]

Okay, I'll spoil, because it's obvious Malerin isn't getting it.

Atheists do not have belief in all of those things. For example - evolution is not something that atheists believe in. It's something that evidence supports. There is a very big difference between acknowledging what the evidence suggests and believing in it. It's a disctinction that most believers fail to grasp.

[Jeff Corey]

Art, I disagree, since I have strong beliefs, backed by scientific evidence. Evolution, for example.
Others are working hypotheses. Materialism, determinism.
Others are things that just don't fit or are just too silly. God, that invisible unicorn in my basement.

[Malerin]

Atheists do not have belief in all of those things. For example - evolution is not something that atheists believe in.

:rolleyes:

[Mobyseven]

How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution

Dear Malerin,

Epic fail.

Love,

Mobyseven

[Uncayimmy]

How is atheism not a belief system?

Where's the "system" part of it? I must have missed it.

There are no penalties for disbelieving the wrong way. I mean, it would be silly to threaten somebody with hell for not disbelieving in the prescribed manner.

But to get back to the OP's question, there's not much advantage to declaring oneself a full atheist. If anything making that declaration is a big headache. You get all the semi-atheists (those disbelieving in one fewer god than you) yapping at ya telling you that their god is #1.

Really, your best bet is to be one them non-denominational folks. This lets you invent your form of religion that you can defend with phrases like "well, in my mind..." or "that's just how I see it." It doesn't require a tithe or missing football games. You only have to think about it when somebody asks you. And unless they are writing stuff down, you'll never be caught in a contradiction.

Another big advantage is when you need something. Churches like to help people. Being non-denominational lets you call upon any religion for assistance. It's like having AB+ blood.

Best of all since it's your religion, you can deal with apparent contradictions with science any way you see fit. You just say, "That's not incompatible with what I believe." Who's gonna argue that?

So, really, you gotta be a little twisted to call yourself an atheist these days. There's very little upside. Besides, you *know* it won't make a difference what you call yourself, you're still gonna die when you die.

[Mobyseven]

PS: My beliefs are not the same as these people's beliefs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism)

If we start defining belief systems based on things people DON'T believe in, then Hinduism and Communism are basically the same belief system, as neither believes in the existence of microscopic sentient credit cards.

[six7s]

Atheists do not have belief in all of those things. For example - evolution is not something that atheists believe in.:rolleyes:You can roll whatever you want, but without any substance, you have no argument. As it's obvious your not here to think, please explain: what the hell are you doing on a critical thinking forum?

[six7s]

Art, I disagree, since I have strong beliefs, backed by scientific evidence. Evolution, for example.Huh? :confused:

Since when were you appointed the benchmark?

[Malerin]

Huh? :confused:

Since when were you appointed the benchmark?

And here comes the hostility, right on time. But you're not emotionally invested in atheism. Not at all. ;)

[Hokulele]

<snip>

I suppose it's logically possible to be a creationist atheist or immaterial atheist or atheistic dualist, but have you ever met one?

<snip>


I guess you haven't met too many Buddhists, Taoists (old school), Shinto, Raelians, animists, shamanists, etc. Religion is much more than the theist/atheist dichotomy you are promoting here.

[Jeff Corey]

Huh? :confused:

Since when were you appointed the benchmark?

Since when you were able to attack a statement by calling me a benchmark? I was just responding to Art's post about belief. Take your attitude a hike.

[Malerin]

Where's the "system" part of it? I must have missed it.



http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7

What's that word you guys use to describe anything paranormal or mystical? "Woo"? Is that not a deragatory term? And to find that on a forum frequented by atheists! Again, I'm shocked! I would think people with no beliefs wouldn't have to resort to name-calling of other's beliefs, but that's just me ;)

And if I may quote myself:

"Unfortunately, it sure looks as if "souls" do not exist. I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like when you study all the claims and arguments and look at all the facts without regard to what you want to be true."

"As materialists, we atheists hold that matter is fundamental. Whatever else may exist, if it exists, it depends on matter. Thus, if mind exists, it must be a function of matter."

"Rather, almost everything we learn about the human mind points to the likelihood that everything there is about our conscious, aware "Selves" is contained in the brain and nervous system."

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8756.htm


So, just to start, we have: materialism, mind as brain, everything depends on matter, and nonexistence of souls.

Do you really think Walker's views are an anomaly?

[six7s]

And here comes the hostility, right on time. But you're not emotionally invested in atheism. Not at all. ;)Teh stoopid... it burns

If you really believe that you can lie and obfuscate without anyone calling you on it, then you have a lot to learn Malerin

Please, when your woo is thoroughly debunked, at least try to resist simply forgetting about it and moving on to yet another inane, unsubstantiated and wholly irrelevant piece of nonsensical woo

[six7s]

Since when you were able to attack a statement by calling me a benchmark?

Since I learned to type
I was just responding to Art's post about belief. Yeah... and it doesn't make sense, so I called you on it... you gotta problem with that, then its your problem
Take your attitude a hike.No

[Malerin]

I guess you haven't met too many Buddhists, Taoists (old school), Shinto, Raelians, animists, shamanists, etc. Religion is much more than the theist/atheist dichotomy you are promoting here.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Any atheists here believe in that? ::crickets:: Right.

In Taoism, even beyond Chinese folk religion, various rituals, exercises, and substances are said to positively affect one's physical and mental health. They are also intended to align oneself spiritually with cosmic forces, or enable ecstatic spiritual journeys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

Any atheist Taoists here?

"Shinto (神道, Shintō?) is the native religion of Japan and was once its state religion. It is a polytheistic and animistic faith, and involves the worship of kami (神, kami?), or spirits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

"Shinto practices:
Shinto recognizes many sacred places: mountains, springs, etc.
Each shrine is dedicated to a specific Kami who has a divine personality and responds to sincere prayers of the faithful. When entering a shrine, one passes through a Tori a special gateway for the Gods. It marks the demarcation between the finite world and the infinite world of the Gods.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shinto.htm

No point in going on.

[Hokulele]

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Any atheists here believe in that? ::crickets:: Right.


Most Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Most Buddhists are atheists. Have you met any? There may be some on this forum, but you have simply dismissed the point without addressing it.

In Taoism, even beyond Chinese folk religion, various rituals, exercises, and substances are said to positively affect one's physical and mental health. They are also intended to align oneself spiritually with cosmic forces, or enable ecstatic spiritual journeys.


Exactly. Once again, you are proving my point. Have you ever spoken with any practicing Taoists?

Any atheist Taoists here?


How do you know there aren't? Have you conducted a survey of the membership? I have exchanged PM's with at least one Taoist on this forum, and others who have spent time actually reading the source documents. Have you, or are you simply dismissing the point again?

"Shinto (神道, Shintō?) is the native religion of Japan and was once its state religion. It is a polytheistic and animistic faith, and involves the worship of kami (神, kami?), or spirits."

<snipped link>

"Shinto practices:
Shinto recognizes many sacred places: mountains, springs, etc.
Each shrine is dedicated to a specific Kami who has a divine personality and responds to sincere prayers of the faithful. When entering a shrine, one passes through a Tori a special gateway for the Gods. It marks the demarcation between the finite world and the infinite world of the Gods.


Ah, the beauty of English translation. When a word does not exist in the dictionary, make the closest fit, with all the baggage associated. Kami does translate to "god" in English, but the concept is quite a bit different. "Spirit" would be closer, but not quite. Deceased ancestors can be kami, places can contain kami, physical objects are kami. Trying to use English words to describe non-English concepts will only lead to confusion. Or madness. Your choice.

No point in going on.


Indeed. You have proven you wish to make a point without foundation or study. Thanks for playing. :cool:

[Prometheus]

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Any atheists here believe in that? ::crickets:: Right.

In Taoism, even beyond Chinese folk religion, various rituals, exercises, and substances are said to positively affect one's physical and mental health. They are also intended to align oneself spiritually with cosmic forces, or enable ecstatic spiritual journeys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

Any atheist Taoists here?

"Shinto (神道, Shintō?) is the native religion of Japan and was once its state religion. It is a polytheistic and animistic faith, and involves the worship of kami (神, kami?), or spirits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

"Shinto practices:
Shinto recognizes many sacred places: mountains, springs, etc.
Each shrine is dedicated to a specific Kami who has a divine personality and responds to sincere prayers of the faithful. When entering a shrine, one passes through a Tori a special gateway for the Gods. It marks the demarcation between the finite world and the infinite world of the Gods.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shinto.htm

No point in going on.

You realize that everything in your post supports Hokulele's point, don't you?

[six7s]

You realize that everything in your post supports Hokulele's point, don't you?

Probably just a glitch

No point<insert>;</insert><strike> in </strike><insert> just </insert> going on.

FTFY :)

[Malerin]

You realize that everything in your post supports Hokulele's point, don't you?

Of course. I can't tell you how many atheists I've met who believe in reincarnation (Buddism), cosmic forces (Taoism), and the "infinite world of the Gods". (Shintoism). :rolleyes:

THIS is why atheists are 3% of the population- nobody can stand talking to you guys! Some of you (e.g., Jeff Corey) are willing to admit you have definite beliefs about the material world. But way too many of you engage in obfuscation, fanaticism, and plain old intellectual dishonesy. There's not a single atheist here who doubts evolution, believes in miracles, thinks psychics are real, or belives in reincarnation, so quit acting like it's the norm. You guys have even invented a word to apply to anything that remotely falls outside your materialistic world view: "woo". So quit trying to pass yourselves off as Buddhists or Shintoists. Nobody's buying it.

[Hokulele]

So quit trying to pass yourselves off as Buddhists or Shintoists.


No seriously, how do you know this?

[Prometheus]

Of course. I can't tell you how many atheists I've met who believe in reincarnation (Buddism), cosmic forces (Taoism), and the "infinite world of the Gods". (Shintoism). :rolleyes:

THIS is why atheists are 3% of the population- nobody can stand talking to you guys! Some of you (e.g., Jeff Corey) are willing to admit you have definite beliefs about the material world. But way too many of you engage in obfuscation, fanaticism, and plain old intellectual dishonesy. There's not a single atheist here who doubts evolution, believes in miracles, thinks psychics are real, or belives in reincarnation, so quit acting like it's the norm. You guys have even invented a word to apply to anything that remotely falls outside your materialistic world view: "woo". So quit trying to pass yourselves off as Buddhists or Shintoists. Nobody's buying it.

So much straw, so little time... :rolleyes:

[Miss_Kitt]

Of course. I can't tell you how many atheists I've met who believe in reincarnation (Buddism), cosmic forces (Taoism), and the "infinite world of the Gods". (Shintoism). :rolleyes:

THIS is why atheists are 3% of the population- nobody can stand talking to you guys! Some of you (e.g., Jeff Corey) are willing to admit you have definite beliefs about the material world. But way too many of you engage in obfuscation, fanaticism, and plain old intellectual dishonesy. There's not a single atheist here who doubts evolution, believes in miracles, thinks psychics are real, or belives in reincarnation, so quit acting like it's the norm. You guys have even invented a word to apply to anything that remotely falls outside your materialistic world view: "woo". So quit trying to pass yourselves off as Buddhists or Shintoists. Nobody's buying it.

Malerin -- I think you are not hearing what Hokulele is arguing. She is saying that the term "atheist" has no logical or necessary connection to belief in a soul; or cosmic forces; or the nature of mind.

A "theist" believes in a God or Gods; an a-theist does not. That's all the term means. My brother Douglass is a Taoist who is also an atheist. He believes in souls, in powers beyond our ken, and in the validity of enlightening visions as equal or superior to reason, logic, and empirical testing, as means of achieving knowledge.

There are certainly atheists who are of the perspective of the magazine you quoted earlier, but that no more represents all atheists than, say, the Book of Mormon represents all theists.

The JREF, by its nature, will tend to attract the materialist / scientific / rationalist worldview subset of atheist (as well as the scientific / rationalist theists) to participate in its discussions. Mr Randi has made a career of debunking psychics, mystics, etc. so skepticism in regards the supernatural is going to be a common perspective in those interested in his organization.

But this group is not the standard of atheism, because there IS no "atheist belief system." There is no "Atheists Creed". It's possible to put together a list of common beliefs of buddhists, because they have a religion, a tradition, a history in common. Atheism is just the ABSENCE of belief in god(s).

My friend Gilmar put it best when he said, "There aren't atheist meetings because you can't really get together and talk about what you don't believe in." Atheism isn't an affirmation of a group of beliefs; it's the rejection of a common belief. That's all it is, and it doesn't necessarily carry anything else with it.

Living in the Greater Seattle area, I have lots of contact with atheists who believe in all kinds of psychic stuff. I know New Agers who think that crystal necklaces charged by moonlight can improve your life-energy. My hairdresser thinks she and her (adopted) son were mother and child in a previous life, when she was killed for loving a man from another tribe. The USSR had entire programs researching military uses for psychic abilities.

You are drawing a necessary connection where there is none. That's Hokulele's point. Trying to describe "what atheists are like" by quoting a post here or on Pharyngula or on an atheist magazine website is missing the point.

Atheism is not believing in god(s). That is all it is; nothing else is included in the term.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to (briefly) explain why you think that, say, belief that telepathy exists or dowisng works is equivalent to belief in God. That might clarify what the disagreement actually is.

Just my thoughts, MK

[arthwollipot]

I have to say with all possible respect that I disagree with Jeff's position. I think he has every right to hold that view, but to think that his position is representative of all atheists is incorrect.

If there is one thing that I believe on faith, it is that physical evidence can tell us something meaningful about the universe.

[six7s]

A "theist" believes in a God or Gods; an a-theist does not. That's all the term means.Miss_Kitt, the patience and tolerance in your post would lead me to think that you are, come the hour, a dead-cert for beatification... if I wasn't an atheist ;)

[Lothian]

How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution
No athiests don't all have strong beliefs in those.

I don't have the time or ability to put is as well as Miss Kitt as I need to go a and pray at the Atheist Church of gravity.

[six7s]

I need to go a and pray at the Atheist Church of gravity.Mass?

[Mobyseven]

I would hazard a guess that, worldwide, the number of atheists who are Buddhists is significantly larger than the number of atheists who do not subscribe to any religion.

Saying that atheism is a belief system is just as retarded as saying theism is a belief system. Seriously - you harp on about atheism being a belief system, all while ignoring the fact that its polar opposite, theism, isn't a belief system itself!

[Lothian]

Mass?Yes, I find myself inexplicably drawn towards it.

[six7s]

Yes, I find myself inexplicably drawn towards it.I can't see the attraction, myself

[Egg]

Mass?

That's got to be the funniest one word post I've ever seen! :egglaugh:

[Malerin]

Malerin -- I think you are not hearing what Hokulele is arguing. She is saying that the term "atheist" has no logical or necessary connection to belief in a soul; or cosmic forces; or the nature of mind.

A "theist" believes in a God or Gods; an a-theist does not. That's all the term means. My brother Douglass is a Taoist who is also an atheist. He believes in souls, in powers beyond our ken, and in the validity of enlightening visions as equal or superior to reason, logic, and empirical testing, as means of achieving knowledge.

There are certainly atheists who are of the perspective of the magazine you quoted earlier, but that no more represents all atheists than, say, the Book of Mormon represents all theists.

The JREF, by its nature, will tend to attract the materialist / scientific / rationalist worldview subset of atheist (as well as the scientific / rationalist theists) to participate in its discussions. Mr Randi has made a career of debunking psychics, mystics, etc. so skepticism in regards the supernatural is going to be a common perspective in those interested in his organization.

But this group is not the standard of atheism, because there IS no "atheist belief system." There is no "Atheists Creed". It's possible to put together a list of common beliefs of buddhists, because they have a religion, a tradition, a history in common. Atheism is just the ABSENCE of belief in god(s).

My friend Gilmar put it best when he said, "There aren't atheist meetings because you can't really get together and talk about what you don't believe in." Atheism isn't an affirmation of a group of beliefs; it's the rejection of a common belief. That's all it is, and it doesn't necessarily carry anything else with it.

Living in the Greater Seattle area, I have lots of contact with atheists who believe in all kinds of psychic stuff. I know New Agers who think that crystal necklaces charged by moonlight can improve your life-energy. My hairdresser thinks she and her (adopted) son were mother and child in a previous life, when she was killed for loving a man from another tribe. The USSR had entire programs researching military uses for psychic abilities.

You are drawing a necessary connection where there is none. That's Hokulele's point. Trying to describe "what atheists are like" by quoting a post here or on Pharyngula or on an atheist magazine website is missing the point.

Atheism is not believing in god(s). That is all it is; nothing else is included in the term.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to (briefly) explain why you think that, say, belief that telepathy exists or dowisng works is equivalent to belief in God. That might clarify what the disagreement actually is.

Just my thoughts, MK

I think I see where the disconnect is: I've been talking about atheists. You're talking about atheism. Even granting that there are some atheistic Buddhists, if you ask them what they believe, they'll tell you Buddhism (karma, enlightenment, transcedence, etc.).

My point was that people who identify and describe themselves as "atheists" almost invariably have the materialist belief system I talked about (such as the editor of PositiveAtheism). Google "Atheists" and this is the first organization you come to:

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

"Of course, we don’t believe in such ideas as miracles, “intelligent” design, and “scientific” creationism."

http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php#who

"Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

"Nor do atheists deny that many people experience what they interpret as God’s presence in their everyday lives. Atheists strongly disbelieve that the emotions or brain states or neurochemical changes that result in such feelings and experiences have supernatural causes or are indicators of supernatural beings."

http://skepdic.com/atheism.html

And, of course, the atheists on this website.

I guess my point is this: If you throw a bunch of self-described atheists in a room together, do you really think a healthy debate about the existence of souls, miracles, mediums and karma is going to break out? Or is it much more likely that within a few minutes, deragatory labels (e.g., "woo") will be invented describing all of the above? Do you really think the atheists here are NOT the norm?

[Dr Adequate]

How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution And also that the Earth is approximately spherical, what's your point?

[Mashuna]

I guess my point is this: If you throw a bunch of self-described atheists in a room together, do you really think a healthy debate about the existence of souls, miracles, mediums and karma is going to break out?

No, I think the debate will be about football, alcohol and members of the opposite sex. Maybe books, films, art, holidays, politics. But only if you're posh.

[Safe-Keeper]

To Malerin.
I think your beliefs on atheists are strongly misguided. Let's go through your post and the ones following it, shall we?

How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validity of the scientific method
- theory of evolutionYour problem is two-fold. First of all, you base your argument on the faulty 'well, every single (blank) I have ever met has been (blank)' generalization, rather than on actual facts. Let me level with you. There was a time when I was a believer, first in Christianity, then, more favorably, in Buddhism. Then came a time when, after having lost faith, I spent significant time on Internet forums discussing matters such as evolution and god. I found many of the Christians discussing these matters on the web to be fundamentalists and sadly reached an irrational conclusion on how Christians were superstitious, foolishly unable to see past their myths, and not fit to come to rational conclusions on birth control, homosexuality, science, women's rights, etc. I live in a secular society and wasn't in contact with open Christians at the time - many of the believers here are moderate and 'weak in the faith' enough keep their religion to themselves. Fortunately, I made friends who were very open about their Christians and my irrational beliefs about them were shut down.

'Atheist' is just a collective term for people who have no belief in a personal god, the same way 'adraconist' could be a collective term for people with no belief in dragons. Trying to generalize such a huge group of people is as failed an effort as trying to generalize all blonds, Afro-Americans or unbelievers in homeopathy. The term 'atheist' encompasses people who simply don't think about religion and don't have a use for it, such as many Scandinavians, children who haven't gotten around to talk about such things, and many others who not at all fulfill the stereotype you've made for yourself.

Let's say I live in Norway. I don't believe in God, have no interest in or need for religion, and never give the matter any thought. I do, however, have a taste for homeopathic remedies as I've tried them and they work for me, and my family, as myself, have a psychic they've gone to that seems to have a strange ability to predict the future and has been right quite a few times. What part of this scenario is so unlikely to you?

Secondly, saying that atheists in your experience are members of the 'atheist
belief system' because your generalization leads you to believe that
...just doesn't work. It's as if I was to say that since every single Afro-American I've ever met on civil rights forum has clung to the belief in equality of the races, been disdainful of white politicians, and so on, then obviously Afro-Americanism is a belief system.

I suppose it's logically possible to be a creationist atheist or immaterial atheist or atheistic dualist, but have you ever met one? The people I've talked to here, at least, are almost all materialist atheists who place tremendous "faith" in the scientific method, the validitity of evolution, and the reducibility of mental states to brain states. They also scoff at mediums, psychics, and the existence of the paranormal in general.

When I talk to a fundie Christian I can almost make their arguments for them, I've heard them so many times. I know their belief system, in other words. Same thing with atheists- I know I'm going to get a disdain for religion (like I've already seen in this thread- as if education somehow disqualifies one from having faith), near-worship of science, and rolling eyes on the existence of anything paranormal.

It's been my experience that atheists CLING to their beliefs just as much as any other fanatical group you can name.I suppose it's logically possible to be a Negro and not like rap, but have you ever met one? The people I've talked to, at least, are almost all rappers who place tremendous "faith" in this genre of song, the hip-hop culture, substance abuse, and the idea that whites should be politicians. They also scoff at classical music and think the Houston Astros are a bunch of sissies, the wankers. When I meet a white surpremacist I can almost play out the entire conversation myself, I've heard it so many times. Same thing with Negroes - I know I'm going to get a disdain for whites (like I've already seen on the NAACP forum - as if Black Pride somehow disqualifies them from having tolerance), near-worship of G-Dawg, and rolling eyes on the existence of good music from people who don't wear their saggy pants around their knees. It's been my experience that they cling to their beliefs just as much as any racist group you can name.

