Atheist support, discussion, and information sharing thread

[nycfem]

NYC has a large, active, diverse Atheist group called NYCA. I receive their newsletter and event information and have attended one of their meetings. Sometimes I want to share and discuss some of the content with other atheists and thought of starting a thread for those who also define as Atheist (me), Agnostic, or even questioning/open.

To be clear, this thread is not related to NYCA. That's just what brought it to mind. This thread is exactly what I wrote as the title: Atheist support, discussion, and information sharing thread.

Here is next weekend's event by NYCA for anyone local to NYC:


Sunday, July 10, 2011, 12:00 PM

SELECTED BY: KENNETH BRONSTEIN
PRESS BOX
932 SECOND AVE. (49/50) NEW YORK, NY (map)

REAR ROOM
SELECTED BY: KENNETH BRONSTEIN

SPEAKER: JAMILA BEY

SUBJECT: Why People of Color Resist The Atheist Movement

Jamila brings more than 15 years experience reporting, editing and producing for radio stations in Pittsburgh, Washington, DC, and around the nation. After serving a decade at National Public Radio as a producer and editor, Jamila is currently a freelance journalist, and she’s working on a book about Atheism in African-American Culture. A lifelong contrarian, Jamila spent much of her parochial schooling in the principal’s office explaining why she was thrown out of religion class.

COST: Brunch is $20, which includes a selection of Buffet entrees and salad, one soft drink, coffee, tax and tip. We encourage going back for seconds on the delicious Eggs Benedict.

[tapu]

Wish I could be there. The topic sounds very interesting.



As for the thread, I'm in.


-tap

[Dominique]

J Bey is from Pittsburgh, can't be a bad thing.

just saying:byebye:

[Jar]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

[atomiczombie]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

Um, this isn't a very nice thing to say. I am not an atheist but I would never say something so rude. Really Jar, was this necessary?

[ButchBowWow]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

Really?

Then why reply at all?

Just sayin....

[Dominique]

Really?

Then why reply at all?

Just sayin....


Thank you! I was trying to find a way to not be snarky.....but every thread has to have one.

[The_Lady_Snow]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin


Funny that's kind of how I feel about people who believe in all those magical lies in the Bible..

Have you read Revelations?? Acid trip!!!

It's hard not to believe your intent was not to bash something when you come in ans say


"I won't bash it but"

It's pretty obvious when you start out like that your intent is to dump on a thread that really holds no interest for you, it's rather shitty to do.

[tapu]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

"So out of tune with the universe." Wow, what would you say if you were bashing us?

I have to tell you my own secret prejudice though: I think atheists are more intelligent, and braver, than those who can't bear to look at reality. Not to bash you. Jar.

[hpychick]

It takes a LOT of faith to be an Atheist.

We are all going our own direction on our own path at our own speed.

IMO tolerance and respect for differing beliefs is needed here.

Please note: In My Opinion

[atomiczombie]

I have to tell you my own secret prejudice though: I think atheists are more intelligent, and braver, than those who can't bear to look at reality.

I support atheist's right to believe what they believe. I don't think believers in God/ess, higher power, etc nor atheists have exclusive rights to "reality", however. And, no I am not strictly speaking a Christian, and I am not a bible thumper. I don't have an all-or-nothing, black or white way of seeing the world. You see reality differently than I do tapu. Does that mean you think I am less intelligent and brave than you? I don't make those assumptions about you based on your atheism. I am not asking this to be snarky or insincere. I would really like to know.

Respectfully,

Drew

[The_Lady_Snow]

Can you take that convo into private Drew and respect this space? I mean really why is it people who don't follow the Christian Doctrine can't have a thread to talk about it? It's pretty shittty to bring up your religious views when it is clearly not that kind of thread.

[tapu]

Naw, you're good. I was just wanting to come at the Jar. It was more tongue-in-cheek, which doesn't always work on the internet.

I'm sorry. I know many very intelligent and brave people who live deeply in their faith. I've had professors of The Bible as Literature who are Jesuit priests. They were intelligent and brave. My best gay-boy friend became a monk. I'm still mad at him--he's selfish!!--but I know he is smart and brave.

So anyway, I spouted off. :blush:

[Chancie]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

"So out of tune with the universe." Wow, what would you say if you were bashing us?

I have to tell you my own secret prejudice though: I think atheists are more intelligent, and braver, than those who can't bear to look at reality. Not to bash you. Jar.

Neither post contributes to this thread.

[hpychick]

What Would John Do?

http://topnews.in/light/files/John-Lennon_4.jpg

[ButchBowWow]

I consider myself to be a non-practicing Pagan leaning strongly towards Atheism.

That being said, I do not go into Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. threads to discuss why I am not (insert religion here) or to tell them that I think they are out of tune with the universe.

[ButchBowWow]

What Would John Do?

http://topnews.in/light/files/John-Lennon_4.jpg

Let it be? :)

[atomiczombie]

Can you take that convo into private Drew and respect this space? I mean really why is it people who don't follow the Christian Doctrine can't have a thread to talk about it? It's pretty shittty to bring up your religious views when it is clearly not that kind of thread.

This really isn't about my religious views. I rarely if ever discuss those details on this site, to be honest, and I just said in my previous post here that I don't follow the Christian doctrine. And I am addressing a comment about how someone believes that one group of people are less intelligent and brave than another. I am not in any way shape or form bashing atheism, and I said that. I am addressing one particular thing that was said that I found pretty icky against a group of people I belong to.

Respectfully Ms Snow, I have seen you do this in threads on various topics where you see something that you find personally offensive. Just because this is a support thread for atheists, that doesn't mean it is ok for anyone to use this thread to say something unkind and mean about non-atheists. And yes, I fully acknowledge that atheists are often treated horribly by deists, and I think that is horrible. However, two wrongs don't make a right either.

[atomiczombie]

Naw, you're good. I was just wanting to come at the Jar. It was more tongue-in-cheek, which doesn't always work on the internet.

I'm sorry. I know many very intelligent and brave people who live deeply in their faith. I've had professors of The Bible as Literature who are Jesuit priests. They were intelligent and brave. My best gay-boy friend became a monk. I'm still mad at him--he's selfish!!--but I know he is smart and brave.

So anyway, I spouted off. :blush:

Thanks tapu. :)

[tapu]

SO ANYWAY! Jar's gone; tapu's apologized; Lady Snow and AtomicZom are at a draw.

Thank you, NYCBBW for the thread!

[The_Lady_Snow]

This really isn't about my religious views. I rarely if ever discuss those details on this site, to be honest, and I just said in my previous post here that I don't follow the Christian doctrine. And I am addressing a comment about how someone believes that one group of people are less intelligent and brave than another. I am not in any way shape or form bashing atheism, and I said that. I am addressing one particular thing that was said that I found pretty icky against a group of people I belong to.

Respectfully Ms Snow, I have seen you do this in threads on various topics where you see something that you find personally offensive. Just because this is a support thread for atheists, that doesn't mean it is ok for anyone to use this thread to say something unkind and mean about non-atheists. And yes, I fully acknowledge that atheists are often treated horribly by deists, and I think that is horrible. However, two wrongs don't make a right either.


I know I just did it in this very thread Drew I asked Jar not to come in and say something shitty, nor do I agree with with Tapu said, and now here we are in Ms Jennifer's thread talking about what I did in the past or what you want done or how off the wall the people who don't follow a doctrine are. I'm no saint Drew but also I just don't get why folks gotta come in here and be jerky about something or topics or what I've done in the past when it has NOTHING to do with the OP's intent. Like here. WE could address my transgressions in private instead of taking up more space in here. Cause frankly I don't believe I ever go into a thread and take a shit just cause I don't believe in something or have different beliefs unless it's an ism Drew and if you feel that is me being disrespectful I don't. ME going into a thread and calling an ism out or shitty behaviours is NOTHING like what has been said by Jar or Tapu just sayin' Drew.

[tapu]

yikes
..............

[Jar]

Um, this isn't a very nice thing to say. I am not an atheist but I would never say something so rude. Really Jar, was this necessary?

I didn't mean it to be rude. I just mean that anyone that doesn't think there's more is out of tune. Just my opinion

[The_Lady_Snow]

I didn't mean it to be rude. I just mean that anyone that doesn't think there's more is out of tune. Just my opinion

Can you clarify what this means? What makes you think that people don't think there is more?

[Jar]

Funny that's kind of how I feel about peobut"ple who believe in all those magical lies in the Bible..

Have you read Revelations?? Acid trip!!!

It's hard not to believe your intent was not to bash something when you come in ans say


"I won't bash it

It's pretty obvious when you start out like that your intent is to dump on a thread that really holds no interest for you, it's rather shitty to do.I NEVER said that I believe in the bible because it was written by men who had thier own agendas.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I NEVER said that I believe in the bible because it was written by men who had thier own agendas.


