My Best Friend is an Atheist.

[ScreamingMeemie]

And I like it that way. Me, I was baptized a Catholic, and I really did enjoy going to Mass and being involved...until they started politicizing the pulpit. And so, I left. Do I believe in God? Sure. I joke and tell people I'm "hedging my bets." Does it bother me at all that one of the most important people in my life is an atheist? No.

There is one person in my life, outside of my family that I can leave my children with and know she will love them and care for them as her own. There is one person who, when she asks,"How are you feeling?" I know she means it and is really listening when I tell her. This is the woman who cried with me over a miscarriage, because she couldn't stand to see me sad. ..and there were no meaningless "God's Will" statements to describe a really crappy situation. If I were to lose everything, her door would stand open, while the church so many times locks its doors to the poor and needy after dark. When I am sick, she stands ready to help, not by some belief that it will get her one step closer to God...but because she really cares. There's something that I admire about that. Sometimes I believe there is more honest morality in atheism because an atheist will do a good deed out of genuine want, instead of genuine fear of displeasing a higher being.

Why am I talking about this? Because I will never be able to get over the differences of opinion. That somehow being nice has to be equated to a belief in God. It doesn't. Children learn by example, not bible studies...trust me, I've known more than a few corrupt Catholics in my time. They have an easy out...the confessional.

[trotsky]

1. Thank you, MrsGrumpy.

This atheist appreciates your thoughts.

On edit: Let me add that you are pretty cool... for a Packer fan. ;-)

[deadparrot]

2. This nonpracticing Catholic feels the same way.

I'm also surrounded by several athiests/agnostics.

It seems like the Church, which had once done so much for social justice, is now focuses solely on abortion. It seems to be the only issue that matters nowadays. Not a word on a decent standard of living, the death penalty, poverty, war, etc., at least from the priests I know. It really upsets me.

:)

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Sadly, we had the chance as a parish to have a warming center for

a week in our church last year. Our pastor nixed it because of the "types of people" it would bring to our door. This the church that reads the parable "The Good Samaritan" every Springtime. It was that night that I quit the Pastoral Council. More of us need to stand up. :hi:

[theorist]

3. "How do you stay good?"

I knew I was an atheist pretty early on, and I got this question more times than I can count. (Of course this was in middle/high school.) I've never gotten used to the shock that some people have when I tell them I don't believe in a God, because they perceive me as such a well-balanced and caring person.

Thanks for the story.

[Az]

15. I was once asked

By a Christian (who claims they had no idea atheists were real) "You mean you can rape, murder, and steal if you want to?" I responded, "But I don't want to. Do you?"

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. Amazing that there are people like this. But I guess it's good to open

the doors of communication. I am hoping you set this "Christian" straight...I'm sure you did.

:yourock:

[MadisonProgressive]

24. Christians can rape, steal, and kill too!

But then they can repent their sins and all is well with the world.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. That's A Good Response, Az

My take is that there is an intrinsic goodness in people who do the right things simply because they're the right thing to do, over people who either do the right thing expecting some reward at the back-end or are trying to avoid punishment in the afterlife.

If there's no "what's in it for me" and you still do the right things, how can that not be better?
The Professor

[Bouncy Ball]

46. Az, what an idiot that person was.

ANY one of us could rape, murder, or steal if we wanted to! Christians HAVE been caught doing such things! I would laugh but it's not funny.

What an idjit. I consider myself to be a Christian (albeit a very liberal one who also studies Buddhism), but it's not the fear of hellfire that keeps me from doing such things, it's the fact that I don't want to harm others.

:eyes:

[Az]

49. I don't presume that would be the individuals natural thinking

I honestly believe their mind was swamped with coming to terms with the fact that there are really people out there that do not believe in god. As he stated he did not believe such people really existed. Its not as if atheists and theists have mixers where we get together and introduce ourselves to each other. Its very possible to go through your life and never bump into a person actively discussing their lack of belief in god (except of course in my vicinity apparently :crazy: ).

For me this story is more representitive of the reason we need to have something akin to mixers in our society. Ignorance is our societies biggest problem. Fortunately ignorance is entirely curable. Stupidity isn't. So I say work on the things you can correct and work around the things you can't.

[Snotcicles]

72. Wars in the name of Atheism 0 War in the name of God Thousands n/t

[old blue]

29. re: "How do You stay good?"

How about, "Because I don't require the threat of eternal damnation to treat others with common respect."

[Stuckinthebush]

48. I have answered this using Kohlberg's moral development theory

To "be good" because of a fear of punishment such as eternal damnation is the lowest level of Kohlberg's moral development scale. This is the level where children start their moral development.

