Religion thread #58,934

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by razark

A lot of atheists are reacting to what they've personally experienced.

I have personally had people tell me that I can't be trusted, or that I'm evil, or that I'm not worthy of being an American because I'm an atheist. When I first met my wife's family on her father's side (who she hadn't seen in 20 years or so), they asked her if I beat her, simply because I'm an atheist.

I had a boss at one of my previous jobs that flat out told me that he'd be keeping an eye on me, since I was new and "don't have God in your life", and he was quite clear that he looked down on another employee that was also an atheist.

Excellent points. And yes, I've experienced this sort of treatment as well. I'm actually agnostic, but to most Christians it's the same thing. And it does tend to put a chip on your shoulder.

[krashkart]

A chip that can be let go of... until another one comes along to muck up the works.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

I have personally had people tell me that I can't be trusted, or that I'm evil, or that I'm not worthy of being an American because I'm an atheist. When I first met my wife's family on her father's side (who she hadn't seen in 20 years or so), they asked her if I beat her, simply because I'm an atheist.

I had a boss at one of my previous jobs that flat out told me that he'd be keeping an eye on me, since I was new and "don't have God in your life", and he was quite clear that he looked down on another employee that was also an atheist.

And I have had people tell me that just because I believe in God that i'm some kind of loony tunes and all sorts of other rude and insulting things. Is that any different than your experience?

I ask because I can manage to have these discussions without resorting to such invective. It seems some of your Atheist colleagues just can't do that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

If one is in doubt one should only admit he doesn't know. If one chooses to believe he should turn his belief into knowing and knowledge of its truthfulness.

But how does one "know" that which cannot be shown?

It's better to be a hardcore skeptic than a doubtful believer. Because the skeptic has his reasons not to believe while the doubtful believer has none to believe what he claims to believe.

But a believer without doubts is a fanatic by nature. Nothing can ever be perfectly known, so doubts are imperative to any rational thinker. A agree with your summation, but not with the conclusion.

That reason, that knowing, that revelation, however small MUST be there in every believer. The absence of which will turn them into a secular and an apostate or a radical/fanatic/extremist with time.

But "knowing" something that can't be fully known involves a denial of reason, not an embracing of it.

Atheism is the belief of the lack of God. It's a religion without ritual. Its core values is the belief that there is no God.

It is a belief that cannot be substantiated.

True only in the sense that the existence of God cannot be disproved. If something can be neither proved nor disproved, is it wiser to believe or to disbelieve? I do neither, because I don't know. Unfortunately I don't see that the believer does either. I used to believe, but I came to realize that I could see no reason to.

And will crumble to a man when the existence of God is known to that man on personal level.

And that will crumble to a man when he realizes that there is every chance that all of his "personal knowledge" has no empirical verification, and may be real or may be his imagination, and that there is no way to actually know.

I do not believe there is God, I know there is God. I know some of God's characteristic from personal experience but aside from that I have little knowledge and understanding of God BUT I DO KNOW that God exists.

How? What exactly is your experience? That which is truly known can be proven. If it can't be proven then it's only belief, not knowledge. I'm not trying to dismiss your experience, because I don't know that you're not right. But I don't know that you are, either, and I would to have some observable reason to believe you. Testimony is nice, but so far you haven't really given any. Saying "I testify that God is real" is like standing up in court and saying "I testify that the defendant is guilty". You haven't really testified to witnessing a specific event, only that your belief is real and that the other guy's isn't.

[Jimbuna]

[razark]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

I don't believe in (a) God, but I also can't say I'm an atheist; I can't prove he doesn't exist, so I can't be sure.

Atheism addresses what you believe: If you don't believe a god exists, you are an atheist. If you believe a god exists, you are a theist.

Agnosticism addresses what you know: If you hold that you cannot know for certain whether or not god exists, you are agnostic. If you hold that the question of gods' existence can be known, you are gnostic.

If you know god doesn't exist, you would be a gnostic atheist. If you believe god exists but that it can't be proven, you would be an agnostic theist. There is a distinction, but in common usage it gets largely misused.

[Sailor Steve]

The arguments about who shows more hatred, believers or nonbelievers, is fruitless for the simple reason that we are dealing with people. No, atheism is not a religion, but it's easy to see it that way because some atheists do indeed act like religious fanatics. As mentioned earlier, it seems to be part of our nature to take what we believe and turn it into an object of adoration, even if our belief is in lack of belief. It doesn't make atheism itself a religion any more that it makes it wrong. And that is also part of our nature, to assume that if we can prove something we disagree with wrong then that of necessity makes our belief right.

This is the mistake that Christians specifically make on a regular basis, thinking that if they can show one single flaw in atheism (or evolution) then they must be right, and that concept defies logic and reason. To reiterate, while it's true that some atheists do indeed act like religious followers, that doesn't automatically make the concept itself a religion, which requires actual following and worship.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

If you share your popcorn Jim. I'll share my beer to wash it down with.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

And I have had people tell me that just because I believe in God that i'm some kind of loony tunes and all sorts of other rude and insulting things. Is that any different than your experience?

I honestly can't answer that. I've only really seen it from one side. My gut reaction is to say that there is a definite bias one way, but I'm sure my view is colored by my own experiences, and making an objective assessment is beyond my abilities. I will say there are morons on both sides that try to push their views.

Originally Posted by August

I ask because I can manage to have these discussions without resorting to such invective. It seems some of your Atheist colleagues just can't do that.

I must admit, some of the replies I considered earlier were more along the lines of AngusJS. If my day had been going worse, it could very well have been a lot like that (including the stamps and baldness).

