Atheist = narrow-minded

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

That's right. After all, I'm only atheist about one more god than a Christian is, or a Muslim - and they are also a heck of a lot more atheist than a Hindu...

...incorrectly so, as well, in the case of Christians, since the Bible mentions other gods...

cordially,
Scofflaw

When even I'm asked by a Christian why I don't believe in God I mostly reply "For the same reason you don't believe in Thor or Zeus", which normally shuts them up for a while while they try to think of an argument as to why their god is "different," giving me plenty of time to get back to watching the footie

Unfortunately they mostly come back with a reply similar to Scumlord, along the lines of "thats silly, those gods obviously don't exist, its just fantasy. The real God is not like that .. " at which point I let out a long groan ...

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Unfortunately they mostly come back with a reply similar to Scumlord, along the lines of "thats silly, those gods obviously don't exist, its just fantasy. The real God is not like that .. " at which point I let out a long groan ...

Next time throw the remote control at them:)

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

When even I'm asked by a Christian why I don't believe in God I mostly reply "For the same reason you don't believe in Thor or Zeus", which normally shuts them up for a while while they try to think of an argument as to why their god is "different," giving me plenty of time to get back to watching the footie

Unfortunately they mostly come back with a reply similar to Scumlord, along the lines of "thats silly, those gods obviously don't exist, its just fantasy. The real God is not like that .. " at which point I let out a long groan ...

I must ask a couple of Christians why they don't believe that other Gods exist, although I suspect most answers will be along the "those gods obviously don't exist" lines.

Could do it as light relief from Creationism, assuming we ever get the thread back....

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Could do it as light relief from Creationism, assuming we ever get the thread back....cordially,
Scofflaw

I am staying on top of it and will let you know when the issues have been solved.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

I am staying on top of it and will let you know when the issues have been solved.

Amazing the way it never seems to be a Creationist fixing these sorts of things...

naughtily,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Amazing the way it never seems to be a Creationist fixing these sorts of things...

naughtily,
Scofflaw

Ah, but you see, Creationists don't fix things as a general rule. God does that. Then the creationist explains why god did it.

5uspect

We all know that creation science (shudder - dirty word) holds that as thread size increases the complexity of the HTML code degrades. As a result the genesis of the thread, the OP, is perfect. What we see now is direct evidence of the Flood sent by the Admins to wash boards of the sinful wicked threads that have fornicated too much. The good threads are locked away in a mighty external harddrive Ark for some vague period of time until the flood waters of slow loading times have receeded.

But behold the Messiah will come in the form of a Mod who will work all night for our slow loading sins only to be flamed in the Thunderdome...

sorry I couldn't help it - I'm a bad bad boy

ScumLord

Zillah wrote:

(Forgive me if I'm a little pissy that my post has been ignored twice.)

Sorry man I'm just pressed for time..

Although you could make up a way of life, as in rules to live a good life by based around the pink unicorn you'd only be making them up to build up your pink unicorn theory.. And yes I know this is basically what religions have done but the major religions Hebrew to Hindu have been around for yonks AND I see religion as a type of recognition of the natural system. Humans began to notice that everything was interconnected and saw this system as God or Gods work and built there belief structure around this co-operation that they saw in nature. Over time it's had time to revise itself and is a tried and tested way of life that does work. Perhaps God even sent message to people like Jesus to guide the process in the right direction.

If there is a God though I very much doubt he administrates the universe maybe he created it but messing with it on a day to day basis to make one species on one planet do your biding just doesn't sound practicle.

5uspect

Do you really think the majority of people get out of the bed in the morning and think, "What would Jesus do?". Sure religion is essentially a set of rules built up over time with the added dogma about heaven and hell to keep you on the straight and narrow. Civil law is far more likely to consume the thoughts of the majority of people (in a secular country anyway) when making decisions because the consequences far more immediate and real.

The fact that most religions have been around for a long time does not make a difference when comparing with pink unicorns, the concept of god is something we learn as a child. It is imprinted on us like the idea that stealing is wrong. It would be just as easy to imprint the idea of a pink unicorn on a child. Its just so much more believeable when the one doing the imprinting believes the story too.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

Over time it's had time to revise itself and is a tried and tested way of life that does work.