The last level - or level 6 - of Kohlberg's scale is the "Universal Principles" level. A person at this level of moral development strives to "do good" because she believes that social justice issues are vitally important, and also understands that the majority in a society must protect the minority rights.

Atheists and agnostics, many times, are at a higher level of moral development than stage 1 where one "does good" out of fear of punishment.

[Snotcicles]

60. This is a very good point

I also believe at a higher level rewards differ.
Respect and admiration holding one in high esteem have been replaced with wealth. Now all people want is money, they couldn't care less
if you respect what they do.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Isn't One Of Them Also Expectation Of Reward?

That's the point of my earlier post, although i had forgotten about Kohlberg. (Been a VERY long time since i was in a philosophy or sociology class!)

Isn't one of the lower levels that which calls for doing something because of the positive reinforcement at the back end? Sort of like, "Be Good and I'll get to heaven."?
The Professor

[Snotcicles]

67. Discretion is the better part of valor

Which very few can comprehend anymore.

[reallygone]

77. Ahhhhhh...Kholberg

That Kholberg. SUCH a nice man.

Stalin was a great follower of Kholberg. He knew that the ultimate Utopia of Communism could only be achieved after the slaughter of the Bourgeoisie, the extermination of the petty Bourgeoisie, and the imprisonment of dissenters and the land-owning farmers. He proceded to accomplish this in his effort to pull a backward country out of their level 1 and drag them all to level 6.

What a man to be so caring!!! I'll bet Khatami and Osama are just the same! Master Kim, too. They are killing thousands for the sake of millions. What vision! What sacrifice! And they're doing it all for us! They have "reasoned out" a workable moral code that relies on science and philosophy instead of religious myth! All hail!

[BlueEyedSon]

81. BTW, sarcasm is a mortal sin and you will burn in hell for this post.

[ultraist]

97. excellent response!

We see a lot of preconventional thinking (Kohlberg's first stage of moral reasoning) in fundie churches amongst the Conservative/Authoritarian personalities.

I think the surge in Bush's Culture of Hate is reflected in the surge of Evangelical fundie churches, among other things.

By the same token, I also have noticed that more churches (liberal churches) have increased their Peace efforts since the onset of the Iraq war.

[flamin lib]

5. Thank you.

As a semi atheist myself all that I can really know is that I can't really know. If there is a God who can create cosmic distances that my puny mind cannot conceive, how can I possibly presume to understand the power that created those distances?

The way I see it, all religions are an attempt to make the unknowable knowable; to reduce life, the universe and everything into something we can hold in our finite ability to understand. In light of that revelation I decided that whatever a person believes is okay with me as long as that belief doesn't hurt them or others. That said, if your religion allows you to launch missiles into your neighbor's country (Israel) or to fly aircraft into buildings (you know who) or to preach hatred against those different from you (certain Christian sects) then I suggest you re-evaluate the God you believe in.

Besides, I already have the answer to life, the universe and everything. It's 42. We humans are just too intellectually underdeveloped to under stand the QUESTION! (thanks Douglas Adams, where ever you are)

Answers are the easy part, questions raise the doubt . . . Jimmy Buffet.

[lukasahero]

9. Interesting perspective

Seriously. "all religions are an attempt" "to reduce life, the universe and everything into something we can hold in our finite ability to understand."

Honestly, I've always approached it from just the opposite opinion - that "religion" (and bear in mind I do not support the horrific "religious" behaviors you rightly revile) or "spirituality" is, for me personally, an attempt to retain the mystery of "life, the universe and everything" (yes, thanks DA) but I see your point. I guess "religion", "faith" or "spirituality" has a lot to do with a person's individual approach to it.

[Az]

6. Thank you

The specifics and details can sometimes get in the way of the things that are really important.

[YankeyMCC]

7. Thank you

[lukasahero]

8. My husband is agnostic

and he's the most honest, moral and generous person I've ever known. (Ok, he has a minor fault or two here and there but morality ain't it.) And in the other corner, as the "believer" (not going to ascribe myself to anything more than the belief that something bigger than me exists), I hope he'd say much the same of me.

I get cranky when he gets condescending about it (I did mention those minor flaws) but I'm a pretty scrappy fighter and can dish it right back out. But mostly we just respect each other knowing that we've come to our beliefs or lack of via honest contemplation and we are just trying to do our best in the world.

[shrike]

62. So is mine

And he is the most "Christian" person I know. Although on his good days, he is a deist, with no use for religion. I am a practicing Catholic (unlike MrsGrumpy, I found a church which stays out of politics) but we never have fights about religion.

[Old Mouse]

10. Don't you mean she's a good person?

Surely her religion or lack thereof should have nothing to do with your opinion of her, for the better or for the worse.

