Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[ardeegee]

[AdrianM]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Gosh, it makes me laugh to read threads and debates like this. People always thinking of clever excuses why they can get out of there responsibility to themselves and thus to God. All atheists have a deep nagging feeling inside that they're doing something wrong but they the more they think and try to rationalize the heavier their self made chains get. And incidentally... those are the chains that will eventually drag a person to hell or keep him there (or her). This isn't a debate. Its proved! And how much more proof do you need. God created this universe and humanity. Theres no conflict between science and God. Science is only our study to try and understand God better. Our techniques have gotten better in 4000 years but we keep rediscovering the same old stuff. There may be details of some religions that are out of date with what we know to be likely true but to deny the existence of God is a dangerous step that eventually allows people to throw off morality. Obviously this leads to evil actions, and thus straight to .... HELL. And its no joke people. We don't even understand the meaning of burning in hell, so stay with God, thats all you have to do and throw off ridiculous word games.

I mean I laugh but it makes me feel sad too to hear this stuff.

Although I really liked The Custard post earlier in the thread (a definite LOL there) this post has to take the biscuit for being the funniest. Thanks for that.

[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.

[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.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by TGS

No, I don't think so, since the infant may have no belief whatsoever in relation to god. That seems to be different from the case in which someone has contemplated the proposition, "there is a god", and concluded that the proposition is not true. For someone who knows the meaning of the proposition there seem to be only three possibilities in relation to it; it is true, it is false or...don't know. The first would be a theist, the second would be an atheist and I'm not sure what to make of the third, since I expect someone who claimed they did not know would actually behave as though they thought the proposition to be true or to be false.

The third one would be agnostic.
The behaviour might be "don't know, don't care".

Originally Posted by recluse

terrazoids at least had the decency not to be intentionally offensive.

Say what? You don't consider his "everyone who isn't a believer is morally wrong and thus evil" attitude to be intentionally offensive?

[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.

[Joebill]

I guess I should say I have no objection to a religion teaching schools of their own.

But they shouldn't distort reality.

They could easily say 'we believe this, the rest of the people in this area believe this other thing'.

But I doubt most do that.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

The third one would be agnostic.
The behaviour might be "don't know, don't care".

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?

[Graham]

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?

I'd say that those were definitions of strong atheism vs weak atheism. An agnostic would say that the existence or non-existence of God was inherently unknowable.

Graham

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'd say that those were definitions of strong atheism vs weak atheism. An agnostic would say that the existence or non-existence of God was inherently unknowable.

Graham

Thanks Graham, that's a helpful clarification. I guess now all we need is for those people who are putting forward an atheist position to be clearer about what variety of atheism they are talking about.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by TGS

Thanks Graham, that's a helpful clarification. I guess now all we need is for those people who are putting forward an atheist position to be clearer about what variety of atheism they are talking about.

Mine is weak atheism. I see no reason to believe in a God, but if the probability of one was indicated by reasonable testing and research I would be open to exploring that possibility. I do, though, consider it unlikely that such indications will appear.

Graham

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by TGS

Thanks Graham, that's a helpful clarification. I guess now all we need is for those people who are putting forward an atheist position to be clearer about what variety of atheism they are talking about.

I feel much the same way about it as I do with all faith based stuff that lacks evidence...the probability of it being true is negligible so we can be reasonably certain that it isn't. Absolute certainty is just another faith position unless there is evidence to back it up. I'm always open to more evidence.

EDIT: I've met many atheists and very few take the complete certainty position. Richard Dawkins created a scale in the God Delusion which was quite a neat way of looking at it. I believe he likewise placed himself one position below that of absolute certainty.

[Mercury]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'd say that those were definitions of strong atheism vs weak atheism. An agnostic would say that the existence or non-existence of God was inherently unknowable.

Graham

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.

I would say that i have no religion. No ifs or buts. I do concede that my position can never be proved, but i don't consider that makes me agnostic. I have never heard my furniture chatting to each other about what they got up to at the weekend, but that doesn't make me agnostic about the matter. Even with no proof either way, i think that this does not happen.

My mum used to call herself agnostic to people if they asked, just to cut off conversation. She felt that to call herself an athiest would be inviting an arguement.

[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

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I guess I should say I have no objection to a religion teaching schools of their own.

But they shouldn't distort reality.

They could easily say 'we believe this, the rest of the people in this area believe this other thing'.

But I doubt most do that.

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.