Atheists need to come up with "better answers" to be accepted

I'm posting this in GD instead of R/T or the Atheism forum because I want to get a wider range of opinions about it.

Please read the article and tell me what you think.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071115/news_lz1e15ghorpad.html

excerpt:

Atheists are evolving, too

If atheists are going to band together and seek a place in society's governance, the question inevitably arises: What do you have to offer as a group in the form of public policy ideas that are an improvement over what already exists? And on this critical issue there is a problem; it is nicely captured by Austin Cline of the Council for Secular Humanism. He points out that atheism currently is a minor “ism” or “a state, condition, attribute or quality” of an individual such as heroism, pauperism and astigmatism rather than a major ism or “. . .a distinctive doctrine, theory, system or practice,” such as in liberalism, communism and Catholicism. As of now, atheism is a way of thinking about certain aspects of the world – it emphasizes rational, critical and independent thinking without relying on creeds, dogmas, tradition or emotion. The central challenge faced by atheists is that they need to provide better answers to questions endemic to the human condition: Who are we? Where did we come from? How shall we live our lives? How should society be organized? Where are we going after death?

My initial reaction is, hell no, I need to do nothing of the sort. All I ask--like any other minority--is equal treatment. To proudly announce that half the country now tolerates me is pretty insulting, but to then demand that my price for a seat at the table is to answer the unanswerable fundamental questions of human existence is disingenuous to say the least.

without coming up with conflicting stories, so why the hell should we be forced to?

We are. That should be enough.

the way you like.

which is the same as no answer.

there is no clearly authoritative answer and most who would be questioned have differences of opinions.

It just seems like an answer to those who are desperate to believe in that magical force.

Yah, you believe in those magical forces. The ones you think "magically" hold atoms together. You can't see those forces either can you? You can only see their effect on things. So in cause and effect, where is God?

The difference is not "whose magic", the difference is believers see God as the causer of causes, atheists believe (insert magical force here) is the causer of causes.

Here I was thinking it was scientific.

What book of certitude must we all look to in order to see that "science" is truth, and anything else is not?

If such a reference exists, then why is there controversy today?

There are so many ways to consider the problem, but not deserving an answer is a pathetic choice at best.

There's your answer.

There's a profound zen-like answer....
So terse. So cryptic. So final.

With that degree of finality, how'd you end up as a progressive?

Huh?

require little "smilies" or emoticons to tell them which way the wind blows.
That "cryptic" part was sarcasm, without the guidepost for you.

Sorry.

Because either way strikes me as self-contradictory.

Whatever. Discussions tending not to edification.

Let's get back to you. Amuse me and tell me how science is a religion.

Since you aren't really defending your position that science is like religion.
Maybe you just want to debate about debating, is that it?:rofl:

You sure have some energy on this. (It happens everytime. One belief system is fact, and all the others are just so much ca-ca. That shows a profound lack of respect and thought.)

I am amazed at your mocking tone.

How could you ever expect any sort of colloquy when both your guns are loaded???

Science is a belief system predicated upon a body of demonstrable facts, theories, and speculation. It is a way we find our way in the world.

But don't be so goddamned dismissive of other systems. Who are you to think you can make an incontrovertible statement about reality, other than your own perceptions?

"Who are you to think you can make an incontrovertible statement about reality, other than your own perceptions?"

A guy with demonstrable facts.

and that's all ye on earth know and all ye need to know."

So, you KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt how many dimensions there are and you know precisely what lies beyond a black hole and you can reverse time, right?

What you know is only what we have discovered through rigorous research, but reality has a strange way of shifting and what was true yesterday is no longer true today.

And as for what is religion:

http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm

"Religion - Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/world_religions_working_definiti.php

"RELIGION -- (Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: i.e. Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live?"

There are many definitions available. Most of them mention belief in the supernatural.

Most.

But there are some that provide variant perspectives on the nature of religion.

Being the big tent DU is, we can each choose one or a few consistent with our existing opinions.

But the fact that there are divergent definitions on what is religion challenges the notion of anyone having a handle on absolute truth.

But if you doubt me, stand before a peer review group and tell them that you have discovered absolute truth, and that truth is science.

Right, left.

Up, down.

Forward, back.

In mathematics, dimension has a different concept. You can have a one dimensional line on a two dimensional graph. Or a two dimensional plane in a three dimensional graph. Or, mathemtatically, you can have as many different dimensionals as you want.

Now when Einstein was messing around with relativity, he figured out that lots of problems involving time could be solved by using this mathematical approach using dimensions. Space could be the first three dimensions, and time the fourth. Or space could be the first two dimensions, and time the third, depending on how you want to set up the problem.

String theorists and other sorts of physicists use the same mathematical tools for other purposes.

When they say things like "there are 12 dimensions" they are not saying there are twelve alternative universes, where in one of them everybody is evil and has a mustache, or where everybody dresses like a cowboy.

"you know precisely what lies beyond a black hole"

I don't know what lies beyond a black hole, and I don't know what's in Aunt Ginny's hat box, and I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Religion-

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Science-

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Seems pretty discrete to me.

"But if you doubt me, stand before a peer review group and tell them that you have discovered absolute truth, and that truth is science."

Huh?

You're too clever by half.

What a great dialogue.

Do I need to insert the sarcasm emoticon here?


Sweet Jesus!

Or even made a working retort.

And you're complaining about my lack of dialogue?

That's rich.

I don't have to answer a fucking thing to you.

I don't want to answer a fucking thing to you.

Your snottiness is what's "rich".

I don't need to lock horns with a cheap sophist like you.

I owe you....hmmm...exactly nothing.

And that's what I'm giving you -- in spades!

I owe them exactly nothing.

Science is not an ideology or a belief system, it is a methodology of using empirical tests and peer review that minimizes the effect of cognitive biases, culturally-based assumptions, and self-delusion.

We still don't have a theory unifying relativity and quantum physics. But science understands that it's OK to not have all the answers. One day we will know more, but we will never know everything. There is always more to learn.

Religion, on the other hand, seems horribly frightened to not have an answer to everything. In fact, it could be argued that the sole purpose of religion is to explain things that man historically did not have the capacity to understand. This explanation is typically that a supernatural being did it for poorly articulated reasons. And unfortunately for followers of religion, as scientific knowledge grows, religious texts are often proven wrong, and Galileo has to be tried for heresy.

But to put it really simply: Science is not a religion. It is a methodology for learning what is true and what is not. If you can't follow that, it is futile to try to explain to you any further.

All I really wanted to know, was why you objected to Orrex's post #73 ('Any variation of "science is just another religion" does not deserve an answer.') I think it's a non-issue. Science isn't equivalent to religion. You are getting all riled up at me because you cannot give a good reason why science is like religion.

None of your other points are relevant to anything I posted, and amount to hot air and bombasting. That's a comment on your argument style, not on your belief system.