Not quite sure where you got the idea that organised religion "works"

It might have worked 2000 years ago, but these days after the renassiance, the ages of enlightnment and the development of civil liberties, social democracy and liberal thinking in general, religion is increasingly at odds with these systems, which do actually work.

The majority of advancements made in the last 500 years have been done despite of religion, not because of it.

Looking to religion for guidence in this day and age as to how to structure personal and social structures is doomed to failure.

Put simply, there are a lot better places to look than religion

robindch

> rules to live a good life by based around the pink unicorn you'd only be
> making them up to build up your pink unicorn theory..

Well, so what? That's what religions do -- how many people are out there today, trying to convert people from one religion to their own one, or preaching on telly, or "saving" natives in some jungle, or going to mass or service on sunday, setting up websites about creationism, and doing all those things which their religion wants them to do, regardless of whether all this time spent is actually going to achieve anything beneficial for their fellow humans?

The pink unicorn is only a placeholder for a deity. If there isn't one, and if there isn't a holybook to worship and adore, then people have to work for themselves how to behave by speaking to each other, discussing things and eventually reaching a provisional consensus.

It's kind of like democracy in action, really. The opposite of religion!

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

Although you could make up a way of life, as in rules to live a good life by based around the pink unicorn you'd only be making them up to build up your pink unicorn theory..

Damn. You're making a very common mistake. Religion and morality are not the same thing, nor is there an inherent link. The moral atheist takes responsibility for his own decisions and actions, while a believer defaults his morality to an imaginary higher figure.

In that regard, a "moral atheist" is far more virtuous than a "moral believer".

And the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessings and chocolate be upon him) teaches nothing about morality, he's just there.

And yes I know this is basically what religions have done but the major religions Hebrew to Hindu have been around for yonks AND I see religion as a type of recognition of the natural system.

Really? I'd describe it not as "recognition of the natural system" but as "fabrication of a nonesense system". The closest thing we have to recognising the natural system is science.

Humans began to notice that everything was interconnected and saw this system as God or Gods work and built there belief structure around this co-operation that they saw in nature.

Theres no cooperation, thats a notion mistakenly taken from an observation of the world while in ignorance of the process that shaped it. Everything appears to "cooperate" because stuff that didn't "cooperate" fell to bits. The earth "cooperates" with the sun, and all that other shit that didn't cooperate with the sun got shot into deep space or melted. There's no mystical interconnectedness.

Over time it's had time to revise itself and is a tried and tested way of life that does work.

Religion is like the lowest common denominator. It works wonderfully for a primitive world where people are crude and uneducated, where they don't have any concept of human rights or fairness; the best way to control them is supernatural fear.

Perhaps God even sent message to people like Jesus to guide the process in the right direction.

Nope, Jesus was just a rather inept political insurgent.

ScumLord

Religion and morality are not the same thing, nor is there an inherent link. The moral atheist takes responsibility for his own decisions and actions, while a believer defaults his morality to an imaginary higher figure.

I think they are, again your linking religious thinking with the traditional religions and I think that religion (I might be using the word religion in the wrong context here but spiritual/meditation) is a thought process that can be used apart from the bibles rules. I think all people use this part of the brain to tell them not to kick that old lady and steel her shoes.

The closest thing we have to recognising the natural system is science.

Thats study of the system, recognition of it in the first place must have been a massive shock to people and they came up with God, or maybe he pointed it out in the first place.

There's no mystical interconnectedness.

Well it's not mystical but everything relies on everything else to survive. Everything is interconnected. In living things especially you can see co-operation towards the greater good. Cells are individual living things that live to make things greater than themselfs possible, those that live for themselfs kill the system (cancer).

It might have worked 2000 years ago,

It could be revised if the people in charge wheren't so stuck in their ways and so determend to hold onto power.

which do actually work.

