Maybe we should be pursuing atheism?

[Onlooker]

I am an atheist, but I have plenty of respect for religion, knowing that many of the greatest people in history (Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, etc.) were religious and more intelligent that I am. However, religion, unchecked is terribly dangerous. We see the Muslims going insane over a Danish cartoon that depicted Allah. A senior editor of a French newspaper was fired for running the cartoon. In our own country, we see religious perverts spending millions of dollars to diminish the rights of gays and women, and to turn our nation into a more oppressive, less creative place.

It used to be that the educational institutions were effective at pushing reason over faith, but our educators now let us down (though they have shown some courage with regard to Intelligent Design). In this age, millions of people are driven by dogma, rather than thinking for themselves.

Without God, people must do more thinking for themselves, and if they did that, we might see a resurgence of liberalism, rather than remain burdened by decrepit philosophies that have been used to justify the murder of hundreds of millions of people over the centuries.

We need to promote reason over faith. That will not threaten the more tolerant and flexible religions, but it would threaten the cult mentality religions that have so much political power right now. Atheist arguments are a good way to get people to think for themselves, rather than blindly follow some lunatic out of the selfish pursuit of salvation.

Of course, even if my point is valid, the question remains: How does one go about promoting atheism?

[Coexist]

1. "How does one go about promoting atheism?"

from behind a big wall with a flame-proof suit on!

:hide:

[atommom]

26. That's the only approach I'd dare use here in Kansas!

Many of the faithful are very much afraid of atheism. They've been taught since childhood that Christianity is the source of all that's good in the world, that a person can't truly be moral without also being a Christian. Atheists could gently teach them, through example, that that isn't the case ... if only the RW noise machine weren't so deafeningly loud right now.

I would love to see more rationality too. The direction our country is taking really scares me. But I'm just not sure how atheists can promote rationality (and the absence of religious faith) without facing a blistering counter-attack from the RW. And I fear that the wingnuts would be thrilled to have another excuse to say that atheists/liberals are trying to destroy the very fabric of civilization. :eyes:

I'm curious to hear what others think of this...

[ComerPerro]

75. Too bad they aren't taught how to spot phonies and frauds

otherwise our state's political landscape would look a lot differnt, eh?

[atommom]

86. Can you imagine? Kansas would be a utopia!

Getting a little giddy now ... I'd better sit down... :crazy:

[papau]

69. Welcome to DU - watch how it is done at DU and copy the method -the

search for converts seems to infect all religions - and atheism is no different.

And like in all religions remember you are right, correct and logical and the other person is not as right, correct or logical.

Do not sweat the actual logic being used - just know that your logic, your way of thinking, is the more logical.

Put the flame-proof suit on and begin by claiming atheists are suppressed, and all theists are fundi's or at least all theists do not denounce fundi types often enough (discuss tolerance only when referring to tolerating atheists)

Explain that all problems trace back to theistic belief - you will not need logic for this "all" since there is certainly a historical record of disrupter's that commit some of the evil in the world in the name of religion.

Be certain to note that the other side is not acting like Jesus said they should when they deny your brilliant points - and always be ready with your list of common logical errors - like "straw man" - to charge the other side - you need not prove that there is a logical error - just claim it and say the other sides argument is "incoherent".

Best that you not post in the atheist group on DU - Atheism deserves the right to post in religion - and indeed in Science, or General Discussion - since the more that see your message the better chance you will have of getting converts.

And do not worry about how your posts tie to the Democratic Party - just assert that theists are not progressive enough for this site and that therefore we need to discuss the correctness of atheism.

:toast:

:-)

[Inland]

131. You forgot "rinse, repeat".

Also, I disagree about the "coverts" part. There's no attempt to convert. It would slow down the mocking. Rather, teh posts in all the sections is to seek out those that would avoid it and on the implicit presumption that there's one magic solution for all the world's ills.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. We need to believe in what we each believe in, and respect each other's

rights to that belief. It's a non issue. I have God, and I do a ton of thinking for myself. I don't place much "in the hands of God", I believe in personal responsiblity, and basically use my faith to make myself a better person. At least I try to.

[savemefromdumbya]

8. Religion is a personal thing

It shouldn't have been used and abused for gaining power. The 'Church' has a long history of greed and torture. The Sapnish Inquisition for instance.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Agreed.

But to somehow "promote" one or the other is wrong.

[Ron Green]

90. Religion is both a personal and a public thing.

Throughout history, various organized faiths have been used to oppress people as well as to teach and inspire people. To restrict religion to a private realm is to ignore the realities of social existence, IMO.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. There are people who "believe" that if they kill you, they will spend

eternity with 72 virgins (I myself would prefer if a few of them had some experience, but no matter....).

There are people who believe if they dance, there will be a good harvest (not destructive, but maybe irrigation would be more effective).

There are people (right here in the US) who beleive the rapture is coming. War in the middle east and despoiling the environment will hasten this joyous event.

And on and on.....

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. And there are people who believe that bringing stuffed animals

to bingo games gives them luck. What's it to me? Absolutely nothing. You commit a crime based on your belief...you'll pay in other ways. Sorry Blue eyed. Not a very convincing argument. But then it never is...from either side. I'll let you exist...you let me exist.

Thank you.

[BlueEyedSon]

23. You are providing cover for fundamentalism.

Mankind will be much better off when we no longer live our lives by superstition.

I'm not sure what your flavor of organized religion is, but i'll take a shot......


http://www.thegodmovie.com/

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. Whatever you say Blue Eyed son, but again, you prove my point.

You are obsessed.


and....wrong. :hi:

[BlueEyedSon]

40. I will only ask you to believe things that i can prove to you with

reason.

If being "reality-based" is an obsession by your standards, so be it.

[papau]

72. "words mean what I want them to mean" - I do like "reality-based" LOL

I missed these threads - thanks for helping to bring back a nice alternative to my doing real work!