I never said you Jar believed in the bible. I was stating what I thought about the Bibles stories, not what Jar believes about the Bible stories.

[Jar]

Can you clarify what this means? What makes you think that people don't think there is more?

I'm just saying that if people don't think there's more than this life, then they're outa touch with the universe.

[atomiczombie]

I know I just did it in this very thread Drew I asked Jar not to come in and say something shitty, nor do I agree with with Tapu said, and now here we are in Ms Jennifer's thread talking about what I did in the past or what you want done or how off the wall the people who don't follow a doctrine are. I'm no saint Drew but also I just don't get why folks gotta come in here and be jerky about something or topics or what I've done in the past when it has NOTHING to do with the OP's intent. Like here. WE could address my transgressions in private instead of taking up more space in here. Cause frankly I don't believe I ever go into a thread and take a shit just cause I don't believe in something or have different beliefs unless it's an ism Drew and if you feel that is me being disrespectful I don't. ME going into a thread and calling an ism out or shitty behaviours is NOTHING like what has been said by Jar or Tapu just sayin' Drew.

Mkay I will respond in a pm.

[tapu]

Oh, good, Jar. We're glad you're back to offer that clarification.




Others, this to me, seems like a classic troll situation. Does anyone know this poster? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that it's not a sincere effort, if you will.

[Jar]

Oh, good, Jar. We're glad you're back to offer that clarification.

Others, this to me, seems like a classic troll situation. Does anyone know this poster? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that it's not a sincere effort, if you will.I have been on b-f.com and this site for years. You can ask most anybody here tofu

[amiyesiam]

wow. I won't bash it but I think athesists are so out of tune with the universe. Just sayin

I'm just saying that if people don't think there's more than this life, then they're outa touch with the universe.

Really?
can you please back this up with facts, figures, proofs, etc?
can you please explain exactly why athesists are out of touch?
and out of touch with what in the universe?

and
why would you feel a need to come in this thread to express this OPINION?
and
then say you were not trying to be rude?
perhaps thoughtless would be a better word


if there is a hell
I plan on and assume I will be there
next to a lot of people who didn't think they would be in the same hand basket as me

[weatherboi]

anyway....

I am an atheist. I am certain there is more out there but it doesn't come in the form of deities. I think the science world is so untapped and what we know today about infinite space is just the tip of the iceberg. THAT is my more!!!

[WolfyOne]

Religion or your belief in any form is always an interesting topic

I came here to read more on Atheists and find slamming others instead
As a person that likes to learn what others get out of their religion or belief, I'd appreciate it if someone would make some posts regarding the topic

I don't know much about Atheists other than they don't believe in God
I'll be back at another time to read more from the OP and other posters

[tapu]

I have been on b-f.com and this site for years. You can ask most anybody here tofu


And well-respected, I'm sure. Please, hold forth.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Oh, good, Jar. We're glad you're back to offer that clarification.




Others, this to me, seems like a classic troll situation. Does anyone know this poster? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that it's not a sincere effort, if you will.

No Jar is not a troll...

[weatherboi]

I also believe man created god not the other way around.

[Jar]

No Jar is not a troll...

thank you LadySnow. I just have different beliefs as we all do

[amiyesiam]

Religion or your belief in any form is always an interesting topic

I came here to read more on Atheists and find slamming others instead
As a person that likes to learn what others get out of their religion or belief, I'd appreciate it if someone would make some posts regarding the topic

I don't know much about Atheists other than they don't believe in God
I'll be back at another time to read more from the OP and other posters

Hi Wolfy
like everyone else, atheists have feelings and don't like to have others say things that imply they are out of tune with things in life. Hence the negativity.
Personally I have spent to much time in my life defending others rights to believe as they chose to not comment on this.

What do atheists, agnostics, pagans, spiritualists, humanists, etc believe? As with any belief, what is believed varies from person to person.

Personally I am a lapsed Catholic, a nonbelieving one though. I am quiet comfortable not knowing. I am clueless about what happens after life and don't at my age feel a need to know. I find that the older I get the less need I have to have any type of religious belief. I understand that it won't change anything, at all, about how I live my life.
I have ethics and values, arrived at by rational thought and kindness. The most basic of these values will be found in the basics of ANY religious belief.
Then again, most of them could change based upon extreme situations.

I believe that the planet is "alive" in the sense that all its systems work together and it changes, evolves and grows.
I believe that it is wise to work in harmony with the planet and with each other.
I believe most people are basically good (psycopaths/sociopaths being the true exception)
I believe most people want the same basic things, acceptance, love, to live and grow, raise a family if they chose, and to find some semblance of happiness.
I believe there are many paths to truth. BY this I mean, if you need a god to tell you not to kill or you will go to hell ok, I can figure out that if I get to kill someone, then the next person gets to kill someone, and someone may decide to kill me, so it is probably not a good thing to kill.
however god can forgive the breaking of the thou shall not kill command, freeing believers from guilt. I have no such system in place. If I kill without extreme justification (like that person is going to kill me) then I will live with the guilt of my actions the rest of my life.

enough for now

[The_Lady_Snow]

thank you LadySnow. I just have different beliefs as we all do


You hit the nail on the head there Jar, we do have different beliefs, the term non believer annoys the hell out of me because frankly it's insulting and it insinuates that somehow atheists or agnostics or any one else other than those who believe in some Diety have no belief system. It's different than say the whole God created stuff in 7 days story.

I hope that Ms Jennifer's thread can continue to educate and give support to folks who have different thoughts, beliefs and ideals.

Thanks for coming back in and continuing to dialogue with everyone Jar:)

[Corkey]

I really have issues with anyone telling me I'm doing it wrong. I don't need the christian god to have high standards and values, I don't appreciate christians telling me that there is only one way to be, to think to feel and to believe, or not as the case may be. I do think that we all come to this life naked and empty needing to be clothed and educated. How we got here isn't as important as how I live my life authentically.
I will not force my belief system on anyone and I wont stand by while Atheists are told they are doing it wrong. I live by my tag line, it doesn't mean anyone else has to.

[atomiczombie]

Even though I am not an atheist, I have been on the receiving end of people saying I am going to hell, that I am a heathen, I must repent, accept Jesus as my personal savior, etc. I once had a Christian pro football player tell me the reason I was gay (I ID'd as a femme-lovin' butch at the time) was because of childhood trauma and that Jesus could heal that for me. Atheists aren't the only ones having to deal with this bullshit. I do empathize with you all, I sure do.

[amiyesiam]

Even though I am not an atheist, I have been on the receiving end of people saying I am going to hell, that I am a heathen, I must repent, accept Jesus as my personal savior, etc. I once had a Christian pro football player tell me the reason I was gay (I ID'd as a femme-lovin' butch at the time) was because of childhood trauma and that Jesus could heal that for me. Atheists aren't the only ones having to deal with this bullshit. I do empathize with you all, I sure do.

thank you for this
I think many are on the receiving end of this type of thing.
I think (meaning my opinion) that when some people (A) are confronted (faced with) with someone(B) who truly does not believe what they believe and has made those belief choices with thought and care. Then that can cause instability/doubt/confusion in person A and whether they realize it or not person A needs to make person B believe or at least understand what they believe in order to shore up their (A) own belief systems. Did any of that make sense?
Or (i think) If I believe what I believe is absolute truth
when someone believes differently
that means one of us has to be wrong (the idea that there can only be one absolute truth)
so I must convince you that you are wrong (sometimes at any cost)
or I must face the fact that I might be wrong
and I having invested much life and energy into believing what I believe that is not an option most will chose
(nothing is as fun as realizing one has been wrong about something)

[Thinker]

Good evening, folks...

We're getting reported posts from this thread, and I would like to encourage everyone to continue having constructive dialogue without being judgmental or critical.

Have the hard conversations, but please do so respectfully.

Thank you.

Thinker (moderator)

[atomiczombie]

thank you for this
I think many are on the receiving end of this type of thing.
I think (meaning my opinion) that when some people (A) are confronted (faced with) with someone(B) who truly does not believe what they believe and has made those belief choices with thought and care. Then that can cause instability/doubt/confusion in person A and whether they realize it or not person A needs to make person B believe or at least understand what they believe in order to shore up their (A) own belief systems. Did any of that make sense?
Or (i think) If I believe what I believe is absolute truth
when someone believes differently
that means one of us has to be wrong (the idea that there can only be one absolute truth)
so I must convince you that you are wrong (sometimes at any cost)
or I must face the fact that I might be wrong
and I having invested much life and energy into believing what I believe that is not an option most will chose
(nothing is as fun as realizing one has been wrong about something)

I think you are absolutely right that some people are insecure in their faith, particularly when it has an arguable basis. I feel sad for people who believe in a god who is wrathful and judgmental, because they condemn themselves to living with the fear of wrath and judgment. They naturally turn it on others. I think, how unhappy they must be.