Do they really? Modern systems don't do a good job of caring for the individual. I suppose that's not what there for, the government is more about protection and services than morality. These days your in charge of your own moral codes which I don't nessessarly see as a good thing, if people aren't told how to treat other people then their just as likely turn self centred and not care about others. We don't teach our children how to be a person in school there are no social interaction classes, we just fill them up with information and let them off. Survival of the fittest which is a step backwards in my eyes.

pH

ScumLord wrote:

I think they are, again your linking religious thinking with the traditional religions and I think that religion (I might be using the word religion in the wrong context here but spiritual/meditation) is a thought process that can be used apart from the bibles rules. I think all people use this part of the brain to tell them not to kick that old lady and steel her shoes.

Ahhh yes - THAT religion.

Religion
1. Organised religion not all that good, oppressive and, well, organised, except of course when it's other people's organised religion, in the Third World and so on, and Third World people in the First World, or is that the right thing to call them, anyway I'm spiritual rather than religious, but it's all the same thing really, and we're all One.
2. Another word for science.

Spiritual
What to call a belief that perhaps is not terribly plausible or even possible but makes people feel special and magical.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/dictionary.php

5uspect

ScumLord wrote:

Well it's not mystical but everything relies on everything else to survive. Everything is interconnected. In living things especially you can see co-operation towards the greater good. Cells are individual living things that live to make things greater than themselfs possible, those that live for themselfs kill the system (cancer).

As Zillah has pointed out everything that leads to the "lesser bad" is, well dead.
May I reccomend the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. This book contains a excellent review of John Maynard Smiths use of game theory as well as other evolutionary ideas that try to explain the harmony you see in nature. Dawkins is scathing in his criticism of religion and you may find this a put off but this book is otherwise an excellent and insightful read.

robindch

> These days your in charge of your own moral codes which I don't
> nessessarly see as a good thing

Why not? Is it better either to:

• Agree a way of minimizing conflict and maximizing co-operation within a group (ie, coming up with laws, cash for schools, hospitals for example), or
• Let an old book dictate a series of rules which are open to a variety of interpretations, and whose interpretations are guarded by an unelected clique who says that they and their interpretations are unquestionable?

You are making a common mistake in thinking that people are unable to work out amongst themselves what behaviours are good and bad. Have a read of the Dawkins -- it's a good introdution to the topic of the evolution of co-operation.

ScumLord

May I reccomend the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

I've heard of that book, I don't read much though due to my disllexica, is there pictures and such? I don't mind criticisms of religion I've given out my fair share it just at times it seems to over take trying to talk sense with a religious person. Which is in itself pointless I suppose. :rolleyes: I'll give it a wurl next time the mobile library passed through town. The only problem I have with works like this is they tend to restrict themselves to their particular field like with that what makes us human show on C4. Everything was down to genes the religion gene the smart gene, it's like nothing else outside genes mattered.

Why not? Is it better either to:

You still have the same problems with democracy/communism one groups in charge and won't share the wealth minorities are pushed out in favour of the mob it's not actually all that different but I suppose you have the chance for change. You do with religion as well - protestants - those ones at Waco.

robindch

> You still have the same problems with democracy/communism one groups
> in charge and won't share the wealth

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I'm referring to full democracy where eveyrbody has an equal say, rather than representative democracy which is what we have here in Ireland. You're quite right to point out that representative democracy is susceptible to sufficiently well-orgnized abuse (cf, America at the moment).

However, even still, there are more people involved the descision-making process in representative democracies than there are in religions. And there are elections in democracies so you can get rid of people if you like, and there are written laws which are produced by one group, but interpreted by another separate one (parliament + judiciary, with the independence of each being jealously guarded). None of this happens in religions, where you get one group making the laws, and the same group interpreting them, and (in the bad old days) meting out the punishments also. Not a healthy thing for a society at all, or indeed, any of the poor sods convicted of artibitary religious crimes!

5uspect

Google Print has a few pages you can read. See if you like his style. He does waffle on about genes a lot in this one. Another good Dawkins book is the Devils Chaplin. Its a collection of essays on a range of subjects - mainly science in general, evolution, religion and africa.