:toast:

:-)

[smirkymonkey]

111. Hear, hear!

Religion (note: I did not say a belief in god or individual spirituality) is an anachronism. It can no longer further the human race. We are evolving out of a need for it, however many people - out of fear- need to cling to what gives them a sense of security in a changing world.

[calico1]

3. No. Bad idea.

Promoting atheism is no different than promoting fundamentalism. What we need to promote and foster is respect for differing opinions. I consider myself a very reasonable, thinking person and I belive in God. Believing in God or a higher power is not the same as being a whacked out fundie. So don't put us all in one group.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. WRONG. Atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural.

"Moderates" like you who believe provide cover for fundamentalism. Because you are smart and reasonable, we cannot have the conversation about how unreasonable, silly and destructive "belief" is. And if your belief is untouchable so is the belief of the really nutty fundies.

Really, you are neither here nor there. You are not a freethinker (if you were, you would be an atheist or agnostic), and you are not a true believer (if you were, you would be a fundamentalist).



http://samharris.org/

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. Says you.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Says Sam Harris. I do agree though. 8^)

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. Says you both then.

[calico1]

19. Excuse me?

If I were a free thinker I'd be an atheist, huh? You are doing exactly what I pointed out. You are trying to force your atheist beliefs on me and you believe your beliefs are right and I am wrong because you say so. No different from a fundie. :eyes:

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. No he's not. He's just pointing out how he's somehow "better" than

you.

And it's crap.

[BlueEyedSon]

33. Oh, I can feel the love! Is this what your god advocates?

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. And you sure as heck didn't learn it by being advanced and open

minded. :hi: I call em like I see them. And this is a pot of shit being stirred. I didn't call you crap I called the hypocrisy of your statements crap.

[BlueEyedSon]

41. Cursing is ungodly. And bad manners.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. No, no, no YOU"RE doing it. Hey , you saw what calico just did!

nyaaah nyaahhh nyaahhhhh

:)

[calico1]

31. Wow, hope that makes you feel good.

I came to this board to be in the company of open minded, TOLERANT people. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Feenicks]

30. I would jump in here,

but you are doing just fine. Take more words out of my mouth! :applause:

[lukasahero]

91. Ha. "If you were a free thinker" you'd believe (or not) whatever I do.

Glad you caught the irony of that stance. :hi:

[Epiphany4z]

4. I am often not sure

if I should let people know I am an atheist. Dems get so much crap for having seculars...but then I think many people are freaked out because they don't any atheist or don't think they do. I am a stay at home mom of 5 married 18 yrs one kid in college I have more or less adopted my nephew who is disabled due to his mothers drug use while prego..I am AKA soccer mom and I am an atheist...I have had the few people I have told argue with me and tell me I am not an atheist I can't be I have many of the same values they do.

I think faith has its place it helps many people handle what life tosses there way ...we are just living in a time when it has been hijacked by power hungry assholes.

I do think there should be a way to get more positive things about atheist out there ...I mean you get stories about gay family's but I don't ever read about an atheist family and if you think about we don't have any representation ...is there an atheist congress man/woman?

anyway just some thought on things.

[havocmom]

5. If atheism is 'promoted', does IT not become religion?

A religious fervor does not seem to require a deity as focus.

[Onlooker]

10. No

Not believing in God is not the same a rejecting the possibility of God. Atheism is based on reason, not faith. Now, if you want to argue reason is simply another form of faith, then I think we would have semantic issues.

While religious fervor does not require a deity as a focus, where it's dangerous, that seems to be the case.

[Feenicks]

50. Ahh, so you have REASON to believe

Atheism is based on reason, not faith.

that God doesn't exist? Meaning, you have "proof"? Any reasonable person would only believe facts that are provable.

Woudn't it be more reasonable to be Agnostic-- that is, withhold judgment about such a belief?

[SidDithers]

55. I don't think the poster said anything about believing...

God doesn't exist? How did you get that from their post?

Why are you defining what an athiest does or doesn't believe?

Sid

[BlueEyedSon]

61. These god people get so defensive!

You would think with the almighty on their side, they would have thicker skin.....

:evilgrin:

[Feenicks]

64. Not at all.

I'm just trying to get the poster to clarify, that is all :toast:

[Feenicks]

63. You are confusing

me. "I am an atheist" is how he begins. It is not I who defines what persons who claim to be atheists believe-- it is they...no?

[SidDithers]

67. Allow the athiest to determine his or her own beliefs...

some athiests are strong athiests who actively believe that there is no god, some athiests are weak athiests, who live their life without a belief in a god.

There is a subtle, but significant, difference between the absence of belief in a god, and the active belief that there is no god.

If you say "I am a christian", you are grouping yourself into a community with a broad range of beliefs and values, and I would not presume to define your beliefs simply by that statement.

Sid

[Feenicks]

68. Okay, semantics thing for me

I guess. Given your defs, I would say:

Atheist = Strong Atheist

Agnostic = Weak Atheist

I am new to this board and I am new to this idea of nuanced atheism. Thanks for the clarification.

[SidDithers]

71. You're headed in the right direction...

but not quite there yet :). Just as the difference between Christian denominations are important to the Christians (at least I would assume they're important), the nuances of athiesm are important to us, and you're still trying to apply your definitions to our beliefs/non-beliefs.

From my perspective, I'd suggest:

Strong athiest = active belief there is no God

Agnostic = believes that we do not know whether god exists or not

Weak athiest = is without belief with respect to God


Maybe we are debating semantics. But the key point, I think, is that you cannot determine a persons beliefs, non-beliefs, morals or values simply the the label they give themself, whether that label is athiest or christian.

Sid

Edit: forgot to include link to a good site with definitions:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

[enlightenment]

87. My favorite part of this never-ending debate --

defining free thought!
Personally, I prefer to define "agnostic" directly -- without knowledge. Not without knowledge of whether or not god/gods exist, just without knowledge of that which has not been shown/proved (reasonably enough that the agnostic person accepts it as proof).