[Corkey]

I think you are absolutely right that some people are insecure in their faith, particularly when it has an arguable basis. I feel sad for people who believe in a god who is wrathful and judgmental, because they condemn themselves to living with the fear of wrath and judgment. They naturally turn it on others. I think, how unhappy they must be.

I always think (who are you trying to convince?) But then I'm very secure in my being.

[BBinNYC]

I'm here as a person who does not identify as an atheist to respect and support those that do. I grew up in an interfaith family (mother Jewish, father Catholic) and even though I was raised Jewish, I was taught over and over to respect other peoples' beliefs.

I know among progressive Jews there is a strong tradition of questioning everything, including the existence of God. I was so glad that when Jennifer agreed to come with me to the final part of the Yom Kippur service, our rabbi, who is fabulous, acknowledged that there were people in the congregation who do not believe in a god, and said that they are fully accepted. I was so glad that Jennifer could be there to hear that and not feel like she was being coerced in some way.

I think spiritual beliefs are less important than what each person contributes by way of their actions. There are atheists who work hard everyday to make the world a better place and I am grateful to them. I can't imagine that the "universe" would disapprove.

BBinNYC

[Jar]

You hit the nail on the head there Jar, we do have different beliefs, the term non believer annoys the hell out of me because frankly it's insulting and it insinuates that somehow atheists or agnostics or any one else other than those who believe in some Diety have no belief system. You're right Lady Snow and even though I have different beliefs I didn't respect the rights of others to have thiers. I apologize for the post because it was certainly disrespectful.

[The_Lady_Snow]

You're right Lady Snow and even though I have different beliefs I didn't respect the rights of others to have thiers. I apologize for the post because it was certainly disrespectful.


:) THANK YOU for taking the time to come back in here and apologizing! It's deeply appreciated I hope you have a great Holiday!:)

[Jar]

:) THANK YOU for taking the time to come back in here and apologizing! It's deeply appreciated I hope you have a great Holiday!:)Well sometimes I fire off before my brain kicks in but I'll own it. Thanks Lady Snow

[nycfem]

Hey, Jar,

I think within our culture there are a lot of assumptions about atheists, that we are unfeeling, not in tune with the universe, don't believe in anything, etc. Actually though, there are as many types of atheists as there are religious people. I feel hurt when someone assumes I am not in tune with the universe because being in tune with the universe is so important to me. It may seem like a contradiction but I have a book called "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality," which helps to reinforce my gut feeling that I don't have to believe in God to find all kinds of deep meaning in relationships, nature, and the universe. I even pray for others when they want it because I conceive of it as a meditation and direction of energy towards those I care about and love. I also relate it to quantum physics. Some atheists don't feel that way at all, but I just want to put out there what a struggle it can be to be automatically written off as unfeeling or lacking depth and meaning when coming out as an atheist. Belief in God, imo, is something we have or don't have. Sometimes I think it would be much easier in life if I did have it, but I don't and yet I still want to be acknowledged as someone who cares and has depth and believes and questions and is a good person. Thanks for your participation in the thread. One aspect of this thread I hadn't thought of but which Wolfy pointed out is its potential to provide some understanding of atheism for those who do believe in God but want to understand more about those of us that believe differently. I have pretended to believe in God to fit in at times in my life, but I don't want to do that because it's not authentic. I think acceptance from those who are different from us as atheists can only help us not to hide our authentic selves. I didn't choose to not believe in God, and have tried very hard to at different times in my life, but I don't, and I want to love myself as I am, because that is what feeds my soul.

You're right Lady Snow and even though I have different beliefs I didn't respect the rights of others to have thiers. I apologize for the post because it was certainly disrespectful.

[Jar]

Hey, Jar,
One aspect of this thread I hadn't thought of but which Wolfy pointed out is its potential to provide some understanding of atheism for those who do believe in God but want to understand more about those of us that believe differently. ...I didn't choose to not believe in God, ... and I want to love myself as I am, because that is what feeds my soul.I think I jump so fast to conclusions because I don't understand it and have never really had a conversation with anyone about it. I'll read the thread with more of an open mind and maybe I will understand it better. I never claim to know it all :)

[*Anya*]

I won't elaborate on what others have so eloquently stated already. I will state however, that most atheists-myself included-do tend to stay in the closet for fear of being attacked by others that are made uncomfortable and unable to accept my own personal value system. I have stated before that I accept you as you are, I do not mock you, belittle or attack you for your own personal choices/beliefs (no jumping on me for using the word belief either-no good word to describe it). What I like about the planet is the wide range of diverging viewpoints. If I feel a pang of discomfort inside myself reading some else's post, I take a step back & try to understand for me and me alone, why it bothered me. I learned a long time ago I could be reactionary if I allowed myself to be. I would much rather be thoughtful & gain wisdom from the viewpoints of others. In case you
Also may think I was just never "shown the way"; I was raised Lutheran, Church every Sunday, confirmed, vacation bible school etc. My parents piously did the same-plus the choir. Meanwhile, they were abusive to me. I prayed plenty as a child though my prayers were never answered. I learned instead to count on myself. Just the same way it would be easier to pretend I am straight & be accepted by straight society; it would be easier for me to pretend I believed there was such a being or spirit such as God. I am going to go strap myself in my body/self-esteem armor now but hope I don't need it to
protect against attacks from planet readers.

[MsDemeanor]

Why am I not surprised that the first thing that happens is folks jump in and bash? High on my list of things that I don't like about religion is the hatred and intolerance that it breeds - from tribes slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands to individuals jumping in to this thread to bash.

I don't get religion, I don't get spirituality, I don't get the whole god thing. As an outside observer, the rituals appear to run the full spectrum, from sweet - like some of the midnight masses my ex used to drag me to - to silly to absurd to deadly - like the oppressions, mutilations, and murders of women throughout the world. I don't understand someone offering to pray for me or light a candle for me or whatever when something bad happens to me. How does this help me? It might make the other person feel better about themselves, but it's a useless gesture and I'd prefer that folks put their time to better use.

'Oh god' does spring from my lips during orgasm, I do pray to the parking goddess when visiting San Francisco, and I seasonally worship at the alters of Foxborough and Fenway. That's all really about great sex, close parking spaces, and winning seasons, not religion or spirituality or whatever y'all want to call it.

[tapu]

I was thinking last night about the distinction between a "soft atheist" and a "hard atheist." Hmm, I really should have looked it up before I came in here today, but I want to think about the possible distinctions that came to me already so here goes:

Say a soft atheist is committed to there being no deity in the sense of a superior being, but allows for the possibility that there might be one. Sort of an atheist without the arrogance. >;-) I think, though, that it may be less simplistic than this. Maybe a soft atheist believes that there IS an organizing principle in the world, just not a cognizant (thinking) being. I always think of this kind of atheist when someone says they are atheist but "believe there is more out there." I'm not sure if they mean an afterlife, or an organizing principle or being, or both.

I think I may be a hard atheist, but again there are fine distinctions. I don't think there is "more out there." I believe that this life is it. And I live with the idea that the likeliest scenario is that the generation of my great-grandchildren may not even know my name. If you think about it, that is generally true. How many here can rattle off the names of their great grandparents. How about "maiden" names?

Now, thinking about my own transience like that can depress me more than a Sartre short story, but it is what I believe. But I grow more comfortable with what I think is the reality because I also believe that it's better to address that reality--better in the sense of a life fully lived--than to assuage that reality with belief systems constructed to deny it.

The hardest of hard atheists believe that everything is random. No organizing principle, even. I am pretty close to that, but to some degree it depends on how "organizing principle" is defined. For me, a scientific (as opposed to mystical) principle is the only possibility. Then, I am left to ponder how much is heredity and how much environment. I'm reading Pinker's "The Blank State" right now for help in how to think about that.

[Mister Bent]

You're right Lady Snow and even though I have different beliefs I didn't respect the rights of others to have thiers. I apologize for the post because it was certainly disrespectful.


I know everyone is trying to be nicey in here now, but there were a couple of other wee bombs dropped that I would like to address.

The original comment really was disrespectful, as was the one where Jar intentionally referred to tapu, as "tofu."

Now, I can be as big a prick as there is, but I like to at least stick to the facts of argument, and not insert disrespectful little jabs at member's names. Maybe you were butt hurt that tapu didn't know you from a million years on the internet, but still, that was shitty.