:p

I hope and believe you realize this does not reflect my view on Afro-Americans at all:).

"NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 20, 2004--A national survey of 1,100 physicians, conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein
Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological
Seminary in New York City over the past weekend, found that 74% of
doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73%
believe that can occur today.Which means the US is a religious nation and that doctors aren't above woo, but nothing more. It occurs to me that if you asked the same question of Icelandic, Scandinavian or Finnish doctors, you'd get a far lower number of people affirming. Are doctors in these countries more or less qualified to answer on theological questions? And why do they ask doctors in the first place? Wouldn't anthropologists or psychiatrists be far more suited?

The poll also indicated that American physicians are surprisingly
religiousHardly surprising. I'd be more astounded if it turned out that listening to other peoples' heart beats with a stethoscopes somehow drove the Holy Spirit to tears and caused him to depart from your body in a fury. The US is a religious religious country, of course its doctors will be no exception.

, with 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a
reliable and necessary guide to life."Again, it's the US. It's not about their qualifications as doctor enabling them to say this, it's about their culture being religious enough for them to not imagine life without it.

Of course. I can't tell you how many atheists I've met who believe in reincarnation (Buddism), cosmic forces (Taoism), and the "infinite world of the Gods". (Shintoism). :rolleyes:OK, then. Next question: Why don't atheist Buddhists, Taoists, etc. count? I fear there's a True Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman) around the corner.

THIS is why atheists are 3% of the population- nobody can stand talking to you guys!How very tolerant, insightful and progressive. You are an example for your country to follow, you are!

There's not a single atheist here who doubts evolution, believes in miracles, thinks psychics are real, or belives in reincarnation, so quit acting like it's the norm. You guys have even invented a word to apply to anything that remotely falls outside your materialistic world view: "woo".Could it be not because we're atheists but because this is... oh, and I don't know... a skeptic's forum?

Watch me log on to a Houston sports site, analyze the posts of the Christian members, and deduce from my findings that all Christians, without exception, are interested in sports and cheer for the Astros.

:D:D:D:D:D

So quit trying to pass yourselves off as Buddhists or Shintoists. Nobody's buying it.Wow again. I made the 'I smell a true scotsman fallacy' as a joke, and wham, bingo! The shot in the dark hit an unseen bullseye:D!

I think I see where the disconnect is: I've been talking about atheists. You're talking about atheism. Even granting that there are some atheistic Buddhists, if you ask them what they believe, they'll tell you Buddhism (karma, enlightenment, transcedence, etc.).

My point was that people who identify and describe themselves as "atheists"Yes, I see the disconnect. Your replies here did not match the stereotype, so you move the goal posts. Either way your post is self-defeating. Your point was that atheism is a belief system because we all believe the same thing. Surely the fact that some of us are Buddhists, some Taoists, and others unconcerned with either disproves this stance?

Me: I've found the Chinese to be incredibly nerdy and arrogant. All they care about is drinking bubble tea and studying math. They don't ever have time to do anything but homework and look down on me for my low grades!
You: Really? Hmm, I'm on my way to hang out with some Chinese friends of mine, they're really sweet. Wanna meet them?
Me: Oh, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those other Chinese people.

uh.

[Mobyseven]

I think I see where the disconnect is: I've been talking about atheists. You're talking about atheism.

Dear Malerin,

Your epic fail is getting out of hand. We've already seen it, so there's no reason to try for a record here.

With much love and atheistic affection,

M7

[Malerin]

To Malerin.
I think your beliefs on atheists are strongly misguided. Let's go through your post and the ones following it, shall we?

Your problem is two-fold. First of all, you base your argument on the faulty 'well, every single (blank) I have ever met has been (blank)' generalization, rather than on actual facts.

Did you miss the statements of the major atheistic organizations I linked? American Atheist is not some fly-by-night group of wackos. They've been around 40 years, a lot of that devoted to litigation. I'll quote them again:

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

And their courtcases:

Murray v. Curlett (1963) Challenged Bible reading and prayer recitation in Maryland public schools.
Murray v. United States (1964) To force the Federal Communications Commission to extend the Fairness Doctrine so that Atheists could have equal time with religion on radio and television.
Murray v. Nixon (1970) Challenged weekly religious services in the White House.
O'Hair v. Paine (1971) Challenged NASA's religious use of the space program to require astronauts to read the Bible during a space flight.
O'Hair v. Cooke (1977) Challenged the opening prayer at city council meetings in Austin, Texas.
O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978) Challenged the inclusion of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.
O'Hair v. Hill (1978) To have removed from the Texas constitution a provision requiring a belief in god of persons holding offices of public trust.
O'Hair v. Andrus (1979) Challenged the use of National Park facilities for the pope to hold a Roman Catholic mass on the Mall in Washington, D.C..
O'Hair v. Clements (1980) This case tried to remove the nativity scene displayed in the rotunda of the capitol building in Austin, Texas.
Steel Crosses on Utah Highways (2005) [1]
Society of Separationists vs. Pleasant Grove (2004)
American Atheists vs. Starke, Florida.(2005)[2]
American Atheists, Inc., and Steve Walker vs. City of Detroit, City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.
Clyde Baxley, Grace Brown, Edward Byford, Bill Jager, Al Sundquist, James Woolever, Arlen Acharias, and Dorothy Anne Zappa Vs. State of Alaska.
American Atheists Inc., Mark W. Butler v. The City of Jacksonville, Florida (2006) (Sued for the city's tax-funded "Faith Day")[21]
Chester Smalkowski, Nadia Smalkowski, American Atheists v. Hardesty Public School District, The County Of Texas County, Oklahoma, The Town Of Hardesty, Oklahoma. (Filed August 2006)[3]
American Atheists Inc., Lon Bevill, v. City Of Stark, Florida. (2007) [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

So, no, I DON'T base my argument on every I have ever met has been (blank)

I base it on a large well-respected atheist organization. Some of you are pretty riled up about this, so I would recommend that instead of posting here, where few will see, write to THEM, and convince American Atheists of the error of their ways. ;)


'Atheist' is just a collective term for people who have no belief in a personal god, the same way 'adraconist' could be a collective term for people with no belief in dragons. Trying to generalize such a huge group of people is as failed an effort as trying to generalize all blonds, Afro-Americans or unbelievers in homeopathy. The term 'atheist' encompasses people who simply don't think about religion and don't have a use for it, such as many Scandinavians, children who haven't gotten around to talk about such things, and many others who not at all fulfill the stereotype you've made for yourself.

Children are atheists? This is loopy. According to you, babies are also atheists. Can we water it down some more? Maybe get zygotes in the mix?

THIS is an atheist:

http://oproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hitchens.jpg

THIS is not:

http://savingmonotiti.com/images/DaliLama2.jpg

Let's try it again. Atheist:

http://www.expansiveself.org/asimov-isaac.jpg

Non-atheist:

http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/nara-buddhist.jpg





Which means the US is a religious nation and that doctors aren't above woo, but nothing more.

It means that extensive education does not turn you atheist.

It occurs to me that if you asked the same question of Icelandic, Scandinavian or Finnish doctors, you'd get a far lower number of people affirming.

Source?


OK, then. Next question: Why don't atheist Buddhists, Taoists, etc. count? I fear there's a True Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman) around the corner.


Because Buddhists and Taoists are... Buddhists and Taoists? That's what they call themselves? That's what they describe themselves as? Do you really think a practiciing Buddhist is going to call himself an atheist? A Buddhist may not believe in God, but to them call them "atheist" would be just as ridiculous as calling a pacifist driving in his car "Amish".

How very tolerant, insightful and progressive. You are an example for your country to follow, you are!

This thread was headed for fail before I showed up:

I think you'll find "the inevitable result of better education and being more informed" is, erm, being "being more informed"; if you have ANY evidence to support ANY theism, please do present it. Otherwise, please stop farting - people are trying to think in here

Yep, real high level of discourse there!



Could it be not because we're atheists but because this is... oh, and I don't know... a skeptic's forum?

That would be true if you completely ignored the other atheist organizations I quoted (which you apparently did):
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php#who
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

I mean really. Do any of you, for one second, think that when "atheist" is muttered a picture of a Buddhist pops into people's minds? Isn't it a little sad I had to use a quote from American Atheists to support my argument against a bunch of atheists? Who's ********ting who here?

[Mobyseven]

Alright then. Let's set this thing straight, once and for all. I don't want to hear any more of your damn fool yappin' Malerin, so get it through your head --

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

You're on a freakin' skeptic's board, so you can be pretty confident that, among the atheists here there is going to be a high correlation with other similar beliefs such as the mind being an emergent property of the brain, and Sylvia Browne being a scumbag of the highest order. You better believe that if you went to a Buddhist discussion forum, atheism would probably correlate highly with a belief in karma and with vegetarianism.

Now, shut it already, and stop telling us what it is we believe. We know what we believe, in fact, we're the ones believing it. Capisci?

[Silentknight]

- nonexistence of souls
That's my fault. I got a little hungry last night.
- existence of physical matter
So wait, if someone hits you in the head with a hammer, you're saying that if you don't mind, it's not matter?
- nonexistence of miracles
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_219034907bbc4e4e4e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14180)
From http://sora-ko.deviantart.com/art/Naruto-No-miracles-5189981
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
You might be right. I don't see any evidence of any brain function behind that argument.
- validitity of the scientific method
Nah, mostly we just like to blow stuff up and call it physics.
- theory of evolution
The Raelians would like to have a word with you. But don't laugh, because they're the ones I'm going to turn the hammer on next.

Also, what Mobyseven said. :whistling

[Safe-Keeper]

Did you miss the statements of the major atheistic organizations I linked? American Atheist is not some fly-by-night group of wackos. They've been around 40 years, a lot of that devoted to litigation.And it doesn't matter. You could quote a major Christian organization saying that Christians as a rule have to be baptized and believe in the Holy Trinity and it wouldn't matter squat as many Christians don't live up to this definition - and are still Christians.

Atheism is a collective term for people who don't have belief in a personal god. Your problem is that you think 'atheism' is a term equal to 'Christian', 'Muslim', 'socialist' or 'environmentalist', describing a member of a political or religious movement or organization. This is not the case. As I've repeatedly stated, Being an atheist doesn't mean you automatically have certain political views more than being Afro-American means you automatically are a member of your campus Black Pride club.

And their court cases
[Long list snipped]I couldn't care less about their court cases, membership count, annual budget, or any other statistic. If they define atheists the way they do in your quote, they're being as arrogant as Christians who push the "if you don't believe (blank), you're not a real Christian" trick.

So, no, I DON'T base my argument on "every I have ever met has been (blank)"Yes, you do. You repeatedly based your opinions of atheists on your personal experience. I can look up the specific quotes for you if you'd like.

Children are atheists? This is loopy. According to you, babies are also atheists. Can we water it down some more? Maybe get zygotes in the mix?Babies and children do not believe in personal gods and an atheist is a person who lacks belief in a personal god, so yes, children and babies are atheists by definition, just like they are apolitical.

This is an atheist
[image snipped]
This is not
[image snipped]
OK, I'm stuck here. I've written out pretty much the entire post and return here, and again, I'm stuck, pondering how to handle this.

We've pointed out to you repeatedly that an 'atheist' is just a person without a personal god, the same way 'apolitical' means you don't have an opinion on politics and nothing more. I wonder, what is it about this that you have such a hard time accepting?

Your problem seems to be that you've redefined 'atheism' from 'a person without a belief in a personal god' to something irrational, stereotypical and slightly bigoted. Something like 'a person who doesn't believe in a personal god and is a strict skeptic, and holds a strong disdain for religion'. This seems to be the source of your confusion, the same way it'd confuse me if I defined Asian as 'a person with Asian origin and physical features and a Grade Average of 80+' and encountered Asians who had dropped out of High School and become gangsters addicted to heroine.

It means that extensive education does not turn you atheist.If that was the reason why you posted the various statistics from the various US doctors, it would've helped greatly if you'd said so. I can't read minds, after all.

It occurs to me that if you asked the same question of Icelandic, Scandinavian or Finnish doctors, you'd get a far lower number of people affirming.
Source?The fact that I can think of my own means that most of my "it occurs to me" moments originate inside my brain:).

The Nordic countries being highly secular, our doctors daily encounter people without religion, most of these people function just fine and live good lives... Nordic doctors are in my eyes unlikely to believe that religion is necessary to live a good life when this conflicts what they observe with their own eyes. Simple as that.

Because Buddhists and Taoists are... Buddhists and Taoists?And rappers and gangstas are rappers and gangstas. This is what they call themselves. Does this mean they're not also African-Americans?

Do you really think a practiciing Buddhist is going to call himself an atheist? A Buddhist may not believe in God, but to them call them "atheist" would be just as ridiculous as calling a pacifist driving in his car "Amish".I couldn't really care less what they call themselves. Water remains 'clear' even though I prefer to call it 'transparent'. I don't call myself Caucasian, yet I still fit the definition. I refer to my pets as dogs and cats, doesn't change the fact that S is a canine and M a feline. The term 'animal' has a negative connotation to a lot of Christians, who don't like to be refered to as such - but they still are. Just like how I don't like to refer to myself as 'Aryan' as I strongly associate it with Nazi Germany. I'm still, going by the definition of the word, Aryan.

What people define themselves as is irrelevant. Whether or not they go to temples and burn incense or ghost money matters not. What they wear changes nothing. I could wear a straw hat and kimono, dye my hair black, choose for myself a Chinese name, buy a Formosan Mountain Dog and apply for and receive citizenship in the ROC... and I'd still be white.

I also find it interesting that we've already made it clear that many Buddhists and Taoist do, in fact, identify themselves as atheists and that some of them even posted on this very board. I remember that this provoked a baseless True Scotsman reply from you as you gathered out of thin air that these Buddhists and Taoists didn't light incense and believe in spirits (or something to that nature) and as such weren't real Buddhists or Taoists.

How very tolerant, insightful and progressive. You are an example for your country to follow, you are!This thread was headed for fail before I showed up:
I think you'll find "the inevitable result of better education and being more informed" is, erm, being "being more informed"; if you have ANY evidence to support ANY theism, please do present it. Otherwise, please stop farting - people are trying to think in hereYep, real high level of discourse there!Being intolerant as a result of other peoples' intolerance leads to a cycle of mutual disdain which is in fact what is happening in the US right now. The militant stance of the few is no reason for you to start generalizing everyone, more than I as a Scandinavian could choose to spew off bigotry against Americans as a result of a poorly made anti-European statement from a drunken redneck.

Keeping your temper in check, even in the face of aggression and immaturity (I found the statement you quoted to be in very bad taste, too) generally gives a good impression of you, impresses bystanders, and often, as opposed to always, means the replies to you will be more mature.

I mean really. Do any of you, for one second, think that when "atheist" is muttered a picture of a Buddhist pops into people's minds?Do you really think that when "Sami" is muttered the picture of a director pops into peoples' minds?
Do you really think that when "Swede" is muttered the picture of a dark-skinned girl pops into peoples' minds?
Do you really think that when "Buddhist" is muttered the picture of a drug addict who uses Buddhism to better her life and is, without knowing it herself, destined for a bright future as a high-level politician pops into peoples' minds?

I'm very, very, very happy that stereotypes aren't dictionary definitions.

Isn't it a little sad I had to use a quote from American Atheists to support my argument against a bunch of atheists?Yes, indeed it is sad. It's as depressing as a Catholic fundamentalist trying to tell a Protestant that he's not a Christian.

As I've stated several times in this post alone,

[six7s]

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.
Exactly!
aka
Precisely
aka
Definitely
aka
Nothing more and nothing less

@Malerin
As there is a high probablity - given your track record - that you are too obtuse to accept such a simple facet of reality, I will endeavour to clarify some of your misconceptions

American Atheist is not some fly-by-night group of wackos. They've been around 40 years, a lot of that devoted to litigation. I'll quote them again:Please, don't bother... you're simply wasting bandwidth.

Although they identify as atheists AND there are many of them AND they have been around a while, their thoughts and deeds do NOT represent some sort of prerequisite criteria for atheism... as Mobyseven poitned out above, the criteria is simple:

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god


Children are atheists?
Yes, of course :)

A synonym for children is innocents; this (usually) does not imply guiltless, it means lacking in sophistication or (other) worldliness

Think... it won't hurt :)
Is it not ludicrous to suggest that a child can believe in anything before they have indoctrinated/exposed/call it what you want

This is loopy. Only if you're ('scuse the pun) hell bent on complicating what is a supremely simple concept... just in case you missed it...

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god


According to you, babies are also atheists. Yes... remember...

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god


Can we water it down some more? Maybe get zygotes in the mix?If you willing and able to think about the issues, I heartily recommend that you run with this thought a bit

All dolphins, trees, dogs, mosses, giraffes, lichens and elephants are atheists.
Why?

H. sapien sapien is, as far as we know, the only species on the planet to believe in gods... and we believe in many, many of 'em...
Why?

THIS is an atheist:

http://oproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hitchens.jpg

THIS is not:

http://savingmonotiti.com/images/DaliLama2.jpg
Oh really?

Just in case you have forgotten:

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god


Please name which god(s) the Dalai Lama believes in

An interview of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama where he speaks on happiness, compassion and Buddhahood (http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp)

WE ARE BORN TO BE HAPPY
By Parveen Chopra and Swati Chopra
An exclusive interview with His Holiness the Dalai Lama

The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?
Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

Who caused the law of causality?
About that, the Buddha would say 'the mind', never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself.

How did the mind come about?
The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is 'interdependent arising'. Talking of God, who created God? There is no point arguing. Dharmakeerti and Shantideva debate the existence of God and reach the conclusion that if we believe in a benevolent creator, how do we explain suffering? I remember a funny incident. In Tibetan drama, criticism is allowed and even the Buddha is not spared. There was this man acting on-stage and he was saying that he did not believe in God. If God made us, he said, instead of putting both the eyes in the front, one should be at the back! We would have been more efficient that way. Jokes apart, the idea is not to disrespect any religion but to analyze the nature of reality.

Source: www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp (http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp)

Let's try it again. Atheist:
OK

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god



Do you really think a practiciing Buddhist is going to call himself an atheist?
Hey! here's a radical idea! Why don't you ask one?

If they look puzzled, you can (by now, I'm sure) explain to them that:

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god

[Hokulele]

Malerin, please PM Ryokan and explain to him why he must be lying.

As was I. I'm a Buddhist and atheist in equal quantities, so took a few seconds to decide what to vote.


There are others like him on the forum, regardless of your assertions.


ETA: Heck, here is the link to the thread where that came from. Some of the other answers there might shock Malerin just a bit.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3504193#post3504193

[Quad4_72]

Yeah lets not complicate atheists too much here. It is just someone who does not believe in god. Now, someone who does not believe in god may indeed believe in woo, such as psychics, palm readers, etc and STILL be an atheist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah lets not complicate atheists too much here. It is just someone who does not believe in god. Now, someone who does not believe in god may indeed believe in woo, such as psychics, palm readers, etc and STILL be an atheist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.If only somebody could've said that earlier in the thread. Would've saved us a lot of headache:p.

[Prometheus]

Did you miss the statements of the major atheistic organizations I linked? American Atheist is not some fly-by-night group of wackos. They've been around 40 years....a large well-respected atheist organization. Some of you are pretty riled up about this, so I would recommend that instead of posting here, where few will see, write to THEM, and convince American Atheists of the error of their ways. ;)

I've been atheist for over 20 years. I've been American all my life. I never once heard of this organization until you mentioned them in this thread. Why would I give a rat's behind what they think atheism is; I don't even know who they are.


Children are atheists? This is loopy. According to you, babies are also atheists. Can we water it down some more? Maybe get zygotes in the mix?

Are you seriously suggesting that infants have god-beliefs before being inculcated by their parents? What if a Christian baby get's born to a Hindu couple?


THIS is an atheist:

http://oproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hitchens.jpg

THIS is not:

http://savingmonotiti.com/images/DaliLama2.jpg



How do you know what he believes or doesn't believe, beyond what he's actually said in public. He has stated that he thinks there is no Creator, and that much of his religion is superstition. Was he lying?


Let's try it again....
Non-atheist:

http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/nara-buddhist.jpg



Who? For all I know, this is one of them American Atheists that I'd never heard of before.




It means that extensive education does not turn you atheist.



This is a Strawman Fallacy.
Why on earth would it? Unless the educators were all atheists (hint: most are not) deliberately trying to achieve that effect, maybe. Do you know the difference between a correlation and a cause? It's been asserted that a significant positive correlation exists between NYC high school students wearing Reeboks and scoring well on Spanish language tests. Do you think the shoes make them learn Spanish better?


Because Buddhists and Taoists are... Buddhists and Taoists? That's what they call themselves? That's what they describe themselves as?

It's already been pointed out by others that this line of argument rests on a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
When asked IRL, I call myself a Catholic atheist. I was raised Catholic and though I stopped believing over twenty years ago, I still enjoy a lot of the traditional rituals which I continue to celebrate with my family. I suppose you could argue that, I'm not really a practicing Catholic, since I don't pray anymore, but I go to church, eat the crackers and sometimes even sing.


Do you really think a practiciing Buddhist is going to call himself an atheist? A Buddhist may not believe in God, but to them call them "atheist" would be just as ridiculous as calling a pacifist driving in his car "Amish".


I think there might be a False Dichotomy lurking in there somewhere, but it's pretty incoherent, so I'm not really sure.

If a Buddhist happens to be an American, would it be ridiculous to call him an American? What if she's also a lepidopterist; can she say so? Or is she required to only describe herself according to the religion she happens to practice.


