Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Mercury

I'm not sure about this. By this definition i would be considered an agnostic, yet i do not believe in a deity. Just because it is unlikely to be proved one way or another does not mean you can't attribute likelyhoods to things happening.

My take on this is that if you're attributing likelihoods then you are going down the road of reason and argument. In other words, your position would be, as mine, weak atheist.

An agnostic would say that attributing likelihoods wasn't relevant as the absolute solution was unknowable.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know.

However, whether people call themselves agnostics or atheists does depend on social circumstance; I agree! It took me a long time to summon the courage to call myself atheist.

Graham

[Mercury]

However, i was in the nativity as a shepherd once, and i sang 'all things bright and beautiful' in assembly at primary school. I like all the cultural things we did, both christian like the above, and pagan with corndollies well dressing and country dancing round the maypole.

I was about 12 when i realised some people actually believed in god rather than it being just another myth or legend, like the greek and roman ones i loved, or the more mysterious but fascinating egyptian, and south american rituals and imagery.

[Mercury]

Originally Posted by Graham

Harking back to the earlier comments about faith vs morals, I think it's worth noting that Buddhism is atheist. While some variants have acquired supernatural trappings, at its heart there are no Gods.

The Buddhist faith is in the three 'jewels' of the Buddha and Bodhisatvas (wise mortal teachers), the teachings themselves (the ethical code) and the Sangha (your community of practictioners).

Any argument that states that belief in God is a necessity for a moral way of life can be refuted by pointing to Buddhism. My Buddhist friends (and wife) think very deeply about ethics, morals and their place in the environment, and, importantly, build those considerations into their actions here and now.

Graham

Being reasonable never got me anywhere!

I (reluctantly) can agree to being a weak athiest, i guess. Although i may argue that if any proof of a deity or creator came about, it would no longer be religion, but science.

[Graham]

......

(changed my mind about the worth of my post)

Graham

[nomesque]

Originally Posted by Joebill

( side comment: I fail to understand the phrase 'non-denominational Christian church' because if its Christian, it has a domination.)

In this context, denomination refers to 'denomination of Christianity', so 'non-denominational' simply means - in theory - not limited to any one subset of the religion.

Originally Posted by Joebill

The oldest is a 'Youth Preacher' in the same Chruch, the 27 tyear old broke away. The 27 year old has asked me enough questions over the past 10 years for me to realize he got a very distorted view of history, science, math, etc.

How that school got accreditation to teach and hand out a diploma to a student I don't know.

He did tell me the local community college wouldn't accept his transcript/diploma as valid. He did get accepted elsewhere, but he does realize he got shafted in his education.

That's nasty. I mean, to be fair, most kids seem to come out of school with a pretty distorted view of history and science anyhow. But at least that's generally of a standard considered acceptable by other educational institutes.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Graham

Any argument that states that belief in God is a necessity for a moral way of life can be refuted by pointing to Buddhism. My Buddhist friends (and wife) think very deeply about ethics, morals and their place in the environment, and, importantly, build those considerations into their actions here and now.

I'm a 'weak' atheist, and I find a huge amount to admire in Bhuddhist teachings; I hope to become one myself in a few more lifetimes.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Cool thread. Even on one of the better politics / other boards I frequent (DVDtalk) this kind of thread gets out of hand pretty quick.

I consider myself agnostic, barely, because to me some things we will never know - we can't possibly know. I don't object to religion to fill the space of unknowable answers. But I'm a man of science and I look to it for man's way to find these answers - not a mystical holy book. Science and rationality first, religions second if you must have it, to fill in the gaps.

I consider there is a tiny chance that the Christians are right - or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists - but I do consider some as slightly more ridiculous than others. My background is kind of liberal Mormon (RLDS or whatever they are called now) and I find there version of American continental history laughable. I just avoid the subject around my grandma and other religious people in my family though - I'm not a confrontational almost-atheist.

how can you be a green monkey if you are a pirate hamster?

Originally Posted by Mercury

I have enjoyed this thread, and think that everyone has been pretty civil, (on both sides) which is all too rare.

I find that religious people, atleast here in the UK, have jumped on to this 'aggressive athiest' thing in the last couple of years, so now anyone saying clearly and slowly that they do not believe in any kind of deity is classed as aggressive, strident, shrill etc. Additionally, because of the harm being done to our state school system with the huge amount of faith schools now, those who dare to speak out are labelled as angry secular athiests, even if they have some kind of belief.

Part of the problem here is that many people are not aware of the kind of teaching that is going on in these faith schools. It is not like it was when you could tell it which faith the school belonged to, only by watching which god they prayed to in assembly. Some islamic state schools spend 50% of the school day learning the koran, and in other lessons, such as science, the children are taught what the koran has to say about things. I find that appaling, and unfair on the children. It is a betrayal by the education department, who should ensure acceptable levels of teaching in every school.

It would never have occured to me ten years ago to bring up my lack of belief in any god or religion, it just wouldn't have been needed. Now, sadly, it is as though we were going backwards in our understanding of pretty much everything, and a troubling new faith based approach is being adopted to institutions (such as schools and hospitals) which have no business IMO doing anything on 'faith'. This is why I am more passionate than before, and make my views known more clearly than i would have done previously. I can't be too worried if stating my views politely but strongly manages to offend some people.

one of few things we DO get right in this country regarding education and religion is that public schools (the ones paid for by tax dollars) do not have ANY religious instruction at all!