As far as atheists being "out of tune with the universe," that is clearly only your opinion, and holds no greater value than merely that. You also committed a fallacy, or incorrect leap of logic when you made the statement, "I just mean that anyone that doesn't think there's more is out of tune."

Do you know the definition of "atheist?" Because it is not an umbrella term for those who do not believe "there's more." It means we do not believe in the existence of a deity. That is all. "More" is sort of a broad term, wouldn't you say?

I hope that helps you feel more prepared to, "read the thread with more of an open mind and maybe ... understand it better." I don't think you need to worry that anyone here though you might "know it all," but thanks for clarifying.

[Jar]

Yes I did refer to Tapu as tofu because she called me a troll. It was an immature response to an immature statement. I didn't see any response from you about the troll comment though.

And no, I was not "butt hurt" over the fact that she didn't know me. I just pointed out that there are a lot of people here that have known me and they know I'm not a "troll".

I admitted that my comment was disrespectful and that I don't know a lot about what atheists believe. I was also sincere in my comments about wanting to understand it.

Anything else cuz I'm the last one that will play nice without meaning it

[tapu]

Yes I did refer to Tapu as tofu because she called me a troll. It was an immature response to an immature statement. I didn't see any response from you about the troll comment though.

And no, I was not "butt hurt" over the fact that she didn't know me. I just pointed out that there are a lot of people here that have known me and they know I'm not a "troll".

I admitted that my comment was disrespectful and that I don't know a lot about what atheists believe. I was also sincere in my comments about wanting to understand it.

Anything else cuz I'm the last one that will play nice without meaning it


We may be defining troll differently. To me, a troll is someone who comes onto a thread and makes a statement that they couldn't fail to know will rile the participants and then they respond to the feedback that could only be expected with continued incendiary statements about their opinions with absolutely nothing objective to back it up.

Nowhere in my troll definition does it say that a troll is someone who hasn't been on the board for very long. If that were the definition, any newbie who said something others didn't like could be called a troll.

And, Jar, in the world of not playing nice, you're out of your league.

[Jar]

We may be defining troll differently. To me, a troll is someone who comes onto a thread and makes a statement that they couldn't fail to know will rile the participants and then they respond to the feedback that could only be expected with continued incendiary statements about their opinions with absolutely nothing objective to back it up.

Nowhere in my troll definition does it say that a troll is someone who hasn't been on the board for very long. If that were the definition, any newbie who said something others didn't like could be called a troll.

And, Jar, in the world of not playing nice, you're out of your league.Well I had no idea what your definition of "troll" is. I only knew it was a derogatory term.

As for your last threat, I'm not out of my league but you need to grow up. Accept apologies, accept that people mouth off before they think but own thier own ignorance on some subjects ..this being mine.

This thread is derailed and I've apologized. Get on with the subject!

[Thinker]

I think I jump so fast to conclusions because I don't understand it and have never really had a conversation with anyone about it. I'll read the thread with more of an open mind and maybe I will understand it better. I never claim to know it all :)

I know everyone is trying to be nicey in here now, but there were a couple of other wee bombs dropped that I would like to address.

The original comment really was disrespectful, as was the one where Jar intentionally referred to tapu, as "tofu."

Now, I can be as big a prick as there is, but I like to at least stick to the facts of argument, and not insert disrespectful little jabs at member's names. Maybe you were butt hurt that tapu didn't know you from a million years on the internet, but still, that was shitty.

As far as atheists being "out of tune with the universe," that is clearly only your opinion, and holds no greater value than merely that. You also committed a fallacy, or incorrect leap of logic when you made the statement, "I just mean that anyone that doesn't think there's more is out of tune."

Do you know the definition of "atheist?" Because it is not an umbrella term for those who do not believe "there's more." It means we do not believe in the existence of a deity. That is all. "More" is sort of a broad term, wouldn't you say?

I hope that helps you feel more prepared to, "read the thread with more of an open mind and maybe ... understand it better." I don't think you need to worry that anyone here though you might "know it all," but thanks for clarifying.



Yes I did refer to Tapu as tofu because she called me a troll. It was an immature response to an immature statement. I didn't see any response from you about the troll comment though.

And no, I was not "butt hurt" over the fact that she didn't know me. I just pointed out that there are a lot of people here that have known me and they know I'm not a "troll".

I admitted that my comment was disrespectful and that I don't know a lot about what atheists believe. I was also sincere in my comments about wanting to understand it.

Anything else cuz I'm the last one that will play nice without meaning it

We may be defining troll differently. To me, a troll is someone who comes onto a thread and makes a statement that they couldn't fail to know will rile the participants and then they respond to the feedback that could only be expected with continued incendiary statements about their opinions with absolutely nothing objective to back it up.

Nowhere in my troll definition does it say that a troll is someone who hasn't been on the board for very long. If that were the definition, any newbie who said something others didn't like could be called a troll.

And, Jar, in the world of not playing nice, you're out of your league.

Well I had no idea what your definition of "troll" is. I only knew it was a derogatory term.

As for your last threat, I'm not out of my league but you need to grow up. Accept apologies, accept that people mouth off before they think but own thier own ignorance on some subjects.this being mine.

This thread is derailed and I've apologized. Get on with the subject!

Jar apologized and that should have been enough.

The rest of the needling and nit-picking can stop now so the discussion about atheism can continue.

Thinker (moderator)

[Mister Bent]

Yes I did refer to Tapu as tofu because she called me a troll. It was an immature response to an immature statement. I didn't see any response from you about the troll comment though.


We may be defining troll differently. To me, a troll is someone who comes onto a thread and makes a statement that they couldn't fail to know will rile the participants and then they respond to the feedback that could only be expected with continued incendiary statements about their opinions with absolutely nothing objective to back it up.

And, Jar, in the world of not playing nice, you're out of your league.

This was the definition, commonly understood by denizens of websites such as this. Therefore, I did not feel it warranted address. I do appreciate that you are indeed sincere in your desire to become more informed, and thank you for saying so.

I will, however, address tapu's statement above, which is uncalled for, arrogant and has zero relevance to the thread topic. It's comments like that which will afford you the opportunity to find out, and quickly, exactly the ways in which you are out of your league.


ETA - Sorry Thinker, we were posting at the same time. I wanted to take the time to thank Jar for his efforts.

[tapu]

I don't understand. I was responding to where Jar said that about "not playing nice."

And with some of the things I've seen in here (!)--I can't believe that what I said was a problem.

I'll try to do better at mastering the culture, but on that one I guess I'll still need to study it out.

[tapu]

If we'd really like to get on with the subject, please note that I made a post above with what I think is pertinent content to atheism today. Does anyone want to discuss it?

[iamkeri1]

This is a thread I would like to participate in, but I guess the fighting is not over yet. That is what I checked in to see. I will come back a little later, and if the fighting has stopped, I'll join in.

My suggestion to any believers in a religion or a specific god. Read the thread to educate yourself, or out of curiosity, but refrain from posting. There are lots of religious based threads on the planet where your comments will be well received. On this thread they may not be.

Just sayin
Smooches,
Keri

[Medusa]

I found this interesting!

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/06/atheists-oppose-heaven-on-new-york-street-sign/?hpt=hp_t2

Does anyone know if all the firefighters that this sign pertains to were, indeed, Christians?

[JustJo]

In keeping with the OP, I found this blog post interesting....and am looking forward to reading the book that he's discussing.

Absent Belief in a Cosmic Enforcer, Are People Likely to be Kind, Fair, Caring, Contented and Good?by Don on July 4th, 2011

The answer to the title question, above, is likely to be "no" if you listen to right-wing Christian conservatives, particularly media commentators Bill O'Reilly and Laura Schlessinger. Both have expressed the opinion that individuals and societies cannot be "good" or moral without belief in an enforcer god. O' Reilly said a society that fails to live "under God" will be a society of anarchy and crime; Schlessinger that "it's impossible for people to be moral without a belief in God. The fear of God is what keeps people on the straight and narrow." (Source: Robyn E. Blumner, "Goodness without God," St. Petersburg Times, July 3, 2011.) There is quite an audience for this kind of thinking in America. None fewer than 64 percent of Americans agree with the statement, "Politicians who don't believe in God are unfit for public office." By contrast, only 8 percent of Danes and 15 percent of Swedes hold such a view. In this country, 75 percent of the population believe in hell, whereas a slim 10 percent of Danes and Swedes believe such a thing.

The O'Reilly/Schlessinger message can be summarized as follows: "Unless God scares the bejabbers out of you, you and society will go to hell - society first."

Kind of makes one wonder: Is this true? Is there evidence for what O'Reilly and Schlessinger are telling their audience?