I've found it very interesting that for many atheists, the refutation of god extends to a refutation of anything not shown -- aliens, Loch Ness monster, dinosaurs in the Congo, etc. It's more than an "I don't know, so I have no opinion on the matter," it's an absolute "no way those things exist." Any of it. Seems to make some atheists a little cranky, too. (kidding . . .)

Given that the word "atheist" is specific to "god" (theos), that kind of refutation suggests a much broader definition, imo, than is commonly used. (I figure agnostics get away with holding their opinion on things other than god because the word defining them is broader! Gotta love semantics.)

It is also interesting how discussions like these move so quickly away from concepts of religion to concepts of faith. The two are not interchangeable -- you can have faith without choosing to belong to a religion, and presumably you can practice a religion without a great deal of faith.

I'm more than willing to go after a religion -- I don't do it on these boards because I feel it is a debate better held in person -- but I'm not going to go after someone's faith (unless they try to cram it down my throat, and then all bets are off . . . but that generally happens because their particular religion tells them they need to evangelize).

Faith is (and should remain) personal. Religion is, and has always been, a public creation -- a public manifestation of guidelines that some folks thought up and others choose to abide by.

Me -- I'll stick with "I don't know -- and don't really care." It will either be proved or not, eventually, regardless of what "it" is. I'll wait. If I live long enough, I may see. Or not. Don't know.

:evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

95. I couldn't agree more...

Faith and belief, or non-belief, or disbelief, are and should remain personal.

But the debate sure can be fun :)

Sid

[rd_kent]

77. I have to disagree with you

An Aethiest does not believe in god, period. I guess you could try and move the words around a bit and say an Aethiest believes there is no god. IMHO, its one and the same. But to say someone who lives their life without a belief in god is a weak aethist is like saying a xtian who is tolerant of different beliefs and values is a bad xtian.
In for a penny, in for a pound I say. pick your group and get in it.

[SidDithers]

80. You're welcome to disagree...

But that doesn't change the fact there is a difference between not believing in a god, and believing there is no god.

Weak as describing an athiest is not a value judgement, like bad might be. Weak athiesm is also sometimes called implicit athiesm, where strong athiesm is called explicit athiesm. One is a passive, or default, position whereas the other is an active disbelief.

Sid

[rd_kent]

84. Hmmm.... Interesting.

Not sure how to reply to you. Your point is well taken, but I think we are getting into an argument over semantics.
I think if you were to ask 100 Aetheists whether they believe there is no god or whether they dont believe in god, most would tell you its the same thing.

[SidDithers]

93. I couldn't tell you what 100 athiests thinks...

only what this one does :). To me, it's an important distinction.

Cheers.

Sid

[Bill McBlueState]

94. interesting

I prefer "implicit" and "explicit" to "weak" and "strong."

[rd_kent]

73. Circular logic is the weapon of the fundie.

But be careful, it can be used against you.

One could argue that those who believe in god are unreasonable people because they have no proof of gods existence. And based on that, only reasonable people would not believe in god due to lack of proof, therefore, only reasonable people are Aetheists.

[Feenicks]

79. Yes, it can, and I fully acknowledge that belief in God is unreasonable.

But I would argue that only Agnostics are reasonable, not Atheists. Only they withhold judgment one way or the other, which is the only "reasonable" position to take.

[rd_kent]

82. How is that?

See my post, #81 and get back to me.

[JVS]

120. Wouldn't "not the same a rejecting the possibility of God" be agnosticism?

Atheism has one central axiom: no deities exist.

Religions all posess at least one, and usually more axioms. Among them are the existence of a deity (or multiple deities), and usually has axioms the identiety of said deity or deities.

None of the axioms of either Atheism or Theism can be proven.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Yes.

An obsession is an obsession, no matter how it's painted. Too much of either is never good in my opinion.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color.

How do you make the jump to "obsession" from anything in this discussion?

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. Pushing one or the other is never a good thing. Don't tread on me

I won't tread on you. Somehow my best friend an I have a stronger friendship than ever because we respect each other's beliefs or lack threreof...Do You understand now? If not, I can't help you.

[BlueEyedSon]

38. If religion were not "pushed" on people it would be gone in one

generation.

Organized religion has woven into its very fabric, the "push" mechanisms (that does not mean that you personally are doing the pushing). Religions exists in the context of human culture and society. In a sense their continues existence and growth is darwinian. Through the ages (unless you believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old) many, many religions have faded away, and some have gained in "popularity". To survive they push.

[The Straight Story]

74. Atheism is a belief system and leads to other such systems

example: just because no one believes in god does not mean they will all not have seperate beliefs on other things, such as political systems.

Your morals, politics, and personal ideals are all beliefs you hold which you feel are better than those of others. If we all just switched to republican tomorrow we would all believe the same and be better perhaps. Or, as you desire, we all become atheists because they are the only 'true' thinkers and are the only ones truly free. -- That in and of itself is a belief, which you are pushing, based on your morals and values.

Many folks I have met over the years belong to a faith because they came to the same conclusions after a lot of thought - to wit, myself. I was atheist (and I made up some pretty good jesus jokes in my time...) and examined in depth many faiths and beliefs. While I hold a mix of them I am primarily christian in core religious beliefs. Did I 'need' a god as it were? No. But I kept coming back to the concept through computer analogies (long story).

Free thinkers find answers for themselves. I did. You came to a different one, fine by me...afterall, Jesus did not tell his followers to force people to believe, he said give them my message and let them decide - and he never asked them to get into government and force people to live a certain way, it was and is a personal thing where fellow believers get together for church - that some have changed that is not the fault of religion, it is the fault of people who have other issues.

Atheism is a form of belief, one which you hold. It starts with a premise and does not allow for some things outside of that premise. The idea of god is a theory - and much like other theories in the world many can act on that theory as though it were true while waiting on an acceptable proof (Like fermat's theory which took centuries to prove but it seemed like he was right so most just assumed he was and acted accordingly). No one could prove or disprove fermat (and others) but they can and did choose sides (ie, some thought it was some that it wasn't). Such is the norm really in most theories (and science is chock full them as is history and revision of history).