ThrownAway

This is kinda late and it's gone off topic but narrow-minded to me in this case is either not considering or considering and then closing up. One is worse I guess. The main thing I've learned from this thread is that Atheism isn't a fixed belief system. There's no point in trying to argue out something if the other person can't understand or just thinks differentely. I'll just be repeating myself. Science can't disprove an existance of Gods or popular Gods ''Man Made Gods''. [Man Made Souls] Science is what is and what we know but not everything. Ruling out possibility is closing up. I think if I did believe in something I'd care more.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

I think all people use this part of the brain to tell them not to kick that old lady and steel her shoes.

What you are talking about is morality, not religion. You are getting them the wrong way around.

Religion has built up around morality. It is a social construct that has grown up a notions of society, morality, science and mysticism.

Religion was a way our ancestors put meaning to a range of different things, from justifications of morality, to science and questions about nature. Through the invention of characters and stories they attempted to place order to things they simply did not understand.

Religion is the town that built up around the gold mine that is morality. If you remove religion you are still left with human morality, as atheists know.

ScumLord wrote:

Well it's not mystical but everything relies on everything else to survive. Everything is interconnected. In living things especially you can see co-operation towards the greater good.

Actually that isn't true. Nature is inheriently selfish, as pointed out in the title of Dawkins book the Selfish Gene.

That is not "selfish" in any moral sense, but simply selfish in the way it functions. Neither is it saying that we should be selfish in our lives, simply that looking for moral guidence from the functioning of nature is ultimately a pointless task. Which is why looking to neo-darwin evolution for guidence on how to live (survivial of the fittest) is equally pointless.

ScumLord wrote:

These days your in charge of your own moral codes which I don't nessessarly see as a good thing, if people aren't told how to treat other people then their just as likely turn self centred and not care about others.

No, again they are not.

The vast majority of people have in build moral systems that regulate how they interact with others. This system is far from perfect, but it is better than what you suggest.

The simple fact of the matter is that moral guidence from a select group of people is far to open to abuse and misuse. History is littered with the abuses of moral dictatorships, that oppress the views of a tiny minority onto those of the majority, often with devistating results. History also teaches us that it is generally only those interested in power and control who mange to achieve these lofty position of power and infulence.

ScumLord wrote:

Survival of the fittest which is a step backwards in my eyes.

I really wish people whould stop confusing support for biological neo-darwin evolution with support for socail darwinism.

For a start natural selection and survivial of the fittest is not applicable to human social interaction, any application of darwinism to social interaction will be entirely subjective to the opinions of those judging who is "fittest." From that point alone it is a nonsense theory.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

I think they are, again your linking religious thinking with the traditional religions and I think that religion (I might be using the word religion in the wrong context here but spiritual/meditation) is a thought process that can be used apart from the bibles rules. I think all people use this part of the brain to tell them not to kick that old lady and steel her shoes.

Thats study of the system, recognition of it in the first place must have been a massive shock to people and they came up with God, or maybe he pointed it out in the first place.

Well it's not mystical but everything relies on everything else to survive. Everything is interconnected. In living things especially you can see co-operation towards the greater good. Cells are individual living things that live to make things greater than themselfs possible, those that live for themselfs kill the system (cancer).

It could be revised if the people in charge wheren't so stuck in their ways and so determend to hold onto power.

Do they really? Modern systems don't do a good job of caring for the individual. I suppose that's not what there for, the government is more about protection and services than morality. These days your in charge of your own moral codes which I don't nessessarly see as a good thing, if people aren't told how to treat other people then their just as likely turn self centred and not care about others. We don't teach our children how to be a person in school there are no social interaction classes, we just fill them up with information and let them off. Survival of the fittest which is a step backwards in my eyes.

Its like you're just thinking out loud... Theres really no structure to what you're saying, I'm having trouble seeing any point at all here.

Wicknight wrote:

I really wish people whould stop confusing support for biological neo-darwin evolution with support for socail darwinism.

For a start natural selection and survivial of the fittest is not applicable to human social interaction, any application of darwinism to social interaction will be entirely subjective to the opinions of those judging who is "fittest." From that point alone it is a nonsense theory.

Well, surely who is "fittest" is the dominant/most successful social system/trends? You don't need to decide who is fittest for biological evolution, its evident; the animals that remain. Is it not the same deal?