This thread was headed for fail before I showed up:

Here, you are most probably entirely correct. ;) :)



That would be true if you completely ignored the other atheist organizations I quoted (which you apparently did):
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php#who
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html



This is a logical fallacy known as an Argument from Authority
Never heard of these other two groups before today either, but thanks for pointing them out to me. Here's a quote from your second link (bolding mine):

An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god, whether the god is called Jehovah, Satan, Vishnu, Allah, Loki, Zeus, or any other name. Therefore, atheists hold many varieties of social and political philosophies. There is no atheist dogma, and the Atheist Alliance International has no catechism. However, most of us are atheists because we are rationalists. That means we look for the best evidence in deciding what to believe. Of course, we don’t believe in such ideas as miracles, “intelligent” design, and “scientific” creationism. There are also popular notions which are secular and which a few vocal atheists may believe, but which have no supporting evidence. They are extremely unpopular among the great majority of atheists-rationalists. They include:

1. The appearance of “ghosts” or other spirits of the dead.
2. Reincarnation of human “souls.”
3. The denial of established historical events, such as the Nazi mass murder of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and atheists during World War II.
4. Astrology of any origin.


Sure sounds a lot like what others on this thread have been trying to get across to you.



I mean really. Do any of you, for one second, think that when "atheist" is muttered a picture of a Buddhist pops into people's minds?


This is yet another logical fallacy, known as an Argument from Incredulity.
Do you think that when "Buddhist" is mentioned a picture of Steven Segal pops into people's minds? What pops into your mind when you here the word "atheist". For me, it's an image of an atheist handyman character in an episode of the American TV show Good Times from the 1970's, since that was the first time I heard the term explained.



Isn't it a little sad I had to use a quote from American Atheists to support my argument against a bunch of atheists? Who's ********ting who here?

What I find sad is that it doesn't really matter who you quote or which evidence you present, because your "argument" consists of one logical fallacy after another. As long as your reasoning remains faulty, all the best evidence in the world will never lead you to a valid conclusion. This is why, for thousands of years people looked at, and even diligently studied, the natural world, but until they had the benefit of the Scientific Method, the best explanations anyone ever came up with for most of their observations were different versions of goddidit and other assorted magic spells.

[Malerin]

If only somebody could've said that earlier in the thread. Would've saved us a lot of headache:p.

ROFL! You guys are hilarious. Not only are you arguing against a decades old association of thousands of atheists (and several other atheist organizations), you've now reached a level of absurdity I didn't think possible:

children and babies are atheists

And with that undisputed statement, you sir have single-handedly increased the number of atheists in America by millions! A new political power has emerged! Behold, the NEW face of atheism!

http://www.mojduniya.com/images/thumbnailitems/Cute-Babies/babies_50.jpg

Well done. Well done, indeed! I think that about sums it up for this thread! Blather on.

[Safe-Keeper]

Sigh. When I restrained myself in my earlier posts, I did so in part because I expected this to result in you treating me and my fellow forum members with more respect, because respect often begets respect. It causes people to listen, to treat politely, to not consistently ignore others' points and ridicule them. Humans, when shown kindness, most often return the favor.

Again, I place emphasis on often, as in not always:rolleyes:.

Let me address the only non-flaming sentence in your post:
Not only are you arguing against a decades old association of thousands of atheists (and several other atheist organizations), Only decades?
Only thousands?
Only several?

You have a definition entrusted by 'thousands' for 'decades'. You have 'several organizations'.

This trumps the definition that has been in use by untold numbers of people since the time of the Ancient Greeks how, exactly?

In early Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek), the adjective atheos (ἄθεος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82), from the privative ἀ- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a) + θεός (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82) "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era), acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B2%CE%AE%CF%82) (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82) (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero) transliterated the Greek word into the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) atheos (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheos#Latin). The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity) and Hellenists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_religion), with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-drachmann-10)

In English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language), the term atheism was derived from the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) athéisme (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ath%C3%A9isme) in about 1587.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-13) The term atheist (from Fr. athée (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ath%C3%A9e)), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-14) predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-15) Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-16) Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-17) theist in 1662;[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-18) theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) in 1678;[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-19) and deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) in 1682.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-20) Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-21)

Karen Armstrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong) writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic) ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-22) Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism) Abrahamic god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_god).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-adevism-23) In the 20th century, globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization) contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-martin-24) Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-martin-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-26)Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology).

Again, Malerin, if several huge 'decades old' Christian organization of 'thousands of Christians' define 'Christian' as 'a person who has been baptized and uphold Traditional Christian Family Values, taking a stand against abortion, divorce and homosexuality', are people who have not been baptized and do not believe divorce is Sin not Christians?

[Malerin]

Who? For all I know, this is one of them American Atheists that I'd never heard of before.

Sorry, couldn't let this pass. That's Issac Asimov. Kind of a famous atheist. Like, REALLY famous. Just throw it on the pile of things you didn't know before, but do now. Hopefully.

[Prometheus]

Sorry, couldn't let this pass. That's Issac Asimov. Kind of a famous atheist. Like, REALLY famous. Just throw it on the pile of things you didn't know before, but do now. Hopefully.

Actually, let's try that again, but this time without quoting me out of context and removing the URL of the photo I was actually responding to, shall we? I'll switch the qimg tags back to img to make it a little easier for you.:



Let's try it again....
Non-atheist:

http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/nara-buddhist.jpg


Who? For all I know, this is one of them American Atheists that I'd never heard of before.



...and you then responded as above:
Sorry, couldn't let this pass. That's Issac Asimov. Kind of a famous atheist. Like, REALLY famous. Just throw it on the pile of things you didn't know before, but do now. Hopefully.


Gosh! I never realized ol' Isaac was a master of disguise. I guess that one goes on the pile as well.... :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ahem.... getting back to the topic....

Marketing. The Evangelicals took to marketing in a big way in the last few decades. You can look at the popularity of religions and work back to active promotion as the means of spread. Intelligence and education, sadly, are not enough to combat the marketing of religions because we aren't thorough enough in teaching critical thinking to kids.

Look at history. Catholics, Protestants and Muslims spread via conquering territory in the past. Once people figured out they didn't have to believe what the state promoted then you had a shift to religions selling themselves. The Catholics sent out their minions who built cathedrals and missions all over the world. Mormons sent recruits all over the world as missionaries 2X2 (teams of 2 for 2 years). Now the Evangelicals are marketing their "global mission". Along with the global marketing, the Evangelicals turned church into a major 3 stage production. There are big screens, national and international get-togethers, rock concerts, all filled with moving emotional unity.

Europe has not seen as much Evangelical marketing as we have had in the US. It may or may not take hold there given the levels of atheism are higher than here. But those groups are certainly trying.

This is how god beliefs have been perpetuated.

[Hokulele]

Good grief. Did an atheist run over Malerin's dog or something?

[arthwollipot]

It's been my experience that people who have belief systems find the very idea of someone lacking a belief system to be absurd. They can't imagine how anyone could possibly lack a belief system, and therefore atheism has to be a belief system also.

Is darkness a kind of light? Is cold a kind of heat? Is evil a kind of good? No. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of good, and atheism is the absence of belief.

[six7s]

Good grief. Did an atheist run over Malerin's dog or something?Yeah... but the dog jumped out on purpose!

ETA:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

[Hokulele]

Well, I think the entertaining byplay with Malerin offered 3 clues as to the answer to Quad4_72's OP question.

1) If you are forcing a definition of atheist on people rather than letting the respondents define the term, no wonder only 3% can be categorized thusly.

2) Most polls make the same mistake Malerin is making, assuming one cannot be an atheist and subscribe to any type of religion. As the thread I linked to earlier shows, people can all themselves Jewish atheists, Protestant atheists, Buddhist atheists, Catholic atheists, and probably more combinations that I can currently think of. Does the 3% referred to include any of these? I doubt it.

3) With people such as Malerin willing to paint anyone claiming to be an atheist in such a narrow and negative way, how many people would want to publically admit being one? Well, other than those who thrive on confrontation, I suppose.

Given that these issues are very real in the United States, I am almost surprised to see a number as high as 3%.

[plumjam]

This thread is funny.
It has to be the best example of denial-via-hair-splitting I've yet seen at JREF. And that's saying something.
Malerin's general point is correct - the atheists (it would be more accurate to describe them as philosophical naturalists) on this forum do exhibit a very striking commonality of beliefs on a whole range of topics.
That, folks, whether you like it or not, is a belief system.
The reactions to Malerin actually provide a bit more evidence for this.
To explain, it's been my experience that part of the belief system of JREF atheists/PNs is the belief that they don't have a belief system (they are somehow immune).. so the more you condemn Malerin the deeper the hole you're digging yourselves into.

To be clear, please reflect upon the fact that simply holding to a more-or-less mutually compatible number of beliefs about reality (belief system) in no way affects the claims to truth of those particular beliefs. In other words a belief system can be pretty much true... so try not to get your panties in a twist when someone quite reasonably points out that you actually do have one.

(Yes, we all realise that the majority of people here do have slightly differing belief systems.. the same could be said of Catholics, or Buddhists, or Communists, or Geologists... but simply pointing this out is no argument at all.)

[Prometheus]

This thread is funny.
It has to be the best example of denial-via-hair-splitting I've yet seen at JREF. And that's saying something.
Malerin's general point is correct - the atheists (it would be more accurate to describe them as philosophical naturalists) on this forum do exhibit a very striking commonality of beliefs on a whole range of topics.
That, folks, whether you like it or not, is a belief system.
The reactions to Malerin actually provide a bit more evidence for this.
To explain, it's been my experience that part of the belief system of JREF atheists/PNs is the belief that they don't have a belief system (they are somehow immune).. so the more you condemn Malerin the deeper the hole you're digging yourselves into.

To be clear, please reflect upon the fact that simply holding to a more-or-less mutually compatible number of beliefs about reality (belief system) in no way affects the claims to truth of those particular beliefs. In other words a belief system can be pretty much true... so try not to get your panties in a twist when someone quite reasonably points out that you actually do have one.

(Yes, we all realise that the majority of people here do have slightly differing belief systems.. the same could be said of Catholics, or Buddhists, or Communists, or Geologists... but simply pointing this out is no argument at all.)

I've highlighted the true part. :rolleyes:

[plumjam]

I've highlighted the true part. :rolleyes:
Nor is that.
But I do appreciate the addition of colour.

[six7s]

Malerin's general point is correct

PJ, seriously, you are so utterly wrong it's sad

Malerin isn't 'making a point'; he's just being an arse, a stupid, ignorant, stubborn, ridiculous arse

the atheists (it would be more accurate to describe them as philosophical naturalists) on this forum do exhibit a very striking commonality of beliefs on a whole range of topics.And now you're being like Malerin; this, too, is sad

This title of this thread isn't "Percentage of philosophical naturalists on this forum ", it's "Percentage of atheists should be higher today than ever?"; it is completely irrelevant to talk about "philosophical naturalists"

Please PJ, don't be an arse

:)

ETA:

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

[arthwollipot]

Malerin's general point is correct - the atheists (it would be more accurate to describe them as philosophical naturalists) on this forum do exhibit a very striking commonality of beliefs on a whole range of topics.
That, folks, whether you like it or not, is a belief system.No - where you see "belief" we see "understanding based on evidence". You calling something a "belief" doesn't make it so. You just can't understand how one can hold an opinion on something without that opinion being a "belief".

[plumjam]

No - where you see "belief" we see "understanding based on evidence". You calling something a "belief" doesn't make it so. You just can't understand how one can hold an opinion on something without that opinion being a "belief".
bolding mine.
Your 'understanding based on evidence' is itself supported by a whole set of more-or-less mutually compatible beliefs. For example, philosophical naturalists commonly have similar beliefs about what types of evidence are most valuable, which types may be barely admissible, which types ought to be inadmissible or denied etc...
For someone such as a Buddhist (Buddhists are not PNs in any ordinary understanding of the term) different beliefs about evidence would be pretty clear to see. In Buddhism 'personal experience' ;) as evidence, is ranked a lot higher than it is in PNism.

On the third sentence, can you please explain to me how it is possible to sincerely hold an opinion on something without believing in that opinion?

[Mashuna]

No - where you see "belief" we see "understanding based on evidence". You calling something a "belief" doesn't make it so. You just can't understand how one can hold an opinion on something without that opinion being a "belief".

Quite. I mean, I kind of agree that there's semantic hair-splitting going on. But there's a good reason for that. It's because otherwise the conversation goes from 'Understanding based on evidence' is the same as 'belief', 'belief' is the same as 'faith', therefore science is the same as religion. Best to nip it in the bud early on.

[Miss_Kitt]

Plumjam -- To me, holding certain ideas to be true due to compelling evidence is not "belief" in the context of philosophic or epistimologic discussion. One of the distinguishing characteristics of theists is that they believe in their god(s), they have faith that their holy book or revealed wisdom of their elders / teachers / holy men is true. They do not require evidence of anything other than that the Book (or tradition, in some cases) stipulates that this is true. In fact, there's no other way TO believe in a god or gods, since there isn't evidence.

I do have a belief system, but it has nothing to do with atheism or the usefulness and validity of the scientific method. I believe that loving and being loved is the most important thing in life; that individual people are the only irreplaceable treasure; that the only morality that truly matters is that which you adhere to when No One Else will ever know what you do; that the purpose of life is to live it; that admiration is a necessary (but not a sufficient) pre-requisite for romantic love; and that music is the most fundamental form of art. These things are beliefs, and most of them are loosely tied by my view of what human life is "about".

Regarding the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease as compelling is not a "belief." Holding to be true a number of things which are supported by the evidence, have been tested repeatedly by experiments designed specifically to disprove them, and are confirmed independently by different approaches is not a "belief system". So, while I suspect that most--possibly even all--of the atheists posting here agree that infected wounds are caused by the rapid reproduction of bacteria in the damaged tissue; and further, that treatment with drugs that interfere with the reproduction of and/or defense mechanisms of, those bacteria will cause the infection to subside, is NOT a shared belief system.

There are formal religious belief systems, that are truly systems. That is, once you accept the seven (IIRC) items of Faith, Thomas Acquinas can prove the rest of Catholic theology and most of the doctrine quite logically. Another popular Christian belief system goes something like:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

* "catholic" here does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but rather, being of one universal church under Jesus

I'm not being facetious, here. These are a group of related statements that describe a system of beliefs about the nature of the Universe, of God, of the Savior, and of mankind. They implicitly describe a path of life to follow, a set of consequences for failing to follow that path, and a mechanism for dealing with transgressions against the Judge. They are the core of Christian belief, pretty much without regard to denomination. While there are theists who are not Christians, by definition all Christians are theists; they all believe in Christ, and by implication certain things about Christ (that he was the Son of God, that he was resurrected, that the reason for his incarnation in flesh was to be the Divine Sacrifice for the redemption of the sins of mankind). That's a SYSTEM of belief.


This is different than seeing that the body of experimentation, study, theory and testing of the nature of bacterial infections is sufficient to know that it is true. And it's something quite different to say, "And you all believe that there are no souls" and think that that is somehow connected to accepting Germ Theory as true. (Also, for the record, there are a couple of threads in this very Forum where the dualist vs. materialist views of the nature of mind, and the existance of "souls", are argued vigorously from both sides by self-declared atheists.)

I hope this wasn't too boringly over-done, but I'm trying to be very clear and explicit. I'm so very tired of being told that because I'm an atheist, I also "X, Y, Z" when in fact I don't, or X but not Y, or...you get the picture.
It's bad enough that Republicans tell me I'm a Liberal and Democrats tell me I'm a Conservative.

Best wishes, MK

[arthwollipot]

On the third sentence, can you please explain to me how it is possible to sincerely hold an opinion on something without believing in that opinion?Does two plus two equal four?

Do you believe that two plus two equals four? Do you accept this as an article of faith?

I think the answer to the question "what is two plus two" is easily answered observationally:

(:D:D + :D:D) = (:D:D:D:D)

A statement such as "two plus two equals four" is not a statement of any kind of belief. It is a statement of fact. Like the statement that "populations of organisms experience genetic change over time". It is not something that needs to be believed, it is a statement about what is - what the world is really like.

If you like, I can equivocate this statement by saying that I do have a belief: that the universe exists, and we can learn things by observing it. However, I do not think that this belief can really be questioned without descending into solipsism, and I don't think that's very productive. So it's really not a belief either. But I'm willing to meet you halfway on that one.

[plumjam]

Does two plus two equal four?

Do you believe that two plus two equals four? Do you accept this as an article of faith?
Actually, yeah, it's a belief. In this case it's a belief that's almost certainly true (speaking conventionally). Are there any belief systems you can think of which disagree on two plus two equaling four? Probably not, thus it's not a very good example.

I think the answer to the question "what is two plus two" is easily answered observationally:
If you mean observationally via the senses then no, it can't be. This because AFAIK there are no 'discrete objects' mediated via the senses which are exactly the same. Applying numbers to sense experience is just a (very) useful convention.
If you mean observationally via mathematical perception, then yes.

(:D:D + :D:D) = (:D:D:D:D)

A statement such as "two plus two equals four" is not a statement of any kind of belief. It is a statement of fact. Like the statement that "populations of organisms experience genetic change over time". It is not something that needs to be believed, it is a statement about what is - what the world is really like.
It is a statement of the belief that reality can be accurately broken up into discrete parts. Yet most philosophies and religions (belief systems), including PNism would ultimately disagree with this, in that they tend towards monism... Reality being One, Indivisible etc..
All belief systems AFAIK, however, do accept the convention of numbering due to its utility.

If you like, I can equivocate this statement by saying that I do have a belief: that the universe exists, and we can learn things by observing it. However, I do not think that this belief can really be questioned without descending into solipsism, and I don't think that's very productive. So it's really not a belief either. But I'm willing to meet you halfway on that one.
Yeah, but that is far from being the only belief in your system.
Do you accept my comments regarding relative valuation of different types of evidence within differing belief systems?

[Egg]

One of the distinguishing characteristics of theists is that they believe in their god(s), they have faith that their holy book or revealed wisdom of their elders / teachers / holy men is true. They do not require evidence of anything other than that the Book (or tradition, in some cases) stipulates that this is true. In fact, there's no other way TO believe in a god or gods, since there isn't evidence.



If we're to avoid double standards, this probably deserves a similar treatment to Malerin's posts.

[six7s]

If we're to avoid double standards, this probably deserves a similar treatment to Malerin's posts.Yeah... if you're on drugs

:confused:

[Egg]

Yeah... if you're on drugs

:confused:

A theist is someone who believes in the existence of at least one form of deity.

I can put it in large, bold letters if you think that might help :eggwink:

The rest is the same kind of generalisation and supposition that Malerin has been accused of.

[six7s]

The rest is the same kind of generalisation and supposition that Malerin has been accused of.Good pharmacist, huh?

Please, do show I'm wrong to call you on this - merely by naming ONE (or more) of the gazillion theistic schools/cults/gangs/etc littering the planet that does accord with the following:
they REQUIRE MORE THAN faith that their holy book or revealed wisdom of their elders / teachers / holy men is true They DO require evidence of anything other than that the Book (or tradition, in some cases) stipulates that this is true.

[Egg]

Good pharmacist, huh?

Please, do show I'm wrong to call you on this - merely by naming ONE (or more) of the gazillion theistic schools/cults/gangs/etc littering the planet that does accord with the following:
they REQUIRE MORE THAN faith that their holy book or revealed wisdom of their elders / teachers / holy men is true They DO require evidence of anything other than that the Book (or tradition, in some cases) stipulates that this is true.

Are we assuming here that the elders / teachers / holy men / writers of the books, who had wisdom revealed to them, don't believe in their own revelations?

[six7s]

Why do you ask? Do you espy a loophole you might be able to wriggle through?

Just answer the bloody question Egg:

Either: name a theistic school or whatever that ain't built on bs scented turtlesOr: STFU

[plumjam]

Good pharmacist, huh?

Please, do show I'm wrong to call you on this - merely by naming ONE (or more) of the gazillion theistic schools/cults/gangs/etc littering the planet that does accord with the following:
they REQUIRE MORE THAN faith that their holy book or revealed wisdom of their elders / teachers / holy men is true They DO require evidence of anything other than that the Book (or tradition, in some cases) stipulates that this is true.

I'm afraid you're just exhibiting your ignorance of religions here.
There are lots of religions which encourage those who are interested not to simply take the word of authority/revelation as Truth. Instead they encourage people to test the teachings derived from authority/revelation in their own experience via spiritual practice. This is true of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Sufism in Islam and various monastic traditions within Christianity.
Go read about those, instead of focusing only on clearly disreputable examples of religious organisations in order to circularly reinforce your prejudices.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, yeah, it's a belief. In this case it's a belief that's almost certainly true (speaking conventionally). Are there any belief systems you can think of which disagree on two plus two equaling four? Probably not, thus it's not a very good example. But this seems to me where you and Malerin are going wrong. You are now including "2 + 2 = 4" into the "atheist belief system" on the grounds that atheists believe it. (And indeed into everyone else's belief system on the grounds that they do too.)

This seems to me to be an abuse of the term "belief system". I should say that anything that an atheist believes that he could also believe while believing in God is not part of an "atheist belief system".

(The analogy, surely, is with physics, where a system is a set of objects the interactions of which can be modeled without considering objects external to the boundaries of the system.)

For example: "nonexistence of miracles" would qualify as part of the "atheist belief system", if a miracle is defined strictly as a divine supervention of the laws of nature, since this would contradict the atheist's belief that there is no God to supervene.

However, to take another example, "evolution" does not belong Malerin's list, since it is as compatible with the existence of God as the claim that "2 + 2 = 4", a concept that it resembles in other significant respects.