When did I ever say science has all the answers? I haven't said anything like that, EVER, in any of my posts. Please get a grip. Look back at your own posts, and look at all your nonsequitors that you either pulled out of nowhere, or were related to something someone else posted.

And BTW, you never answered the question. It's okay, though. We can save it for another day. I'm getting tired.

I know you're probably in bed by now, but you basically responded with a tautology. Another term is "begging the question."

The poster to whom I asked "Why doesn't it deserve an answer?" had implicitly that science is superior to religion. When you answered on his behalf, you merely rephrased his comment into an absolute assertion. I just don't have any room in my life for absolute assertions, regardless of which side of the aisle it stems from. There is no room for question, and that annoys me.

I believe that many of the more strident posters on this site would be well served to acquaint themselves with Plato's Socratic dialogues, just to expand their sense of style.

There are many wonderful thoughtful people here at DU.

You and the other fellow, who tag-teamed me, aren't among them at this time. You leave the impression that you are a couple of samurai warrior, but missing one of the fundamental principles of Zen:

"Cease to cherish opinions."

Again, my original question was answered with a tautological restatement of the poster's opinion, and hence, not an answer at all.

Get some sleep.

I'm not quite sure what set you off. This interchange apparently made you pretty agitated, and I don't see it as being anything worth getting upset over. If you don't have an answer to your own question, then just leave it alone. You didn't need to attack me just because you didn't have a snappy answer ready.

And, I don't "tag-team" with anyone. Maybe it looked like Bornagainhooligan and I were ganging up on you, but that was just a coincidence. I don't know him. We both happened to respond to your posts, because we obviously both had issues with your posts.

BTW, I wasn't physically tired. I meant that the interchange was making me mentally tired. Now, it's just making me chuckle, to be perfectly honest. Have you looked back at what you wrote?

I know you're going to attack me some more, which is pointless and absurd. For some reason, this spiritual-religious argument is mildly interesting to me, while for some people, (apparently such as you) it's really aggravating and makes them feel defensive and agitated. I'm a non-religious agnostic, with spiritual curiosity, but I don't take any sort of religious beliefs too seriously, and I don't insist on knowing the great unknown.

I can see that the level of emotional involvement is a lot higher for you, on the subject of religion. I didn't mean for you to get so upset. Peace & goodnight.

There. That's my point exactly. We cannot know. We can only utilize our senses and the extensions of them to wend our way through something much vaster than we can possibly imagine.

When someone makes a declarative statement presented as absolute truth, I view it as silly hubris. It's not about religion or religious beliefs, per se.

You have no idea of my religious underpinnings. You make too many assumptions. I can see where you missed the significance to several Buddhistic references. That's okay.

The main thrust of my position has been that the overarching essence of reality is ambiguity.

Get ahold of the movie, "The Man From Earth". This movie deals precisely with ambiguity.

You've shown yourself to have a bit more class than your earlier posts would indicate. I appreciate that. As to the other fellow:

"Tis a poor man with a paltry mind who mocks at all things."
--The Elder Edda (Ancient Norse Saga)

under my couch.

religion can't. it just gets pissed off and tells people they are doomed over sometime in the future. or it tries to kill you instead of exculding you. their is no basis of human observation for religion. merely simple answers for people too lazy to think that there might be some complex reasoning that you need to theorize about.

Which have been made here over & over, but they don't listen. :(

Welcome to DU, young one. :)

it pains me to think that people do not listen to logic, but i do not want to give hope and exclude anyone. so i will continue to slog on. i hope we all do.

and thank you. :hi:

Don't let 'em get ya down.

-d


"But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away"
-Michael McDonald/Kenny Loggins

tend to have little fucking clue what science is and how it works. Why argue with someone who doesn't know what words mean?

I consider myself a "Critical Empiricist." IMO The only source of accurate knowledge is testing falsifiable hypotheses.

elementary particles exchanging photons, gluons, gravitons, and W Bosons is magic? :eyes:

"Because the Bible says so" is NOT an answer. It's a cop out.

Where did that one come from?

All they accomplished was heaping piles of badly stacked bodies...burned out rubble and misery.

obvious dogmatic reasons. I wouldn't call myself an atheist but I can sure see why people would be there.

I have no label..help! :P

to convice them.


religious arrogance

precisely what it is. myopic, close-minded, religious bias and arrogance. After all, their book has all the answers, and by rejecting their book, we reject all of society, including our four fathers who were christian parents of this christian nation.

Who were those four, again?

I don't believe in God but I don't consider myself an 'atheist' for the one reason that I find most self identified Atheists intolerably arrogant.

What other "group" has to come up with those answers before they're allowed to be "tolerated". Fuck him and the magic pony he rode in on.

philosophical social ideal, not as a group to be 'tolerated'.

Perhaps it is just the area I live in, but I have never seen anyone give a crap if someone else doesn't believe in god.

that deem themselves celebs and offer their views on what America represents, its a must to at least pretend you believe in God or you become open game to be minimized or even accepted as any kind of leader in this country.

Give me one politician who is not "forced" to make references to personal religious beliefs?


The Irony of course is that in doing so, demanding, yes demanding, if our leaders do not pretend to have a belief in God they are pretty much stoned at the alter of our major media news stations as being moral and political incorrect and if I am not mistaken, isn't that what we are supposed to dislike about the Muslim community, their demand you believe the way they do?

I've seen this a lot lately. "Well if you don't have a god, how do you know murder is wrong!" Well guess what asshole. I don't need an invisible deity, threatening hellfire damnation for eternity, to know that murdering another human being is wrong.

That's the basis of the authoritarian belief system: that people are basically evil and that fear is the only way to control them. Funny how most of the authoritarians tend to be basically evil, isn't it?

how can you be good all of your life without expecting the big payoff in the end.

Look at the animal world. There is no compulsion against killing. The reason you know murder to be wrong is because thousands of years of social norms based on religious morals preceded you.

Killing != Murder

It makes little evolutionary sense for a species to have no compulsion to prevent killing anyone for any reason. No species made of murderers who kill each other and anything for no other reason than pleasure would last very long. They'd destroy themselves and the environment around them till they all were destroyed.

Most of the 'moral' values that people attribute to a god are easily explained via natural selection.

The choose their prey and kill for what every reason they are compelled to for what they see as survival. I don't attribute moral values to god. I attribute them to religion, which is a product of human social development.

Serial killers, etc are ill. Their brains are broken.

What about people raised without religion? Why do they share the majority of these moral values (such as prohibitions against incest or murder)?

Some are in it for the money, or the valor, or to "protect the country"

Many are not.

I am talking about 90% of the murderers in Prison and those not caught yet.

Because of the way they are raised. Values passed on by their forbearers.