Just in time to answer this question comes a book entitled, "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment." Written by a sociology professor named Phil Zuckerman, "Society Without God" supports the opposite perspective. It seems the message of these arrogant Christian fundamentalists, that non-belief in a cosmic enforcer is associated with cultures less likely to be kind, fair, caring, contented and good, is false. Societies where people overwhelmingly believe in and presumably are scared to death of a god are, in fact, the ones where citizens are more likely to endure lives that are "Leviathan" in nature, that is, as Thomas Hobbes put it, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

In "Society Without God," Zuckerman presents evidence on both individual and societal levels that the associations between non-goodness and non-belief by the likes of O'Reilly and Schlessinger are false. In fact, quite the opposite seems true. Countries with the lowest levels of religious belief seem the most well-behaved!

"Society Without God" shows that belief in a god, not disbelief, is associated with individuals and whole societies acting badly. What sweet irony.

Zuckerman aggregated data using multiple indicators and also conducted interviews in Denmark and Sweden. Both countries are as irreligious as the U.S. and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are religious. Rather than being a social menace, the absence of fear of being smited by a sky god is not correlated in any way with bad behavior. If a person has no fear of a Santa-like god who knows who's been naughty and who's been nice, he/she is no more likely to plunder and pillage with cruel abandon than one professes to fear a god.

Zuckerman found that by almost any measure the least religious societies "are among the healthiest and least corrupt." His findings are corroborated by a Quality of Life report by the Economist Magazine. This study is based on a range of wellness-related factors, such as income, health, freedom, unemployment, climate, political stability, life-satisfaction, and gender equality. When applied in a survey of 111 countries to order to identify the "best" places in the world to live, it was found that Sweden ranked fifth, Denmark ninth. Most of the top 20 "quality of life nations" are irreligious. (The U.S. was ranked 13th.)

Zuckerman writes in "Society Without God" that it is ironic that "the moral imperatives" of religions (e.g., caring for the sick, elderly poor and infirm; practicing mercy, charity and goodwill toward others; and fostering generosity, honesty and communal concern) are practiced more often in the most irreligious nations. In America, a fifth of children live in poverty, at least a quarter lack health insurance and the mentally ill are often homelessness and untreated.

In "Godless Morality," Peter Singer and Marc Hauser condemn religious intrusion into politics and scientific research: "If anyone ever tries to tell you that, for all its quirks and irrationality, religion is harmless or even beneficial for society, remember those 128 million Americans — and hundreds of millions more citizens of other nations — who might be helped by research that is being restricted by religious beliefs" (Free Inquiry, "The Harm That Religion Does," by Peter Singer, June/July 2004, p. 17). In a letter to the editor appearing in the New York Times (Nov. 8, 2004), Singer wrote: "Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear they value faith. Is everyone caving in to this religious nonsense? What is faith but believing in something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value that? Formidable as the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to persuade Americans that having evidence for your beliefs is a good idea."

There is no evidence that Bill O'Reilly and Laura Schlessinger and other Christians have a special claim on goodness; there is ample reason to think just the opposite.

[AtLast]

I'm here as a person who does not identify as an atheist to respect and support those that do. I grew up in an interfaith family (mother Jewish, father Catholic) and even though I was raised Jewish, I was taught over and over to respect other peoples' beliefs.

I know among progressive Jews there is a strong tradition of questioning everything, including the existence of God. I was so glad that when Jennifer agreed to come with me to the final part of the Yom Kippur service, our rabbi, who is fabulous, acknowledged that there were people in the congregation who do not believe in a god, and said that they are fully accepted. I was so glad that Jennifer could be there to hear that and not feel like she was being coerced in some way.

I think spiritual beliefs are less important than what each person contributes by way of their actions. There are atheists who work hard everyday to make the world a better place and I am grateful to them. I can't imagine that the "universe" would disapprove.

BBinNYC

There is a lot of stereotyping of atheists and sometimes I have been as amazed at the bashing of atheists here as much as religion/spirituality bashing.
I'm glad to see this thread and I hope there is an adult response to it. As iamkeri said, it just might be a way for those of us that do have some kind of spiritual/religious belief system- no matter what it is, can gain understanding of atheism across our site. There are several other threads that "believers" or whatever we all identify as to have discussions.

[Star Anise]

I speak for myself and no one else, I dislike disclaimers however find myself indulging them anyway.

I am really tired of people fighting over matters of belief, I mean this quite literally, these "discussions" can really wear me down, so I tend not to engage in them anymore.

I might have misinterpreted the intent of this thread because of the word "support" placed in the title, I thought this was meant to be a "safe place" for atheists...

Anyway...

Hi! I am Anise, and I am an atheist.

Peace.

[dreadgeek]

I didn't mean it to be rude. I just mean that anyone that doesn't think there's more is out of tune. Just my opinion

I wasn't going to respond, but then you came back in and said it again. So here is my opinion...

It doesn't matter if you meant to be rude, you were rude. I am one of the more outspoken non-theists on the board. I have been accused of being just like a fundamentalist just because I steadfastly refuse to pretend that there's one set of rules for dealing with the physical world and there's another set of rules for dealing with the 'spiritual world' that somehow is able to effect change in the physical world in a detectable fashion--as long as the means of that detection are not scientific. Now, it may be the case that I am wrong and there's one or more gods or everyone gets two or more lives or the Universe is the result of this or that divine being with this or that egg or what-have-you. I fully admit that I *might* be wrong.

However, when I look out at the Universe, when I contemplate the thirty-seven orders of magnitude we have access to from sub-atomic particles at one end to the large structure of the Universe at the other, I see something just as beautiful and probably quite a bit more terrifying than you may. I see a universe that at the finest scale plays merry havoc with all our intuitions about how matter and space and time 'should' work. Yet, our description of the universe at the sub-atomic scale, while incomplete, appears to work pretty well, pretty much of the time. The universe at the scale of the very small is sublimely beautiful. On the other scale, that of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies, of solar systems and the very 'beginning' and 'end' of the Universe, I see a landscape of incredible majesty, phenomenal energies, and deep, deep mysteries. I also find monsters. The kinds of things that will keep you up at night. Black holes are monsters. A black hole appearing in our neighborhood would visit unimaginable catastrophe on our planet. Yet, that is not even the most terrifying of the horrors. A few hundred light years from us, there's a star system which rotates on its axis in such a manner that one of its poles is pointed right at our planet. This star is MASSIVE and is a prime candidate to die in such a way that it could become a gamma ray burst. From so far away that it will take the light a century to get here, that star, if it blows up in the manner that stars of its size tend to do, could wipe out at least half the life on this planet--depending upon how long the burst lasts. And then, closer to home, somewhere on a very eccentric orbit there is likely a very big rock with our planet's name on it. The last time something really big hit the planet, it made the Yucatan get its unique shape and likely took down the dinosaurs.

And of all the potential ways our species could shuffle off our mortal coil, we can do something about *one* of them--the rock. There's no divine being that will make the star not die in such a way as to make a gamma ray burst. Either it will (or already has) or it won't. In my world, death is death. If you are the one left behind, you have to find the inner fortitude to go on missing someone you loved. If you are the one leaving, you have to find the courage to come to grips with your non-existence. It adds urgency to my life, makes it *vitally* important how I live. Because life is done in one shot, one take, in real time, in front of a live and participating audience who all are being imperfect humans as well. If it didn't have poetry and dogs, good food, art, music, cats, sex, beer, coffee, pot, writing and storms it would be a whole lot less enjoyable. As it is, it's a good life. I don't feel like I'm missing much of anything and I've been a believer--in both the Christian and New Age senses. I know what it feels like.

I'm a better person without spirituality or religion. I live my life more presently. My only reward for being any kind of decent human being is that I get to be some kind of decent human being. I think that is a rich and wonderful life and while I am in no hurry to shuffle off this mortal coil, I recognize that I will. I don't like that, but no one ever does.

You may think we're out of tune but I prefer to think of it like this; my job is to accept the Universe on its terms, not try to make it conform to my terms. That doesn't mean I don't work for change. Because the universe is impersonal any justice, any love, any kindness or any mercy that exists in the universe will have to come from us or some other sentient species. That makes working for those things all the more important because if we fall down on it, for all we know that quality is diminished in the universe.

I don't know what you think I'm missing out on just because I don't expect the universe to conform to my own ambitions or my own desires. I don't think I'm missing much at all.

Cheers
Aj

ps. You get to have your opinion. I get to have an opinion *about* your opinion.

[JustJo]

I'm a better person without spirituality or religion. I live my life more presently. My only reward for being any kind of decent human being is that I get to be some kind of decent human being. I think that is a rich and wonderful life and while I am in no hurry to shuffle off this mortal coil, I recognize that I will. I don't like that, but no one ever does.