[six7s]

I'm afraid you're just exhibiting your ignorance of religions here.
There are lots of religions which encourage those who are interested not to simply take the word of authority/revelation as Truth. Instead they encourage people to test the teachings derived from authority/revelation in their own experience via spiritual practice. This is true of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Sufism in Islam and various monastic traditions within Christianity.
Go read about those, instead of focusing only on clearly disreputable examples of religious organisations in order to circularly reinforce your prejudices.
Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism all ascribe to karma: woo!
Sikhs MUST revere their gurus because they are their gurus: woo!
Sufis revere Mohammed and believe in a mythical Allah: woo!
Christianity: well, do I need to point out the bollocks that Christians accept? woo!

[Jaxe]

Lol, this thread delivers...

I think the main problem here is that Malorin is mixing up the terms atheist with sceptic, and belief with faith. It's basicly all a bunch of strawman arguments.

Very simplified, I believe that if I push a pencil off the edge of my desk it will fall down, i believe it because i can test it, not because i have faith.

An atheist does not believe in any god(s), but is not necessarily a sceptic, an atheist may very well have faith in other kind of woo.

Woo cannot be tested, proven or even observed, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in it other than blind faith. I believe there may be something to this thing called gravity, because i can test it, i do not have faith in it. I do not believe nor do I have faith in burning in hell for an eternity because some god or other thought i was naughty, there is no reason to believe in it, nor can it be tested or observed.

And the "Mass?" post just made me crack up :D

[Egg]

Why do you ask? Do you espy a loophole you might be able to wriggle through?

Just answer the bloody question Egg:

Either: name a theistic school or whatever that ain't built on bs scented turtlesOr: STFU

I was talking about individual theists. Your question seems to be asking about requirements for organisations. Please could you clarify the question in terms of individuals?

[Quad4_72]

Lol, this thread delivers...

I think the main problem here is that Malorin is mixing up the terms atheist with sceptic, and belief with faith. It's basicly all a bunch of strawman arguments.

Very simplified, I believe that if I push a pencil off the edge of my desk it will fall down, i believe it because i can test it, not because i have faith.

An atheist does not believe in any god(s), but is not necessarily a sceptic, an atheist may very well have faith in other kind of woo.

Woo cannot be tested, proven or even observed, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in it other than blind faith. I believe there may be something to this thing called gravity, because i can test it, i do not have faith in it. I do not believe nor do I have faith in burning in hell for an eternity because some god or other thought i was naughty, there is no reason to believe in it, nor can it be tested or observed.

And the "Mass?" post just made me crack up :D

This is basically what I stated earlier. Getting back to the OP though, it just seems strange to me that with all of the available information and people's generally better education that there is still so much belief in religion. I could completely understand this belief if it were a couple hundred years ago, but today with the internet, many libraries, schools, higher education, and greater technology I am very surprised that religion still runs amok as it does today.

[Prometheus]

This is basically what I stated earlier. Getting back to the OP though, it just seems strange to me that with all of the available information and people's generally better education that there is still so much belief in religion. I could completely understand this belief if it were a couple hundred years ago, but today with the internet, many libraries, schools, higher education, and greater technology I am very surprised that religion still runs amok as it does today.

Old rumours die hard. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

[Quad4_72]

Now that I think of it, I guess one must examine all forms of woo to figure out why people still believe the silly things that they do, not just religion. Even though levels of information have increased, people still believe in astrological signs, psychics, monsters, ghosts, etc. I don't think those numbers have declined.

[Malerin]

This thread reached maximum failure when this went undisputed:

so yes, children and babies are atheists by definition, just like they are apolitical.

Never mind this directly contradicts the OP (if babies and children are atheists, then atheists comprise way more than 3% of the population), anyone who believes this nonsense should go up to a new mother or father sometime and congratulate them on their adorable little atheist. See what kind of response you get :)

[six7s]

I was talking about individual theists.Ahhh... so you do espy a loophole

Your question seems to be asking about requirements for organisations.Well, yeah... you may have heard the term organised religion...

Please could you clarify the question in terms of individuals?I suppose I could... but it would rather pointless to insert a loophole and invite you to 'show I'm wrong to call you on this - merely by naming ONE (or more) <insertLoophole>of the bazillion cherry picking individuals from one </insertLoophole> of the gazillion theistic schools/cults/gangs/etc littering the planet that does accord with the' etc etc

[Lothian]

This thread reached maximum failure when this went undisputed:



Never mind this directly contradicts the OP (if babies and children are atheists, then atheists comprise way more than 3% of the population), anyone who believes this nonsense should go up to a new mother or father sometime and congratulate them on their adorable little atheist. See what kind of response you get :)What makes you think that a newborn can come out believing that jesus forgives their sins?

Out of interest do you consider pets follow the religion of the owners as well?

[six7s]

anyone who believes this nonsense Which part of the following do you having difficulty in making sense of?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.


Oh yeah, another thing... belief in this facet of reality is irrelevant... reality is reality regardless of your beliefs

[Egg]

Ahhh... so you do espy a loophole


Well, yeah... you may have heard the term organised religion...

I suppose I could... but it would rather pointless to insert a loophole and invite you to 'show I'm wrong to call you on this - merely by naming ONE (or more) <insertLoophole>of the bazillion cherry picking individuals from one </insertLoophole> of the gazillion theistic schools/cults/gangs/etc littering the planet that does accord with the' etc etc

Miss-Kitt was talking about theists. I was talking about theists. You asked questions about theist organisations. What have loopholes got to do with it?

[plumjam]

Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism all ascribe to karma: woo!
Sikhs MUST revere their gurus because they are their gurus: woo!
Sufis revere Mohammed and believe in a mythical Allah: woo!
Christianity: well, do I need to point out the bollocks that Christians accept? woo!

Sixer, if willful ignorance was a pair of bright pink buttocks you'd make a most comely baboon.

[six7s]

If we're to avoid double standards, this probably deserves a similar treatment to Malerin's posts.

Miss-Kitt was talking about theists. I was talking about theists. You asked questions about theist organisations. What have loopholes got to do with it?Erm... I have no idea what you're talking about...

How about, for the sake of argument, we accept that you do know what you're talking about and return to your statement:
" If we're to avoid double standards, this probably deserves a similar treatment to Malerin's posts."

OK, go!

[six7s]

Sixer, if willful ignorance was a pair of bright pink buttocks you'd make a most comely baboon.Yeah? Ok... so... ameliorate my ignorance, please

[Quad4_72]

This thread reached maximum failure when this went undisputed:



Never mind this directly contradicts the OP (if babies and children are atheists, then atheists comprise way more than 3% of the population), anyone who believes this nonsense should go up to a new mother or father sometime and congratulate them on their adorable little atheist. See what kind of response you get :)

Malerin, I think its safe to assume that when talking about beliefs we are referring to people with the cognitive capabilities to comprehend them. Trying to define a newborn babies beliefs is very silly. Please stop.

[plumjam]

Yeah? Ok... so... ameliorate my ignorance, please

pop in at the library, lazy boy

[six7s]

pop in at the library, lazy boyPJ, don't be facetious

I have over 200 reference books in my own library, I have the greatest research resource in the history of humankind literally at my fingertips and I have spent over 12 months travelling around Asia and Europe - visiting many ashrams, mosques, temples, synagogues and cathedrals en route... and yet I am - according to you - ignorant

If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem

[plumjam]

PJ, don't be facetious

I have over 200 reference books in my own library, I have the greatest research resource in the history of humankind literally at my fingertips and I have spent over 12 months travelling around Asia and Europe - visiting many ashrams, mosques, temples, synagogues and cathedrals en route... and yet I am - according to you - ignorant

If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem

Why bother to go visiting many ashrams, mosques, temples, synagogues and cathedrals if you believe it's all a load of nonsense?
You just like the smell of incense? Or are you genuinely seeking for answers but don't want to admit it and overcompensate by adopting your usual aggressively dismissive attitude here at the RnP forum?
Just a guess ;)

[Silentknight]

Good grief. Did an atheist run over Malerin's dog or something?

No, I think they just ate his babies or something. Notice the context of his use of the picture of a baby? It's almost mournful. :D

Speaking of babies though, I think it's reasonable to say that those who haven't been exposed to any religious ideas whatsoever would fall on (0, 0) by default.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2190347b5ef5e6c753.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10827)

So no, I don't agree with calling newborns atheists, especially given the level of argumentation that people should be allowed to define their own label. They haven't decided, they can't decide, so leave them alone until they do some growing up and have a chance to think for themselves. This goes for theists too however. Muslim parents insist their children are born into Islam, Christian parents insist their children are born into Christianity, etc. but this isn't true either. I see no need to attempt to expand the term "atheist" to include as many members as possible in the category.

[six7s]

Why bother to go visiting many ashrams, mosques, temples, synagogues and cathedrals I "bother" to experience, first hand, as many cultures and traditions simply because I am intrigued and fascinated by the superficial differences that overlay what seems to be, on closer inspection, a common approach to Life, The Universe and Everything

...if you believe it's all a load of nonsense?It's not nonsense if your senses can interpret what's happening

I don't believe its all a load of nonsense

I think all woo is ridiculous

You just like the smell of incense? Not 'just'... I can live without it on a daily basis - but whenever I detect the scent of sandalwood I am pleasantly reminded of Mysore, likewise frankincense and St Peters

Or are you genuinely seeking for answers but don't want to admit it and overcompensate by adopting your usual aggressively dismissive attitude here at the RnP forum?
Just a guess ;)Wow! Do you get off by imagining that you can put your words in my mouth?

Just a guess

I am 'genuinely seeking answers', and I suspect I have some rather pertinent questions

To be told I am ignorant, that I should go to the library and that I am overcompensating by adopting my usual aggressively dismissive attitude by someone who, it seems, doesn't even understand the questions is - to be frank - ridiculously ironical

I wonder if you perceive a dismissive attitude simply because you are threatened by anything that undermines your woo

Anyhoo...

Are you going to even try and ameliorate my ignorance, or have you been merely dismissing what I have said because you're a blow-hard?

[Safe-Keeper]

This thread reached maximum failure when this went undisputed:
so yes, children and babies are atheists by definition, just like they are apolitical.
Never mind this directly contradicts the OP (if babies and children are atheists, then atheists comprise way more than 3% of the population), anyone who believes this nonsense should go up to a new mother or father sometime and congratulate them on their adorable little atheist. See what kind of response you get :)OK, I concede defeats. Your pathetic attempts at bullying deeply thought out statements and your many, many rational proofs has convinced me. The newborn baby, totally unaware even of its own existence and unable to grasp such basic facts that an object continues to exist even though it leaves your field of vision, is a Christian with a deeply held belief in Jesus Christ, even though they, like animals, don't have the brain functions to even grasp such a concept as a deity.

And drop the "OMG moar than 3% ateists" or "ur parents will b pissed if u said dat 2 them lol" statements. You're using appeal to consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequence)fallacies rather than actual rational arguments, essentially saying that

1. if P, then Q.
2. Q is undesirable.
3. Thus, P=False.

Or in other words,

"If ice cream melts, then it means the ice cream I left outside in the sun five minutes ago will now be melted entirely to liquid. I don't want this to happen. Thus, the ice cream has not melted."

As for your ridiculous "more than 3%" argument, what makes you think babies are included in religious surveys in the first place? How on Earth are you supposed to ask them what their religion are, hold up a swastika, a cross and a crescent and see which one their grasping reflexes causes them to latch on to:rolleyes:?

Saying that babies are anything but oblivious to even the question of whether or not Gods exist, is as meaningless as asking if animals pray.

ETA: Malerin, three questions for you:


If babies are not atheists, then which god do they believe in?
Are babies apolitical?
If not, towards which political direction do most of them lean?

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well put, Safe-Keeper. Bear in mind, though, that you're speaking to someone who does not understand what the word you're discussing even means, and appears unwilling to learn. Still, it is enjoyable to read the responses, so your efforts here are not totally wasted.

Others appear more reasonable, but it's still apparent that there are some equivocational axes to grind. Like this post:

This thread is funny.
It has to be the best example of denial-via-hair-splitting I've yet seen at JREF. And that's saying something.
Malerin's general point is correct - the atheists (it would be more accurate to describe them as philosophical naturalists) on this forum do exhibit a very striking commonality of beliefs on a whole range of topics.
That, folks, whether you like it or not, is a belief system.
The reactions to Malerin actually provide a bit more evidence for this.
To explain, it's been my experience that part of the belief system of JREF atheists/PNs is the belief that they don't have a belief system (they are somehow immune).. so the more you condemn Malerin the deeper the hole you're digging yourselves into.


Plumjam, you are here arguing that:
A subset (some posters)
of a subset (JREFers self-identifying as atheists)
of atheists
appear to you to share some other, unrelated beliefs,
therefore atheism is a belief system.

How ever did you figure that that one would fly? It seems important to you to demonstrate that everyone else here are no better than you in the 'belief system' category, and it may well be that everyone here has one (depending on your definitions), but atheism it isn't. Can't be. How could a single position on a single issue ever be a system of any sort?

No, I think they just ate his babies or something. Notice the context of his use of the picture of a baby? It's almost mournful. :D

Speaking of babies though, I think it's reasonable to say that those who haven't been exposed to any religious ideas whatsoever would fall on (0, 0) by default.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2190347b5ef5e6c753.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10827)

So no, I don't agree with calling newborns atheists, especially given the level of argumentation that people should be allowed to define their own label. They haven't decided, they can't decide, so leave them alone until they do some growing up and have a chance to think for themselves. This goes for theists too however. Muslim parents insist their children are born into Islam, Christian parents insist their children are born into Christianity, etc. but this isn't true either. I see no need to attempt to expand the term "atheist" to include as many members as possible in the category.

I agree with the sentiment that religious labels should be kept off children - or better yet, that tose labels would be irrelevant and wouldn't be accompanied with distrust from others of a different one. But it is accurate to say that people incapable of understanding the concept of a god can't possible believe in one - and are therefore atheists in the word's most straightforward sense.

Your chart puzzles me, by the way - why does it have a numbered scale for a binary property?

[plumjam]

I don't believe its all a load of nonsense



Then why do you repeatedly write as though you do?
Which parts are not, IYO, nonsense?

[Mobyseven]

A theist is someone who believes in the existence of at least one form of deity.

I can put it in large, bold letters if you think that might help :eggwink:

The rest is the same kind of generalisation and supposition that Malerin has been accused of.

Egg does have a point here. 'Theism' is no more a belief system than 'atheism'. There are many belief systems that incorporate theism or atheism, but by themselves they are merely particular statements of belief (not an entire system).

[plumjam]

Plumjam, you are here arguing that:
A subset (some posters)
of a subset (JREFers self-identifying as atheists)
of atheists
appear to you to share some other, unrelated beliefs,
therefore atheism is a belief system.


Well, you seriously err when you write 'unrelated beliefs'. The whole point is that they are strongly related, and part of a more or less mutually compatible set of beliefs known as a belief system.
Like I already said, substitute the word 'atheists' (of the philosophical naturalist variety) for Catholics, Communists, etc.. and people here would readily agree that a belief system is at work.
Unless you want to argue that Catholics do not possess a belief system.

[Malerin]

I found an atheist website as confused as most of you are:

"Atheism is not a belief system; if atheism were a belief system, it would consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that would used to provide guidance and stability in people's lives. Since it obviously does none of that, those who say that atheism is a belief system can't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about."

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/03/blogsnark-atheism-is-a-belief-system.htm

So far so good, though that last part would include the 2,000 or so atheists who belong to American Atheist, but I digress. Wait, let's bring that quote back one more time. Just too good to skip:

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

God how that must piss you guys off! A professional organization of atheists, littigating for 40 years on BEHALF of ATHEISTS, and they can't even get the definition right! What a bunch of schmucks;)

Ok, I really digressed. Back to About.com. Skip down a bit, and we get this illuminating back and forth:

"KathyJo, though, doesn't let this stop her from continuing with her rant...

"Atheism is a belief system, and it's the only one that is allowed within our public schools. By teaching only the theory of evolution and completely ignoring any mention of God or intelligent design, the public schools support atheism. By teaching that evolution just happens, the public schools teach that there is no God.

Funny, but I don't remember being taught anything about atheism in public school. Since KathyJo homeschools, I question whether she knows enough to be qualified to comment.

Teaching evolution doesn't teach atheism because evolution has nothing to do with atheism — most Christians and other theists with a modicum of science education accept evolutionary theory. Not teaching Intelligent Design doesn't promote atheism any more than not teaching that the earth is flat does — Intelligent Design is a valueless pseudoscience that has no place in science classes.

Contrary to the author's low opinion of the intelligence of Christians, I'm well aware of what the word theory means. I also have a dictionary. The first definition for the word is: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." By definition, evolution and intelligent design can both be described as theories on how life began.

KathyJo may have a dictionary, but she doesn't know how to use it — or how to understand science. Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as a theory in science because it doesn't meet any of the most basic requirements. It doesn't make any testable predictions. It hasn't provided consistent and fruitful explanations of natural phenomenon. It hasn't added to our body of knowledge of the world around us. That's why it's valueless and a pseudoscience.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/03/blogsnark-atheism-is-a-belief-system.htm

Belief in evolution? Check
Belief in the scientific method? Check
Rejection of miracles? Goes without saying an atheist supporter of the scientific method and theory of evolution will deny the existence of miracles: Check

So what are we missing? Materialism and the belief that mind is caused by brain. Luckily, there are more pearls of wisdom:

"All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain."
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_A theism.htm

So, mind a function of the brain: Check
Explicit endorsement of materialism: Check
Nonbelief in souls: Check.

So, from Atheism is not a belief system , I was able to distill the following beliefs:

- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution

Which, of course, is what I originally posted on page 1 of this thread:

How is atheism not a belief system? Aside from the obvious disbelief in God, atheists have strong beliefs on all of the following:
- nonexistence of souls
- existence of physical matter
- nonexistence of miracles
- belief that the brain is the cause of the mind
- validitity of the scientific method
- theory of evolution



Oh, and something else that seems to be common among atheists:
Smarmy arrogant condescending attitude? Check

Last thing: are we dropping babies off atheist rosters now? Has that idea been sufficiently ridiculed (ridiculed only by me, oddly enough :) )?

http://images.inmagine.com/img/ojoimages/oj035/pe0034006.jpg

Look at him beseeching you! Please don't take my atheism away! It's all I got!

Cruel, cruel people. :(

Put a fork in it, guys. Or take it up with the atheists who actually represent your BELIEF SYSTEM in court for a living. Something tells me they know a little bit more about atheism than the people here ;)

[articulett]

We atheists don't spawn as much nor do we brainwash from birth with threats of hell and promises of "happily ever after" for believing a certain story...

But there's hope for kiddies spawned as "warriors for gods"--there's the internet... and good news travels fast. The non religious is the fastest growing category according to the most recent Pew report--it's growing faster than any religion (and it "recruits" from them all).

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well, you seriously err when you write 'unrelated beliefs'. The whole point is that they are strongly related, and part of a more or less mutually compatible set of beliefs known as a belief system.
Like I already said, substitute the word 'atheists' (of the philosophical naturalist variety) for Catholics, Communists, etc.. and people here would readily agree that a belief system is at work.
Unless you want to argue that Catholics do not possess a belief system.


Plumjam, the fact that you have to clarify - the extra words in your parentheses - should be a hint that the word atheism alone isn't conveying what you mean to say.

As has been pointed out, just ask a buddhist or a raelian.

[Malerin]

Well, you seriously err when you write 'unrelated beliefs'. The whole point is that they are strongly related, and part of a more or less mutually compatible set of beliefs known as a belief system.
Like I already said, substitute the word 'atheists' (of the philosophical naturalist variety) for Catholics, Communists, etc.. and people here would readily agree that a belief system is at work.
Unless you want to argue that Catholics do not possess a belief system.

You still haven't gotten it! Atheist=Communist=Buddhist=New Ager=Taoist

These labels are meaningless! Nobody has any belief systems. Someone calling themselves an atheist will have no less than FOUR books on their person: Mao's Little Red Book, Das Kapital, Siddhartha, and The Origin of Species.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Last thing: are we dropping babies off atheist rosters now? Has that idea been sufficiently ridiculed (ridiculed only by me, oddly enough )?

(My bold). There's a hint there, somewhere...

Put a fork in it, guys. Or take it up with the atheists who actually represent your BELIEF SYSTEM in court for a living. Something tells me they know a little bit more about atheism than the people here ;)
Tell me again, how can a single position on a single issue ever be a system of anything?

By the way, nice logic there. I'll grant you that American Atheists represent all atheists if you'll concede that the People's Temple represents all theists.

Oh, and this:

Oh, and something else that seems to be common among atheists:
Smarmy arrogant condescending attitude? Check


Thanks, corporal Confirmation Bias. Speaking for myself, at least I'm not lazy and self centered enough to demand that everyone else adopt my stupid misunderstanding about a perfectly clear definition of a word in order to get my point across.

Atheist. A-theist. Lacking a belief in god. Learn it.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Damn it!

These labels are meaningless!

They might as well be, listening to you. No, they have specific meanings. In the case of "atheist", this meaning is "lacking a belief in any god". This is so easy to grasp that your refusal to do so seems odd to say the least.

I have confidence you'll troll on anyway, since this has been pointed out to you so many times in this thread alone.

[Damien Evans]

Uh huh. So you really believe there are atheists out there that believe in miracles, souls, and psychics? Do you?

I have a family friend who believes in all of the above, and yet doesn't believe in god. As The Atheist says, Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity.