Originally Posted by Joebill

Some of my relatives go to a 'non-denominational Christian church' and send their kids to a school they operate.

( side comment: I fail to understand the phrase 'non-denominational Christian church' because if its Christian, it has a domination.)

Anyways. the oldest of the two kids are now approachnig 30 years of age, the second oldest is 27.

The oldest is a 'Youth Preacher' in the same Chruch, the 27 tyear old broke away. The 27 year old has asked me enough questions over the past 10 years for me to realize he got a very distorted view of history, science, math, etc.

How that school got accreditation to teach and hand out a diploma to a student I don't know.

He did tell me the local community college wouldn't accept his transcript/diploma as valid. He did get accepted elsewhere, but he does realize he got shafted in his education.

that is so sad/scary! you should complain to the board of education and see that their certification is removed!

Originally Posted by TGS

So is the difference between atheist and an agnostic that the former would say something like, there is nothing I have experienced, and there is nothing I could possibly experience, that would cause me to believe in the existence of god, whilst the latter might say there is nothing that I have experienced so far, though I remain open to the possibility that in the future there could be such an experience, that causes me to believe in the existence of god?

that's pretty much my take on it, with maybe the agnostic saying; "I think there may be something, I'm just not sure what."

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

I have issue with it when the schools are accepting state funding, and even more so when those schools give preference to pupils whose parents attend the correct church. We have this situation, both schools are Christian of some sort, one of them has an exclusive entry system based on your church attendance.

you don't say where you are from, but here in the states, that is not allowed at all. in fact private schools get -0- state funding.

[Mercury]

I don't like the idea of a structured framework of morals to work with, as often they can change from suggestions and guidelines into a strict set of rules.

I personally don't feel as though I need something to anchor my way of life to. I feel at home with my decisions, although i have to be honest, I live a nice uncomplicated life, which does not lend itself to complicated moral quandries very often. Additionally, i don't live among people who expect a certain style of behaviour from me. That always makes things easier, when you can behave in anyway you like, as long as you don't hurt anybody elses feelings.

I can understand the appeal of a set of guidelines to influence and inspire a focused way of life, I think I just prefer the freedom of going my own way.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you don't say where you are from, but here in the states, that is not allowed at all. in fact private schools get -0- state funding.

The UK. It's fairly common practice here though for fully state funded schools they generally can't...or at least shouldn't.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Cool thread. Even on one of the better politics / other boards I frequent (DVDtalk) this kind of thread gets out of hand pretty quick.

I consider myself agnostic, barely, because to me some things we will never know - we can't possibly know. I don't object to religion to fill the space of unknowable answers. But I'm a man of science and I look to it for man's way to find these answers - not a mystical holy book. Science and rationality first, religions second if you must have it, to fill in the gaps.

I consider there is a tiny chance that the Christians are right - or the Jews or the Muslims or the Buddhists - but I do consider some as slightly more ridiculous than others. My background is kind of liberal Mormon (RLDS or whatever they are called now) and I find there version of American continental history laughable. I just avoid the subject around my grandma and other religious people in my family though - I'm not a confrontational almost-atheist.

When you say there is a "tiny chance" that one of the traditional religions may be right, you are in good company.

.....I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may exist; so may the Gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.
..........— Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British mathematician, essayist, author, philosopher. What I Believe, I: "Nature and Man" (1925).

Even the great Lord Russell admitted to what he called, "superstitious moments."

.....On the contrary, the present state of the world and the fear of an atomic war show that scientific progress without a corresponding moral and political progress may only increase the magnitude of the disaster that misdirected skill may bring about. In superstitious moments I am tempted to believe in the myth of the Tower of Babel, and to suppose that in our own day a similar but greater impiety is about to be visited by a more tragic and terrible punishment.
..........— Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (1950), IX: "Ideas that have Helped Mankind."

[WT Sharpe]

I don't accept the metaphysical underpinnings of any of the world's religions, but I find things of value in all of them, and well as elements in most of them with which we be better off without.

[recluse]

I consider myself an atheist, although some of the teachings of my childhood still linger.
To be honest, all I ever wanted from a belief system is the ability to wake up in the morning without having to hate something and a sense of inner peace.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm a 'weak' atheist, and I find a huge amount to admire in Bhuddhist teachings; I hope to become one myself in a few more lifetimes.

It doesn't work like that in the Buddhist teachings to which I feel closest, sadly!

Thich Nhat Han expresses that concept as our being a momentary crest in a wave passing by. We, as in our present consciousness, are manifested in this moment alone, but our ancestors are within us (within our genes, our upbringing and our social context) and we extend that legacy into the future.

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

The UK. It's fairly common practice here though for fully state funded schools they generally can't...or at least shouldn't.

One of the reasons, though, that church schools are popular here (at least the Church of England and Catholic ones - I don't know about the others) is that they generally have excellent academic records, hence many parents are keen to send their children there regardless of religious beliefs.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I don't accept the metaphysical underpinnings of any of the world's religions, but I find things of value in all of them, and well as elements in most of them with which we be better off without.

Agreed. Religion is an irritant - a grain of sand, around which humanity has cultured some of its most beautiful pearls (and also some of the worst - just wish we were as selective as jewelers in weeding out the crappy ones ). I guess that would make us oysters in this tortured analogy