You may think we're out of tune but I prefer to think of it like this; my job is to accept the Universe on its terms, not try to make it conform to my terms. That doesn't mean I don't work for change. Because the universe is impersonal any justice, any love, any kindness or any mercy that exists in the universe will have to come from us or some other sentient species. That makes working for those things all the more important because if we fall down on it, for all we know that quality is diminished in the universe.

I don't know what you think I'm missing out on just because I don't expect the universe to conform to my own ambitions or my own desires. I don't think I'm missing much at all.

Cheers
Aj


Yes, this exactly. Thank you for saying it so beautifully Aj.

In a different thread, someone (other than Jar) posted that a life without belief in God basically had no meaning. Frankly, I got pissed.

I hear this a lot. And yes, a life without belief in God is still a life abundant with meaning...and values and love and joy and sadness and all the rest of it.
When Scoote and I were in the Bahamas on her award trip, her company did a day of volunteer work and guests (like my son, her son and myself) were invited to join in. We painted, landscaped, built bicycles for kids....lots of good stuff. We brought joy to a lot of people (including those of us who were doing the work :) ).

I know that many, including the founder of the company, included their belief in God in that experience and verbalized that. I'm fine with that. I'll even bow my head while you pray, out of respect for your beliefs. However, the experience was not any less touching or meaningful for those of us who participated simply because we were making the world a better place for some folks living on it who had less than we did, and who could use a hand.

What's frequently also implied is that somehow atheists are worse or less moral people than those who believe in God. It frustrates me....because not all of those who say they believe live a life that would meet my moral standards, let alone those that are espoused in the new testament of the Christian Bible. (And yes, I know that not all those that are believers are Christians....that's only an example.)

At the end of the day, I don't judge those who do believe in God. And I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

[dreadgeek]

So since morality has come up a couple of times now, I thought I would try to stimulate some conversation about how human beings are moral.

It's a shibboleth that without God or, more generically, some 'spiritual' belief there is no reason to be moral. I have, on numerous occasions, had people express that if not for their belief in God they would probably run amok stealing and making mayhem. These folks say more about themselves and their own view of morality than they do about human nature.

I believe that human beings are *naturally* moral and that our moral sense is not imposed from the top down but grows from the bottom up. What follows is a plausible evolutionary account of morality. I would love to say that I was clever enough to come up with these ideas myself but I'm not so clever. This is based off work of others but the expression of those ideas are mine.

Human beings are social primates. If we look at the other social primates, we see some common themes all of which look like a proto-moral sense. For example, reciprocal grooming is a common feature of gorillas, chimps and bonobos. It is a way of bonding, smoothing over insults, and serves as a form of social cohesion. Given our close proximity to those other great apes it is safe to presume that before we lost our body hair it's likely that the other hominid species that proceeded us also groomed for much the same reasons. Now, this does create a dilemma. If I can get away with it, what I would like is for you to groom me but me not have to groom you in return. The time I take grooming you is time I can't be, for instance, foraging. You, however, have a vested interest in not being exploited by me. Nature's solution was to give social animals a means for telling one another apart and a faculty for detecting cheats. Just that and you have the beginnings of anger--one of our moral emotions.

Think about the moral senses we have. We feel pride when we do something good, we feel even *better* when others acknowledge the good thing we've done. We all feel that. We feel shame or guilt when we do something hurtful. We feel worse when others acknowledge that. We strive to make amends. The person we wronged feels anger or indignation at our behavior and then, hopefully, forgives us. No one has to teach a young child to be angry at being treated unfairly. What is considered worthy of praise or of blame is culturally conditioned but the *capacity* to learn what your particular society thinks is praiseworthy or blameworthy is built-in. No human culture does not have rules of behavior and consequences for breaking those rules and rewards for exemplifying the qualities that society feels should be promoted.

All societies have pretty the same kinds of problems, people have non-identical interests. In such a world cheating or using violence is tempting. But that kind of behavior will quickly tear a society apart. So nature has equipped us with rules that work well enough most of the time. We are moral not because of religion but despite religion. Religion doesn't provide us with morals, our morals are reinforced by religion but even if we didn't have religions we would still have morals. Keep in mind that our moral system evolved in an environment where we lived in very small (~150 people) groups and might have contact with twice that number. We now live in gigantic conglomerations called cities but even with that, we are still a rather moral species. Is everyone always moral? No, we shouldn't expect that to be the case. Cheating is *always* an option but just as a group of all cheaters can't get anything done, a group of entirely honest people will be easily exploited by a cheater. In devising models for how our morality could evolve, biologists have borrowed liberally from game theory. Within that framework cheating all the time is unstable, being a sucker all the time is unstable but tit-for-tat is stable. In other words, I cooperate with those who cooperate with me but I don't cooperate with those who don't cooperate with me. Is it perfect? No, but it is *stable*.

We may have brains that evolved to be open to religion memes but that does not mean that we need those memes in order to be religious. As I said earlier, we're moral first and then we use religion as a post hoc justification for our morality. We don't have religion first and then morality later.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

Disclosure: At this point in my life, I am a deist for lack of a better explanation for the existence of "things" I spent many years as an atheist and I am very comfortable with atheists and agnostics.

My personal belief is that atheists have more of an incentive for morality than people who believe in a religion in which a god can forgive them for their misdeeds. Atheists must live with the consequences of their behavior. They can only hope to be forgiven by the person they harm, and/or by themselves. Their morality is inate. It comes from within. They do not need a god to threaten them with damnation or promise them heaven. Also they must be careful with the lives of others because they believe that this is all there is. If their actions result in the ending of the life of another being, they have to face the fact that they have robbed that being of all life. There will be no "better place" for those they harm or kill to move on to in any kind of after life.

They are, I believe more motivated to help others succeed in this life; to cure diseases and repair birth defects because THIS is all that person will have, and they should be helped to have the best life possible.

Up with Atheism ... the true morality of this world.

Smooches,
Keri

[tapu]

When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~Abraham Lincoln

[betenoire]

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5KAN3A/www.good.is/post/atheist-wins-right-to-wear-religious-pasta-strainer-in-id-photo/)

http://pre.cloudfront.goodinc.com/posts/full_1310598164pastafari.jpg

[atomiczombie]

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5KAN3A/www.good.is/post/atheist-wins-right-to-wear-religious-pasta-strainer-in-id-photo/)

http://pre.cloudfront.goodinc.com/posts/full_1310598164pastafari.jpg

Haha!! I love this!! *thumbs up* :D

[tapu]

“We see that the apparent contradictions and perplexities in every religion mark but different stages of growth. The end of all religions is the realizing of God in the soul. That is the one universal religion.”


~Swami Vivekananda (Indian Spiritual leader of the Hindu religion Vedanta)


I wonder how someone who considers themselves religious in the traditional sense would feel about this; and, how do we atheists view this as applying or not applying to our belief system?

[imperfect_cupcake]

I understand the metaphor and don't disagree. I don't disagree with the concept of godhead ether, which is a Hindu concept. God is internal. I think that's a wonderful thing. for me, that brings it down from the supernatural to the material embodiment. And that's beautiful. Nothing wrong with that as a metaphor.

[Slater]

In a different thread, someone (other than Jar) posted that a life without belief in God basically had no meaning. Frankly, I got pissed.


I heard an argument made that a belief in God (at least in the Christian style) renders life meaningless. What happens here isn't really important, what truely matters is what comes next.

I don't entirely believe that argument but it makes an interesting point. I think it's one of the things that has always bothered me about most religions. I believe, regardless of whether or not there is a "next", while we are here then here is all that matters. If there is anything beyond here, it will attend to itself when the time comes. I cannot accept that life is nothing more than the drudgery we have to endure to earn a reward in some afterlife.

[CherryFemme]

I found this interesting!

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/06/atheists-oppose-heaven-on-new-york-street-sign/?hpt=hp_t2

Does anyone know if all the firefighters that this sign pertains to were, indeed, Christians?


Fascinating. I enjoyed this reading this article, especially the quote from Kenneth Bronstein.
"We’re supposed to be a secular nation - there really should not be any religious symbolism or signage in public places,”
Said Kenneth Bronstein, President of New York City Atheists.

I'll answer Medusa's inquiry with another, Are we a secular nation? I mean, really? Come on now-- In God We Trust is on our money, we have watched Presidents of the USA pray or reference their past prayers publically on the TV, etc. etc... Personally speaking, I think of the US as a Theocracy, and not as a “secular nation”. Oh don't get me wrong-- I am sure John Calvin would not be pleased at how secular we really are in 2011, but~~ There is a but.

I can find atheism and secularism in threads of our nation, but I find that the tapestry is mainly one where God is present—even if god is spelled with a small g.

On a more personal note, I'm siding with Max Planck ;)

Pascal’s gambit, anyone?
~CF

[tapu]

Yes, it's quite non-secular at present. But that's the problem, not the excuse. Separation of church and state, established as an ideal, is not upheld. No argument there.