[Prometheus]

You still haven't gotten it! Atheist=Communist=Buddhist=New Ager=Taoist

These labels are meaningless! Nobody has any belief systems. Someone calling themselves an atheist will have no less than FOUR books on their person: Mao's Little Red Book, Das Kapital, Siddhartha, and The Origin of Species.

As opposed to a creationist who's unlikely to have more than ONE book on theirs.

[Damien Evans]

Did you miss the statements of the major atheistic organizations I linked? American Atheist is not some fly-by-night group of wackos. They've been around 40 years, a lot of that devoted to litigation. I'll quote them again:



http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

And their courtcases:

Murray v. Curlett (1963) Challenged Bible reading and prayer recitation in Maryland public schools.
Murray v. United States (1964) To force the Federal Communications Commission to extend the Fairness Doctrine so that Atheists could have equal time with religion on radio and television.
Murray v. Nixon (1970) Challenged weekly religious services in the White House.
O'Hair v. Paine (1971) Challenged NASA's religious use of the space program to require astronauts to read the Bible during a space flight.
O'Hair v. Cooke (1977) Challenged the opening prayer at city council meetings in Austin, Texas.
O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978) Challenged the inclusion of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.
O'Hair v. Hill (1978) To have removed from the Texas constitution a provision requiring a belief in god of persons holding offices of public trust.
O'Hair v. Andrus (1979) Challenged the use of National Park facilities for the pope to hold a Roman Catholic mass on the Mall in Washington, D.C..
O'Hair v. Clements (1980) This case tried to remove the nativity scene displayed in the rotunda of the capitol building in Austin, Texas.
Steel Crosses on Utah Highways (2005) [1]
Society of Separationists vs. Pleasant Grove (2004)
American Atheists vs. Starke, Florida.(2005)[2]
American Atheists, Inc., and Steve Walker vs. City of Detroit, City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.
Clyde Baxley, Grace Brown, Edward Byford, Bill Jager, Al Sundquist, James Woolever, Arlen Acharias, and Dorothy Anne Zappa Vs. State of Alaska.
American Atheists Inc., Mark W. Butler v. The City of Jacksonville, Florida (2006) (Sued for the city's tax-funded "Faith Day")[21]
Chester Smalkowski, Nadia Smalkowski, American Atheists v. Hardesty Public School District, The County Of Texas County, Oklahoma, The Town Of Hardesty, Oklahoma. (Filed August 2006)[3]
American Atheists Inc., Lon Bevill, v. City Of Stark, Florida. (2007) [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

So, no, I DON'T base my argument on

I base it on a large well-respected atheist organization. Some of you are pretty riled up about this, so I would recommend that instead of posting here, where few will see, write to THEM, and convince American Atheists of the error of their ways. ;)




Children are atheists? This is loopy. According to you, babies are also atheists. Can we water it down some more? Maybe get zygotes in the mix?

THIS is an atheist:

http://oproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hitchens.jpg

THIS is not:

http://savingmonotiti.com/images/DaliLama2.jpg

Let's try it again. Atheist:

http://www.expansiveself.org/asimov-isaac.jpg

Non-atheist:

http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/nara-buddhist.jpg







It means that extensive education does not turn you atheist.



Source?




Because Buddhists and Taoists are... Buddhists and Taoists? That's what they call themselves? That's what they describe themselves as? Do you really think a practiciing Buddhist is going to call himself an atheist? A Buddhist may not believe in God, but to them call them "atheist" would be just as ridiculous as calling a pacifist driving in his car "Amish".



This thread was headed for fail before I showed up:



Yep, real high level of discourse there!





That would be true if you completely ignored the other atheist organizations I quoted (which you apparently did):
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php#who
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

I mean really. Do any of you, for one second, think that when "atheist" is muttered a picture of a Buddhist pops into people's minds? Isn't it a little sad I had to use a quote from American Atheists to support my argument against a bunch of atheists? Who's ********ting who here?

http://samuelpablo.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/epic_fail.jpg

[six7s]

I don't believe its all a load of nonsenseThen why do you repeatedly write as though you do?
Which parts are not, IYO, nonsense?PJ, you sad git, don't quote mine!

I said:It's not nonsense if your senses can interpret what's happening

I don't believe its all a load of nonsense

I think all woo is ridiculous

Maybe I left too much room and you just couldn't resist squeezing in some straw

My point was that the terms 'believe' and 'nonsense' are inapt; are phrases that include the term 'think' followed by 'woo' and then '[I]ridiculous/I]' hidden by your blind-spot?

[Damien Evans]

Malerin, your strawman burning is contributing to global warming. In the interests of the Planet, please cease and desist.

[Talby]

Dear Malerin: In case you didn't get it the first quadrillion times, atheism denotes the lack of theism. Babies don't believe in God(s), therefore they're atheists by defenition. American Atheists doesn't represent all atheists - anything they say about is irrelevent, since they only represent their member base.

It's pretty simple stuff, I've got to admire Malerin's ability to troll on despite having his arguments torn to shreds. Bonus points for remaining completely condescending and smarmy while at the same time accusing his opponents of the same.

[six7s]

Malerin, your strawman burning is contributing to global warming. In the interests of the Planet, please cease and desist.Fear not... it's all too easy to piss all over his posts

[Damien Evans]

Fear not... it's all too easy to piss all over his posts

:dl:

Nominated.

[Uncayimmy]

This is basically what I stated earlier. Getting back to the OP though, it just seems strange to me that with all of the available information and people's generally better education that there is still so much belief in religion. I could completely understand this belief if it were a couple hundred years ago, but today with the internet, many libraries, schools, higher education, and greater technology I am very surprised that religion still runs amok as it does today.

As I stated earlier, what's in it for the atheist?

* The most religious and superstitious of us all still benefits from the science they don't believe in, so there's no benefit there.

* You don't get to attend very many social activities based on your common disbelief. The few atheist groups out there don't have singles dances, pot-luck dinners, or vacation atheist school for your kids.

* If you're sick in bed, the old ladies at the atheist group don't come around bringing you hot meals.

* If you have a serious illness, the atheist groups don't have a phone tree of people to not pray for you.

* When you're facing death, you don't get to believe that something better is just around the corner.

Being an atheist is hard. It means disagreeing with the majority of the planet. And those people most often consider you either an object of scorn or pity, neither of which is very pleasant.

To be honest I think we should be more sympathetic to theists (not a typo). Instead of spending so much energy convincing them they are wrong, we should spend more effort telling them it's okay to explore their doubts. And, with the grace of God, that's what I'm gonna do. :p

[Zelenius]

It could be that Freedom of Religion created an environment where relgious memes were forced to enhance their parasitic nature, in order to compete.

I think that is one of the reasons the U.S is one of the most religious industrialized countries. I know this sounds crazy, but that is also one of the reasons I think atheists should be doing all they can to end the separation of church and state in the U.S - a state church would indirectly lead to more secularism and atheism. I sometimes find myself believing that if the U.S had an official state church all along, we probably wouldn't be so religious today.

Consider the U.K and the Anglican church. Or the Scandinavian countries and their official state churches. They guarantee freedom of religion, but there is no separation between church and state the way it is understood in America. Yet these are some of the least religious countries in the world.

Even in Iran, especially among the educated, there seems to be a lack of interest in religion and I think less than 5% of the population attends friday prayer services. I'm guessing(this is a wild guess) that at least 1 in 4 educated(has a college degree), Iranian urbanites would not consider themselves Muslim or religious in any sense. The number is likely higher for educated Iranians under 35. I think a similar phenomenon is developing in Saudi Arabia among the young and educated, but not as much as in Iran.

I base this information on the numerous conversations I've had over the years with Iranians and Saudi Arabians.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll admit I believe in evidence supported conclusions. But the problem in this thread is in the definition of "belief".

[Dr Adequate]

Well, you seriously err when you write 'unrelated beliefs'. The whole point is that they are strongly related ... But many of them are not. Specifically, the one about God not existing is not strongly related to the ones to which the existence of God is irrelevant.

... and part of a more or less mutually compatible set of beliefs known as a belief system. Mutually compatible beliefs do not a belief system make. "Aardvarks are edentate and Saturn has rings" is not a belief system, it's just two beliefs.

Like I already said, substitute the word 'atheists' (of the philosophical naturalist variety) You just rebutted your own point, thank you.

What about those of us who are not philosophical naturalists?

... for Catholics, Communists, etc.. and people here would readily agree that a belief system is at work. No, not really. It's quite possible that most Catholics do believe in, for example, the validity of the scientific method, but I wouldn't call it part of the "Catholic belief system", because if the scientific method turned out to be complete pants this would not disprove any of the doctrines of Catholicism.

Unless you want to argue that Catholics do not possess a belief system. No, I merely wish to argue that it does not include statements about, for example, what 2 + 2 makes, even if every Catholic believes that the answer is 4, as seems probable.

[Safe-Keeper]

If Malerin is a troll, he's a damned successful one, building off of the JEROME winning formula of making a ridiculous point, having it torn down, for then to restate it once the thread has gotten back on topic, throwing in a bit of sarcasm and insults every time while ranting on about how we are the rude ones. It's also the attack pattern that makes sure every one of DOC's posts reach 10+ pages and sometimes over a thousand posts, even when in reality they're usually won before Post 5, Page 1.

I've made several posts in what I perceive to be a rational, level tone, only to have my points at best be ignored and at worst ridiculed, in a tone that can only be perceived as everything but level and respectful. This hits a nerve with me because this thread was where I made my decision to be more nice to people on this and other forums, and I kind of felt I deserved to get something back for it. Oh well. Life goes on.

Last thing: are we dropping babies off atheist rosters now? Has that idea been sufficiently ridiculed (ridiculed only by me, oddly enough :) )?Me: 'Horse' is spelled with no 'a'.
You: O rly? Taste sarcasm-filled posts with pictures of sad/angry horses, you illiterate schmuck!
Me: I stand corrected. It's 'hoarse'.

Malerin... at the risk of sounding patronizing: as much as you'd love for it to be otherwise, it doesn't work that way.

ETA: Malerin, some questions for you:


Are babies atheists?
If they are not atheists, then which god do you reckon they believe in?
Are babies apolitical?
If not, towards which political direction do you think most of them lean?

I digressIf only.

[Quad4_72]

Malerin... at the risk of sounding patronizing: as much as you'd love for it to be otherwise, it doesn't work that way.

ETA: Malerin, some questions for you:


Are babies atheists?
If they are not atheists, then which god do you reckon they believe in?
Are babies apolitical?
If not, towards which political direction do you think most of them lean?

If only.

I already informed Malerin that debating what babies believe in is quite ridiculous. I think he may have ignored me though.

[Safe-Keeper]

Someone calling themselves an atheist will have no less than FOUR books on their person: Mao's Little Red Book, Das Kapital, Siddhartha, and The Origin of Species.Showing your true colours, are you? I'm surprised you left out Mein Kampf:rolleyes:.

[plumjam]

But many of them are not. So, many of them are. By which you have conceded my point in the first sentence.
Specifically, the one about God not existing is not strongly related to the ones to which the existence of God is irrelevant.
Which is a tautology.

Mutually compatible beliefs do not a belief system make.
And I never said they were. What makes a belief system is the exclusion of more or less mutually incompatible beliefs.
You can observe this happening all the time here at JREF, where the orthodox believers spend so much time and effort actively excluding those aspects of reality which do not fit into their own (philosophical naturalist) belief system. Hence so much ridiculing of the paranormal, religions, spirituality, anything that's non-evolutionist etc etc..
Anyone who witnesses this and maintains there isn't a belief system at play here is in deep denial.

You just rebutted your own point, thank you.
No, read back to see that in my first post I stated that using 'philosophical naturalists' would be more accurate than 'atheists'. Using 'atheists' allows wiggle room to introduce Buddhism, Raelism etc.. in order to bolster one's denial of actually having a belief system.

What about those of us who are not philosophical naturalists?
Does that 'us' include yourself?
I have never said everyone here is a philosophical naturalist. There are some theists and a few Buddhists (the latter of which, in my experience here, display much more philosophical naturalism than they do Buddhism.. for example I never see the regular Buddhists here 'standing up for' the parts of their religion which don't tally with philosophical naturalism... strange that.)

No, not really. It's quite possible that most Catholics do believe in, for example, the validity of the scientific method, but I wouldn't call it part of the "Catholic belief system", because if the scientific method turned out to be complete pants this would not disprove any of the doctrines of Catholicism.
That is kind of irrelevant. I would have thought it was pretty clear that the claims of any particular belief system only apply within the bounds of the areas in which those claims have an influence.
As Malerin rightly points out, claims as to the non-existence of God, are strongly related to other claims, such as the existence of souls, miracles etc.. (even after the nitpicking over Buddhists and Raelians is taken into account)
God-claims, soul-claims, miracle-claims, Darwinian evolution/ID/Creationism claims, mind/brain claims etc.. are very closely related in that they all hinge upon whether or not you accept or reject philosophical naturalism.
And it is fair enough for Malerin to say what he did, in that almost all atheists in this forum (including the Buddhists(I don't think we have any Raelians) regularly display the signs of being philosophical naturalists.

[Silentknight]

I agree with the sentiment that religious labels should be kept off children - or better yet, that tose labels would be irrelevant and wouldn't be accompanied with distrust from others of a different one. But it is accurate to say that people incapable of understanding the concept of a god can't possible believe in one - and are therefore atheists in the word's most straightforward sense.

Your chart puzzles me, by the way - why does it have a numbered scale for a binary property?

This is something that not too many people are going to agree with me on, I'm aware. I felt that to regard belief vs. lack thereof as a binary property was to take a black and white view of it, one which ignores a person's level of commitment for the sake of slapping a convenient label on him/her. People who self-identify as atheists do not tend to do so lightly, due to the stigma the label carries. It's usually only after a great deal of soul-searching and introspection that people willingly use the term atheist to describe themselves. I don't see it as a binary property because it seems to me that people have varying degrees of belief or opposition to belief. Note that this is not the same as a level of certainty, that's what the agnostic scale is for.

If we need to break out additional terms to describe those in between, I have no problem with that. I'm just one of those atheists who thinks that using the term to describe babies, pets, and inanimate objects is a little silly.

[Malerin]

This can be resolved pretty easily (but the responses were so over the top, I wanted to keep it going). Think in terms of de jure and de facto.

There is a de jure speed limit on American highways (65 on the freeway I drive to work on). It goes without saying that hardly anyone goes the de jure speed limit on American highways. The de facto limit is always 2-10 MPH faster. You can yell at me till you're blue in the face that going 68 MPH is illegal, and technically, you're right. But in the broader sense (de facto), you're wrong. I've been using that freeway for 10 years now, been passed by innumerable cops, my cruise control is always set at 70 MPH, and I've never received a ticket, nor do I expect to. I would guess the average speed on that freeway is around 72 MPH.

The atheists here are like people with a bullhorn driving on the freeway yelling "You MUST NOT go over the speed limit! It's illegal" while 99% of the cars are passing them by with impunity. Technically they're right, but in reality, no one's listening because the de facto speed limit is rarely the same as the de jure one.

With atheism, it's the same way. Technically, it's correct to say atheism is lack of belief in any god(s). It's true in the same sense that the speed limit is 65. However, in the real world, if a person tells you they're an atheist, it's a very good bet that person will have definite pro-science beliefs. You see this reflected in the views of atheist organizations. They're not stupid- they know how people view atheism. American Atheist (http://www.atheists.org/) is the best example of this, but not the only one. Atheist Alliance (http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php#who) is also right out front with it:

Who We Are

1) Atheism is living one's life without the supernatural.

3) Scientific inquiry has proved the best process for improving the physical welfare of humankind and should be pursued with vigor and without compromise throughout the world.

There is no atheist dogma, and the Atheist Alliance International has no catechism. However, most of us are atheists because we are rationalists. That means we look for the best evidence in deciding what to believe. Of course, we don’t believe in such ideas as miracles, “intelligent” design, and “scientific” creationism. There are also popular notions which are secular and which a few vocal atheists may believe, but which have no supporting evidence. They are extremely unpopular among the great majority of atheists-rationalists. They include:

1. The appearance of “ghosts” or other spirits of the dead.
2. Reincarnation of human “souls.”
3. The denial of established historical events, such as the Nazi mass murder of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and atheists during World War II.
4. Astrology of any origin.

These are the top two organizations when you google "Atheist" AND "Organization".

Even an atheist organization http://www.atheistsunited.org/about-atheists-united/programs/61-secualr-values-questions-for-the-candidates) that claims to have no belief system recommends it's members ask the following questions of candidates:

Ensuring Reason and Science Drive Public Policy

To promote science, would you endorse the teaching of evolution and refute efforts to introduce intelligent design (i.e. creationism) into our classrooms?

Would you support the replacement of abstinence-only programs with science-based comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education programs?


So even in an organization that professes to have no belief system, the questions they want their members to ask of candidates are heavily science-based and pro-evolution. About.com was guility of the same thing, as my earlier post showed. Is this really shocking to anyone?

Do any of you honestly think people are surprised when they hear Christopher Hitchens extol the virtues of science? "Well, I knew he was an atheist, but pro-science as well! I never would have guessed!" Like it or not, atheism is legitimitally viewed as pro-science, pro-evolution, anti-paranormal because that's what the vast majority of atheists (including the ones here) believe. Obviously, you guys don't like it, so I would suggest starting a grassroots campaign to set some of these wayward atheist organizations straight.

[Cavemonster]

Funny,
When I google for organizations of bald men-
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfa/bald/baldpride.html

I get across the board mission statements that have a clear belief system.
Bald is beautiful etc etc.

From this we can make two possible inferences.
1. Bald is a belief system.
2. There is a difference between organized groups dedicated to a human quality and those individuals who have that quality.

If you want to say that organized atheist groups tend to have a belief system, I'd say you're right on the money. Precision of meaning is important.

[Cavemonster]

As I stated earlier, what's in it for the atheist?

* You don't get to attend very many social activities based on your common disbelief. The few atheist groups out there don't have singles dances, pot-luck dinners, or vacation atheist school for your kids.

* If you're sick in bed, the old ladies at the atheist group don't come around bringing you hot meals.


These are two of the things that organized religion does that are really worthwhile. I think atheism worldwide would benefit more from working on alternatives to the community benefits of religion than by another Dawkins book.

[humber]

Of course atheists tend to have interest in science. What else? Is there some other method of finding and explaining that works better?
I consider myself to be an atheist. I am sure of that. If I have a belief, then it is that the scientific method is the best available for explaining the world around us. I have 'faith' that it will continue to do so.

[Safe-Keeper]

Let's play Malerin's silly game, shall we:)?

Google string: "What is a Christian?"

Webster's Dictionary:A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ or in the religion based on the teaching of Jesus.
Gotquestions.org:A true Christian is a person who has put his or her faith and trust in the person of Jesus Christ and fact that He died on the cross as payment for sins and rose again on the third day to obtain victory over death and to give eternal life to all who believe in Him. John 1:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%201.12) tells us: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” A true Christian is indeed a child of God, a part of God’s true family, and one who has been given new life in Christ. The mark of a true Christian is love for others and obedience to God’s Word (1 John 2:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%202.4); 1 John 2:10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%202.10)).
So we have disagreement. The dictionary says a Christian is a follower of Christ, while gotquestions.org says one must also have love for others.

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/christian.htm:A Christian is a person who has come to see themselves as God sees them. That is, as a sinner, a rebel against His authority - an enemy of God; lost, hopeless, unable to deliver themselves and standing justly condemned under God's righteous law; fully deserving the just punishment of hell. Click here for Bible passages that teach this. (http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/texts.htm#1)

A Christian is one in whom God has placed His Holy Spirit, granting them a turning away from their sin and enmity towards God, faith in what God has promised and causing them to live a life in the love of God and obedience to Him. This means they have a love for God's Word, the Scriptures; an obedience to God's will as revealed in the Scriptures; a desire to see God's reign extended in their own lives and the lives of others and a love for God's people, the Church. Bible passages that teach this. (http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/texts.htm#3)
That's three definitions so far:


Follower of Christ,
Follower of Christ, and with a love for others, and
A person who has come to see himself [...] as an enemy of God; lost, hopeless and standing justly condemned under God's righteous law; a person who has a desire to see God's reign extended in [...] the lives of others.

I have a friend who's Christian and does not view herself as lost or hopeless. I assume she's not a true Christian, then.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm:Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc.htm), Eastern Orthodox (http://www.religioustolerance.org/orthodox.htm) believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm), Jehovah's Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm), Christian Scientists (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_sci.htm), etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm).

However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again (http://www.religioustolerance.org/salvatio.htm)" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc.htm). Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal.

Other denominations regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
Things have grown even more confusing. My friend is baptized, but not born again. She belongs to the Norwegian State Church, which may not follow the items on the 'list of cardinal Christian doctrines'. Turns out you're not a Christian after all, K.

And look at this article (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/what_is_a_real_.html). Focus on the Family's founder states that another person "does not appear to be Christian". Focus on the Family is a huge organization, so by your logic this means they get to define who's Christian and who aren't. Excerpt:"Seventy five years ago, if a churchgoing Baptist knew somebody else was a Catholic, he would have doubts over whether that person was a serious Christian," says Notre Dame's Noll. "Today, if the churchgoing Baptist knew a supporter of abortion rights, you would not ask if the person was Catholic or Protestant, you would say, 'Well, I have serious doubts.' "
In other words, to be a Christian, you must:


A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ or in the religion based on the teaching of Jesus.
Not only that, but you must believe that He died on the Cross. You must also have a love for others.
You must at one point have seen yourself as a rebel against God's authority, as well as hopeless and so on.
But it gets better! You also have to be "one in whom God has placed His Holy Spirit, granting them a turning away from their sin and enmity towards God, faith in what God has promised and causing them to live a life in the love of God and obedience to Him. This means they have a love for God's Word, the Scriptures; an obedience to God's will as revealed in the Scriptures; a desire to see God's reign extended in their own lives and the lives of others and a love for God's people, the Church." If you love God, but not the Bible, you're not Christian!
And still it goes on - you also have to be Born Again! This means there's in reality a good deal less than two billion Christians in the world.
In fact, far less than two billion, because Focus on the Family is apparently in charge of determining who's Christian, and they have quite a narrow view.
Thought things were bad enough by now? Nope. Focus on the Family, a huge organization with thousands of members, has, according to its founder, the ability to determine who is Christian and who isn't.