My point is that the aversion to commit murder is LEARNED. Society is set up that way. Society that's values were based on religous morals. Going forward, it may certainly be possible to maintian a completely secular moral society, just dont disregard the origins of those moral values.

mostly toxic metals like manganese, mercury, cadmium
www.flcv.com/violence.html

all serial killers recently tested fit this pattern

Thats why they kill. It is by no means murder.

Killing is not always wrong anyway. In self-defense say or in war.

they kill because of survival instincts

man is quite different...


the reason I know murder is wrong, is because i myself would not want to be murdered, therefore it is wrong for me to impose that on someone else.

Some of the more intelligent animals kill out of malice.

Chimps and dolphins, for instance.

And I think that we make it worse for ourselves by pretending that we are.

just because something is "natural" does make that something moral. Just because that philosophical notion expressed itself in religious garb in pre-modern times does not mean religion is necessary to act morally. I am an atheist, I don't act morally because I am afraid of eternal damnation. I act morally because I have what what Immanuel Kant called the "Moral law within us," my conscience, that compels me to put the needs of everyone and everything above my own selfish desires.

who came right out and admitted it was religion that kept him "moral." To me, that's not morality, that's fear and egocentricity.

I'm paraphrasing here:
**My basic idea is this - Christianity cannot provide an adequate reason for why someone should be moral. In their lexicon of 'moral thought' there are several things you should do because you'll get into heaven, but more strikingly, there are things you should not do because you'll go to hell.
The only way to be moral is to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, and no other reason (not a very compelling reason, I know). But the simple fact of the matter is this: if you help someone because you believe they will do something good for you in return, that's not being moral - that's bribery. Likewise, if you do something good because you are afraid of negative consequences, that's not being moral either - that's being threatened.**

He said it well, I thought.

There's thoughtful thread on the atheist forum, no less: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x29241

They don't get their religion reflects their morals and not the other way around.

The answer is UNKNOWABLE. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Humanity needs to accept and embrace the mysterious nature of existence, rather than fighting nature.

As for "How shall we live our lives?" and "How should society be organized?" Humanism provides the answer.

number 3:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

They see it as a weakness of your argument, rather than a weakness of theirs. When an athiest/agnostic/secular humanist/what have you answers a question posed by saying "I don't know." the religious person sees it as a flaw.

The problem is that they often don't seem to realize that just because we don't know the answer to the question, doesn't mean that they have a superior argument because they claim they do.

If you took two people who had never even heard of math before, or any numbers, and asked them "What's 2+2?", then who has the better position? The person who says "The answer is 3 because this book, pastor, and family told me so." or the person who says "I don't know."

People can't grok that though. There's no comfort in that.

if it is nature to "know" the unknowable, then what's the harm in picking a belief (or non-belief if that makes you happy)? Apparently lots of harm if you confuse belief for truth, which is something that many atheists and religious folks seem to do.

"Atheism by itself is a hard sell. Its central message – there is no God – still puzzles and frightens many people. If atheists wish to become a significant player in influencing the course of human lives, they need a manifesto that provides better answers to life's fundamental questions than those provided by religion – a daunting task given that nearly two-thirds of our citizens (and at least three of the Republican presidential candidates) reject evolution as an explanation of the origins of life."

So, if I follow the "logic" of the last paragraph, it will be "a daunting task" for atheism to provide better answers to life's fundamental questions because nearly two-thirds of our citizens reject evolution. So, is the better answer determined by majority vote?

or have that choice forced upon us.

Atheists will never organize, the way that religions organize, because there's no system of beliefs or book of rules associated with atheism. The only thing that can be said of all athiests, is that we have no belief in gods.

Sid

And I don't know where you're typing posts from, but there are plenty of atheist organisations out there, and they're active. So apparently they ARE bound by some set of commonly held beliefs which drive them.

I belong to an atheist organization. We have a weekly meet-up where some drink beer and order food. The discussion is not about our beliefs. It's often about science, politics and the arts. It's about the irrationality of theists that dominate our social systems. We hold some educational events. The object is to get people to think for themselves. Would there be atheist organizations if there weren't religious organizations?

I don't know how you would differentiate between a nontheist and an atheist. The words mean the same thing. Both denote an absence of god. I'm sure most atheists are by no means activists on religious issues. They will keep a low profile mostly because they know that most religionists are vindictive, and designate as enemies those that don't buy into their dogma. Since they claim a moral high ground, they are obliged to enunciate some phony ecumenism and tolerance.

--IMM

I think it drives them crazy that non-believers have don't spend days and hours wondering how we got her, where were going, etc. I don't have a need to explain all this to anyone, because I don't have a need to know. I'm more interested in the current clusterfucks happening right now, today, in this world. Trying to figure all that other shit out is just a waste of my time. I also have zero desire to join a group to discuss these things. I certainly don't owe anyone an explanation so they can somehow accept me.

My thoughts exactly.

to answer. Let's see, after death, we could all go to your mom's house. How 'bout that? Just too damned silly...

at YOUR mom's house. She has a pizza oven. MY mom is a complete bitch. And a strict Catholic so you know we won't have fun there. You could all come to MY place after death. I have a Wii. We just got Guitar Hero III and DDR for the kids for Christmas, but our souls could rip those open and have at it.

hell, I'll bring tequila (I mean, we'll be dead, anyway, right?)!!!

If we spend after death at my place, I have some high-end Polish potato vodka in the freezer. My friend actually told me about a new variation of the white russian where you add Bailey's instead of cream.

...it would be tequila. So I'll bring a selection of brown ales and stouts.

Okay, my dogma is decided. Meet-up at Goblinmonger's place, after death! My soul is saved!

Tho, could be hang ups in limbo, fighting over the buttons.

Plus the boy is saving up for the new lego star wars so that the wii controller can be a lightsaber. Yeah, baby. And since it's eternity, I also have Excite Truck, Madden 08, Rayman's Rabbit thing, Super Striker, plus we keep the gamecube with tons of games.

in gamer heaven. Never have been able to afford or justify the expense of the wii, so I have to be content with the cube abilities. Being left behind by Nintendo, a wii eternity gives this old woman hope, lol.

Funny, everyone wants to know where they're going after they die, but they rarely stop to wonder where they were before they were born.

Whatever the answer is, you'll get there eventually. Why stress about it?

to convince others of the rightness of their beliefs. The point is, most atheists don't try to "convert" others to their side, and really couldn't care less what others believe, unless it interferes with the public good.

be quite a backlash from the religious community. There are already a number of religious conservatives who insist that Christianity is under siege. They would surely see atheist evangelism as an attack that threatens Americans' immortal souls. I don't see the need to hand them the ammunition.

Like Dawkins movie the God Delusion. I would'nt necessisarily call it evangelical behavior though. Door to door athiests? Athiests witnesses?