[Dominique]

Yes, it's quite non-secular at present. But that's the problem, not the excuse. Separation of church and state, established as an ideal, is not upheld. No argument there.


Selectively, it is.

[tapu]

Pascal's wager is often used tongue-in-cheek and that feels apt to me. The idea of making like God exists because I'd be more likely to go to heaven if indeed God (and heaven) exists is not a viable way of living for me. Pascal based his theoretical proposition on mathematical probability--and not on the probability of God's existence, but on the probabilities that apply if we posit God's existence.

[tapu]

Selectively, it is.

Of course it is. I'm responding to Cherryfemme's pointed examples of ways it is not.

[dreadgeek]

Fascinating. I enjoyed this reading this article, especially the quote from Kenneth Bronstein.
"We’re supposed to be a secular nation - there really should not be any religious symbolism or signage in public places,”
Said Kenneth Bronstein, President of New York City Atheists.

I'll answer Medusa's inquiry with another, Are we a secular nation? I mean, really? Come on now-- In God We Trust is on our money, we have watched Presidents of the USA pray or reference their past prayers publically on the TV, etc. etc... Personally speaking, I think of the US as a Theocracy, and not as a “secular nation”. Oh don't get me wrong-- I am sure John Calvin would not be pleased at how secular we really are in 2011, but~~ There is a but.

I can find atheism and secularism in threads of our nation, but I find that the tapestry is mainly one where God is present—even if god is spelled with a small g.

On a more personal note, I'm siding with Max Planck ;)

Pascal’s gambit, anyone?
~CF



A couple of points here:

"In God We Trust" did not begin appearing on US coins until 1864 and did not appear on paper currency until 1957. That means that the republic managed to get along quite well for the first 70 years of its existence without any mention of a divine being on the currency and managed through most of its first 200 years without it being the official motto of the USA until that was adopted in 1956.

What's more if we look at the Constitution and how the federal courts have handled the issue of the First Amendment *after* the 14th Amendment was passed (which, more or less, made the Bill of Rights apply to the states) I think we detect a decidedly *anti-theocratic* strain. Along with First Amendment there is Article VI of the Constitution which states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, it's instructive to note here that it's no religious test. Not 'no denominational test'. Since the Founders were well aware of Jews, Muslims and Hindus we can, at least provisionally, presume that had they meant to limit that protection to Christians they would have said so. Many in the United States may wish that we *were* a theocracy or treat the nation 'as if' it were a theocracy but, at least at present, our laws protect us from being as theocratic as it appears a lot of Americans would like us to be.

Cheers
Aj

[nycfem]

Why Atheists need to come out:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/gay-rights-and-atheism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+ Daily+Dish%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

[imperfect_cupcake]

I think this is very key:

But it isn’t enough that religious people know atheists-the quality of the relationships that exist between atheists and the religious makes a significant difference in undoing anti-atheist attitudes.

there has to be some kind of mutual respect and not baiting people on both sides. That means I have to do my bit in not calling people stupid, silly, illogical or deluded or say things to them like "my moral compass is better than yours because it's based on rational thought"

I know people get battered by people in religions, but there's no need to bring out the guns before they open their mouths, imo, if atheism wants to be understood and respected. If I act like a dick and I am the only one they know, guess what people are going to think?

I'm not saying I'm a martyr, I do let my opinions be known if someone is giving me shit - and real shit, not just slightly ignorant (read: not knowing, not ignorant as in asshole) but maybe not going in with "BLAH BLAH BLAH" gun blazing or making flippant comments might be an idea. I personally find it pretty damn helpful.

[dreadgeek]

I think this is very key:



there has to be some kind of mutual respect and not baiting people on both sides. That means I have to do my bit in not calling people stupid, silly, illogical or deluded or say things to them like "my moral compass is better than yours because it's based on rational thought"

I know people get battered by people in religions, but there's no need to bring out the guns before they open their mouths, imo, if atheism wants to be understood and respected. If I act like a dick and I am the only one they know, guess what people are going to think?

I'm not saying I'm a martyr, I do let my opinions be known if someone is giving me shit - and real shit, not just slightly ignorant (read: not knowing, not ignorant as in asshole) but maybe not going in with "BLAH BLAH BLAH" gun blazing or making flippant comments might be an idea. I personally find it pretty damn helpful.

This is one of the hardest bits about being a minority (of pretty much any stripe) is that we *must* hold ourselves to a higher standard. I understand that this kind of sentiment doesn't have much cache these days when the last thing anyone wants to hear is that they have to go above and beyond but there it is. This is a problem well-known to the various ethnic, religious or racial minorities living in the West. Whether I like it or not (and I don't), I have to uphold a standard that my wife, my colleagues at work, or the vast majority of the people reading these words don't. Why? Because I'm a black woman and therefore, if *I* lose my temper it means something different than if my buddy at work, whom we call The Ogre, loses his. I'm the "angry black woman" and he's, well, The Ogre. Ogre can keep his job while losing his cool but if I lose mine, my days are numbered.

Something similar applies with atheists. As tempting as it might be to call names, we can't. It is simply not an option. The reason is straightforward. If I say "only a flipping idiot could believe in creationism" I've not just spoken for myself but in the eyes of nontrivial numbers of your fellow citizens (whatever Western nation you live in) I have spoken for *every* atheist that has *ever* lived or will ever live. From that moment on, ALL atheists think that people who are creationists are idiots. Now, does that street go both ways? No. If every third Christian said that atheists are low-down dirty dogs who should be shot on sight, that is simply those individuals expressing their opinions and the rest of us have to treat each incident as isolated. Even if you had a thousand Christians in a room and one out of three felt that atheists should be exterminated, we would *still* be required to treat all 333 of them as isolated from one another. If they then sallied forth and actually took their ideas to the streets and started killing atheists willy-nilly it would not be 333 people in a 'gang' (or, dare I say, terrorist group?) but 333 individual bad apples*.

No, it's not right and no, it's not fair but that does not change the facts on the ground one bit.

What's more, I maintain (and here I may be wrong) that if you think you're right, you can afford to be magnanimous. I have no reason to say that someone who is a creationist is deluded or illogical because I am just this side of certain that creationism is wrong. Not just mildly off or has a digit on the wrong side of the decimal point but is really, truly, catastrophically wrong. Now, I'm going to point out where creationism fails to deal with relevant questions in biology but I don't need to insult someone by calling them stupid to do so. The facts are on the side of evolution, the data is on the side of evolution and all of the experimental and observational evidence is on the side of evolution. Now, I *will* point out that the only way someone can maintain that nature shows 'perfect design' is to ignore very large swaths of how animals bodies are built and how they function--but that's not calling someone stupid, it is simply pointing out that anyone who thinks that building an eye with the light sensitive cells pointing *away* from the source of light (as the primate eye is built) is ignoring something very important. Evolution has an answer for why that is the case but creationism has *no* answer for it (and by the way, just as an aside, it doesn't have to be that way. The cephalopods (squids, etc.) have their eyes built the right-way-round so it's not like it's *impossible* it's just not something that happened on the evolutionary branch that led to us and it did happen on the branch that led to squids. Yet, none of that is calling someone stupid it is simply marshaling the facts.

We can make the case for ethics and morality without saying that our morality is 'better'. In the post I did last week about morality, I was not saying that my morality is better because I'm an atheist (something I don't believe) but that there's no reason to believe that religion proceeds morality. In fact, I would argue that it is the moral horse that pulls the religious cart, as opposed to what many sectarians state they believe that the religious cart pulls the moral horse.

Cheers
Aj

*Bad apples are *always* white. If it were, say, 333 Native American Christians then that's ALL Native Americans (not just Native American Christians). If it were every other white Christian in America that would still be a large number of isolated, 'one bad apples'.

[EnderD_503]

@honeybarbara and dreadgeek (sorry, a lot to quote so just addressing the ideas posted):

While I agree that throwing insults around is counterproductive, at the same time I believe that address illogical conclusions is very important. I truly do think that religion (and particularly the "big three") has been one of the most destructive forces during the span of the Common Era, and continues to be today. Especially in nations like the US where freedom of religion gives free reign to fundamentalists who do still have an impact on the struggle for equality (particularly LGBT rights and women's rights). If atheists do not become more vocal, and present themselves as something more than just "another opinion" then the masses continue to maintain the delusion (and yes, I do believe it is a delusion) that judging law, civil rights, technology and so on based on a 2000 year old religion is somehow valid. Does that stop progression and advancement? No, it certainly doesn't. But at the same time it does present road blocks for researchers, f.ex. stem cell research (see stem cell reserach in Canada pre- and post-Harper, or under Bush in the US and so on).