But that wouldn't get us anywhere. I'm quite happy to discuss/debate theology and specifics, but that really doesn't go well online. I've been involved in enough discussions on forums to know it wouldn't get us anywhere. I'd scream at you, you'd scream at me, and at the end of it, neither one of us would believe any different, but our opinions of each other (and the spectators' opinions of both of us) would drop. As long we're not attacking each other or advocating restrictions to anyone's rights, a calm discussion can bring a lot more understanding to everyone.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?

Atheists, all those that I knew or know, do not declare their atheism like any idoelogy, because it is none. It is the absence of it. Don'T know how it is where oyu live, but over here, we see and hear the church or some Islamic group or the Vatikan constantly banging the drum on how right they are and how oh and how hey. They claim a right founded in their belief or tradition to be given access to public spaces, opportunity to transform communal and legislative structures to their liking, and priviliges that they do not deserve.

No wonder then that atheists react with counter-pushing. People do not and must not actively or passively fall back and compromise their own way of living for the benfit of relgions that they do not believe in. Freedom to practice religion must also mean freedom FROM religion, else you end up with relgious supression. The freedom of relgious people end where their oractciing limits the freedom of others who share not their belief. Verursacherprinzip.

Keep thy religion to thyself. Anything truly devine would speak to you in the silence of your heart'S inner soul anyway. So why that noise you make in the outside world?

An evergreen, often played, often linked by me, and still so good:



Step onto a ssnake, and get bitten. Anger a Lama, and it spits at you. Beat a dog, and see it attacking you. Expect non-believers to limit their freedoms for the benefit of the freedom that your religion demands for itself, and don't be surprised if they get pissed. What is so difficult to understand in that? Your freedom ends where you start to limit that of the other. The other's tolerance for you ends, where you do not tolerate him.

[Growler]

May I introduce Secular Humanism?

This is probably the closest description of where I stand.

I've read this thread, and seen a lot of people whom I consider colleagues and friends chime in with their thoughts. Some of those thoughts I agree with; others, were we sitting at a bar or a coffee joint, would lead to, what I think would be a tremendously fun discussion.

Religion is not for me. Belief in a Supreme Creator does not fit with my view of the world. It's what works for me.

I was raised in a strict Catholic household in a Catholic neighborhood, went to Catholic schools. When my parents split up, I was ten. Once word of the divorce got round the community, my sister and I became social pariahs from that day forward, largely due to the Catholic parents passing judgement on my family's situation, and passing that judgement along to their kids. Our parents were divorced, which the Catholic church didn't take a real cheery view on, which somehow made us kids less worthy of Christian kindness, rather than more in need of it. It didn't end with our peers; the good Sisters that ran the school were equally determined to punish us for our parents' transgressions. For whatever reasons, we were to be subjugated rather than saved.

OK, fast forward thirty years. As an adult, I understand things a little better. Every religion, every faith, is comprised of people. People are, inevitably, going to screw things up. We can't help it. Also, like any other religious structure, there are those who preach the words, and those who perform the words. I lived in a community that loudly preached, but poorly performed. I've seen the other side of that, where the community was outwardly very religiously quiet - probably due to the sheer exhaustion of working their tails off to help their neighbors.

I worked with a fellow who once told me, "Did you ever notice that the people who speak the loudest about being 'Good Christians"... aren't?" I have never found reason not to disagree with him on that thought. And the same holds true for any religion in the place of Christian.

I've explored many religions, with varying intensity. One of those I looked at introduced me to the concept of the Wiccan Rede. I don't hold with it; much of it is spellcasting and other silliness. But the final lines are nothing more than a re-telling of the timeless Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." The Wiccan Rede closes with, "An[sic] Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will." I don't follow any faith, but those words are pretty clear enough, and good practice.

Are there militant believers of every stripe? Absolutely. Those who seek to impose their beliefs upon others, and who seek to legitimize those beliefs by way of legislation, are a clear and present danger to the safety of ALL religions and ALL faiths in any given country. Sharia law as the law of a land should terrify any reasonable human being. Christian law as the law of a land should do the same. Religion is a PERSONAL choice, and should remain in the purvey of individuals. It is not the responsibility of the state to mandate religion.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

[AVGWarhawk]

Religion is a PERSONAL choice

[MH]

Originally Posted by Growler

Are there militant believers of every stripe? Absolutely. Those who seek to impose their beliefs upon others, and who seek to legitimize those beliefs by way of legislation, are a clear and present danger to the safety of ALL religions and ALL faiths in any given country. Sharia law as the law of a land should terrify any reasonable human being. Christian law as the law of a land should do the same. Religion is a PERSONAL choice, and should remain in the purvey of individuals. It is not the responsibility of the state to mandate religion.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.

All depends on what supreme being belief system one subscribes too doesn't it? If your religion says that the earth is the floor of the universe, and the sky is a celing held up by pillars at the edge of the earth and the moon is the source of light at night then simply your religion is wrong and dismisses facts now known.

The critical question must be not weather or not god exists but do you have proof or are you endeavoring to get proof? The majority of believers I've encountered simply point to a book and say "here is the proof", or say "Yea I saw him! ... but no one else did". While science gives us something to look at and figure the origin of the universe and life that does not rely on some old book or someones word on it but a repeatable, verifiable experiment. Until someone can locate, categorize and analyze it I say it exits purely in the realm of the theoretical.

As for atheists hating believers I can only comment as to my self on that account in that I have never hated someone for what I feel is a misguided belief. Only in their actions would I find disdain.