It must tick plumjam, DOC, Malerin and the other fundies here off no end that using the Malerin Approach, there's such a confusion as to what a Christian is, and that the real number of Christians is so much smaller than they thought:(! It must also be infuriating that I have to sit here telling them, as Christians, what a Christian is!

Don't worry, though, by applying to Focus on the Family you can very likely apply for acceptance into the ranks of Christianity for you and your church. Unless you want to go against a huge organization with thousands of members which showed up on the first page of my Google search for "What is a Christian?".

Oh, and just so you scoffers know I'm right:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ovDfRZeiBnTtYM:http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/baby-gown.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ews2XTBsX-BL2M:http://www.cribonline.co.uk/funky-baby-clothes.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lo3I_H2N1cH3PM:http://www.channel4.com/video/images/mb/Channel4/video/clip_images/my_fake_baby/My_Fake_Baby_001_001_001_001.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:3XUUL3w-HU-pKM:http://www.cottontailbaby.com/thumbnail_images/baby_aqua_coverbaby.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:K7OZEmeoYye3LM:http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ipod-baby.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YeEyNDcQKINNRM:http://www.babyfeedingchoice.org/images/mom_and_baby.pnghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XRDIz9VpHUhc_M:http://www.wee-baby.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/wee%2520hat%2520on%2520baby%2520blue-1.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:UOW8zhw3cPmB5M:http://www.babytalk.org/baby%2520read%2520polar%2520bear%25201.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tqBcN9G80Nbq_M:http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fig20baby7.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:qO2Up35gyJ-LtM:http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/harp-seal-baby.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ndIvFTtx4ARosM:http://pinchmysalt.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/strawberry_colander_2.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YDI3QIG-W8KMDM:http://www.hib.no/aktuelt/konferanse/dokumenter/forsa/Bryggen2.jpghttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NLoawFWEMVxLoM:http://phoenix8.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/round_boobs.jpg
Therefore, I win.

[/Malerin mode:D]

As I stated earlier, what's in it for the atheist?

* When you're facing death, you don't get to believe that something better is just around the corner.Well. Technically, you've got a good deal of atheists who turn to some sort of belief in an afterlife or a god on your deathbed. I've read a book called Idas dans (which translates into, as you probably guessed, Ida's dance) by a Gunnhild Cornwall. The only book written by her, it's a deeply immersing and emotional read about her 18 year old dying from leukemia. In the end of the book, when death is inevitable (this is not a spoiler - the first chapter depicts the surviving mother searching Ida's favorite beach for a tombstone), Ida says she doesn't fear death as she imagines that it will be like Astrid Lindgren's fantasy land Nangijala, from the Brothers Lionheart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Lionheart). She pictures a land where her wounds are healed and "time doesn't exist", which means that even if her friends and family live for another half century, only take hours or days or weeks in Nangijala before they arrive there.

[Safe-Keeper]

With atheism, it's the same way. Technically, it's correct to say atheism is lack of belief in any god(s).Thank you. Finally.

[Wally]

/2008/05/round_boobs.jpg (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NLoawFWEMVxLoM:http://phoenix8.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/round_boobs.jpg)
Therefore, I win.

[/Malerin mode:D]

That is proof that god exists and wants us to be happy!:D

[ThatSoundAgain]

This is something that not too many people are going to agree with me on, I'm aware. I felt that to regard belief vs. lack thereof as a binary property was to take a black and white view of it, one which ignores a person's level of commitment for the sake of slapping a convenient label on him/her. People who self-identify as atheists do not tend to do so lightly, due to the stigma the label carries. It's usually only after a great deal of soul-searching and introspection that people willingly use the term atheist to describe themselves. I don't see it as a binary property because it seems to me that people have varying degrees of belief or opposition to belief. Note that this is not the same as a level of certainty, that's what the agnostic scale is for.

If we need to break out additional terms to describe those in between, I have no problem with that. I'm just one of those atheists who thinks that using the term to describe babies, pets, and inanimate objects is a little silly.

Thanks for clarifying, Silentknight. On reading that I think it's apparent that I'm from Scandinavia, where declaring oneself an atheist is entirely non-controversial. It does not carry the stigma you describe, at least I've never noticed.

As for opposition to belief, I'm of the "whatever rocks your boat" persuasion. That doesn't mean I won't argue the point when appropriate, or marvel at the limits of human imagination when people believe silly things, laugh when they say silly things or be sad when they do harmful things because of their beliefs.

Still, I both I find the word more useful when used in the either-or sense, and would probably take you up on the offer to expand and nuance the vocabulary if it weren't so loud in here.

As for babies being atheists, that seems obvious and, again, non-controversial to me. Not because I'm trying to claim them for my team, but because it's accurate. It's also largely irrelevant to most discussions, and I can see why you'd be careful with starting this fight in a place where the word has different and more unpleasant connotations.

As for objects, and to a large degree animals, still accurate but irrelevant in almost all cases.

[Malerin]

Since I'm not a Christian, it doesn't bother me at all. Your entire post is belied by the poster above you:

Of course atheists tend to have interest in science. What else? Is there some other method of finding and explaining that works better?

What else, indeed?

[Safe-Keeper]

Since I'm not a Christian, it doesn't bother me at all.So my points, like all the other points in all the other posts, went over your head, and you fall back to your old stance: "Your entire post is belied by the poster above you". It doesn't matter how rational or convincing your arguments are, because I've found someone who disagrees with you.

You're either a troll or utterly and completely shut off from truth, like JEROME and DOC.

As for babies being atheists, that seems obvious and, again, non-controversial to me. Not because I'm trying to claim them for my team, but because it's accurate. It's also largely irrelevant to most discussions, and I can see why you'd be careful with starting this fight in a place where the word has different and more unpleasant connotations.Exactly. Connotations aside, a baby is an atheist. Someone else said something about "not being able to make up your mind" and "getting a label stuck on you", and in a sense he was right - 'atheist' is a label. It does have connotations. But as I've said already in this thread, so does the term 'African American'. When you say you've given birth to a black baby, I get associations to things like the Civil Rights movement.

But the baby is still black/African American/whatever you want to call it (genetically, at least, as newborns don't have pigmentation yet;)). Malerin can post pics of black children and ridicule me for this as much as he wants, but no matter how racist a person gets, the baby remains black, regardless of connotation.

I think Malerin's problem is that he dislikes atheists so much he's terrified of the idea of us being more than a tiny fringe group he can safely throw to the ground and hold down with his boot. The idea that there are whole nations of atheists that are doing well, such as Sweden and Japan, is unacceptable to him, which is why he denies, for example, that Buddhists are atheists. His 'four books' statement makes it pretty clear that when he hears 'atheist', the word raises a red flag the same way the word 'gay' angers a homophobic person.

The problem is that I'm not planning to take infants into account. Babies aren't part of surveys, contrary to what he apparently thinks. The large majority of atheists don't want religion to go away. In Norway, where 60+ percents of the populace is atheist, every second resident surveyed believed in reincarnation and the alternative movement is disturbingly popular. I know Malerin will find some way to explain this away, most likely with some "they don't count" True Scotsman explanation, akin to:

Racist: Look, I'm sorry if this sounds bad, but I had another run-in with a black guy today. I find most blacks to be uppity, violent and untrustworthy.
Me: That's really sad. You wanna come meet my kayaking buddies? Two of them are black, and really sweet.
Racist [laughs at this]: Posh-talk! I know those people! Ever heard them identify themselves blacks? They're African Americans! Next you're going to start using babies as examples!
Me: ...

The KKK hates blacks in part because they're terrified the "Negroes" will take over the US and persecute whites.
Malerin hates atheists in part because he's terrified we'll take over the world and persecute Christians.
It's the old story of the oppressor who's secretly terrified of his victim because he thinks the victim wants nothing more than to do to him what he is doing to them.

Old soup, new bowl.

[Malerin]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.

[Hokulele]

What percentage of atheists belong to an organization? Why would such organizations necessarily be representative of their beliefs?

[ThatSoundAgain]

Sigh. It just seemed like we were getting somewhere.

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.

What, my argument that I can be an atheist and still have no "atheist organization" speak for me?

My argument that a single position on a single issue can't possibly be called a system of any sort?

Or my argument that you are simply using the word atheist incorrectly?

[Safe-Keeper]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.Unlike Christians, atheists don't see a need to slap 'atheist' on everything we do, more than we slap 'blonde', 'white' or 'left-handed' onto things we do. So your question is as stupid and misleading as asking for a White hospital, a Left-handed charity, or a Blond pro-science university. And I think that at the bottom, you're perfectly aware of this, and that you're giving me such ridiculous demands because you know you've been beaten.

Me: Are you still going on about blacks caring only for rap and hip-hop?
Racist: Point me towards the nearest African American Classical Music Appreciation Club.
Me: ...

Me: I'm beginning to find your stereotyping tiring. Do you really not realize that right-handed people, too, can be creative?
Racist: Show me one university by and for right-handed people.
Me: ...

Sigh. It just seemed like we were getting somewhere.I'm reminded of a Mickey Mouse story I once read. Mickey and Goofy visit CERN and are shown the particle accelerator... no, wait, that was a different CERN story. The one I'm thinking about is by Dan Brown. Either way, Brown has his protagonist descend into the particle accelerator for then to comment on how it seems to go in a straight line. He's informed by the CERN staff giving him the tour that it only looks that way because the accelerator ring is so huge.

So if Dan Brown for once tells the truth, walking through this ring must be like walking down a perfectly straight tunnel. I've driven through several in cars and buses. Let's say you do so with a heavy load on your back, thinking you're progressing in a straight line farther and farther away from your point of origin. Imagine your shock when you, having walked in a "straight line" for exhausting hour after exhausting hour, find yourself back where you started.

Debating with JEROME, DOC and Malerin... is a lot like this. You can trudge on for miles, but miraculously, you always end up back at Point A. It's like the horror game Trilby's Notes where the two teenagers try to flee the demon-infested hotel and discover to their horror that "all trails lead back to the hotel", and that they magically end up back at their site of torment no matter how hard they try to flee.

Despite this, I still appreciate that such wretches exist here on JREF, as this is one of the very few places on the Web where meaningful and educating threads can be spawned even from trolls. Seriously, it doesn't matter if it's JEROME, mhaze, Malerin or other stubborn goats making their presence known - I still learn a ton from reading the thread. It's simply amazing, and makes me appreciate this site more than most others on the Internet.

[plumjam]

You're either a troll or utterly and completely shut off from truth,
In your earlier post you accused myself and others of being Christian 'fundies'. Like Malerin I'm not a Christian (though I respect Christianity). Whether or not I'm fundamentalist in some form, other people will have to judge. Ironically the language you're using above is in itself deliciously fundamentalist.


Exactly. Connotations aside, a baby is an atheist. Someone else said something about "not being able to make up your mind" and "getting a label stuck on you", and in a sense he was right - 'atheist' is a label. It does have connotations. But as I've said already in this thread, so does the term 'African American'. When you say you've given birth to a black baby, I get associations to things like the Civil Rights movement.

But the baby is still black/African American/whatever you want to call it (genetically, at least, as newborns don't have pigmentation yet;)). Malerin can post pics of black children and ridicule me for this as much as he wants, but no matter how racist a person gets, the baby remains black, regardless of connotation.
You are using such a meaningless definition of 'atheist', and endeavouring to stick to it, come hell or high water, that you just end up making yourself look ridiculous.
So babies are atheists, huh? Given that AFAIK babies are not capable of formulating, understanding, or accepting/rejecting metaphysical beliefs this comes as quite a revelation to me. Of course, other entities equally metaphysically challenged would have to include bricks, IKEA sofas, sandpits, toilet seats, and chinese takeaways.
Given your definition you presumably believe that said bricks, IKEA sofas, sandpits, toilet seats, and chinese takeaways are atheists too.
If not, why not?

The part about the black babies is equally ridiculous.
A meaningful definition of 'atheist' would need to include an element of free, conscious, intentional choice of atheism as a metaphysical belief one wants to hold.
As far as I'm aware, being born as a black baby does not involve any element of free, conscious, intentional choice.

The reason it is fair to challenge someone on their atheism is that it is a conscious choice they freely made, and they therefore bear responsibility for it.
The reason it is unfair to challenge a black baby (or adult) on their blackness is that their blackness is not a conscious choice that they freely made, and therefore they bear no responsibility for their blackness.
(Not, of course, that there's anything wrong in having black skin)

I think Malerin's problem is that he dislikes atheists so much he's terrified of the idea of us being more than a tiny fringe group he can safely throw to the ground and hold down. The idea that there are whole nations of atheists that are doing well, such as Sweden and Japan, is unacceptable to him, which is why he denies, for example, that Buddhists are atheists. His 'four books' statement makes it pretty clear that when he hears 'atheist', the word raises a red flag the same way the word 'gay' angers a homophobic person.

The problem is that I'm not planning to take infants into account. Babies aren't part of surveys, contrary to what he apparently thinks. The large majority of atheists don't want religion to go away. In Norway, where 60+ percents of the populace is atheist, every second resident surveyed believed in reincarnation and the alternative movement is disturbingly popular.

The KKK hates blacks in part because they're terrified the "Negroes" will take over the US and persecute whites.
Malerin hates atheists in part because he's terrified we'll take over the world and persecute Christians.
It's the old story of the oppressor who's secretly terrified of his victim because he thinks the victim wants nothing more than to do to him what he is doing to them.

This really is a load of unfounded, and rather hateful, projection on your part. In fact, it's just a bit weird.
Have a beer and relax.

[humber]

What else, indeed?

And the second question?

Some scientists are theists. Literal believers in some religious creed. However, papers containing "and then a miracle happens" would not be taken seriously by their atheist colleagues, not I hope, themselves.
It's evidence that separates the two.
There are atheists who believe in ghosts. That is, they believe that the phenomena are natural. Some believe in ESP, usually resorting to Quantum Mechanics at some point. This is not the same belief that you find in religion.

I don't know how theist biologists can reconcile their worlds, except to note that humans are quite capable of holding mutually contradictory ideas.
Many Humanists are atheists, some atheists (me) do not ascribe to many of their ideas.
Atheists do not believe in gods.


I guess my point is this: If you throw a bunch of self-described atheists in a room together, do you really think a healthy debate about the existence of souls, miracles, mediums and karma is going to break out? Or is it much more likely that within a few minutes, deragatory labels (e.g., "woo") will be invented describing all of the above? Do you really think the atheists here are NOT the norm?

This forum is evidence that atheists do indeed "healthily" debate these matters, and that some have religious affiliations.
The one thing that atheists do have in common, is that they do not believe in gods.

[six7s]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.
http://rael.org: The Raelian Movement: Intelligent Design for Atheists
(http://rael.org/rael_content/index.php)
"Now is the time to stop believing, and begin to understand." - Rael.
The Raelian Revolution is boldly bringing about a complete paradigm shift on our planet. The Messages given to Rael by our human Creators from space contain the world's most fearlessly individualistic philosophy of love, peace, and non-conformism: a beautiful combination of spirituality, sensuality, and science.
ETA:
I think that what Raelians call science is more commonly known as 'complete and utter bollocks'

[Malerin]

Right then, so no anti-science atheist organizations. Shocking. Ah, but some of you complain, "No organization can represent me!" (which is strange considering Christian organizations were brought up as a pathetic rebuttal, but anyway). Well then, you should be able to at least find an athiest blog that is anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal. Right? Have it it!

Also, I'm a racist? :confused:

Plumjam has a good point: "atheism" has been so watered down, it is now possible to walk into IKEA and ask for the best atheist sofa they have.

[humber]

The Church of Scientology is an anti-science organisation, though not always acknowledged as a religion. If my interpretation of their beliefs is correct, they are atheists. There gods are other 'real' beings from another planet or something.

Perhaps there are organisations that may represent me, were I interested in being represented

[Mobyseven]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.

Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raëlism)

[humber]

Plumjam has a good point: "atheism" has been so watered down, it is now possible to walk into IKEA and ask for the best atheist sofa they have.

That will be from their "No Nonsense" range.

[Mobyseven]

Eating rice daily highly correlates with being Asian. But eating rice doesn't cause you to be Asian.

Can you see the difference, Malerin?

[Safe-Keeper]

[Everything that's been said before as well as deliberately misunderstanding even more of my points]I have an idea. Since your behaviour is so predictable, why don't we just write bots to do task for you? A plumbot could take over your posting here, and free up time for you to do more meaningful things, like, you know, reading a book or two.

Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism)No, wait, Ramelin, hold it right there, since I'm in the process of writing a post anyway I'll save you time...

omg but teh realiunz dont call themselves ateists rofl!111eveleven!11

:rolleyes:

This really is a load of unfounded, and rather hateful, projection on your part. In fact, it's just a bit weird.
Have a beer and relax.I sincerely doubt you know Malerin's intentions. I don't think you can read minds.

And no, I don't think it's unfounded at all, and hateful? Responding to others' bigotry easily comes across as such, but I find myself no more hateful than a homosexual defending himself against a homophobe.

Plumjam has a good point: "atheism" has been so watered down, it is now possible to walk into IKEA and ask for the best atheist sofa they have. No atheist sofas. The Muslim desks were offended.

Eating rice daily highly correlates with being Asian. But eating rice doesn't cause you to be Asian.You have two seconds to show me one Asian group committed to stop people from eating rice.

As I thought.

[Silentknight]

Eating rice daily highly correlates with being Asian. But eating rice doesn't cause you to be Asian.

Can you see the difference, Malerin?

Furthermore, eating babies highly correlates with being atheist. But eating babies doesn't cause you to be atheist.

Though I must admit, I find myself feeling quite hungry after looking over Malerin's posts. Maybe there is some connection between correlation and causation after all.

[Foster Zygote]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.

How about the Raelians?

ETA: Never mind, Six7s beat me to it.

[ThatSoundAgain]

So babies are atheists, huh? Given that AFAIK babies are not capable of formulating, understanding, or accepting/rejecting metaphysical beliefs this comes as quite a revelation to me. Of course, other entities equally metaphysically challenged would have to include bricks, IKEA sofas, sandpits, toilet seats, and chinese takeaways.
Given your definition you presumably believe that said bricks, IKEA sofas, sandpits, toilet seats, and chinese takeaways are atheists too.
If not, why not?

Plumjam, some of us have been quietly stating this all the way through. I do not have to 'believe' that objects are not believing in any gods. They simply can't. Thus it would be accurate to label them atheist (or apolitical or asexual), but why would you ever want to? What would you be saying that isn't immediately clear from them not having consciousness and mind?

The part about the black babies is equally ridiculous.
A meaningful definition of 'atheist' would need to include an element of free, conscious, intentional choice of atheism as a metaphysical belief one wants to hold.


A meaningful definition would need to include no such thing. It would need to include one thing only, namely non-belief in any gods. That's what the word means.

Note that until someone comes up with the idea of a god, the term is quite meaningless. It would be perfectly possible to be atheist without ever making a choice - if you've never heard of any gods.

Oh, and this (directed at someone else, I know):


You are using such a meaningless definition of 'atheist', and endeavouring to stick to it, come hell or high water, that you just end up making yourself look ridiculous.


Believe me, I'm completely sincere. I've been saying the same thing from the start.

The reason why it's important to me is that when people wield too wide brushes and too hateful projections at groups I'm part of, I get annoyed. That's all.


Plumjam has a good point: "atheism" has been so watered down, it is now possible to walk into IKEA and ask for the best atheist sofa they have.

Sounds like a splendid idea - why don't you do that?

The term hasn't been watered down, it still means the same thing as when we started. Not believing in any gods. Sorry you can't use it as shorthand for "arrogant communist sciency anti-paranormal hardnose who doesn't buy the BS im selling" or even "philosophical naturalist" and expect to be understood. Not where people are aware of words and their definitions, like here. I guess you'll just have to type out what you actually mean in the future.

[Safe-Keeper]

ETA: Never mind, Six7s beat me to it.And I already replied in #171 :D .

So babies are atheists, huh? Given that AFAIK babies are not capable of formulating, understanding, or accepting/rejecting metaphysical beliefs this comes as quite a revelation to me.You believe that babies can't comprehend the idea of a God, and it comes as a shock to you that they don't have gods?

Come again, please?

The term hasn't been watered down, it still means the same thing as when we started.He knows that. I've pointed out to him that the word "atheist" comes all the way from the Ancient Greeks and meant the same thing then as it does now.

He's a troll. Let it go already.

[Malerin]

http://rael.org: The Raelian Movement: Intelligent Design for Atheists
(http://rael.org/rael_content/index.php)
ETA:
I think that what Raelians call science is more commonly known as 'complete and utter bollocks'

ROFL!

"On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial human being was a little over four feet tall, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin, and exuded harmony and humor. Rael recently described him by saying quite simply, "If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed." In other words, they look like us, and we look like them. In fact, we were created "in their image" as explained in the Bible."

It is apparently lost on all of you that you are now using a swastika-loving group that believes in extraterrestial humanoids exuding "harmony and humor"(Um, isn't that considered "woo"?) to support your argument. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?

