Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[Nathans_Dad]

I agree with the title of the thread. Athiests have outlived their usefulness.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Jeff, after subjecting my Carl Sagan Baloney Detector to your posts about atheism, the detector is pegged.

How wonderfully irrational of you.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jeff Higgins

how Wonderfully Irrational Of You.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I agree with the title of the thread. Athiests have outlived their usefulness.

Soylent Green?

[DARISC]

There are those who "believe in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world", i.e. theists.

There are those who "disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods", i.e. atheists.

Then there are those who aren't sure what to believe, i.e. agnostics.

Seems a reasonably comprehensive three categories.

As far as the "usefulness" of the atheist category, I'm not sure what that means.

What isn't clear to many is that atheism has never comprised a movement or force that has ever been a "threat" to theism - except on the minds of some theists.

[Pazuzu]

If we're going to sit and hash out the details of how to define "atheist", then we must sit and hash out the details of how to define "god"...you cannot build a house out of Lego blocks unless you understand the blocks themselves.

So...what is the definition of "god" when use in the form of "atheist deny the existence of any god"?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by DARISC

There are those who "believe in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world", i.e. theists.

There are those who "disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods", i.e. atheists.

Then there are those who aren't sure what to believe, i.e. agnostics.

Seems a reasonably comprehensive three categories.

Yes, they do.

Originally Posted by DARISC

As far as the "usefulness" of the atheist category, I'm not sure what that means.

What isn't clear to many is that atheism has never comprised a movement or force that has ever been a "threat" to theism - except on the minds of some theists.

Well, no, that's not entirely correct. There are those atheists that populate the more zealous end of the spectrum who have most certainly made it their mission in life to stamp out any form of theism. Dawkins, and his fart catcher stuart, are two ready examples.

Of course, the same holds true of the theists. The zealots in their ranks would crush any form of atheism as well. They see it as coming from the devil himself, to be fought in all of its many guises.

Casual atheism, or casual theism, present no threat to one another. Members of both camps can engage one another and rationally discuss their differences. Maybe even enlighten one another. Agree to disagree. The zealots on either side simply cannot do that, and go a long ways out of their way to threaten the other's very existance.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Mike, I may very well be guilty of lumping all of you in with the strident atheists such as stuart. On the other hand, it strikes me you are just as guilty with regards to your image of believers. You have demonstrated (quite convincingly) that you simply cannot grasp how some one like me believes or thinks. It seems far more comfortable for you to lump me in with the Bible thumpin' zealots. So (excuse me from stealing your line), it becomes immediately obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

You have very clearly set out as well, but on a different (but parallel) path. You cling to your well developed stereotype regarding what all believers think or believe, and use that as the base from which you launch your attacks on all believers.

Just to clarify... I fully admit that I cannot grasp how or why theists believe what they do. I've always maintained that. Where I intend to diverge from your statement above is that I rarely "lump" anyone. I do not have a well-developed stereotype regarding what believers think or believe (I actually think that would be impossible). I do not (and never would approach someone outside the confines of a discussion like this) openly question or stereotype someone based on their beliefs. To me, everyone here is a separate entity formulated as a set of their collective posts. Do I view Nostatic in the same light as Trek? Uh...no. (OK, that's actually kind of funny).

I will admit that again - in the confines of a discussion like this - everyone's beliefs are fair game. You don't agree with what I believe or posts I've made? Great. Challenge me to justify my it. I would expect that. I will do the same to you - hopefully with some amount of respect. I don't see that as a threat to your existence. That was a very interesting comment. How can someone threaten your personal belief? Very interesting...

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Yes, they do.



Well, no, that's not entirely correct. There are those atheists that populate the more zealous end of the spectrum who have most certainly made it their mission in life to stamp out any form of theism. Dawkins, and his fart catcher stuart, are two ready examples.

I'm not convinced that Dawkins or Stuart give a fig what anyone else believes nor do they have any sort of mission to convert anyone to anything. Why would they?

The only "zealous" atheists I'm aware of are those who zealuosly oppose their tax dollars being spent for anything related to religion or to support religious causes. They object to "in God we trust" on our currency and a lot of other similar references to spiritual beliefs which they do not themselves hold but which impinge, by their perception, on their religious freedom, i.e., being free from having others religious beliefs foisted on them at their tax dollar expense.

Since I believe in separation of church and state, I don't find that unreasonable.

There have been many religious movements through the ages, all in opposition to other religious movements or organized religion. I know of no "atheist movements" that have, or are, doing that, but am not surprised that the very concept of atheism is anathema to any true believer and is often, in their minds, percieved as a threat, not unlike many percieve homosexuality as a threat to their belief system.

Ah yes, good old organized religion; I see them as clubs - that they like to beat people over the head with.

Of course, the same holds true of the theists. The zealots in their ranks would crush any form of atheism as well. They see it as coming from the devil himself, to be fought in all of its many guises.

Of course, that's more often true than not, since to "not believe" is in itself, in their minds, a "sin".

Casual atheism, or casual theism, present no threat to one another. Members of both camps can engage one another and rationally discuss their differences. Maybe even enlighten one another. Agree to disagree. The zealots on either side simply cannot do that, and go a long ways out of their way to threaten the other's very existance.

Again, I see atheist zealots as political zealots with no ambitions to abolish religion - they just don't want to have to deal with it and certainly don't want their tax dollars to foster it. They don't believe what a theist believes, nor are they interested in changing theist beliefs. Why would they? There's not a "Church of Atheism" to promote.