5uspect

Zillah wrote:

Well, surely who is "fittest" is the dominant/most successful social system/trends? You don't need to decide who is fittest for biological evolution, its evident; the animals that remain. Is it not the same deal?

That would be easy to decide looking back at history. In Social Darwinism the policy deemed "fittest" is generally just a form of racism or eugenics. I suppose its falling into the trap of assuming evolution is the race to a perfect human or society.

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

That would be easy to decide looking back at history. In Social Darwinism the policy deemed "fittest" is generally just a form of racism or eugenics. I suppose its falling into the trap of assuming evolution is the race to a perfect human or society.

I kinda have my own idea that could also be called Social Darwinism...or I suppose "Social Evolution", some brief research shows the traditional meaning of Social Darwinism is retarded...

5uspect

Ah okay, so you're not planning any mass sterilization projects then?!
My idea of "Social Evolution" would be purely observational. There will be a people zoo tho...

Zillah

Actually I've just spent the last hour reading about mass, involuntary sterilisation around the world (started in the US) and "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany. Very interesting to see just how crazy people can be, but especially the kind of stuff people will allow their governments to do in their name.

5uspect

sometimes I'm truely afraid of the world we live in...

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Ahhh yes - THAT religion.

Religion
1. Organised religion not all that good, oppressive and, well, organised, except of course when it's other people's organised religion, in the Third World and so on, and Third World people in the First World, or is that the right thing to call them, anyway I'm spiritual rather than religious, but it's all the same thing really, and we're all One.
2. Another word for science.

Spiritual
What to call a belief that perhaps is not terribly plausible or even possible but makes people feel special and magical.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/dictionary.php

Harsh. Accurate, but harsh. Failure to wear rose-tinted spectacles is a major cause of depression, after all, although I forget the medical term.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Well, surely who is "fittest" is the dominant/most successful social system/trends?

First you have to define "successful"

Most money? Most people who love and respect you? Best looking wife (best looking to whom?) Fastest car? Lucky to win the lottery? Happiest at your job?

In nature success is defined as not dying as quickly as others, but "success" in human context is a totally relative term, and as such no meaningful value can be placed on it. Therefore defining some kind of natural selection system around this relative context of success if largly pointless, and doesn't follow any real pattern with nature.

What people like Dawkins are talking about when they talk about evolution applied to culture is not individual success, but the success of ideas, or units of culture, that Dawkins defines as memes. This is a whole other topic, and a very interesting one.

But it just annoys me when people talk about neo-darwin evolution theories applied to "surival of the fittest" that was so popular with extremists such as the Nazi party, as there is really no meaningful connection between evolution theory and human competitiveness. For a start, what is evolving? Because you are successful doesn't mean your kids will be.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

First you have to define "successful"

Most money? Most people who love and respect you? Best looking wife (best looking to whom?) Fastest car? Lucky to win the lottery? Happiest at your job?

In nature success is defined as not dying as quickly as others, but "success" in human context is a totally relative term, and as such no meaningful value can be placed on it. Therefore defining some kind of natural selection system around this relative context of success if largly pointless, and doesn't follow any real pattern with nature.

Most descendants is the only evolutionary criterion for success...you can't tell who'll "win" in the long run, until the long run is over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Precisely. And by my count Genghis Khan is well ahead.

robindch

Here's an interesting article from Newsweek, discussing Dennett, Dawkins and Sam Harris's books on religion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/

All three are recommended reading for all atheists, irritable and otherwise.

btw, if I were newsweek, I'd be hiring another sketch-artist. See the botched job of Dawkins on page 3...

5uspect

robindch wrote:

Here's an interesting article from Newsweek, discussing Dennett, Dawkins and Sam Harris's books on religion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/

All three are recommended reading for all atheists, irritable and otherwise.

I must get a copy of The End of Faith, I quite enjoyed his video that someone kindly posted earlier. Unfortunately these books only really preach to the choir, the problem is the political attitude to religious beliefs that must be respected regardless.

Zillah

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/ wrote:

If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.

Well if it comes to it religion can have prayers and miracles and we'll use lasers and nuclear weapons...

MrB

ScumLord wrote:

I've heard of that book, I don't read much though due to my disllexica, is there pictures and such?