[rd_kent]

81. The idea of god is NOT a theory!

Nor is it a hypothesis, its an IDEA at best.
From the websters dictionary:
"Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
"Hypothesis -A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."
"Idea - the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about; a personal view; an approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth"
I think IDEA fits best.
The IDEA of god, while it may be widely accepted and is a tentative explanation, cannot be tested and cannot be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Atheism sprang from these revelations about the IDEA of god. People who were strong enough to stand up to and disagree with the INSTITUTIONS of religion chose not to BELIEVE in god because it made no sense, especially when as knowledge increased, things that were attributed to god, were explained away scientifically.
I think one could better describe Atheism not as a form of belief, but as a lack of belief.
And remember, one cannot prove a negative. The burden is on the one presenting the IDEA to form a hypothesis, test it and if it hold up, then form a theory.

[The Straight Story]

97. God is a theory, hence the whole intelligent design thing

one examines the world, like computers, and concludes they did not evolve, they were designed and built (something computers would do well to remember if that ai thing ever gets kickin).

One then examines other things in the world and comes up with the theory that mankind, et al, also were planned and implemented (god, aliens, who knows). Based on that theory they open various lines of reasoning some of which refer to personal experiences (ie, I saw an angel, creator communicated with me, et al).

No one is able to prove the theory as of yet but they base decisions off the strong assumption that said theory is correct.

Atheism's theory is that no such creator exists and that things happend all by themselves through a logical and pragmatic way. They cannot prove how it all happend currently and many previous theories in science have went up in smoke as new information was learned.

Both side believe things had a starting point (theory of big bang, parallel universes, god, et al) but none have total proof of how it happend. Atheism works toward that proof, which makes it different than religion which waits for that proof to manifest itself on a global scale through a revelation.

Atheism though does take it's theory as fact, as does religion, and acts according to that theory being true. It seeks out methodical methods to back up it's ideas, and goes through a lot of mistakes in a trial and error fashion as it systematically grinds toward it's proof. Newton was right, but not fully right as Einstien showed. The belief was newton was on target, and within our limits at the time his theories worked, but on a larger scale they were not working.

Science, like religion, has pundits who peddle junk. Trusting in science blindy leads to bad things as does religion (example, trusting that scientists that created a new thing which is good and then years later finding out it causes cancer - how could such a thing happen? Scientists are humans too - and hence quite fallible).

We all look for the mechanisms behind things - we base our research off of theories we develop then we seek to prove them. Until proven they are still just theories. One is a theory of things coming about by chance, one is a theory that it was not chance. One side wants to whittle down the chance thing and show it was not chance really but a logical manifestation of some basic principles, one side whittled down already to not chance but design pushed along by a basic principle that things were created by desire and not by chain reaction.

I respect both sides and see both as free thinking. That some individuals on both sides don't does not invalidate the basic ideas, it only invalidates them as being able to examine things in an open way.

[rd_kent]

104. Yet you still misuse the word.

Most of what you say in your post are IDEAS!!!!! Intelligent Design is not a theory, its an idea.

No one blindly floows science, but science does blindly follow reason. An idea is proposed,a hypothesis is formed, its tested and if proved true, a theory is made. If that theory stands up to scrutiny and the test of time, only then does it become a law.
Aetheists dont have a theory. They dont have ANYTHING. Thats why they are aetheists. Please dont confuse science as aetheism, and Intelligent design as science.

[SidDithers]

107. Your misusing the word theory...

In a scientific discussion (which is what I think you're trying to engage in here) a theory is a model which has been repeatedly tested, never falsified, and remains a valid way of predicting future events. A theory is about as close to "fact" as science gets.

You say "many previous theories in science have went up in smoke as new information was learned." Which theories went up in smoke?

God is not a theory, because there is no way for the "theory" to be testable.

And you're just plain wrong with your definition of the atheistic "theory". The only thing that you can say about all atheists is that they share a lack a belief in God or gods. That's it.

Sid

[papau]

124. never falsified???? "way of predicting future events" and

"The only thing that (I)...can say about all atheists is ....."

interesting.

:-)

[papau]

121. LOL - I do love setting the rules - or defining the logic to be used -what

ever is best used to describe your post!

:-)

[SidDithers]

88. Atheism is not a belief system...

it in an absence-of-belief system. Some atheists go one step further, and actively believe the negative. Perhaps these strong athiests could be considered anti-theists.

Sid

[smirkymonkey]

115. Exactly - how many people would actually become members of

thier religion if they had not been indoctrinated. If it was not ever present in thier society? Impossible to know for sure, but interesting to think about. I would maintain that very few people, left to their own devices, would ever become members of a fundamentalist religion unless they were mentally ill.

[SidDithers]

24. Wow...I love the bald analogy...

I've never heard that before, and am gonna steal it from you :)

Thanks,

Sid

[BlueEyedSon]

27. "God is Santa Claus for adults."

[BlueEyedSon]

29. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than

you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

--Stephen Roberts

i got a million of 'em...

[SidDithers]

44. Yeah, I've heard those others before...

but bald is so appropriate for weak athiesm. I don't have an active belief that hair doesn't exits, but I, myself, don't have hair, and I go about living a normal, hairless, life.

Sid

[calico1]

22. Exactly.

And sadly the atheist pushers don't even realize they are doing exactly what they hate the fundies for doing.

[Onlooker]

28. But religion is constantly pushed on us

Every day we read about school prayer, religious monuments in public places, anti-semiticism, radical fundamentalism, calls for something by the Vatican or another religious leader. Every station has some sort of Touched By An Angel type show. Every walk takes me a church. Religion is everywhere, so you apparently don't realize what you are doing. I accept that you are pushing religion because you do it more politely and benignly than the fundamentalists, and that's how atheism should handled it.