The problem with most Athiests is that they tend to be, or try to be, or think they are, rational individuals. Rational individuals don't go door to door trying to convince christians there is no god. Any athiest who has ever brought the subject up knows how people's minds just shut down when it comes to religion and god.

And the impression that sends to people shouldn't be underestimated.

acting as if those who believe in God are stupid.

Look at this thread - "magical being," "fairies," etc.

Try some respect for a while - that will garner more respect than derision.

Atheists were hated for hundreds of years without talking about 'magical beings', etc. - to the point where anything atheist had to be published anonymously.

However, what is your problem with 'magic'? Or 'fairies', for that matter?

1. Criticizing religion DOES NOT EQUAL criticizing the person who believes in it.
2. Religion does not have some special status which makes it immune from being criticized.
3. Why do I have to have respect for a religion? I respect YOU, don't have to respect your religion.
4. Isn't god a "magical being"? Aren't "fairies" part of some religions?
5. blah blah blah Bill O'Reilly Secular Progressive Meme blah blah blah :boring:

Also why is religion >= folklore?


Anytime something is compared it is actually devalued through the analogy/simile?

nt

then don't whine when everyone else says that's stupid.

have been particularly weak, like echoes petering out in a corridor. Maybe you need to go on a retreat or something, find your muse, get in touch with your inner arsehole and come back with some insults that aren't laughably sorry.

:rofl:

nt

are stupid?

The point is that it is a core atheist belief that the religious are engaged in infantile magical thinking with respect to their belief in a supernatural deity. That doesn't make you stupid, you might be a very intelligent person in other respects, who happens to hold onto infantile magical thinking when it comes to 'spirituality'.

You don't win arguments calling people names. At the same time it's hard to phrase things correctly in this sort of discussion without it coming out as condescending. The root of the athiest argument, is that the other side is engaging in irrational thought, so it's hard to approach it rationally.

Not impossible, just hard.

Plus, even if the Athiest wins all the points of the argument, the Theist can still be unswayed, even admitting the loss of the argument. I once had a great discussion with a Catholic priest when I was a young boy (minds out of the gutters please) and I pressed him about his belief, before he admited, he had no proof. That it was faith. It didn't matter to him if all the evidence pointed against it. He had faith it was true.

That's the core of the issue. Not comparing God to Fairies or Santa Claus, but recognizing that the difference in thought between in the Athiest and the Theist is that the Athiest refuses to believe in something without evidence, whereas the Theist at root trusts an idea without it.

What is the rational, evidentiary basis upon which to claim that belief in an invisible man in the sky--- who apparently cares deeply whether you're married or not before you have sex--- is any more grounded than belief in magical beings or faeries?

Isn't God "himself" sort of a "magical being"?

I'd say they not only have no intention of ceasing with their mindless insults, but they will continue to not understand why they are received so badly and blame it on intolerant "religionists," lol.

I can turn on the TV right now and find a preacher shouting about how horrible the godless are. How long do you think it would take to find an atheist on the TV shouting about how stupid believers are (no fair turning on House as he thinks everyone is stupid).

Its the golden rule. If you treat others with disdain then expect them to return the favor as you have shown them how you wish to be treated.

The golden rule is not a social contract clause where you act a certain way in order to gain the same in return, though that is always nice. The golden rule's admonishment is totally independent, and the behaviour is for its own sake.

that's rich! The pt. of this whole thread was?

You obviously don't grasp what we agnostics have to contend with.

there's no connection between whether someone belongs to X religion, Y religion, or no religion, and whether or not they're arrogant and self-righteous. Being disrespectful does not require a belief in god. Nor is being disrespectful prevented by a belief in god.

Who are we? - Humans. A natural byproduct ot the universal laws that came into existance when our universe expanded from zero to infinity.

Where did we come from? - The heart of exploding stars.

How shall we live our lives? - As ethical human beings, using rules that allow us to live together in communities of like minded heard animals.

How should society be organized? - Under a systems of laws that provide the greatest freedom to indiviudals without sacrificing the freedoms of any individual or group of individuals for another. (As a member of the human heard we should organize so that each individual can find happiness, have enough food, and a place to live.) i.e, society should be organzied so that every individual can reach the pinacle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.



Where are we going after death? - A casket. Forrest Lawn. Worm Food. Since we are the emergent property of a highly developed biochemical computer, when that computer shuts down for the last time, all data will be lost. Only our genes survive, and only if we reproduce.

WHY?

I'm not saying I disagree with this philosophy. I think Humans need to be copacetic to survive. But what's the guiding principal? The golden rule? Don't fuck with my stuff and I won;t fuck with your stuff? Why sould anyone be compelled to follow that?

BTW. We're not 'heard animals' by nature. We're far more complex than that. We're territorial, competitive and predatory. More like pack animals.

We are social animals by nature. The rules are derived from the idea that we survive best in groups. For instance, long term monogamous relationships are best in most groups because it encourages the survival of children which encourages the long term survival of the group. Males and females in a long term commitment who seek out sexual gratification with other members of the group can cause enormous problems and lead to murder. Such murderers and strife can rip a group apart. You could have a god say that and make a law, but in general groups work pretty good that way.

In general, groups work out rules that encourage the survival of the group and helps the individual achieve fulfillment. Kung Bushmen didn't have a real sense of my stuff of your stuff. Everything belonged to everybody and they have survived in one of the most inhospitable regions in the world for Milena.

There is no Golden rule. Groups all over the world have come up with many different sets of laws to encourage group survival.

In general, murder is not legal while killing when sanctioned by the group is perfectly OK.

Many groups have other pair bond norms than monogamy that work swimmingly within the group.

Although it religion sometimes includes it.

"For instance, long term monogamous relationships are best in most groups because it encourages the survival of children which encourages the long term survival of the group. Males and females in a long term commitment who seek out sexual gratification with other members of the group can cause enormous problems and lead to murder."

I don't see how polygamy would lead to murder any more than monogamy. After all, look how many murders involve monogamous relationships.

"There is no Golden rule. Groups all over the world have come up with many different sets of laws to encourage group survival. "

The basis for all of these sets of laws are variations on the Golden Rule theme.

Definitions of GOLDEN RULE on the Web:



or



or



It seems to me the definitions are pretty clear.

Certainly, you don't have to be religous to see the "golden rule" as one of the basic rules that makes life among inteligent social animals better. But then again, within social groups, God is such a good idea that if one didn't exist it would have been invented.

the P document portions and S document portions of old testiment bible came from Babylonian and the older Sumerian religious myth tales.
Note the P document version of the creation myth is entirely different than the S document version, since they came from different earlier creation tales, but both are included in the old testiment.

Yep, true that! Anthropology 101.

All highly social animal have rules (morals) that encourage the survival of the group.

We're on the same page. "There is no Golden rule." None other than those that increase our survival and those guided by our enhanced empathy for/with others. Morality is nothing more.