Religious zealots, on the other hand, can border on the criminally insane. All too often they cross that border and we have Jonestowns, etal.

..

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by IROC

That was a very interesting comment. How can someone threaten your personal belief? Very interesting...

I think you misunderstood. To the point where I'm not even sure which statement you reference. Of course no one can threaten another's beliefs. What one can do, however (and we see all around us) is threaten one another's abilities to proclaim and teach our beliefs. Atheists have endeavored to remove any mention of theism from the public discourse, as theists have also done with any form of atheism.

I guess in the broadest terms, that could actually be construed as threatening one's beliefs. Both sides count the addition of numbers to their ranks as "winning", and a decrease in their numbers as "losing". Like it's an "either/or" proposition; one must choose one over the other, and not mix and match from the two dogmas. Both sides are uncomfortable, even irrational, about allowing any of that. I think they feel as if their very beliefs are threatened.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by IROC

Just to clarify... I fully admit that I cannot grasp how or why theists believe what they do. I've always maintained that.

Why must you "grasp" it? Do you need to "grasp" a work of art or piece of music? Do you feel the need to analyze or deconstruct these to fit into your world view?

btw, nothing any of you guys say here ruffles my beliefs. Then again I'm not an "organized religion" or an "organized atheism" kinda guy...

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I guess in the broadest terms, that could actually be construed as threatening one's beliefs. Both sides count the addition of numbers to their ranks as "winning", and a decrease in their numbers as "losing". Like it's an "either/or" proposition; one must choose one over the other, and not mix and match from the two dogmas. Both sides are uncomfortable, even irrational, about allowing any of that. I think they feel as if their very beliefs are threatened.

So...they're Republicans and Democrats? And, just like those two groups, the theist/atheist paring are blissfully unaware that 90% of the world is far more likely to fit into the THIRD group...

[tobster1911]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Rationalists are quite comfortable with the position you describe. For example, ask a rational
...
Ask him about tarot cards or god. He might say well, I dont know for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence to support the proposition. Can you provide any?

By this definition you are definitely NOT a rational. Your own track record (and that of several others) has been not one of carefully reasoned, "I dont know for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence" but rather one of instant attack and belittlement. Even in this very thread you can not keep from dropping snide little comments in an attempt to paint yourself as superior.

Your own definition proves you to be IRrational. Just once show me a quote where you express ANY uncertainty in your position that God does not exist.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by tobster1911

Even in this very thread you can not keep from dropping snide little comments in an attempt to paint yourself as superior.

Yeah, cut that out, that's MY job!

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Then again I'm not an "organized religion" or an "organized atheism" kinda guy...

Judging just from this volunteer activity of yours here on the board, you seem to be an "organized moderation" kinda guy....

[tobster1911]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Yeah, cut that out, that's MY job!

Hey, what you paint yourself is none of my business.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Why must you "grasp" it? Do you need to "grasp" a work of art or piece of music? Do you feel the need to analyze or deconstruct these to fit into your world view?

I only attempt to grasp the concepts that I have been asked to grasp. If it were as simple as art or music, "to each his own" would be in full effect. Many of the believers I know do not adopt the "to each his own" philosophy but demand that I believe the way that they do or face damnation, etc. I ask them for justification for their demand and I'm typically given responses that I cannot grasp. That was my point.

My worldview is mine and probably mine alone and it is not a function of analyzing other people's beliefs. But that's just me.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by nostatic

btw, nothing any of you guys say here ruffles my beliefs. Then again I'm not an "organized religion" or an "organized atheism" kinda guy...

You're disorganized, eh?

[Normy]

Semantics.

I don't believe in superstitions and fairy-tales. These are just fantasies designed to stimulate/comfort your mind via imaginary processes and characters. I don't believe in the Smurfs, and neither should you.

And I don't believe any religions- I don't need any outside code of conduct or imaginary characters to inspire me to follow one. I already know how to behave.

In the end, you may call it what you wish.

N

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

So...they're Republicans and Democrats? And, just like those two groups, the theist/atheist paring are blissfully unaware that 90% of the world is far more likely to fit into the THIRD group...

Right again. And, carrying your analogy a step further, both groups are blissfully unaware that this 90% sees them as irrational. On both sides.

Originally Posted by IROC

I only attempt to grasp the concepts that I have been asked to grasp. If it were as simple as art or music, "to each his own" would be in full effect. Many of the believers I know do not adopt the "to each his own" philosophy but demand that I believe the way that they do or face damnation, etc. I ask them for justification for their demand and I'm typically given responses that I cannot grasp. That was my point.

My worldview is mine and probably mine alone and it is not a function of analyzing other people's beliefs. But that's just me.

The same applies the other way around. I think that is what you refuse to acknowledge. To paraphrase: Many of the atheists I know do not adopt the "to each his own" philosophy but demand that I abandon my beliefs the way that they have or face ridicule, etc. I ask them for justification for their demand and I'm typically given responses that I cannot grasp.

And please, let's not degrade that "cannot grasp" quote into some sort of argument for the intellectual superiority of atheists. While they do love to place themselves above the faithful in that regard, that is not what is meant in this context. "Cannot grasp" means the same thing here as it does in Mike's statement; their arguments are unsupportable and make no sense. They are unprovable; untestable. Often contradictory, and just as often changing. Faith based. As such, difficult for a rational mind to grasp.