Stuart, I agree with you that the term, atheist, is really a special case of theist (one less god).

I see Jeff is in full song here. How unexpected. Of course, we had to kick things off with Stuartj's editorializing at the end of his opening post. :D

I think the term atheist is simply a label. Our culture loves to label people, yet rarely does the label really describe the person. The other issue is that the label of "atheist" carries such a negative connotation to most people. True story - a friend of my wife's went out with a guy on a first date. They got around to talking about religion and he said that he didn't believe in god. She is pretty religious, so this was a show-stopper for her. Anyway, relating the story to my wife, she said, "Even though he doesn't believe in god, at least he's not an atheist!".

In my part of the world, you don't let anyone know that you're an atheist. People lose jobs, receive death threats and become ostracized from the community. I don't understand why people are react in such a way to someone that simply believes differently than they do.

Jeff - maybe you can shed some light on that? You seem to have issues with people who disagree with you on this subject (the term "ilk" - or is it "elk" - comes to mind...).

The reality is that the non-religious segment of society is growing (quickly). Call these people what you like, but it is becoming more acceptable to shed the religious mythology in which most people are raised.

if people stopped worrying about where we came from, apes or dust, and whether God exists or not, and just focused on making the world a better place for the guy next to him, we'd all be a lot happier.

Jesus Christ, what matters more: proving/disproving the abstract or making a real, tangible difference in someone else's life?

Amen.

LOL, Mike. LOL. :)

Kind of like that other "A" word - abortion.

All kinds of euphemisms are used - "choice", "termination", "not bringing to term".

Uh oh! Veering off topic! Must...not...go...there. :eek:

+1,000,001, and the same for Shaun's post...

The number of misdeeds that have been done by one person against another in the name of religion is truly scary.

From my perch in the middle, firmly straddling the fence, I can make that argument with reference to both sides. Believing that the sheer complexity of our world developed (unguided and without a plan) in the short span of only four billion years is every bit as irrational as believing some old fart herded two of every species onto a home made boat. Believing that natural selection accounts for one species being quantum leaps and bounds ahead of every other on the planet (while being exposed to the very same selection pressures) is as silly as believing some guy spent time in the belly of a fish.

Uh oh! Maybe we can talk about the term "atheist" and whether or not it has outlived its usefulness. Otherwise, we're going to devolve into the ITAG thread.

ROFLMAO! :p

Humans have progressed(somewhat) beyond instinctual procrational and self-preservational tendancies to a level of understanding, predicting and controlling situations far in advance.
With so many different influences, the individual social mindset needs a set of artificial rules to identify and cling to for the benefit of the whole.
These mental rules must overcome the family/tribal rules which become the instinctual default in adverse situations.
The actions of the whole is collectively what makes one society stronger, and benefits the survival of individuals within that group.

The larger the cohesive group, the more likelyhood of self-propagation and ability to specialize. Specialization was created when the early hunter/gatherer societies evolved to Agrarianism, and the free time created allowed for much quicker advancement in arts, languages and science. The Argrarian man was generally considered far more advanced than his Neandethal hunter/gatherer counterpart because he ate a lot of organic tofu, dude.

The early polytheistic religeons allowed an explanation for the natural events which controlled the daily lives of early agrarians and gave hope and a purpose to individuals. There was a different personality-type story behind every natural event, which allowed for self-identification through expressed symbols such as totems, sculpture and artwork.
More importantly, the use of a shaman allowed the ruler-through-force to selectively take credit and distance himself from the predicted outcome of events based upon whether they were accurate or not.

As populations grew larger and more fractionalized and dispersed, the need to maintain centralized control over greater distances through a monotheistic religeon grew, and the new singular "God" created served as an all-encompassing surrogate parent and friend who would provide benefits to the individual based upon level of belief.


So why should some Amazonian tribesman today live his life based on the story of some 2,000 y.o. wayfaring Israeli priest killed by Romans? Beats me.
If everyone is doing it, it must be right. Right?

I'm here all week...

The premise of this thread is that atheism=rationalism. I'm merely pointing out that isn't necessarily so. I'm sure to its avid practitioners it must appear so, but it sure doesn't to the rest of us.

Chuckle. Marx came to the same conclusion - over 100 years ago.:rolleyes:

He was wrong.

Yup. We see how wildly successful Marxism has been.

While I would argue that atheism is completely rational, I will also admit that "atheism" in and of itself is meaningless in the big picture of life. People have even gone as far as to call atheism a religion. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color or like not collecting stamps is a hobby (I blatantly stole those similies).

Atheism is really nothing more than a rejection of the belief in gods due to insufficient evidence. That's all it is. It's not a way to lead your life. It does not provide any sort of "comfort" or "fellowship". Humans - being social animals - need this fellowship, IMHO. Churches meet this need. Clubs meet this need. Sports meet this need. If the people who received their comfort and fellowship from churches weren't so hell-bent on making sure everyone else believed as they do, threads like this wouldn't exist.

It's a personality cult, just like any other religion. BTW, I just love the "Christian spirit" shown by these folks.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/17166715/detail.html

and the world is worse off today for it.

Religion provides a Divine Right to kill.

Also, I think this is most interesting part of this whole phenomena. How two people look at the same evidence and come away with two completely different viewpoints? I can read a book by Carl Sagan and deeply feel that his logic is completely rational while my father-in-law claims that "he thinks too much and that he should simply believe what is in his heart". Fascinating.