[calico1]

34. Hello? I am not pushing anything.

I stated that you can be religious or believe in a higher power (which more describes me) and still be open minded and free thinking. I am totally against any group that goes on a mission or crusade to force beliefs on people. That goes for fundies, athiests or anyone. Its not what you believe or not believe, its when you try to force those beliefs that there is a problem. I never even talk about religion with anyone nor do I attend church so I really don't get where you thinnk I am trying to push religion. :eyes:

[Onlooker]

46. Atheism is almost invisible; religion is everywhere

You said, "And sadly the atheist pushers don't even realize they are doing exactly what they hate the fundies for doing." So, it sounded to me like you were comparing the atheists to the fundies. My view is that religions voice is heard almost nonstop, so the atheists need to be heard as well. You may not be trying to push religion, but the fact is it is all around us, and atheism has almost no visibility at all.

[calico1]

53. I agree with your point about religion being

everywhere. True. I don't care for it either because to me its a private issue. I never bring up religion and don't like it being intertwined with government. The point I was trying to make is that if you try to push atheism --as in telling people they are wrong or stupid for not being atheists or just constantly harassing them because they are not atheist then its no different from a fundie harassing you. Yes, there are less atheists. But being insulted or harassed by one or accused of being stupid because I am not atheist makes me feel no different than a fundie telling me I am going to hell if I don't think like they do. I am not comparing all atheists to fundies. Don't think that. I am comparing the intolerant, aggressive promoters of atheism to fundies. Anything that is extreme--"I am right, you are wrong. You are stupid if you don't believe as I do" etc. Its the extremism I hate and it doesn't matter if its religion, atheism, politics, sports, or whatever. Its the same mentality. Intolerance. I have nothing against athiests or agnostics or persons of any religion. Just don't tell me I am wrong or stupid if I don't believe exactly as you do. That's all.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

37. Not by all...Just as not all atheists push their opinion.

Live and let live...there's room for us all.

[Hamlette]

58. the point is, there is not room for all of us

some people who believe in god, believe god tells/wants/commands them to do things that are harmful to me. The for-instances are pretty easy here, the harm caused by some, like 9-11 are obvious, but the harm cause by others, like the failure to grant equality to gays (which just a few years or generations ago was women and blacks), is less tangible but equally destructive to the social fabric of a society.

As you say, it is easy to punish the first group (9-11) but I say, it is impossible to "punish" the second group because our society (as evidenced by this thread) will not allow us to say: "decisions which will have an adverse effect on others, should be based on reason." (Which is not faith but the absence of faith. When reason ends, faith begins.)

Say it, even on a liberal board, and you get eaten alive and told you are intolerant.

Tolerance is overrated when it says I have to be tolerant of someone's belief system which has no ties to reality and tells him to kill me (or harm me or my society). If you can believe in god, for which there is no evidence, what is to stop you from believing you should harm me? And we are prevented from saying the whole premise is faulty.

In an age when people are capable of mass destruction, the question become urgent. If a religious wacko gets a nuke and god tells him to use it, we can punish him. But it may be too late.

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. There is. It's just so many on both sides are willing to see themselves

as persecuted, and persecute others as well, all based on belief or non belief. You don't have to be religious to be wacko.

[Hamlette]

127. where did I say I feel persecuted?

Feeling persecuted gets you nowhere. All I want is a place at the table, to be heard.

Religion is based on emotion and faith, not on reason. Which is why we cannot have a reasoned discussion about it. Problem is, if you continue along that path, what is to stop Osama from nuking you? Or Bush? All in the name of god?

But it is a discussion we must have in an age of WMD.

I do not object to private beliefs if they do not effect me. But they have spilled over into the public arena and now they do.

[BlueEyedSon]

32. Atheism is not, nor can it be a "religion". Please look up the definition

and then you will agree.

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. But it can be an obsession. One can be obsessed with pushing

their point of view on others. Just have you have done here. I think I will now place you on ignore. Because we aren't going to agree. And once again, you are just antagonizing and not providing concrete debate.

[BlueEyedSon]

42. Ye of 30k+ posts, have i ever mentioned atheism to you before?

I fail to see how mentioning something in one thread makes it an obsession.

[Onlooker]

54. But religion is everywhere

How often do you come across the idea that there is a God and how often do you come across the idea that there is no God. Everywhere we go we're reminded of the possibility that God exists. I have nothing against beautiful churches, people wearing crosses, people in other religious garb, Bibles in hotel rooms, football players praying on tv, and so on. All I'm saying that while the idea of God is advertised everywhere, we should do a better job at presenting an alternative.

[ScreamingMeemie]

60. About equal. We don't get Jehovah's very often...If I don't go looking

for it I don't see it. It's not everywhere in my world, only in this damned adminstration. But that's a misuse. It's a non issue in my opinion. Both sides are going to feel tread upon. That's the nature of the problem.

[bloom]

57. You can still have a congregation of obnoxious people

I've seen it happen here on DU. Call it what you want.

If singular atheists were lone wolves who liked to insult people that would be one thing. You could figure it was their particular personality. When you see atheists group together and take pleasure in ridiculing others for their own enjoyment - it becomes something else. And it also seems just as bad or worse than people who get together and try to reinforce positive principles - and who call that religion.

If supposedly "rational" people want to "convert" others - they may want to start out by being positive instead of negative. And furthermore - if they haven't read any moral teachings, zen stories, or anything else like that - it wouldn't hurt. Life is not just all rational with no emotions and no relationships or interactions. And yet - that is what one might think that some groups of atheists think - even as they huddle in their groups that seemed designed to keep others away.

[havocmom]

118. LOL Well, somebody got my point. Thank you.

The reasonable and learned scientists, not so very long ago, BELIEVED there were no such things as germs. Their REASONED BELIEF resulted in a whole lotta women dying of 'childbirth fever' because reasonable, learned doctors wouldn't wash their hands. They were so absolute in their understanding of the logic that if they couldn't see, measure, prove a germ existed with what tools and knowledge they had, a germ simply did not exist. If it didn't exist, it could not be the cause all those people died.