Suggested: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11350
and: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10894

Also, the very agnostic Noam Chomsky often writes about morality.

Bottom line is that morality exists w/o religious dogma, always has. Whatever enhances empathy, kindness, and love increases our chances of survival and that of our planet. That doesn't take organized dogma.

Athiesm in and of itself can only play a role of significance in the judicial branch of the government, because that arena allows athiests to access Constitutional protections. In the executive and legislative branches, athiests have no real influence, because of the lack of significant numbers or finances that could get a politician's attention. In those areas, atheists' only realistic option is to unite with others in areas that they share common interests with.

As an atheist I do not care one bit how we got here. I spend no time trying to figure that out.

I believe in the greater good. As to morals, that's easy. Would I want to be lied to, stolen from or killed? No. Therefore I know that others do not want that either and to do so would be wrong. I know that by keeping my word and being otherwise responsible in life I gain credibility with others. People who know me trust me. It's that whole consequences thing. If we behave honorably we will be viewed as such.

It's all so very simple.

Julie

Classical philosophers felt this very quest is what separated us from the animal kingdom. Our sense of self and the big question.




A code based on consequences is all well and good until desperation outstrips the consequences.
Then it unfortunately becomes violently unsimple rather quickly.

As far as I am concerned there is little that seperates us from the animal kingdom. Cruelty, killing for reasons other than self preservation or food and opposible thumbs are the main ones I can come up with. Oh yes, there is mankind's vanity in its thinking that it is so above the rest of the animal kingdom.

As far as a code based on consequences goes, indeed you are correct, in desperate times such thinking goes out the window. It doesn't matter if one is concerned with more tangible consequences (like those I mentioned previously) or that whole heaven/hell mindset. The desperate situation brings out a human's basest, most animalistic instict: Survival. Just like the rest of the animals.

Funny how that works, no? ;-)

Julie

and for the most part do not demand answers. They simply accept.

Most of the atheists I know do not proselytize or belittle those who believe in God.
I think it is organized religion, and the forced intrusion of it into our public and private lives that is the focus of most of the criticism.

Because the ones they have now are so outlandish that it's laughable.

Yes, a dead 2000+ year old cloud dwelling sky fairy is going to come back and "take them to the promised land".... :rofl:

Religion is a crutch and a means to escape personal responsibility. Period.



Who are we? We're HUMAN BEINGS....

Where did we come from? Our mothers and fathers...

How shall we live our lives? FULLY. Live each day as if it were your last. Enjoy the fellowship of other human beings around. Revel in the wonders of nature and of our Earth. Treat people with kindness & respect if you desire the same. Depend upon yourself for your well being and that of your family. Help those in your community who are unable to help themselves. Cast out and shun the shiftless, the lazy & the criminals.

How should society be organized? Those who work to better their community and the world in general should be held to high esteem. Those who work to undermine a fruitful society should be cast out, shunned and ridiculed...

Where are we going after death? In a box 6 feet underground or in an urn on someones mantle (or spread out in the wind as per your stated desires)

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?? I don't need threats of fire & brimstone, or my soul burning forever in a lake of fire, to make me a good person. You should either. It's a simple concept of treating others as you wish to be treated and working towards making your time here on this earth count for something positive and making it a better place for everyone...

Then we went to the Atheist Bookstore at the mall. Driving home I turned on my Atheist Radio Station (there are just so many to choose from!) and listened to some of my favorite Atheist Musicians. When I got home I scanned through the dozens of Atheist Television Programs until I found a really entertaining one. I ended up pledging $66.60 a month to an Atheist Ministry that goes to other countries to spread the bad word.

Then I cried myself to sleep because, you know, I have no hope of an afterlife.

That was fabulous.

I have to go pick my daughter up from the local Atheist schools now. Then we're going to pick up supplies so she can make Anti-Christ Mass cards for our friends.

N/T

last wk. at the grocery they had fake xmas trees for sale. in surprise, out loud I said "it's not even Thanksgiving yet". a nearby man nodded his head in agreement.

evening and Santa was already there, having pics taken with the kiddies. Since when is Santa at the mall a week BEFORE Thanksgiving?

Who are we? Individual people.

Where did we come from? I'm from Michigan. Generally, we're from our parents, who descended from their parents, etc.

How shall we live our lives? Ethically and deliberately, understanding that when we do good we bring good into the world, and when we do bad we bring bad into the world.

How should society be organized? Fairly and justly and by laws based on human rights rather than superstition

Where are we going after death? To the ground. Our molecules will be taken up by the world and re-distributed.

frickin' easy when you put it that way, doesn't it?

Why do some religous people get their panties in a bundle about it then? (Disclaimer: please note the use of the word "SOME" as a distinct means to indicate that I am not talking about ALL religious)

Attitude and tone of discussion can play a huge role.

Sometimes Atheists can come off as arrogant and condescending.
(These believers are a bunch of stupid fools). This may not
be the intention but perception can become reality.

Likewise the Believers can do a better job on their side, too.

Talking past each other gets neither side anywhere.

Often, in a struggle--you start with Tolerance. Being tolerated
as you say is a step ahead of being rejected. I am not be 'cutesy"
African Americans were tolerated before they gained status.

Success is usually accomplished in steps. Frustratingly slow
at times.

This is submitted in a sense of respect.

Doesn't this apply to all? Some "believers" have a problem far worse than tone. Some "believers" actually have been know to kill none believers or other believers that believe differently than themselves. For example, GWB speaks directly to the Christian god and rationalizes killing Muslims who are also "believers".

By the way, I don't consider myself an Atheist. I am a anti-dogmatist.

My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.

That about sums it up for me.

is nowhere but 6 feet under.

Summary: These atheists are too weird to be accepted to the "in crowd"...the Republicans.
:eyes:

Atheists offer a view of reality that isn't tainted by superstition. Atheists aren't out to convert anyone or save anyone or force compliance with any religious dogmas.

Who are we? - Human Beings, Homo sapiens from planet Earth.

Where did we come from? - Evolution.

How shall we live our lives? - Free from violence and repression.

How should society be organized? - Secular Democracy.

Where are we going after death? - That's up to the individual. I plan on being cremated and having my ashes dumped in the ocean.

I can't stand when theists demand that I respond with a well thought out answer to every trumped up hypothetical they come up when they will just ultimately cop out with "It's my faith! I just know in my heart that God is real!" in the end.

with their own answers? the "answers" are all around them, yet they are too blind to see.

No theocratic "-isms" are required to govern this country well.

My reaction is to vote for non-religionists and non-theocrats, since their counterparts have already proven to be a danger to humanity.

edit:

The larger they get, the more conformity by an ever increasing amount of people they require.

If you believe in God, terrific. If you don't believe in God, outstanding. If you think the world is 6,000 years old, have a great time. If you think the world is 4 billion years old, have a blast. If you fall anywhere in between or on the outer edges of that, there's no reason not to join in the fun.