And even these sad people are pro-science and materialists:

"The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism."

"We have come to understand that through science they were able to manipulate DNA and from the inert matter of this planet created all life. We are now beginning to do the same in our own laboratories."

Finally, they consistently refer to themselves as "Raelians", and consider themselves as a "religion":

Do Raelians consider Raelianism as a religion?
In the etymological sense, yes we do.


Moreover, like Buddhism, Raelianism is an atheist religion which is to say Raelians' do not believe in a 'god' because gods do not exist.

Category: The Raelian Movement

THIS is your atheist anti-science anti-evolution pro-paranormal association? :rolleyes: They are very scientific, consider themselves a religion, and have no beliefs in the paranormal.

Well, you get an A for effort, I guess. Try again.

Edit: Oh, and now I'm a racist?

[plumjam]

I have an idea. Since your behaviour is so predictable, why don't we just write bots to do task for you? A plumbot could take over your posting here, and free up time for you to do more meaningful things, like, you know, reading a book or two.
I have nothing against reading books. Even when we take into account your genius insight that books are atheists.

No, wait, Ramelin, hold it right there, since I'm in the process of writing a post anyway I'll save you time...

omg but teh realiunz dont call themselves ateists rofl!111eveleven!11

:rolleyes:
Weak.

I sincerely doubt you know Malerin's intentions. I don't think you can read minds.
It was you being the mind-reader. Conversely, the products of your mind-reading did not tally at all with the many posts of Malerin's which I have read.

And no, I don't think it's unfounded at all, and hateful? Responding to others' bigotry easily comes across as such, but I find myself no more hateful than a homosexual defending himself against a homophobe.
Can you please provide some examples of what you would contend are examples of bigotry from Malerin? I haven't seen any, but maybe I missed them.
And what is with your references to 1. being born black / the civil rights movement, and 2. a homosexual defending himself against a homophobe?
I've already explained to you that these are different from atheism, in that atheism is a free, conscious, choice made by the individual.. which therefore engenders a certain responsibility and possible accountability. Race and sexuality do not.
It looks like you're trying to make a (fallacious) link between atheism on the one hand, and racial and sexual discrimination / persecution on the other.
Why?
So you can play the victim, and gleefully accuse others of bigotry?

You have two seconds to show me one Asian group committed to stop people from eating rice.
Please explain the relevance of this.

[plumjam]

A meaningful definition would need to include no such thing. It would need to include one thing only, namely non-belief in any gods. That's what the word means.

Note that until someone comes up with the idea of a god, the term is quite meaningless. It would be perfectly possible to be atheist without ever making a choice - if you've never heard of any gods.

The term hasn't been watered down, it still means the same thing as when we started. Not believing in any gods.

What term, then, should be used to describe a conscious being who has heard about God(s) but actively believes God(s) doesn't / don't exist?

[Dr Adequate]

THIS is your atheist anti-science anti-evolution pro-paranormal association? :rolleyes: They are very scientific ... Did you just call the Raelians "very scientific"?

Oh look, you did.

[Hokulele]

It is apparently lost on all of you that you are now using a swastika-loving group that believes in extraterrestial humanoids exuding "harmony and humor"(Um, isn't that considered "woo"?) to support your argument. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?


Yes, I am arguing that being an atheist does not make someone a rationalist, a skeptic, a scientist, a materialist (or whatever plumjam is calling those these days), a Democrat, a Republican, or pretty much anything else. I have explained all along that it is entirely possible to be an atheist and religious. It is entirely possible to be an atheist and believe in all sorts of crazy, paranormal phenomena.

Everything in this post of yours supports that. Thank you for agreeing.

[Cavemonster]

ROFL!


It is apparently lost on all of you that you are now using a swastika-loving group that believes in extraterrestial humanoids exuding "harmony and humor"(Um, isn't that considered "woo"?) to support your argument. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?


When the point is that those who are atheist do not all share a set of beliefs, I think a group of atheists with a ridiculous set of beliefs including woo is a wonderful example when compared to other groups.



And even these sad people are pro-science and materialists:

"The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism."

"We have come to understand that through science they were able to manipulate DNA and from the inert matter of this planet created all life. We are now beginning to do the same in our own laboratories."


Using the word "science" is not equal to using science. Practicioners of Homeopathy and Christian Scientists use it as well.


Finally, they consistently refer to themselves as "Raelians", and consider themselves as a "religion":

THIS is your atheist anti-science anti-evolution pro-paranormal association? :rolleyes: They are very scientific, consider themselves a religion, and have no beliefs in the paranormal.

Well, you get an A for effort, I guess. Try again.
[/quote]

Did you miss the part where
Atheism is lack of a belief in God?

Atheists can be part of a religion. That is the whole point we are trying to make. Atheism means one thing (see above)

The fact that many who self identify as Atheists also hold beliefs in common does not redefine atheism in any meaningful way.

You have defined atheism in a way that is contrary to the real meaning and now you are using your definition to 'disprove' evidence that your definition is faulty.

[Safe-Keeper]

:puts the troll on ignore and abandons wreck of an Infinite Loop of Doom thread:

[ThatSoundAgain]

What term, then, should be used to describe a conscious being who has heard about God(s) but actively believes God(s) doesn't / don't exist?

Given the definition for the word atheist I've stated numerous times in this thread, and which you even quote, what would you think?

Do you think we need separate terms for the two?

[Uncayimmy]

Atheism is lack of a belief in God?


The fact that you capitalized God should give you a clue that there's a little more to it than that. Clearly we're in a world that believes in a variety of different gods. So from that majority view those folks think of atheism as a denial rather than a lack of belief. Thus a child cannot be an atheist anymore than a slice of pizza can because neither is aware of what it is they are denying.

It makes sense in that if there were never any theism there would be no atheism. There is no atukenfarkism, right? That's because we have no tukenfarkists from which people feel the need to differentiate themselves. Thus from their perspective theists came first, so obviously atheists are denying something that is so obvious if you'd just have faith.

Along those same lines theists tend to hang out together with other theists of the same flavor. They look to leaders for inspiration and guidance in believing. It's only natural that they project that "system" onto atheists.

So, yeh, I wouldn't argue against anyone who said atheism is a lack of belief in god. If someone told me, "no, it's a denial of god" then I might respond, "As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to do deny. I just don't believe there is a god. If you can't accept that, then maybe you should pray that God shows you that there is no god." Then during their initial confusion I'd excuse myself and go somewhere else.

What I wouldn't do is waste a lot of time arguing with a theist about the definition of atheist (read that aloud!). Well, I might do it, but only to yank his or her chain.

*I'd tell him that I can't work on Tuesday evenings because that's the atheist Evening o' Worship.

* I'd explain the atheist phone tree where if someone gets sick, we all call each other to make sure we stay away so we don't get sick ourselves.

* I'd tell him that *my* atheist society is the only true atheist society because the others all don't worship false gods.

[articulett]

atheism is a non belief in gods...

it is no more a belief system than non-belief in Scientology
or non belief in reincarnation
or non belief in fairies
or non belief in demons


It's just a non belief in gods. Many, if not most atheists, have a strong belief in rationality and evidence-- many consider themselves humanists...most are skeptics-- few think faith is a means of knowledge-- but atheism, itself, is just a non belief in gods.

Atheists feel the same way about all gods that the believer feels about all "other" gods of other myths and other religions-- (but each believer needs to vilify the atheist to keep from understanding this fact, I suspect.)

[Dr Adequate]

So, many of them are. No.

By which you have conceded my point in the first sentence. No.

Which is a tautology. And one of which you seem to need reminding.

And I never said they were. What makes a belief system is the exclusion of more or less mutually incompatible beliefs.
You can observe this happening all the time here at JREF, where the orthodox believers spend so much time and effort actively excluding those aspects of reality which do not fit into their own (philosophical naturalist) belief system. Hence so much ridiculing of the paranormal, religions, spirituality, anything that's non-evolutionist etc etc..
Anyone who witnesses this and maintains there isn't a belief system at play here is in deep denial. You forgot to mention the ridicule heaped on 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Because that doesn't fit in with your risible attempt at amateur psychology.

Has it never occurred to you that people might ridicule stuff because it's ridiculous?

No, read back to see that in my first post I stated that using 'philosophical naturalists' would be more accurate than 'atheists'. Using 'atheists' allows wiggle room to introduce Buddhism, Raelism etc To put it in a less flattering way, you have moved the goalposts so that Malerin's ball has a chance of going through them.

.. in order to bolster one's denial of actually having a belief system. No-one, I think, has denied having a belief system.

Does that 'us' include yourself? Yes.

I have never said everyone here is a philosophical naturalist. There are some theists and a few Buddhists (the latter of which, in my experience here, display much more philosophical naturalism than they do Buddhism.. for example I never see the regular Buddhists here 'standing up for' the parts of their religion which don't tally with philosophical naturalism... strange that.) Your objections to Buddhists must be taken up with posters other than I.

That is kind of irrelevant. I would have thought it was pretty clear that the claims of any particular belief system only apply within the bounds of the areas in which those claims have an influence. Which is exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

As Malerin rightly points out, claims as to the non-existence of God, are strongly related to other claims ... As I have rightly pointed out too. I gave as an example the logical relation of the claim that there had been a divine supervention in the course of nature with the claim that there is no God.

(even after the nitpicking over Buddhists and Raelians is taken into account) Ah, yes, "nitpicking". That's when people point out the facts that contradict your thesis, isn't it?

God-claims, soul-claims, miracle-claims, Darwinian evolution/ID/Creationism claims, mind/brain claims etc.. are very closely related in that they all hinge upon whether or not you accept or reject philosophical naturalism. No.

And it is fair enough for Malerin to say what he did, in that almost all atheists in this forum (including the Buddhists(I don't think we have any Raelians) regularly display the signs of being philosophical naturalists. And I dare say some of them are. And if any of them are lurking on this thread, I urge them to say hello and make their presence known.

[Dr Adequate]

What term, then, should be used to describe a conscious being who has heard about God(s) but actively believes God(s) doesn't / don't exist? The technical term is "positive atheist".

[arthwollipot]

Wow. I take one day off and look what happens.

I was asked certain things way back at the beginning of this thread, but now that it's got so long, responding them would be more or less a derail.

[six7s]

<anecdote>
We have just had a barbecue, during which maybe a a dozen or so (not many) kids called by announcing 'trick or treat' as, on this side of the date line, it is Hallowe'en - something that very few Kiwis understand, much less commemorate... but the kids like it...

Anyhoo... when it became apparent that we were totally unprepared, a friend/neighbour said "well, yeah, you guys are atheists, so why would you?", to which another friend (a practicing Catholic) replied "yeah... but you can be an atheist and believe in ghosts 'n' stuff"

I smiled and thought of this thread
</anecdote>

[westprog]

You believe that babies can't comprehend the idea of a God, and it comes as a shock to you that they don't have gods?


If simply not believing in God is sufficient, a cat or a rock could be considered to be an atheist. A sensible definition would assume that the being has a capacity to believe in God, but has not exercised it.

[plumjam]

No.
How not?

No.
How not?

And one of which you seem to need reminding.
No, that was your mistaken projection.

You forgot to mention the ridicule heaped on 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Because that doesn't fit in with your risible attempt at amateur psychology.
How is that at all relevant?
Unlike the other examples I mentioned, relative beliefs on what actually happened in what almost all the population view as an entirely natural event not surprisingly will not hinge on one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism/supernaturalism.

Has it never occurred to you that people might ridicule stuff because it's ridiculous?
Again, not relevant.

To put it in a less flattering way, you have moved the goalposts so that Malerin's ball has a chance of going through them.
Malerin could have stated his point more accurately, yes.
His 35 yard shot was going to clip the outside of the post, so I nimbly danced between two defenders and gave it a glancing header to make the back of the net bulge. WEMBLEY!

No-one, I think, has denied having a belief system.
You can't have been reading the thread too closely. Nor the forum in general. The place is alive with people trying to deny they believe in stuff.

Yes
So you are not a philosophical naturalist? I'm surprised. Does that make you a philosophical supernaturalist? Or something else?

Ah, yes, "nitpicking". That's when people point out the facts that contradict your thesis, isn't it?
No, it's when (in this case) people who are in clear denial focus on a small inaccuracy in an argument in order to be able to ignore that argument's general validity and uncomfortable consequences.

No.
How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism?

[Hokulele]

If simply not believing in God is sufficient, a cat or a rock could be considered to be an atheist. A sensible definition would assume that the being has a capacity to believe in God, but has not exercised it.


For me, I do not mind having a generic term for non-belief in god(s) (atheism), just as there is a generic term for belief in god(s) (theism). Just as theism can be further broken down into pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, and many other flavors, sects, and denominations, so too atheism can be further broken down into non-theism (better for babies), ignostic, apatheistic, and many other etc, etc. The problem is that Malerin and plumjam are insisting that one division of atheism must represent all atheists.

This is as mistaken as claiming the beliefs of polytheists, or worse, a specific group of polytheists, must apply to all theists.

[Lonewulf]

You're born without knowledge of gods. Is this fact or fiction?

Does anyone have evidence that children innately "know" that God exists, or a series of gods, or any of the above? Or must it be taught to them?

I didn't know much about Greek mythology as a child, except when I read through the stories, or had them read to me by my mother. But then, I suppose Greek mythology is the "false" mythos.

[Dr Adequate]

How not? Because many from several may leave but a few.

How not? How?

You assert that I concede your point. I say that I do not. I think that the burden of proof is on you.

No, that was your mistaken projection. I wonder what you think "projection" means.

If you're going to indulge in witless psychobabble as a substitute for argument, you could try to make it vaguely plausible.

How is that at all relevant? Because it shows up your ludicrous attempt at amateur psychoanalysis as bollocks.

Unlike the other examples I mentioned, relative beliefs on what actually happened in what almost all the population view as an entirely natural event not surprisingly will not hinge on one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism/supernaturalism. And there I was thinking we were discussing atheism.

Again, not relevant. This time, you don't even try to pretend there's a reason.

Malerin could have stated his point more accurately, yes. Thank you.

His 35 yard shot was going to clip the outside of the post, so I nimbly danced between two defenders and gave it a glancing header to make the back of the net bulge. WEMBLEY! Which, even accepting your fantasy as fact, does not, of course, make his shot on-target for goal.

You can't have been reading the thread too closely. Nor the forum in general. The place is alive with people trying to deny they believe in stuff. In many cases successfully. For example, I have denied believing in winged pigs, and so far people are convinced.

However, no-one on this thread has denied that they have a beleief system, that's just a ludicrous strawman that you have to burn because, hey, to prop up Malarin's argument you have to pretend to believe something that isn't true.

So you are not a philosophical naturalist? I'm surprised. Does that make you a philosophical supernaturalist? Or something else? Something else.

No, it's when (in this case) people who are in clear denial focus on a small inaccuracy in an argument in order to be able to ignore that argument's general validity and uncomfortable consequences. Ah, more amateur psychoanalysis.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the real reason why people point out that you're wrong when you're wrong is 'cos you're wrong?

How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism? Because rejection of philosophical naturalism does not in and of itself confer an opinion on whether or not there is a God.

[Malerin]

Well, let's do a little non-scientific (no pun intended) polling: how many self-described atheists here believe:
The theory of evolution is false
The world is not made of matter
The scientific method is invalid
Souls exist (soul defined as an immaterial essence of a person that lives on after death)

[Quad4_72]

Well, let's do a little non-scientific (no pun intended) polling: how many self-described atheists here believe:
The theory of evolution is false
The world is not made of matter
The scientific method is invalid
Souls exist (soul defined as an immaterial essence of a person that lives on after death)

Out of curiosity, what does that have to do with Atheism simply meaning you don't believe in god?

[Lothian]

Well, let's do a little non-scientific (no pun intended) polling: how many self-described atheists here believe:
The theory of evolution is false
The world is not made of matter
The scientific method is invalid
Souls exist (soul defined as an immaterial essence of a person that lives on after death)Some people (called Atheists) do not believe in god.

Many of them believe in evolution, many believe in gravity and many believe that Elvis is dead.

Some people (untitled) do not believe in UFOs.

Many of them believe in evolution, many believe in gravity and many believe that Elvis is dead.

Some people (untitled) do not believe in the death penalty.

Many of them believe in evolution, many believe in gravity and many believe that Elvis is dead.

However belief in evolution, gravity and the death of Elvis are not preconditions for not believing in god, UFOs or the death penalty.

Even if all ufo deniers believe in gravity it does not make belief in gravity a prerequisite for being an ufo denier

Even if all people who do not believe in the death penalty believe Elvis is dead it does not make belief that Elvis is dead is a prerequisite for not believing in the death penalty.

Even if all atheists believe in evolution it does not make belief in evolution a prerequisite for being an atheist.

To be an atheist you don’t believe in god. That is all that matters. Whatever else you believe or don’t believe is irrelevant and doesn’t affect the fact that you are an atheist.

[plumjam]

Because many from several may leave but a few.
Medieval riddle?

You assert that I concede your point. I say that I do not. I think that the burden of proof is on you.
Pretty simple, just read back to see.

I wonder what you think "projection" means.
From the verb 'to project', available in all reputable dictionaries.

If you're going to indulge in witless psychobabble as a substitute for argument, you could try to make it vaguely plausible.
This from the guy who, when on the rocks, resorts to argumentum ad Alan Rickman impressions.

Because it shows up your ludicrous attempt at amateur psychoanalysis as bollocks. Yep, that's Rickman.

And there I was thinking we were discussing atheism.Alan's in the house.

This time, you don't even try to pretend there's a reason. Yes, our voice analysts confirm that the emphasised 'try' is strongly indicative of Rickmanesque identity fantasy syndrome.

Thank you.Cor.

Which, even accepting your fantasy as fact, does not, of course, make his shot on-target for goal.We agree

In many cases successfully. For example, I have denied believing in winged pigs, and so far people are convinced.
Porkies?

However, no-one on this thread has denied that they have a beleief system, that's just a ludicrous strawman that you have to burn because, hey, to prop up Malarin's argument you have to pretend to believe something that isn't true.
I thought projecting was something you disapproved of.

Something else.

Care to share?

Ah, more amateur psychoanalysis.
Double whammy. Projection + Rickman.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the real reason why people point out that you're wrong when you're wrong is 'cos you're wrong?
Which movie is that from?

Because rejection of philosophical naturalism does not in and of itself confer an opinion on whether or not there is a God.
Crikey, it took you long enough to actually say something of substance, but you got there in the end.
My original question was this
How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism?
One's position vis-a-vis the existence of God necessarily hinges upon one's position regarding philosophical naturalism. This because 'hinges upon' is not the same as 'determines'. If one accepts PNism then God is necessarily out the window, as are miracles, ID, Creationism, souls, mind/brain dualism etc..
That's quite a big shiny important hinge.
And surprise surprise, almost all who swing that way on the PNism hinge believe there are no souls, no miracles, no ID, no Creationism, no mind/brain dualism, and yes.. no God.

[Zelenius]

Yes it is true, atheism really is a religion/belief system. We are actually a highly secretive sect of Christianity, like a mystery religion. We are so very close to finding the Holy Grail that in order to deflect attention from what we are doing we go to great lengths to denounce religion, Christianity, the supernatural and belief in God. This atheism act is all a "cover", a giant ruse. We must do all we can to hide our secret. It appears that nobody is on to us except perhaps for a few clever people on this board who suspect we really are a religion... :D

[Malerin]

Out of curiosity, what does that have to do with Atheism simply meaning you don't believe in god?

Perhaps it would explain why a large well-respected organization of atheists (that litigates atheist issues instead of ********ting on message boards) has a different (more accurate) definition of atheism. But what do they know, am I right? ;)

[Hokulele]

No.

[Zelenius]

One's position vis-a-vis the existence of God necessarily hinges upon one's position regarding philosophical naturalism. This because 'hinges upon' is not the same as 'determines'. If one accepts PNism then God is necessarily out the window, as are miracles, ID, Creationism, souls, mind/brain dualism etc..
That's quite a big shiny important hinge.
And surprise surprise, almost all who swing that way on the PNism hinge believe there are no souls, no miracles, no ID, no Creationism, no mind/brain dualism, and yes.. no God.

This has already been said in so many different ways, but let me take a stab at this: Lack of belief in god(s) correlates strongly with philosophical naturalism. But not all philosophical naturalists are atheists and not all atheists are philosophical naturalists. You don't have to be an atheist to be a philosophical naturalist or vice versa. Many atheists arrived at their atheistic beliefs through philosophical naturalism, but PN and atheism are not the same thing.

Atheism is not a belief system, just as a lack of belief in elves is not a belief system. If theism weren't so omnipresent, there would be no need for the word "atheist". I see atheism as the default position unless evidence for god or gods convinces me otherwise.

Some of the confusion about what atheism is may be due to some atheists incorrectly defining atheism as "a lack of belief in the supernatural". I see this on some other websites and atheist message boards. Some people who believe in the "supernatural" lack god belief.

The author of this essay for instance seems to be both an atheist and a philosophical naturalist, but believes in the afterlife - http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm

The ideas presented in that essay seem to "imply" something like the existence of the soul or maybe something almost dualistic, but he doesn't go into any detail about how we are able to live on within a naturalistic framework. Of course that is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. I find it unconvincing. I do not believe in the afterlife or the soul, and I'm also an atheist and philosophical naturalist. None of this means that atheism is a belief system or a "religion", and no atheist I know of would accuse the after-life believer and atheist Thomas W. Clark of not being a "true" atheist for his beliefs.

Even if it could be proven that God or gods really exists, that doesn't necessarily imply the existence of the soul. Of course the soul may exist, but I simply see no evidence for it. Even if you could prove that atheism is a religion or belief system, does that necessarily make it wrong?