I've known many atheists over the years, but it seems to me, and I am being entirely subjective here, the ones on DU feel somewhat persecuted. Surely there is no active persecution, is there a strong negative pressure felt living in a Jeudo-Christian dominated society that is different than those of eastern faiths feel?

The argument of morality comes from spirituality is a relative one, it's for those who could not maintain morality without it. The prejudicial notion of atheism somehow promoting immorality seems new.

[ieoeja]

14. Persecuted?

Why would we feel persecuted in a country where a recent US President (Poppy Bush) said during his administration, "I don't believe an Atheist can be a good American"?

[Old Mouse]

16. I mean actively denied opportunity

not dismissively mentioned.

[China_cat]

18. Surely there is no active persecution?

You jest.

Atheists cannot be Boy Scouts (by fiat) and will usually be turned down for other positions dealing with kids (the uberright equates atheists with pedophiles). Atheists will be denied the right to adopt or foster children. If there is a question about the care of children in a family, children's services will always take the kids away if one or both parents are atheists.

Even though the Constitution says that a religious test may not be applied in order to hold office, you have no chance at all of being elected (or even get on the ballot) as an atheist. (Google the case of Herb Silverman who ended up going through a 7 YEAR court battle just to become a notary in SC)

Lack of a god belief is seen as worse than having the 'wrong' god belief. (My husband and I were evicted from a rented house because the landlord was told we were atheists. And that's the mildest form I've seen here.) Active atheists are very likely to be subjected to ongoing vandalism, and harassment.

Nope, no active persecution there.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. Well said China_cat.

:thumbsup: It's worse than ever with the Administration we currently have fanning the, dare I say, flames.

[RoeBear]

26. (the uberright equates atheists with pedophiles)

If true that would be pretty silly considering that the worst offenders have been Catholic priests.

[China_cat]

36. I know that, you know that

It still doesn't stop the villification of those who refuse to pay even lip service to their delusions.

[Old Mouse]

31. My mother was a councilor for many years

and very active in the Florence Crittenton services. My father works in a very high level capacity in civil service. My grandfather, quite the atheist, had a special post reporting directly to Roosevelt fostering race relations during WWII. (he later remarried a devout Christian... Sunday mornings were quite interesting.)He was almost killed several times due to race, but never (lack of) religion.

I have seen (and experienced)a lot of painful and violent discrimination, but I have never seen any against atheism. But I grew up in a progressive environment and I suppose a progressive area. Are you in the South or bible belt?

I'm going to have to educate myself more on this.

[China_cat]

37. Part of it not being seen

is that you can't SEE a person's lack of god belief like you can their race. And it's not something you usually talk about.

But when you have to fill out papers (to adopt or foster) that ask you to declare your religion and you put down 'atheist', you find out right quick just what other people think about your lack of religion. As I said, the 'wrong' religion is more easily accepted than none.

Besides G.H.W. Bush's declaration that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, you get celebrities who say ON AIR that they would NEVER allow an atheist to baby sit their kids.

[Old Mouse]

140. I think you have a point

it seems there is a tremendous lack of knowledge about atheism.

[ultraist]

98. Good points!

It does not have the violent history of racism in this country. The only thing that is comparable are the Salem Witch trials, but these women were not athiest.

I live in the Bible belt and generally don't discuss my religious beliefs or lack thereof with just anyone. It's very easy to keep them private. Yes, it's irritating that Christianity is everywhere, but I don't feel oppressed by it in that it has not closed any doors for me.

I'm not so sure about the removal of children remark. When I worked at Child Protective Services, we did inquire about their religion, because it's been well established that the most conservative and fundamental religious people have a higher incidence of child abuse. There is never a requirement to attend church for families in treatment and children, by law, cannot be removed for anything except abuse or neglect which is well defined per state statutes.

Most of the direct persecution in the history of Christianity was one form of Christianity attacking another. Every time a group broke off from the existing church, violence erupted.

I'm not discounting people's personal experiences, I'm just stating I have not experienced discrimination for not believing in God.

As an aside, I thought it was hilarious that MSNBC had a report on "how to cheat on your spouse" last night! LMAO! The same station that showed "taking the Christ out of Christmas" reports ad naseum...

[DrGonzoLives]

76. If you are denied a job because of your atheism

then you have very legitimate grounds for a lawsuit. They cannot ask about religious affiliation nor apply it as a test unless it is a legitimate business need (i.e., needing a Baptist to be a Baptist minister, there aren't that many legitimate reasons, though). Same goes with housing - they can't do that.

These laws exist, but there aren't people roaming around making sure that they are enforced - that would cost trillions. You have to go to the EEOC or FHA or Dept. of Labor, or get a lawyer, and start raising hell.

[China_cat]

91. And get ignored.

Especially in today's climate.