This constant pressure to force everyone, either by shame, or physically, or mentally, or whatever, to live and think the same is driving everyone crazy. It doesn't matter side it is, every side does it.

That's what happens though, when you organize a society. It takes a lot of energy to organize a society. More and more people, to keep society together, must think about, see, and be in the world the same way, or else you don't get growth. If you don't get growth, society falls apart.

That's why we do our best to kill actual diversity. Be it in people, non-humans, ecosystems, etc, etc.

As Will Rogers once said: "I belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat."

"Organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority."
- Richard Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

Meow!


Seriously though, Nature favors diversity....but it is organized diversity. :)

Atheists are evolving, too

The writer demonstrates once again that Atheists are still a minority who are OK to kick around.

To make our participation in the political process contingent on banding together and presenting a plan to answer the same the unanswerable fundamental questions of human existence that religion has been unable to answer for several thousand years is disingenuous to say the least.

I need to do nothing of the sort. All I ask--like any other minority--is equal treatment.

The obvious corollary to the backhanded compliment that half the country now tolerates me is that the other half does not. That’s pretty insulting, but to then demand that our price for a seat at the table is to become as evangelical as the religious—in other words, “we’ll tolerate you as soon as you become more like us”—is just downright bigoted.

I suggest the next time the writer wishes to harangue Atheists about their “evolution” (Atheists evolve too; just like real people) or lack thereof that they substitute Black, or Gay for Atheist and see how it reads.

It's not our job to prove god doesn't exist any more than it's our job to prove fairies don't exist. I think all we can do is be more honest about our beliefs (or lack of them) and be good citizens, friends, and neighbors.

There was far less acceptance of gay people when some many were in the closet. It was only when more had the courage to live openly that more of the previously homophobic public began to get to know and understand them that more became accepting. So atheists need to take a cue from gay people. We have nothing to be ashamed of, so we should quit acting like we do by living our lives by "don't ask, don't tell" rules.

1. Beautifully complex, dynamic chemical structures.
2. Other beautifully complex, dynamic chemical structures.
3. In accordance with the doctrines your brain has learned during its early development.
4. In accordance with the doctrines your brain has learned during its early development.
5. In a hole in the ground. Sometimes, in a furnace and then in a nice little urn.

Whatever policies follow from atheism, they do not require one to be an atheist to support them. All sorts of agnostics and secularists and free thinkers have common cause in terms of policy... it's a bigger tent than just atheists.

So the only reason for atheists to band together in specific would be to represent/promote views that are unique to atheists, and there's no social or political purpose I can think of that requires an atheist perspective, as opposed to a broader irreligious or skeptical perspective.

Atheism should never be seen as a group thing... it is not a religion, an un-religion, a conviction or even a belief. It is an observation

Atheists could have some of the benefits of a religious church, such as socialization, community organization, and tax-exempt status!
:evilgrin:

We should all organize our own 'churches'! Our families are our members! :evilgrin:

That one thing that's always pissed me off about 'preachers,' ministers, and priests---their damn tax-exempt status!!
Did you know that the IRS does not regularly audit these churches to see what money making businesses they're into? Did you know about the controversy regarding the Church of Scientology's tax-exempt status and their black-mailing an IRS commissioner?

Did you know "the IRS is contractually required to discriminate in their treatment of Scientology to the exclusion of all other groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#United_States

Faith-based initiatives, my ass!

like not being able to put down a good book.
http://www.scientology-lies.com/

Churches: if you don't want to join one, start your own and claim tax exempt status! Seriously, there needs to be a task force cracking down on abusers of "church" status.

criminy . . .

You have a belief, but you're not allowed to question fundamentalist faith: Their position is set in stone. It's not a fair playing field when someone can attack you, but you can't attack back without being attacked for attacking their RELIGION.

I will NOT argue or denigrate religion, but when I can't avoid discussing religion with a family member - whomever got tasked with my conversion this time - I turn it into a discussion about the teachings of Jesus. Due to two centuries of rewrites, there isn't much of Jesus left in the New Testament, but there is also nothing to support a hateful or antagonistic viewpoint toward others, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. They have to go to the Old Testament for that crap and few fundamentalists actually know or study the Bible and have a clue about their options concerning those arguments. Not big readers, those folks. Instead, they rely solely on whatever talking points their church has managed to ingrain - simple, easy to remember absolutes.

Since most fundamentalists have a very limited repertoire, it shouldn't be TOO hard for you to read up on the issues you feel they might ambush you with and answer them with a question based on WWJS (what would Jesus say). What works best for me is to simply derail the argument with a general dialog about Jesus' general stance on love, poverty, health care (he never charged a dime), responsibility for one another, etc... and, eventually, they simply go away. However, they go away CALM because I did nothing to inflame the argument. I have AGREED with them, deflected their hatred and given them something positive to think about.

I've cycled through the four members of my family who wish to bring me to (their version of) Christ and it's been six months since I've heard a peep. Either they've given up or they're studying up for the next assault. Either one works for me since I'm either left alone, or they gain a better understanding of the Bible and become truly better Xtians through faith, tolerance and understanding.

but, as you've said, it does require a bit of understanding about where they're coming from. I've never had any trouble dealing with or getting along easily with the varied religious folk I've been surrounded by throughout my entire life, due to the simple human ability to reason. One of my best friends, who happened to be an old-order christian, liked to refer to my tactic as "Throwing Jesus back in their faces" and was always amazed that, as someone who thinks he was just a man, how well I could speak of his teachings to deflect reactionary attitudes.

"Know thine enemy" comes to mind, since they certainly do tend to bone-up for their future assaults. Unless one merely thrives on fighting, it's the best way to defeat discord.

Who are we?
American citizens.

Where did we come from?
Our mommy, just like everyone else.

How shall we live our lives?
Morally and legally.

How should society be organized?
Democratically.

Where are we going after death?
Into the ground, into an incinerator, or into a lab.

what the hell does that mean and why do I have to fear anyone or thing to be considered knowledgeable. I take great offense to this and wonder why it's ok for them to put some thing like this where the public can see it.Why must you "fear" god ?

appease God.

If you're actually interested, and not merely interested in being "greatly offended," what you saw was a complex theological statement. It means, in the simplest terms, that before you can understand God (knowledge) you have to realise the awe-inspiring enormity and power of this being. Then you approach the topic with the appropriate reverence.

There's nothing to be bent out of shape about, especially if it doesn't even apply to your beliefs.

Who are we?

I don't know who you are but I know who I am. So really...who the HELL ARE YOU?

Where did we come from?

Well I know where we didn't come from....we were not formed from dirt. We came from the joining of our mother and fathers genetic code during conception. Then millions of years of evolution kicked in and our cells multiplied and differentiated into various functions based on the genetic sequence found in our newly constructed DNA.