Sorry for going way off topic here mods, but I feel this is important!

Dyslexia is no reason not to read ScumLord, in fact it is a very good reason to read as much as you can because the more you read the better at it you become , I learned this in secondary school when my English teacher (who was a specialist in dyslexia) encouraged me to start reading on the bus to and from school. Now I always have something to read on the commute to work, at the moment I am reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, before that it was The End of Faith by Sam Harris and next on my list is Head First Design Patterns (work is making me!), then I might pick up a good novel for a change of pace

Basically what I am trying to say is that dyslexia is not an excuse for not reading, it does make it a harder at the beginning but stick with it, it’s worth it!

Oh and I find a spell checker to be invaluble as well

jessk

It seems these days that if someone decides they dont want to be a catholic nowadaya they call themselves an atheist. Of course an atheist is a belief,if someone is truley an athetist (and not just ant organised religion) well then they have an active belief that there are no gods. This is different to being agnostic which is where someone decides there is no concluding evidence for or against the argument of whether there is a god. It seems to me that people often mistake these two things.

pH

jessk wrote:

It seems these days that if someone decides they dont want to be a catholic nowadaya they call themselves an atheist. Of course an atheist is a belief,if someone is truley an athetist (and not just ant organised religion) well then they have an active belief that there are no gods. This is different to being agnostic which is where someone decides there is no concluding evidence for or against the argument of whether there is a god. It seems to me that people often mistake these two things.

Instead of telling people what they believe, do yourself a favour, and learn something. Go read the wiki page on Atheism.

I am a recent convert to Ignosticism - when someone comes up with a reasonable definition of God (that I can understand), then I'll tell you whether I believe in him or not.

5uspect

jessk wrote:

It seems these days that if someone decides they dont want to be a catholic nowadaya they call themselves an atheist. Of course an atheist is a belief,if someone is truley an athetist (and not just ant organised religion) well then they have an active belief that there are no gods. This is different to being agnostic which is where someone decides there is no concluding evidence for or against the argument of whether there is a god. It seems to me that people often mistake these two things.

I see atheism more as acknowledging a concept, which history suggests was created by man, to have no rational merit. As an atheist the concept of belief is one that should be avoided. We can believe anything that our imaginations can think of, pink unicorns are popular here, What I believe about pink unicorns is irrelevant. What is important is what I know to a high degree of certainity.

Anyway the atheist vs agnostic thing has been argued inside out, there are some threads floating about on the forum specifically about that debate which are worth a glance.

Welcome to Boards!

Asiaprod

MrB wrote:

Sorry for going way off topic here mods, but I feel this is important!

Very good post and good advice.

Oh and I find a spell checker to be invaluble as well

Me too and I still make many mistakes

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I am a recent convert to Ignosticism - when someone comes up with a reasonable definition of God (that I can understand), then I'll tell you whether I believe in him or not.

An interesting position! It conjures up the rather amusing image of the xth evangelist outlining their God - the scales suddenly fall from your eyes, and you drop to your knees shouting "Ah b'leeeeev!". Just think...you could be another Paul!

Possibly "then I'll tell you whether I find his/her/its/their existence to be plausible (or logically tenable) or not"?

amused,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Asiaprod wrote:

Very good post and good advice.

...

Me too and I still make many mistakes

!Off topic!

Firefox 2.0 will have an integrated spell checker, I shed a tear when I heard that.

jessk

pH wrote:

Instead of telling people what they believe, do yourself a favour, and learn something. Go read the wiki page on Atheism.

I am a recent convert to Ignosticism - when someone comes up with a reasonable definition of God (that I can understand), then I'll tell you whether I believe in him or not.

Telling people what they believe.....obviously you didnt understand my comment either,let me know if you want it on simpler terms.
Im glad you have found something which you can now define yourself as,mite make you feel better.

Zombrex

jessk wrote:

Telling people what they believe.....

I think pH was referring to the fact that atheism isn't a belief, it is a rejection of a commonly held belief.

As 5uspect says

I see atheism more as acknowledging a concept, which history suggests was created by man, to have no rational merit.

To say that atheism is a belief is a bit of a miss use of the word.