[GreyICE]

If you want to make some headway on your argument, find one, just one, atheist organization that is either anti-science, anti-evolution, or pro-paranormal.

http://www.sj-r.com/features/x1070363442/Meet-Ed-Hardy-an-atheist-Buddhist-and-minister

I CAN HAZ COOKIE?

[Silentknight]

Yes it is true, atheism really is a religion/belief system. We are actually a highly secretive sect of Christianity, like a mystery religion. We are so very close to finding the Holy Grail that in order to deflect attention from what we are doing we go to great lengths to denounce religion, Christianity, the supernatural and belief in God. This atheism act is all a "cover", a giant ruse. We must do all we can to hide our secret. It appears that nobody is on to us except perhaps for a few clever people on this board who suspect we really are a religion... :D

That reminds me of something I read a while ago. This is not original, as I found it a while back somewhere on Raving Atheist, but I still wish I had thought of it first.

Finally! As an 'Atheist" I have been in the closet for far too long. It's time to make the honorable creed of 'atheism' known to all.

Basic Tenets
1. Atheism is a religion which is a sub-sect of Christianity. Its adherents believe in the Christian God in their hearts, but publicly deny it for a variety of reasons. Among the most common reasons are that they hate God, and that they believe in nothing.

2. Just like other Christians, Atheists do not believe in non-Christian gods because they're just silly. Anyone can see the "Quran" is full of stuff only ignorant shepherds would believe. That's just ridiculous.

3. Atheists have faith in the myth of evolution instead of in Genesis. Evolution is a creation story made up by Charles Darwin, which all scientists later came to accept due to its unappealing conclusions about human nature and unintuitive complexity, both of which made it inherently attractive.

4. Atheists do not have the same saints as other Christian sects. Instead, they worship liberal professors and Europeans.

Demographics
1. Atheism is the dominant religion in the United States. Atheists hold almost all political and economic power, with the trifling exception of the White House, a bit of Congress, a few judges, and a small number of moderately well-off businessmen. Atheists use their political power to oppress other Christians, and want to make Atheism the official state religion.

2. The vast majority of Europe is Atheist, with the exception of about a dozen Catholics and the Pope, who don't have any power and who no one respects. American Atheists believe Europeans' godless states are years ahead of America, and look to them as examples when deciding how to oppress non-Atheist Christian sects in the US.

3. More scientists are atheist than the population average. However, it's important to note that these are mostly fake scientists; there is an important difference between real science and fake science. Real science produces things like cars, gene therapy, and X-rays. Fake science makes phony claims inspired by hatred of God, such as that cars are bad for the environment, human genes contain evidence of evolution, and a kind of "invisible radiation" can be used to date things and show the Earth is older than it really is. Unfortunately, it's the nature of science that scientists disagree about everything, and the only way to resolve the dispute is to look at what the Bible says.

Morality and Ethics
1. Atheists hate God, and so they have no reason to behave morally. If an atheist needs to borrow a dollar, he is just as likely to ask for it nicely as he is to knife an old woman and take her wallet.

2. When Atheists do behave morally, they do so only because they are threatened with severe punishment, like prison. Other Christians, however, behave morally because it is the right thing to do, and not because someone is threatening them with pain or suffering.

3. Atheists' immoral behavior translates into high national murder rates. The reason the United States has a much higher murder rate than other countries is because its government and economy are controlled by Atheists, most of whom also support the death penalty.

4. Although atheists are fundamentally immoral, they are underrepresented in prison because the police and judical system are atheist to the core, and police intentionally let atheists go while viciously prosecuting other kinds of Christians.

5. Finally, Atheists hate the idea of the family, and hope to break up loving marriages by letting two men marry each other. When a husband and wife who are in love with each other find out that two men have been allowed to marry somewhere, Atheists know this will cause them to stop loving each other and immediately divorce. This is a fundamental law of sociology.


In conclusion, I hope I've been able to illuminate some of the basic beliefs of an Atheist. Many Christians of other sects have gone before me, perceptively demonstrating the Atheist's core beliefs, and to them I am eternally grateful.

[Malerin]

http://www.sj-r.com/features/x1070363442/Meet-Ed-Hardy-an-atheist-Buddhist-and-minister

I CAN HAZ COOKIE?

Sooo close. Ed Hardy is not an organization. And Unitarian-Universalists (which Hardy is a pastor of) could hardly be described as "atheistic":

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
* Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

[Dr Adequate]

Medieval riddle?


Pretty simple, just read back to see.


From the verb 'to project', available in all reputable dictionaries.


This from the guy who, when on the rocks, resorts to argumentum ad Alan Rickman impressions.

Yep, that's Rickman.

Alan's in the house.

Yes, our voice analysts confirm that the emphasised 'try' is strongly indicative of Rickmanesque identity fantasy syndrome.

Cor.

We agree


Porkies?


I thought projecting was something you disapproved of.


Care to share?


Double whammy. Projection + Rickman.


Which movie is that from?


Crikey, it took you long enough to actually say something of substance, but you got there in the end. I'm going to stop you there purely for comic effect. Do go on.

My original question was this

One's position vis-a-vis the existence of God necessarily hinges upon one's position regarding philosophical naturalism. This because 'hinges upon' is not the same as 'determines'. If one accepts PNism then God is necessarily out the window, as are miracles, ID, Creationism, souls, mind/brain dualism etc..
That's quite a big shiny important hinge.
And surprise surprise, almost all who swing that way on the PNism hinge believe there are no souls, no miracles, no ID, no Creationism, no mind/brain dualism, and yes.. no God. That is not in fact a question. That is a mistake. A question would involve asking me something.

[articulett]

*tee hee*... pj making commentary as to whether someone else has said something of substance... *giggle*

And his "question" is actually a "logical fallacy"! *snort*...

Pssst.... plumjam, you know how one can disbelieve in chupacabras and not be a "philosophical naturalist"... the same is true of disbelief in god. Really. For the same reasons! Yes, philosophical naturalists don't believe in woo... but lots of people don't believe in assorted woo for lots of reasons--even those who are not "philosophical naturalists". It's true! Why, I bet there's some woo that even you don't believe in!

[Safe-Keeper]

Medieval riddle?


Pretty simple, just read back to see.


From the verb 'to project', available in all reputable dictionaries.


This from the guy who, when on the rocks, resorts to argumentum ad Alan Rickman impressions.

Yep, that's Rickman.

Alan's in the house.

Yes, our voice analysts confirm that the emphasised 'try' is strongly indicative of Rickmanesque identity fantasy syndrome.

Cor.

We agree


Porkies?


I thought projecting was something you disapproved of.


Care to share?


Double whammy. Projection + Rickman.


Which movie is that from?


Crikey, it took you long enough to actually say something of substance, but you got there in the end. I'm going to stop you there purely for comic effect. Do go on.Awesomeness:D.

Atheism is not a belief system, just as a lack of belief in elves is not a belief system.Bullocks. Every single person I've ever talked to who did not believe in elves has also had an enormous amount of faith in the Round Earth theory, the theory of gravity, the idea that the rainbow doesn't lead to a pot of gold, that black is a dark colour, that arsenic is deadly, and that soccer is best played with 11 people teams. They also place a lot of faith in the theory that the Holocaust was carried out by the Germans, and will become aggressive if you dare challenge this idea. I got pics of babies an **** too, dood.

[plumjam]

I'm going to stop you there purely for comic effect. Do go on.
I was deliberately reflecting your content-free style back onto yourself. The fact that you couldn't see that means the comic effect is on you.
Cheers :D

That is not in fact a question. That is a mistake. A question would involve asking me something.
The vapid hurts *yawn*

[arthwollipot]

The vapid hurts *yawn*Well, you said you were going to ask a question, and then you made a statement.

My original question was this

One's position vis-a-vis the existence of God necessarily hinges upon one's position regarding philosophical naturalism. This because 'hinges upon' is not the same as 'determines'. If one accepts PNism then God is necessarily out the window, as are miracles, ID, Creationism, souls, mind/brain dualism etc..
That's quite a big shiny important hinge.
And surprise surprise, almost all who swing that way on the PNism hinge believe there are no souls, no miracles, no ID, no Creationism, no mind/brain dualism, and yes.. no God.

Nope, not a single question mark. Did you have a question?

[plumjam]

Well, you said you were going to ask a question, and then you made a statement.

My question was - 'How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism?'
See post 198
Dr A neglected to copy it through to his reply. He clearly didn't pay much attention to reading post 198. But, like I said, he's always been less interested in issues than in perfecting his look-down-my-schnozzer see-how-clever-I-am aping of Alan Rickman. :D

[arthwollipot]

My question was - 'How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism?'Well, I think they do. But that's not the question that was originally asked, was it?

[plumjam]

Well, I think they do. But that's not the question that was originally asked, was it?

Yeah, so you and I agree.
What was the original question? I can't be arsed to scroll back again and guess which one you mean.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, so you and I agree.
What was the original question? I can't be arsed to scroll back again and guess which one you mean.The original question, as I recall, had to do with atheism, rather than philosophical naturalism.

[plumjam]

The original question, as I recall, had to do with atheism, rather than philosophical naturalism.

Yeah, I've been through that. I addressed it in my first post in this thread, and subsequently.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, I've been through that. I addressed it in my first post in this thread, and subsequently.So why did you change the question?

[Mobyseven]

THIS is your atheist anti-science anti-evolution pro-paranormal association? :rolleyes: They are very scientific, consider themselves a religion, and have no beliefs in the paranormal.

The Raelians have no belief in the paranormal? The Raelians are scientific? You sure you want to say that...?

http://images.bigfail.com/i/f/10/00/081.jpg





*Modnote - image linked to legally under the terms of bigfail.com

[Mashuna]

The vapid hurts *yawn*

Yet you keep posting it. Why?

[plumjam]

So why did you change the question?

I've been through that too.
Have you read the whole thread, or just bits?

[Mobyseven]

For me, I do not mind having a generic term for non-belief in god(s) (atheism), just as there is a generic term for belief in god(s) (theism). Just as theism can be further broken down into pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, and many other flavors, sects, and denominations, so too atheism can be further broken down into non-theism (better for babies), ignostic, apatheistic, and many other etc, etc. The problem is that Malerin and plumjam are insisting that one division of atheism must represent all atheists.

This is as mistaken as claiming the beliefs of polytheists, or worse, a specific group of polytheists, must apply to all theists.

I'd say that there are a lot of, and this is a term I just thought while reading your post, "trivial atheists" out there. That is to say infants, cats, dogs and so on lack a belief in god, but primarily because they presently lack the capacity to choose to believe in god anyway.

Much like the trivial solution in maths is generally not what you're looking for ("Hey guys, I figured out that if I multiply both sides by zero, they become equal!"), trivial atheists are not generally what we are concerned with when we discuss atheism.

[arthwollipot]

I've been through that too.
Have you read the whole thread, or just bits?Oh, just bits. Most of it I found quite boring actually. Theists misunderstanding what atheism is all about no longer interests me all that much.

So how about a recap - a brief summary of the thread so far?

[plumjam]

So how about a recap - a brief summary of the thread so far?

I might have done that if I didn't have to die in about 40 years :p
Sorry, life's too short, mate. I can't act as a 12-page thread summariser to anyone who asks. (Although, to me, Wolli, you aren't really just 'anyone' ;))

[arthwollipot]

I might have done that if I didn't have to die in about 40 years :p
Sorry, life's too short, mate. I can't act as a 12-page thread summariser to anyone who asks. (Although, to me, Wolli, you aren't really just 'anyone' ;))Fair enough. Allow me to bring the subject back around to the topic at hand. What is your take on the thread title?

[Hokulele]

I'd say that there are a lot of, and this is a term I just thought while reading your post, "trivial atheists" out there. That is to say infants, cats, dogs and so on lack a belief in god, but primarily because they presently lack the capacity to choose to believe in god anyway.

Much like the trivial solution in maths is generally not what you're looking for ("Hey guys, I figured out that if I multiply both sides by zero, they become equal!"), trivial atheists are not generally what we are concerned with when we discuss atheism.


I like that!

[Cavemonster]

From Wikipedia:
Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity. In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism, and Christian atheists.

As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless

Emphasis mine.

[Dr Adequate]

My question was - 'How is it that one's position vis-a-vis those things (souls, miracles, God/s, origins etc..) do not hinge upon one's position vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism?' To which I answered:

Because rejection of philosophical naturalism does not in and of itself confer an opinion on whether or not there is a God.

Is there any other aspect of the bleedin' obvious you need explaining to you?

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, just bits. Most of it I found quite boring actually. Theists misunderstanding what atheism is all about no longer interests me all that much.

So how about a recap - a brief summary of the thread so far? On the Wrong team, Malerin and plumjam try to conflate atheism with philosophical naturalism (and, for some reason, with having a competent understanding of biology); on the Right team, everyone else points out that atheism and philosophical naturalism (to say nothing of biology) are different concepts, as demonstrated by the fact that there are atheists who are not philosophical naturalists.

[Safe-Keeper]

So how about a recap - a brief summary of the thread so far?Page 1, first half: Discussion on why atheism isn't stronger in the US. Statements on the hardships of atheists in the US and elsewhere and statistics on the growth of atheism.

Page 1, second half: Malerin hijacks thread by refusing to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 2: Malerin refuses to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 3: Malerin, joined by plumjam, refuse to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 4: Malerin and plumjam refuse to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

In other words, if you want to recap the thread, read the first page and then skip pages 2-4, which are just mindless DOC/JEROME-style "let's start over ignoring that our argument has been destroyed" trolling (now with pictures of babies).

[Lonewulf]

Reading through this thread, I have only one thing to say:


*zzzzzz*

[Quad4_72]

Page 1, first half: Discussion on why atheism isn't stronger in the US. Statements on the hardships of atheists in the US and elsewhere and statistics on the growth of atheism.

Page 1, second half: Malerin hijacks thread by refusing to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 2: Malerin refuses to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 3: Malerin, joined by plumjam, refuse to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

Page 4: Malerin and plumjam refuse to let go a statement that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists point out how he's wrong.

In other words, if you want to recap the thread, read the first page and then skip pages 2-4, which are just mindless DOC/JEROME-style "let's start over ignoring that our argument has been destroyed" trolling (now with pictures of babies).

Yeah that sounds about right. I wanted to start an honest discourse about atheism in the U.S. and then for some reason Malerin started talking about what babies believe in. This is I think the only thread I have ever started in the religious section and I rarely ever post in here. I wanted a little break from the twoofers over in the CT section, but it seems I won't be getting a break from the crazies here :(

[DOC]

And what is your evidence that legitimate hope is offered?

The existence of the bible, the greatest selling book in the history of the world. And also the life changing words of the historical figure, Jesus Christ.

How many people have you heard back from who are living eternal life?

As many as there are successful experiments that life came from a chance collision of non-living chemicals.

[six7s]

How many people have you heard back from who are living eternal life?As many as there are successful experiments that life came from a chance collision of non-living chemicals.So... more than none, then

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | New spark in classic experiments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm)

Page last updated at 23:22 GMT, Thursday, 16 October 2008 00:22 UK
By Roland Pease
BBC Radio Science Unit


There's a new spark of life in iconic experiments first done in the 1950s, on the kind of primordial "soup" that may have predated life itself on Earth.

Ageing vials of chemicals have been discovered in a Californian lab, surviving samples from the legendary experiments performed by chemist Stanley Miller.

They hold evidence that life may have born violently, in erupting volcanoes in the midst of a thunderstorm.

Miller was just 22 years old and studying for his PhD when he carried out his original, groundbreaking experiments (under his University of Chicago mentor, Harold Urey).

<snip/>

When Stanley Miller died in May last year, his former student, Jeffrey Bada, inherited his materials; including, it turns out, several boxes containing vials of dried samples from those 1950s experiments, and the accompanying notebooks.

<snip/>

Miller's well-known experiments first done in 1952 used water along with methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the kinds of gases then thought to have dominated the Earth's oxygen-free atmosphere more than two billion years ago.

His sparks turned the mixture red, then yellow-brown, and made a number of amino acids, including glycine and alanine, commonly found in proteins.

<snip/>

But conditions locally in volcanoes, says Professor Bada, might not have been so different. The trouble was, Miller published only the sketchiest of details of those tests, and the apparatus was lost. It had looked like a dead end, until those dusty boxes turned up with their 200 vials.

"We started sorting through these, and lo and behold, we found a whole collection, almost a complete collection, of the extract samples from the volcanic experiments. And so we just went at it, using the state-of-the-art techniques we have today and analysed these samples.

<snip/>

Professor Bada points out that today, almost all volcanic eruptions are accompanied by violent electric storms. The same could have been true on the young Earth.

"What we suggest is that volcanoes belched out gases just like the ones Stanley had used, and were immediately subjected to intense volcanic lightning.

"And so each one of those volcanoes could have been a little, local prebiotic factory. And so all of that went into making the material that we refer to as the prebiotic soup."

That material could then have been washed down the flanks of volcanoes into pools or coastal bays, where the building blocks of life might have kick-started evolution.

<snip/>

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm)

[Safe-Keeper]

The existence of the bible, the greatest selling book in the history of the world. And also the life changing words of the historical figure, Jesus Christ.He said evidence. You're on a skeptic forum.

[Quad4_72]

The existence of the bible, the greatest selling book in the history of the world. And also the life changing words of the historical figure, Jesus Christ.


I'm sorry DOC, but that does not count as legitimate scientific evidence that god exists.

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so I figured it'd be interesting to look into book sales and see what books were second and third and whether or not they were close to catching up. Also, would there be humor to find?

You bet!

From Wikipedia's list of best-selling books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books#List_of_best-selling_single-volume_books).
Book|Author(s)|Original Language|First Published|Approximate Sales
The Holy Bible|Various|Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic|1st century BC to 1st century AD|2.5 to 6 billions
Mao's Little Red Book|Lin Biao|Chinese&50 others|1966|800 million to 6.5 billions** Zhengyuan Fu, Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics

:dl:

[Silentknight]

(now with pictures of babies).

Which, by the way, look delicious.


I'm not really helping my case, am I?

[six7s]

(now with pictures of babies).Which, by the way, look delicious.


I'm not really helping my case, am I?At least you didn't mention an amniotic-fluid jus and/or a placenta garnish

[arthwollipot]

On the Wrong team...Page 1, first half:...My thanks to you both. This confirms that my impression of the thread is still accurate.

[Uncayimmy]

many believe that Elvis is dead.

Elvis is not dead. Here's the proof in the form of a photograph:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28160490fe20c8fe52.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14228)

Elvis took the picture at one of my gigs.

[Foster Zygote]

Elvis is not dead. Here's the proof in the form of a photograph:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28160490fe20c8fe52.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14228)

Elvis took the picture at one of my gigs.

Is that a Warwick?

[Uncayimmy]

Is that a Warwick?

Spector Euro 4LX

[jond]

Spector Euro 4LX

I knew that. My son just bought one (though his is black cherry). Lovely instrument!

[Uncayimmy]

I knew that. My son just bought one (though his is black cherry). Lovely instrument!

Fantastic instrument IMHO. I know this is OT, but hopefully the moderators won't mind if I point out that I have an informational website for bass players (http://www.azwebpages.com/bass) with some articles I've written. There are a few pics of me there if you're curious.

[Foster Zygote]

Spector Euro 4LX

I was in my local guitar shop today and saw a used one hanging behind the counter. I thought "I knew I recognized that shape. That's what's in UncaYimmy's picture".

[Ocelot]

It seems to me that the percentage of atheists today in America should be growing fairly rapidly over the years due to better education, but the polls still show America at only about 3% overall in the population. Being more informed and having more education than at any other time in history, why does religion still have such a grasp on people's minds?

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121

This been posted already?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/25/us/makeup-graph.jpg

Looks like the percentage of non believers is increasing.

[Malerin]

This been posted already?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/25/us/makeup-graph.jpg

Looks like the percentage of non believers is increasing.

According to a Pew survey of 35,000, 5% "Do not believe in God", 4% are "not sure"/"uncertain".

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

[Lothian]

According to a Pew survey of 35,000, 5% "Do not believe in God", 4% are "not sure"/"uncertain".

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#Bloody hell, that is impressive. A fortnight ago (post 48) you claimed it was only 3%. If we keep tripling every fortnight you will all be gone by yuletide.

[Malerin]

Bloody hell, that is impressive. A fortnight ago (post 48) you claimed it was only 3%. If we keep tripling every fortnight you will all be gone by yuletide.

I assumed the OP's claim was correct:

It seems to me that the percentage of atheists today in America should be growing fairly rapidly over the years due to better education, but the polls still show America at only about 3% overall in the population.

If atheists "Do not belive in God", as was claimed many times, the OP was off by 2%. Not exactly huge, is it?

[Quad4_72]

This been posted already?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/25/us/makeup-graph.jpg

Looks like the percentage of non believers is increasing.

I had not seen that one. Interesting. While it may be increasing, it is happening at a very slow pace. It is hard for people to let go of a couple thousand years of made up beliefs I guess.

[Lothian]

According to a Pew survey of 35,000, 5% "Do not believe in God", 4% are "not sure"/"uncertain".

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#It is an interesting poll you have there. It doesn't question believe in God but God or a universal spirit. Perhaps that explains why 8% of people who said they were atheists were fairly or absolutely certain there was a God along with 17% of agnostics who were absolutely certain there was a God. But on the other side just as many Christian's in America do not believe on god as atheists.
I also note a category secular unaffiliated 6% of the population. Remind me which god claims the secular?

I thought the key findings interesting.
The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation.It paints a bleak picture for those who make a living out of their faith.