How shall we live our lives?

How about not killing each other in the name of ideology and having compassion as opposed to selfishness.


How should society be organized?

A true democracy would be good for a change.


Where are we going after death?

No where, we are already there. The universe. We are all already part of it.

in that we evolved UP from the basic building blocks the planet offered, and a lot of the same elements present in us are also found in the soil.

as to how shall we live our lives?

treat everyone as you yourself would want to be treated.

how should our society be organized?

fairly.

where are we going after death?

our remains will be returned to the earth that gave rise to us.

...are almost by definition on a course to accept more of the same.

Notice I said "in general". Anyone.

about how some other group must behave, have no interest in accepting that group to begin with.

Notice I said "in general". Anyone.

The last thing atheism needs to become is a another dogma. Atheism isn't a way of life, it is an opinion--an opinion I hold, and which informs my other views in many ways, but you can be an atheist socialist, an atheist libertarian, or anything between.

That's like saying that all black people have to "band together" and decide what "they have to offer as a group" in order to have a voice. Or insert any other defining characteristic, like Christian, or gay, or ....

It's insulting. Worse, it implies that there is some "normal" standard out there (could that be a Christian, white, straight, married, suburban, by any chance?) and that any individual who deviates from that "norm" has to "band together" with "others of their kind" in order to be taken seriously?

How ridiculous.

alternative. No, we don't have to do anything. One can point out the flaws in a particular dogma without having the necessity of creating a new dogma.

I couldn't care less about anyone's religion (as long as I'm not told to
accept anyone else's) or lack of it, but IF someone says they are an Atheist,
it's as good with me as anyone saying they are Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian.
(I always was pro-choice!)


"Where are we going after death?" Gimme a break. I have no idea, but I'm no hurry
to find out, either. If there's one thing that's for sure, there's no one out who can
tell me for sure that they know the answer to that better than I do.

It's no skin off of my back what someone else believes. Just don't try to tell me that
I ought to believe what you believe, and we're cool.

http://www.evilbible.com/

This site is real handy.

or governance. Religion is entirely a private matter.

It doesn't matter to me "who we are", "where we come from" "where we go after death". I doesn't matter, because no matter what you call yourself, when you answer those questions, you are just fantisizing.

He may have those questions, and heis free to answer them how he wants, but I dismiss those questions. I can set a "moral compass" without mythological gods and godesses and dusty old bigoted, mysogonist books.

Athiests have no need to form an alliance and define ourselves in terms of the religious. We should be accepted and treated equally, just as every person of world should be.

who are we?

human beings that inhabit this particular planet.

where did we come from?

we came from the same elements that came together to form this planet and give rise to primordial life- from which we ultimately evolved.

how shall we live our lives?

treat everyone in the same manner as you would like to be treated.(except for you sick fucking masochists)

how should society be organized?

fairly.

where are we going after death?

ultimately, we will all be returned in one form or another back to the same earth that gave rise to our species.

See, they wouldn't treat others the way they want to be treated, that's not their thing.

i could care less.

for the 90+% of the population out there (believers in cloud beings and other assorted fairy tales) the only "better answers" that they will accept are those that reinforce their delusions. This is the opposite position of science (and most athiests). show me the facts and I will follow them.

answers:

Who are we? animals with large brains

Where did we come from? the universe. Evolution. biological organisms are all a natural result of the increasing complexity and organization of the natural universe. A natural property of physical matter. The specific conditions necessary for life to evolve are probably exceedingly rare for any given solar system but given the countless trillions of solar systems in the universe life is probably very common.

How shall we live our lives? in balance with nature.

How should society be organized? compassion and fairness. no religions necessary

Where are we going after death? back into nothingness (or rather, the basic physical elements our bodies are composed of at the time of death)

:toast:

Would the Atheist not say "Why we are book-ended by nothingness, of course!"?

This seems a rather silly question to ask an Atheist.

but backwards thinking. Atheism isn't even related to religion if you "do it right"--it's a system which tries to insert critical and often rational thinking into our current world and take away the leaps of faith which often prohibit such thought and scientific observation.

There is little rationale in religion--regardless of your belief system, religion is based completely on a faith in the intangible. For many that is enough. For others, however, science is able to provide concrete answers to some of the more esoterical questions of life and our world. Atheism is often referred to as a belief, but is really not. It is, above all, a simple philosophy that puts more emphasis on logic rather than on the more ethereal. Many of those on the religious right tend to deride atheism because scientific reasoning requires thought and an often objective view of everything. As a result of demanding "evidence" it is a threat to those who want to control a great many people who are looking at the world through an emotional eye.

Why is that the only way to be able to answer those questions is in a dogma state of mind? What a laugh.

What do you have to offer as a group in the form of public policy ideas that are an improvement over what already exists?
-- The ability to progress is only hindered by the dogma that currently restricts it. Without dogma around your neck you can resolve issues much better. There is not that paranoia that some divine invisible man in the sky is watching us or that it should be included in our societal decisions and direction.

Who are we?
-- Well if you would pay attention you would already know that answer. But, instead some choose to ignore the evidence and stick to dark age fantasy and superstitions in a self enforced delusion.
We are Homo Sapiens. we are not descendants of Monkeys but share a common ancestor with Apes. The Human species is not seperate from the animal kingdom but part of it as well as a Evolutionary result, a process that will continue. The answer to 'Who are we' in the species since is easy, we are an animal like all other mammals on this planet, no exceptions, it is written on you DNA. The very DNA that WE share most in common we Apes. The other "Who are we" is the one about individuality, which is more of a 'Who am I' rather than a 'Who are we'. WE know who WE are and where WE came from, but answering the 'Who are YOU' question is a matter of self evaluation.

Where did we come from?
--We came from Africa and the consensus agrees based on the fossil evidence. Life in general came from Millions of years of singled celled Evolution..Now where did that single celled life come from? It is being discussed that Life, DNA/RNA or something similar, exist through out Space and that Planets are seeded through what is called PANSPERMIA. But, that is only a Hypothesis and requires more evidence to support it, perhaps when we discover life on another planet it can be considered more seriously and become a Theory.

How shall we live our lives?
-- You live it civil and based on what is and is not accepted in society. You do not need religion to be a moral and just person, Morality is ingrained in us and religion has nothing to do with it which is obvious when you look at the so-called 'moral majority'.