For example I wouldn't say "I believe Niall Quinn doesn't play Rugby for the All Blacks" While technically correct that sentence has very little meaning.

That tells you nothing about what I believe with regard to Niall Quinn. If asked do I believe if Quinn plays for the All Blacks I woudl say "no I don't." That is not a belief, it is the rejection of someone elses belief. I reject the idea put forward by someone else as not having merit.

I don't actively believe Niall Quinn doesn't play for the All Blacks, or Austrialia, or South Africa or professional rugby etc. I do believe Niall Quinn is the chairman of Sunderland football club.

If one counts what someone believes isn't true as their beliefs then the term "beliefs" loses all meaning, because that set is infinately large. I don't believe an infinate set of different ideas, god is just one such idea. I could list the things I don't believe and I would still be writing that list when I die.

In fact I would probably still be on the things I don't believe Niall Quinn does.

What ever an atheists believes about the world is their belief, not all the infinate things they don't believe.

Zillah

I'm sure whoever coined this line will claim it:

"Atheism is a belief in the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Someone also pointed out that everyone is Atheist. A Christian rejects all sorts of Gods, an Atheist just goes one further.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I'm sure whoever coined this line will claim it:

"Atheism is a belief in the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Someone also pointed out that everyone is Atheist. A Christian rejects all sorts of Gods, an Atheist just goes one further.

I've been not collecting stamps for years now. The thought of all the stamp shows I don't go to gives me a real thrill. I have endless books not full of stamps, and sometimes I read them for hours - simply hours. Not having taken a Penny Black into my life brings me out in a cold sweat, I can tell you. Sunday mornings, when other people go out collecting stamps, I remain stamplessly asleep.

I take not collecting stamps very seriously - I even do it while I'm asleep. That's how seriously I take it.

Actually, not everyone is an atheist - there are plenty of people who are oligolatrists, monolatrists, or alatrists - people who acknowledge the existence of gods, but who worship only some of them, one of them, or none of them. Strictly, the Bible does not deny the existence of other gods - indeed, it mentions them - nor does it require you not to worship them, as long as you don't place them before the Big One. Check the Ten Commandments - "thou shalt have no other gods before me".

currently rejecting all known gods,
Scofflaw

Dades

jessk wrote:

It seems these days that if someone decides they dont want to be a catholic nowadaya they call themselves an atheist.

Basically you're saying that people often don't understand what an atheist is, therefore call themselves one when they reject "God". I agree this is often the case.

I'd like to think that one reason for this forum's existance, is to 'clarify' (i.e. beat to death) definitions for posters such as this one:

jessk wrote:

Of course an atheist is a belief,if someone is truley an athetist (and not just ant organised religion) well then they have an active belief that there are no gods.

UU

I do not think atheism itself is "narrow-minded" as most atheists have thought throughly about what they accept as truth and what to believe in (or disbelieve in as most put it). Narrow-minded is prejudice, intolerance, that is, making a rash decision about something before examining it fully. On the contrary most religious people IMO are narrow-minded as most believe in blind faith without challenging their beliefs, looking at other views, beliefs, etc.

Anyway, here is an extract I recorded from Richard Dawkin's "Root Of All Evil?". It is very good and makes sense:

Teapot Atheists

Science can't disprove the existence of God but that does not mean God exists. There are a million things we can't disprove.

The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, had an analogy. Imagine there is a china teapot in orbit around the sun. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot because it is too small to be spotted by our telescopes. Nobody but a lunatic would say "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I can't disprove it". Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic but in practise we are all 'teapot atheists'.

But now, suppose everybody in the society, the teachers, the tribal elders, all had faith in the teapot. Stories of the teapot have been handed down for generations, it is part of the tradition of the society, there are holy books about the teapot. Then, somebody who said that they did not believe in the teapot, might be regarded as eccentric or even mad.

There's an infinite number of things like celestial teapots that we can't disprove. There are fairies, there are unicorns, hobgoblins. We can't disprove any of these but we don't believe in them anymore than nowadays we believe in Thor, Amanra or Afradity.

We are all atheists about most of the gods society has ever believed in. But some of us just go one god further......