But, when they washed their hands throughly before and after each patient, suddenly the 'childbirth fever' stopped in the clinics they served. When they gave up the assumption they believed was reasoned knowledge, they actually learned and humanity was better for it.

Yes, an obsession is an obsession and hanging on to tightly is a very dangerous proposition.
Being so adamant one is correct that one refuses to even consider evidence to the contrary is a sure fire way to end up doing harm.

Insisting that atheism is more correct is just as harmful a BELIEF SYSTEM (therefore, a religion) as insisting some other absolute is the ultimate truth. Fundamentalism is the same concept of absolute, regardless of the focus.

I choose to believe I was given free will. I intend to use it. Perhaps my religion is that I believe promoting the concept that people have free will and can make, AND change, decisions, is a decent approach ;)

Then again, I could be violently corrected by a plate of pasta from out of the blue.

[seabeyond]

13. persue mind your own business. i like that best. all get to make

their choice without shoving or ruling down another. we know it could be done. has been in the past. but then calif, vs fundie land.... maybe it has always been "good christian" around here. i dont know

[BlueEyedSon]

48. if 90% of people "mind their business", the other (crazy) 10% will

write the laws. Get your Burka out & ready!

[seabeyond]

51. ah, that is when this old lady will be dancing naked in the streets

bring em on

[RB TexLa]

15. Or Churches could try to solve problems instead of creating laws

One for example.

Most religions feel abortion is wrong in most circumstances. Instead of trying to pass laws preventing the procedure why not a "crusade" of sorts to help to prevent the situations that cause people to have to face such decisions.

Work on access to healthcare, improving education, providing sex education (I mean if abortion is that horrible, isn't it worth having to talk about sex to help prevent it from occurring? :banghead: ), educate people on adoption and on adoption of special needs children, teach people to not isolate those who have sinned from your community (if someone thinks "my daddy will kill me if I get pregnant," who wouldn't chose an abortion over being killed by their father :banghead: ), create and support programs to give young people something to keep them from drugs and crime. And much more. And there are religious people who do just these things, but many do not. The God I know doesn't need the help of the government for his people do do his work.

[smirkymonkey]

123. Thank you - a good outline of what religion should be, if it must

exist at all. Instead it's this exclusive club where it's members are allowed to feel superior to others and specially endowed with powers to judge and condemn those who do not share their beliefs.

[rpgamerd00d]

43. == please read ==

What you are actually talking about is Extremism.
Anything taken to an extreme is bad.
Even Love becomes harmful when taken to the extreme.
We do not need to promote "Atheism", we need to promote Moderation, Rational Thought, and Common Sense.

[BlueEyedSon]

47. Onlooker, I do not think you are talking about "extremism".

While it is true we cannot actively "advocate atheism" (how do you advocate the absence of something?).... we can point out the dangers of belief, the hypocrisy of religion (expecially religious "leaders"), and to advocate that religion be put in a box as a PERSONAL experience where it belongs (out of public policy, law, etc).

[Onlooker]

49. The problem is ...

I pretty much agree with you, but it has to be rooted in a philosophy. After all, whether we're talking about things like "common sense" (as rpgamerd00d listed) or things like the hypocrisy of religion, those just lead us into a abyss, since one person's idea of common sense or hypocrisy may not be another person's idea. The goal behind talking about atheism is to introduce a rational way of thinking about morality, the world, and God to those who prefer mythology, superstition, and dogma.

[rpgamerd00d]

52. You can teach what needs to be taught without ever using the word atheism

The philosophy is called "Reason" and never uses "lack of religion" to convey its tenents.
There is no logical reason to put "atheism" into this. People are perfectly capable of being Reasonable while having Faith.

[BlueEyedSon]

59. Oy! Some from-the-hip remarks.....

1. I'm not sure it has to be "rooted in a philosophy" (i have to think about that). Also do not confuse philosophy with dogma/ritual/doctrine. Atheists don't need a "bible". Granted, Easter and Christmas (Parties! Presents! FOOOOOOOD!) are some hectic sales & marketing tools. Oh, just don't mention that BOTH holidays were adapted from the pagans.

2. By it's very nature, Atheism is the Abyss (it is the ABSENCE of something). But only in relation to the fictitious candy-colored mountains of religion. :) It's actually the lack of something extra which is not needed (and arguably dangerous).

3. Without devolving atheism to pure "science" (which moves forward by consensus among many individuals but is widely perceived as intellectually difficult and devoid of spirituality).... I think that people's common sense and decency are very consistent. FYI, sometimes when I tell people I'm an atheist they look at me like I said "satanist". I started tell em I'm a "Naturalistic Pantheist" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism ).

4. Check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393035158/qid=1138894579/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-8922574-8725552?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[smirkymonkey]

132. That is the crux of this argument I believe:

"to advocate that religion be put in a box as a PERSONAL experience where it belongs (out of public policy, law, etc)."

I don't care what people believe personally, but Religion w/ a capital R has become to much of a controlling, corrupting force in society and I believe that it needs subdued (and preferably eliminated as a societal institution).

[papau]

70. Well said :-)

:-)

[rd_kent]

105. Thats Aetheism!!!!!!

You just described a typical aethiest!!!!

[BlueEyedSon]

45. "We" should be pursuing reason, and a reality-based life.

Including the running of our country (both domestic and foreign policy), our laws, business & interpersonal relationships.... and spirituality.

"We" meaning you & me apparently!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. The Danish cartoons did not depict God

Who you named by the Arabic word, "Allah". The cartoons were mocking Mohammed, the Prophet through whom God sent the Qur'an. Personally, I felt insulted because I felt the cartoons were mocking ALL Muslims and seemed to incite hatred towards Muslims. Having checked at some Muslim message boards, I find that my view is not isolated. Kindly remember that Muslims who do not agree with terrorism and fundamentalism are being harrassed and threatened, which to my mind makes it understandable why we get upset about things we feel foster a general anti-Muslim feeling.