How should society be organized?
-- Not at all to differently then it already is, but with a stronger focus on Humanism. By removing Religious dogma the resources and energy that it consumes can be used for far more important things. Religious organizations are social vampires that suck funds and raw materials dry or at least a very large culprit. The general structure is relatively fine, but since religion has injected itself into the politics; because the flock thinks it has some sort of 'special' authority to govern based on divine law, the structure has become cracked and jagged as well as misguided. We all know that religion and politics DO NOT work together, History has shown us that yet the States do not seem to learn from History.
It seems that some think that if Religion was not part of society that people would just come unhinged and do more then what they do now even with religion present, but that could not be further from reality. Even if religion was not part of society, there would still be lawful consequences to your actions as there are now. gawds law, as according to the NT, is nothing that was not established prior to its scratchings which was sometime after the supposed death of the christ, like decades. It does not take religion to establish social structure in order for a society to function, the Sumerians had established social Law long before the Greeks. Without order in ancient societies we would not be having this discussion.

Where are we going after death?
-- After you die your time is up, when you die so goes your self awareness and the very thing that makes you who you are, your brain. Knowing that there is no such thing as the supernatural and no evidence (hard evidence) at all to support the claim we can conclude that such places like heaven and hell are nothing more then fabrications of the human imagination, just like Oz and Alice's Wonderland.

"I don't know, and neither do you"

:eyes:

How about this:

"Atheism: 100% Less God than your Regular Belief System. Now with no trans fats!"

is that there isn't one philosophy among atheists -- one answer to those questions. There are likely as many answers as there are people answering.

There isn't a unified group of atheists, purporting to support any value except, perhaps, the right to hold their own views without discrimination.

People who belong to one or another religious group join that group in part as an expression of their personal take on those questions. Their belonging puts them within a group unified around something. That makes them both an easier target, but also easier to contain and understand.

I think we get uncomfortable when we can't categorize something. Atheism probably falls into that category.

'If atheists are going to band together and seek a place in society's governance, the question inevitably arises: What do you have to offer as a group in the form of public policy ideas that are an improvement over what already exists?'

One could equally say, 'If Protestants are going to band together and seek a place in society's governance'... (or Catholics, or Jews, or Hindus, or Muslims...)

People of all belief systems or none should have a right to seek a place in society's governance, if they have good political ideas. To do otherwise, is discrimination. But governing on the basis of religious (or even atheist) beliefs is bad government. A good government attempts to serve all the people equally, and does not favour any religious group, or attempt to impose any religious belief on the people. This should be the focus - not that any belief system, even an atheist one, should form the basis of government.

tell us "who we are, what we want", where we live (address) home phone and any identifying characteristics.....:hide: :scared:

"leave us alone and we will stop making fun of you".

I think the difference between atheist and the religious is that religious people tend to focus on crap that doesn't seem to matter much like Where do we go after death? and who are we? and less on how shall we organize a fair and balanced society and live our lives.

If people who deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster want other people to take them seriously, they need to explain why global warming correlates with declining pirate populations.

In an attempt not to mischaracterize atheists or religionists...

A religionist believes that there is a supernatural super-reality underlying the universe and an atheist does not. Though we havn't talked about them much, agnostics simply don't know.

Since it is impossible to prove or disprove God, both religion and ahteism requires some form of belief without proof, otherwise known as faith.

So if I think Santa Claus doesn't exist, I'm relying on faith?

I see him every Christmas in the shopping mall with yiddle kids on his lap.

The preponderance of evidence falls on the side of the non-existence of that jolly old elf. There is no factory at the North Pole. He has never been shown to fly a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer on Christmas Eve. You accept that proof. There is no way you can prove to someone who wants to believe that he doesn't. You believe the evidence against his existence, when the truely accurate thing to say is there is absolutely no evidence that Santa Clause exists.

I can prove to anyone that walks into my office right now that there is no python on my desk. I could take a photograph and post it, but that wouldn't prove it to anyone not in my office and incapable of direct experience. Photographs can be doctored. It may be an old photograph. The second you move from direct experience some element of belief is necessary. It is the nature of the universe.

There is no evidence of God. I can not pour out a cup of God and drink it down. I can not measure God with any device. Miracles have been reported, but they can be explained through either natural phenomona, delusion, or reporter bias. I don't beleve in life after death. I have never seen a ghost. The notion of a compassionate God that will take those people who agree with him to a wonderful place after death and consign those who don't to a form of tortoure is illogical and certanily doesn't fit the definition of compoassionate. I can not prove any of that. As I see it the proponderance of evidence lies on the side of the nonexistence of human souls. I can not prove that. When you accept something you can not prove through direct experience, you are acting out of belief.

Airplanes proved that.

There was no Flood. Geology proves that.

So how is God any different than Santa Claus?

Anything that you can not personally experience you accept as a belief. I can prove to myself Africa exists, because I've been there. I believe Antarctica exists, but I've never been there, never personally experienced it. Anything you can not see, touch, or personally experience is abstract idea.

You are correct that there are no cloud cities with God and angels. That does not mean they do not exist somewhere else. Unless you can simultaneously see into every part of the Universe, you can not prove it to yourself, bring it out of the realm of the abstract to the realm of the concrete. You can and do accept that there is no god by the evidence of your experience and the knowledge you've picked up from others. That knowledge is abstract, and therefore requires belief.

I do not believe in God for my own reasons and from my own experience. But that is not empirical evidence.

People who believe in God accept the testimony from their holy books, from their own senses and experiences. They can no more prove god exists than you can prove god doesn't exist. God to them, like Antarctica to me, is an abstract idea.

From my point of view, both world views are valid. I've met people who have had what they believe are real spiritual experiences, moments when they have felt they reached out and in some way touched God. There experience won't work for me. That doesn't invalidate their experience.

To reiterate. If you can not physically experience something it is abstract. All things abstract require belief.

You don't prove the non existence of something.

You lose this one.

I can assume there is no Santa Clause. I then say he does not exist and I don't have to prove my assertion? Is that what you are saying? Anytime you make an assertion one way or another, you need to offer evidence. I think the fact that there is no factory at the North Pole and that no one ever delivers gifts on Christmas eve to all the worlds children is pretty good evidence at proving the assertion of Santa's non-existence. Without some proof or evidence of non-existence, you make a claim without merit.

I am only saying that the reality of a God's existence or non existence exists only within the realm of abstract thought. If you state the universe exists without a God, then you are exercising a belief in the nature of the universe, a form of faith, because it is impossible to experience every part of the Universe and know. In the same way, you can not prove existence of a God for exactly the same reason. You can show that there is no heavenly citadel in the clouds, but that only eliminates some concepts of deity, not all.

For that reason, the best solution is to be an agnostic. An agnostic can assume there is no god, that there is no supernatural underpinning to the universe because an agnostic sees no evidence and can not experience God first hand. An agnostic, however, can remain open to other points of view, but will insist on concrete proof that can be experienced first hand. God may exist, or God may not exist.

Actually agnostics are a bigger threat to religious whackos because they don't waste time on any of this shit.

Belief without evidence, without any support in either direction, is faith.

"Belief without proof" is something all of us do, all the time... it's at best an open question as to whether "proof" for anything is possible.