So while I agree that throwing insults around is pretty useless and childish, not to mention completely counterproductive, I do think that there needs to be more vocalization against the consequences of entertaining or humouring religious pseudoscience.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I don't really run into it that much (read: close to never) because religion where I am is considered to be private. People talk about wanking before they'll talk about beliefs. So I kind of see the other end of it a bit. when someone *does* talk about their belief systems (and please do not read that as "christian") someone will inevitably make a flip or mocking comment meant to change the subject to something more jovial and less embarrassing as one's personal relationship to the divine, whatever that is. So presently, I don't live in that kind of culture and I suppose my comment should really be taken in context to that.

I don't personally have an argument about validity if it very very rarely comes up. All I do is assert that I am an atheist and that although their beliefs are groovy (sincerely), I don't venture into the realm of belief. I *do* get sudden arguments about what they are saying is true (logically valid) and I just keep saying, over and over "that's a belief. beliefs are things that can't be proven or disproven, there's nothing wrong with that. No judgment, really. That's totally cool. But I'm an atheist. That means I'm a materialist and I don't do belief. Cool that you do, if it's healthy for you, rock on."

And I DO have to repeat that about four times, occasionally explaining that atheism isn't just not believing in God or a religion, but not believing in souls, spirits, ghosts or astral travelling. but hey, if that makes you feel fullfilled, excellent. But please also understand one will never be able to prove or disprove that your spirit leaves your body to do things. Therefore it falls into belief, that's all I'm saying. I do not think I'm better, I'm not smug, I'm not judging you, I'm just an atheist and I don't really go for belief based ideology.

If they try to tell me that they can prove their beliefs are concrete and testable, then I just change the subject cause I'm not interested in their argument. I've heard all of them, they aren't interested in mine and I'm not wasting my energy because I don't enjoy arguing with a brick wall. Those that love a debate, have at it. My life is too short. Plus I have the luxury of walking away and not hearing that again for another six months to two years.

Plus here they'd probably be mocked by just general populace to the point of utter rage and frustration. You just don't talk about those things in the first place if you don't know someone, people will think you were all kinds of batshit... it would be like walking up to stranger and asking them if they like anal sex.

[CherryFemme]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the member who pointed out that I “de-railed” this thread. I did not mean to upset or disrespect you or anyone else. I know I already apologized to you personally, but as you mentioned, the “thread starter” did not begin this thread to debate democracy. I am apologizing to you both. Consider my hand slapped.

Before I leave, I want to thank the people who joined me down the garden path to “de-railment”. Your insights and comments were fantastic. I took a law class last semester and I miss deconstructing the US Constitution and discussing the religious affiliations of its creators. It was a great class.
My intent was not to de-rail a thread but rather to establish a baseline (God is not in the Constitution) and see how Reception theory applies or does not apply. I did not think anyone would take my bait, and you can imagine how sad I am that I am not able to play the devil’s advocate and hash out this idea… This might seem random but the core of my question was really:
What happens in the gap between policy and implementation when the policy is the US Constitution?
BUT, I am sure that by even writing that sentence, I am offending someone, somewhere. I really do not do well in the threads since this is the second time I have been told that I have distressed someone by de-railing a thread unintentionally. Again, sorry for the de-railment.

I give up.
~CF

[tapu]

@honeybarbara and dreadgeek (sorry, a lot to quote so just addressing the ideas posted):

While I agree that throwing insults around is counterproductive, at the same time I believe that address illogical conclusions is very important. I truly do think that religion (and particularly the "big three") has been one of the most destructive forces during the span of the Common Era, and continues to be today. Especially in nations like the US where freedom of religion gives free reign to fundamentalists who do still have an impact on the struggle for equality (particularly LGBT rights and women's rights). If atheists do not become more vocal, and present themselves as something more than just "another opinion" then the masses continue to maintain the delusion (and yes, I do believe it is a delusion) that judging law, civil rights, technology and so on based on a 2000 year old religion is somehow valid. Does that stop progression and advancement? No, it certainly doesn't. But at the same time it does present road blocks for researchers, f.ex. stem cell research (see stem cell reserach in Canada pre- and post-Harper, or under Bush in the US and so on).

So while I agree that throwing insults around is pretty useless and childish, not to mention completely counterproductive, I do think that there needs to be more vocalization against the consequences of entertaining or humouring religious pseudoscience.


Yeah. I find it pretty easy to say that creationism is nothing but hooey and that if you believe it, you simply must not have thought about it much. I also don't see where that's any different from saying that "all the evidence and all the research and all the science supports evolution, blah, blah, blah" except that the former is more succinct. The funny thing about all the evidence, research, science, and blah blah, is that creationists are already aware of that and still cling to creationism. Boy, is that dumb. Yep, dumb I said.

[Semantics]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the member who pointed out that I “de-railed” this thread. I did not mean to upset or disrespect you or anyone else. I know I already apologized to you personally, but as you mentioned, the “thread starter” did not begin this thread to debate democracy. I am apologizing to you both. Consider my hand slapped.

Before I leave, I want to thank the people who joined me down the garden path to “de-railment”. Your insights and comments were fantastic. I took a law class last semester and I miss deconstructing the US Constitution and discussing the religious affiliations of its creators. It was a great class.
My intent was not to de-rail a thread but rather to establish a baseline (God is not in the Constitution) and see how Reception theory applies or does not apply. I did not think anyone would take my bait, and you can imagine how sad I am that I am not able to play the devil’s advocate and hash out this idea… This might seem random but the core of my question was really:
What happens in the gap between policy and implementation when the policy is the US Constitution?
BUT, I am sure that by even writing that sentence, I am offending someone, somewhere. I really do not do well in the threads since this is the second time I have been told that I have distressed someone by de-railing a thread unintentionally. Again, sorry for the de-railment.

I give up.
~CF

Some of the most interesting discussions come out of derailed threads.

Don't let a little hand-slap get you down. ;)

[tapu]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the member who pointed out that I “de-railed” this thread. I did not mean to upset or disrespect you or anyone else. I know I already apologized to you personally, but as you mentioned, the “thread starter” did not begin this thread to debate democracy. I am apologizing to you both. Consider my hand slapped.

Before I leave, I want to thank the people who joined me down the garden path to “de-railment”. Your insights and comments were fantastic. I took a law class last semester and I miss deconstructing the US Constitution and discussing the religious affiliations of its creators. It was a great class.
My intent was not to de-rail a thread but rather to establish a baseline (God is not in the Constitution) and see how Reception theory applies or does not apply. I did not think anyone would take my bait, and you can imagine how sad I am that I am not able to play the devil’s advocate and hash out this idea… This might seem random but the core of my question was really:
What happens in the gap between policy and implementation when the policy is the US Constitution?
BUT, I am sure that by even writing that sentence, I am offending someone, somewhere. I really do not do well in the threads since this is the second time I have been told that I have distressed someone by de-railing a thread unintentionally. Again, sorry for the de-railment.

I give up.
~CF


I know we already talked about it, but I just want to say here publicly that as far as I'm concerned, that was fine. I'm not even sure it was a total derail.

[iamkeri1]

Just wanted to share with you a song I found on youtube tonight, performed by Holly Near with Emma's Revolution. The name of it is "I Ain't Afraid." It's also known as "The Atheist's Anthem."
Smooches,
Keri

GEJx8cYnUuE

[betenoire]

http://munkdebates.com/Hitch

To honour the memory of Christopher Hitchens, "Munk Debates" has put up unlimited streaming of the debate between Hitch and Tony Blair on the subject of "Is Religion A Force Of Good For the World" for the next couple of days.

It's interesting and entertaining and worth a watch.

[Beachcomber]

It was so nice to find this thread here. I just get so tired of answering the question "Well, what do you believe in then?" Like I owe someone who is religious and explanation for my lack of belief in a god. I don't tell anyone what they believe in and I want he same respect in return.

[Daniela]

It was so nice to find this thread here. I just get so tired of answering the question "Well, what do you believe in then?" Like I owe someone who is religious and explanation for my lack of belief in a god. I don't tell anyone what they believe in and I want he same respect in return.

I went out to dinner with a friend and her new boyfriend once, who I'd never met. We were just making conversation and he decided to ask me what religion I was. I told him I was agnostic, more leaning towards atheist. I didn't say anything derogatory about religion or religious people! I wasn't the one who introduced the topic, even. But apparently that was enough for him to let me know that I was arrogant, I was selfish for not believing in anything...who did I think I was...blah blah blah. :|

I didn't really argue with him, because it would have been a complete waste of time. He obviously didn't want to listen to anyone else's opinion. But the difference in the way he treated me before and after the question was crazy! He was super polite before that and for the rest of the meal he was really rude and dismissive.