Now to address the point of your post. I think there is a difference, perhaps, between religion and spirituality. Religion tends to have rules and laws that people often bend to their own means, to help them foster their own agenda. Spirituality does not have rules, but is rather the inner relationship that many have with That which creates and is everything. That being said, I think that your problem in promoting atheism is going to be with those who are concerned primarily with using religion for their own ends, because what you are going to do is try to interfere with their agenda.

[Onlooker]

65. You can't regulate taste

You have every right to be upset. In fact, as you probably know, even our right wing Supreme Court ruled in favor of Larry Flynt after he ran an obscene cartoon about Jerry Falwell. The court said, you can't regulate taste. And the issue with the cartoon was an issue of taste. As a gay man, I know that bad taste is all over the place and couple that with homophobia, I know I can relate to some degree to the Muslim American experience. (In fact, I've discussed this very issue with a very good Muslim friend ).

As far as your other point, I agree with you. I am atheist, but consider myself to be spiritual. And it is those who are concerned with using religion for their own ends who I am most worried about. All of the world, including here, they have much too power, and I think atheism (as well as progressive religions, etc.) might be another way to weaken them.

[Kazak]

66. I think it was Robert Anton WIlson who said:

"Religion is the laziest form of atheism."

[More Than A Feeling]

76. How about we "promote" neither atheism nor religion?

Atheism and reason are not synonymous. Public schools should not be addressing God, except in the context of the influence of religious belief (or lack thereof) on history, art, and present-day society. In my view, separation of church and state requires that, and would not be satisfied even by giving religion and atheism equal time (except when they each get nothing), much less promoting one over the other.

There is such a multiplicity of opinion (on the ultimate question of "Does God exist, and, if so, what kind of God is there?"), and no way to determine the truth of most of them, using the methods and facts considered suitable to be taught at the public expense. Therefore, no conclusion should be taught, nor should things be taught solely and explicitly because they point one way or the other.

Plus, it just causes unnecessary trouble. We don't need to mirror our opponents in this way to defeat them.

[Lorien]

78. I'm an atheist, but I think that promoting atheism isn't a good idea

I want a secular party-but by that I mean that I want party leaders to keep their individual faiths to themselves and not attempt to "promote" their set of beliefs over anyone else's. Religion brings comfort to some people, and even if I don't believe in it, I don't feel that I have the right to try to take those beliefs away from anyone. We should promote reason and science, yes, but we shouldn't state that there is no God. That would be far too arrogant, IMHO.

[JVS]

83. "Without God, people must do more thinking for themselves..."

Which might be an even bigger disaster than the current system. I would be horrified to live in a world filled with the "holy war of one" mentality.

[applegrove]

85. I like what the catholic church said this past week. Real Love is given

freely - and for religious types to try and convert the people they try and help out is wrong.

I have a few beefs with the catholic church - but I think they are right on.

[JVS]

89. OMFG! How can they issue a statement like that?

They've been in the conversion (forcible or not) business longer than anyone! Can they seriously mean this, or are they just calling a cease fire because they've got their 1.6 billion and don't want others horning in?

[applegrove]

102. I think they see the danger and are going back to their roots. Still

doesn't excuse the millions who die because of their reproductive health policies.

[Bill McBlueState]

92. people are afraid of that word

Basically you're saying that we need to use reason to govern, not unverifiable religious claims. That's something almost any progressive would agree with. For example, most progressives believe that the debate over abortion should be informed by medical knowledge of a fetus's viability, not religious proclamations about when life begins.

But as soon as you point out that belief in gods is chief among those unverifiable religious claims, and thus atheism is more compatible with reason than religious belief, people get angry. That word gets such a negative reaction, probably because those who are not atheists get to define what it means.

As has been said elsewhere, atheism means a lack of belief in gods, not the assertion that there are no gods. If we're going to be guided by reason, we have to abandon beliefs that have no rational basis.

[SidDithers]

99. You've touched upon one of my biggest beefs...

that atheists are so rarely allowed to define themselves and their own beliefs or lack of beliefs. Just like theists, we're all different and believe, or don't believe, differently.

Cheers.

Sid

[rd_kent]

100. You are correct sir!!!!

"If we're going to be guided by reason, we have to abandon beliefs that have no rational basis."

Brilliant. I think I may use that on my tagline, if thats okay?

[Ron Green]

98. It would be impossible, and unwise, to promote atheism, because

the Church is a fundamental part of society, and must be. There are the State, the Church, and the Market.

The State: Could be the King, could be an elected body, could be a central committee. Could be harmful or beneficial. Freud's "ego."

The Church: Refers to the entire spiritual awareness of a people. Could be state-sponsored, could be tolerant and life-affirming, could be murderous. Freud's "superego."

The Market: Could be open and free, encouraging innovation and industry. Could be monopolistic, could be enslavement. Freud's "id."

Just as in the individual, the society must have these aspects. Sometimes one controls the other, sometimes one IS the other. Ideally, they are balanced in a way that lets each of them work for the good of most of the people. But to imagine that we can simply rid ourselves of one side of the triangle is naive in the extreme.

[undeterred]

101. "Without God, people must do more thinking for themselves..."

this may be true of authoritarian religion, but it is not true of all religion. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been deeply religious people.

Its a broadbrush statement.

[rd_kent]

106. Refresh my memory.

What great minds were deeply religious?

[undeterred]

109. Augustine, for one

[rd_kent]

112. Uh, just a sec.....

Looked him up on Wikipedia. While he is revered as a great philosopher, everything he did was to enhance the catholic belief and turn minds to the catholic church.
How about giving me some more names, though. I am enjoying learning about new people I never studied before.

[undeterred]

130. He was one of the greatest minds of western civilization

and Wikipedia is grossly simplistic on this.

Try the internet encyclopedia of philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/ where you will also find:

Avicenna/Ibn Sina (CA. 980-1137)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)
Edward Caird (1835-1908)
René Descartes (1596-1650)
and so on...

[Cats Against Frist]

103. As an atheist, myself,

I should point out that theism does not, in every case, lead someone to be a terrible individual. I should also point out that both atheism and rationalism have their problems. Ayn Rand was an atheist, attempting to drum out any claims on behalf of altruism to the governance of society.

In our society, much of what constitutes progressive thought comes from Rousseau, and the Enlightenment thinkers -- who mostly believed in some sort of deity, which, in philosophical circles was what rationalized their claim to the ideas of altruism, or "just society." Jefferson was obsessed with "virtue," and though not a fundamentalist Christian, there is no lack of appeal to a creator, from which we take our supposed rationality, and from which we draw legitimacy for our egalitarianism -- i.e. it is before the Creator that we are all equal.

Rationality presents its problems. John Ralston Saul in "Voltaire's Bastards" argues that the Holocaust was based primarily on reason. He does, if I remember correctly, ignore some of the Nazi occult stuff, but focuses on the operation of the "Final Solution," itself -- i.e. it was a "rational" move to exterminate Jews from Germany, in order to create a race-pure society. At the time, too, in some circles, Eugenics was recognized as a science.

It is problematic to lay claim to some eternally egalitarian progressive state in terms of the lack of a moral center or shared connection between people (equality granted from the creator) -- I've argued long and hard with right-wing classical philosophers over the possibility of an ethic derived from reason, and their answer is always the same: if there is no creator-granted equality, or prevailing moral authoritative position, then all theses are, to an extent on an equal plane -- which means, that YOU or some progressive can not lay claim to the idea that "all men are created equal," with any more or less authority than, say, an advocate of slavery and ownership. Ayn Rand, the rationalist, believed that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery.

I, being a postmodernist, a libertarian and an atheist can only comment on this academically. In terms of how I feel, it is much different. I feel that to be an atheist, you must buy into postmodernism, and therefore libertarianism -- which is the antithesis of a state -- no matter how progressive or "pretty" that state is. Progressivism is a form of prevailing moral authority, and, when backed by the state, is also a form of "oppression," over all equal ideas -- which, if you're an atheist, is something you must, I would think, hold to be true.

[Maraya1969]

108. Look at Buddhism and other Eastern Religions. Some groups stress

non-violence to such an end that their followers won't even kill an insect. They are the essence of peaceful organization. I am not saying that other groups cannot be peaceful I am just saying these groups having nothing in their "dogma" that ok's violence or judgment. Actually they stress that anger, violence, hatred, even hatred of the self etc. will obscure a person from happiness.

I am ok with atheism but please do not think there is nothing else out there that teaches peace.

[rd_kent]

110. Its not about peace.

Its about irrational thought and behavior. I would say the religion that is so anti-violent that to kill an insect is irrational and unreasonable. And where does it stop? Its bad to kill an insect, but okay to kill bacteria? (as when they bathe with soap or take meds to cure sickness)

[Ron Green]

113. Can you really expect life to be entirely rational?

As long as the mysteries of our existence are unsolved, we will be irrational about some things, and rightly so. The question is how to best manage the collective irrationality that must be.

[rd_kent]

117. Yes, I can

I can expect anything. What I get may be something else, though. But it has been rational thought that has sloved many of the mysteries of our existence and it will be rational thought that continues to do so. Nothing else.

[Ron Green]

126. I disagree that it has been nothing else that has "solved the mysteries of

our existence." Many instances of thought and behavior outside of Aristotilian tradition have served humans well for centuries; Chinese medicine is one example.

Your worship of rational thought as the only way to solve the mysteries limits the variety and forms of human existence. I think it's wise to always take the larger view, even at the risk of shaking one's own foundations. This is where wisdom grows.

[Inland]

114. How about actually BEING good instead of being [put group here]

If the problem is a lack of reason, then have reason.

If the problem is a lack of tolerance, then be tolerant.

If the problem is blindly following lunatics, then find someone decent to follow with open eyes.

Anyone who thinks that religion is the disease and atheism is the cure is going to fuck it up. There isn't anything particularly noble about atheism. It is, as is beat to death, merely the absence of a belief in a deity. It doesn't make a person rational, or tolerant. I could point out Stalin, but instead I'll just point out the Religion and Theology section.

And of course, even if you were to believe that atheism incorporates all good things, and it's human nature to compliment oneself so, take a page out of the christian converstion manual. "They will know we are christians by our love," they say. Be rational and tolerant, and it'll sell itself. Don't be rational and tolerant, and there will be a thread about how to fix the world by pushing religion.

[papau]

119. Well said :-)

:-)

[calico1]

122. Excellent! n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

116. I hadn't realized it had been awhile.

:popcorn:

[porphyrian]

125. Not atheism, just existentialism.

It doesn't matter if there is a God or not, because we can't prove it true or false. We do know, however, that it's wrong to kill thousands of innocent civilians for a lie, or to impoverish and abandon the poorest majority of our nation for the profits of the richest minority. We shouldn't do that, or support those who do. Maybe bad people will be punished in an afterlife, maybe not, maybe there is no afterlife. However, by focusing on what we know empirically, we can do a whole bunch of good regardless of our other beliefs.

[kath]

128. Here's a book that deals with the concepts of reason vs. faith:

"The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman.

Hubby is reading it and really enjoying it.
These two quotes on the frontispiece of the book were a large part of what drew him into reading it:

“Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to harm his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured.”
Euripedes, fragment from an unnamed play, fifth century B.C.

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.”
Augustine, late fourth/early fifth century A.D.

Here's a review:
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume117issue4_more.php?id=211_0_9_0_C

[JerseygirlCT]

129. You're creating a false dichotomy

reason and faith are not opposed, and more than apples and baseballs are.

What you are really looking for is reasonableness, open-mindedness, the ability to deal civilly with those we disagree with and to look honestly at our own biases.

All of that can be furthered within a faith -- or without.

[LeftCoast]

133. Locking

This thread seems to have run its course.