[DrGonzoLives]

100. Have you tried?

Or are you just making that assumption so that you might continue to be a victim?

[China_cat]

106. Yes

we tried to file at the time we were evicted and told that we had no cause. The landlord, while telling us that he wouldn't have atheists living in one of his buildings, didn't put it in writing.

We went out an bought a house rather than use the money to try to fight it further. This is SC, we'd have lost.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. If you had been following GD this afternoon, perhaps you would understand

why it is that I posted this. Atheists in this country are persecuted to a certain extent thanks to the media, this administration.

Example (true one)...Recently a Christian group was standing on the sidewalk in front of our local middle school handing out bibles to the children. When the police were called, concerned parents were told nothing could be done because they were on the sidewalk. Now imagine a group of people standing on the sidewalk handing out condoms, or "Satan's little black book". Would the result have been the same?

FWIW, I couldn't care less what religion or lack thereof my dearest friend is. She illustrates to me that human goodness is a result of the person, not the religion. :hi:

[Morose]

22. In pre-school small children often

attack and torment each other over beliefs in santa claus and the easter bunny too.

The difference being that THEY still have a lot of growing up and learning to look forward to.

Edit: not trying to draw a one to one analogy...just sympathizing with the Douglas Adams view of things...that our brains aren't nearly so big as we think they are.

[ultraist]

99. Non Christian children have it the worst, IMO

Not just athiest children, but Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any non Christian children do get discriminated against in the public school.

I was disgusted by that school taking kids out during the middle of the day to go to Bible study. Our tax dollars should not be funding this! Our kids are already falling behind academically, how can they justify taking time out of the school day for this? OUTfuckingRAGEOUS!

[rman]

51. Contemporary Christian persecution is a RW/fundi meme

According to them saying "happy holidays" instead of "marry Christmas" is evidence of that persecution.
And mind you, a "DU-er" is by definition anyone who posts on DU - and *anyone* can post on DU.
In the mean time it is the Bushies who allude to the notion that they are not sure atheists should be considered citizens.

[ken-in-seattle]

11. H.L.Mencken quote

"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good."
-- Henry Mencken

[Old Mouse]

17. That quote is about the people

not the religion.

[BlueEyedSon]

85. It is about both.

Is Christianity "better" at making men good than Buddhism?

[Old Mouse]

142. Buddhism is no better than Christianity

They lack the organizational skills.

The different variations of Buddhism have had their share of violent episodes, just on a much, much smaller scale.

Yasuo Hayashi, mastermind of the Tokyo subway gas attack, is Buddhist monk. Aum Supreme Truth is a Buddhist sect. (cult)

But you're right of course - the quote does apply to both. I just interpret a stronger emphasis on the nature of mankind.

[misanthrope]

12. Atheists make better Christians...

...now THERE'S a bumper sticker for you.

If there's no perceived reward for good behavior, it certainly fits the definition of altruism better.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. I always tell my dear aforementioned friend (and fellow DUer) that she

is going to get into heaven long before I do. I'll be kicking it in Purgatory until someone takes pity and "prays" me out. ;) :hi:

[applegrove]

13. I feel the same amazment at my great Christian friend. She is awesome!

[Kinkistyle]

27. Good people are just good. Regardless of religion.

I myself am atheist, but I have a friend who I would probably term "Evangelical". She is Born-Again and is extremely faithful to her religion and believes a lot of the Bible literally (Noah, Genesis, etc.)

She is also one of the sweetest, kind-hearted, trustworthy and caring people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. She has many friends, of various races, cultures and gender-orientations. I truly believe that she would be that way regardless of what religion she was - be it Islam, Scientology, Christianity or None-Of-The-Above.

I think her Christianity only reinforces her nature, the same way it reinforces the nature of people like Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell.

To this day I have never told her that I am an atheist, and I think she still believes that I am religious in some manner or form because we are so similar in every other aspect of life.

[applegrove]

54. I too believe that having that religious gene can make our religious

friends err.... heavy lifters . They do things that a regular liberal would not do (invite lost souls into their homes all the time, work in orphanages).

I truly believe that the other side of the coin exists for every way of life. And those that have the ability to be devout - end up with extra human strength and 'faith' in what they do. So they can do things I might talk about but wouldn't do for 'practical reasons' or because I was 'cynical about the outcome'. Even if perhaps I would wish that the religious in general (not necessarily my religious friend in this case) questioned authority more... or what parts of the 'bible' to believe in (I believe the Bible was an excellent book with many great lessons based on communal wisdom ore thousands of years).

[MadisonProgressive]

25. I'm an agnostic

but I try hard not to hurt people. I try to avoid making them sad. I do this because I can put myself in their shoes (if the shoe were on the other foot). This is empathy. Having empathy and sympathy for others in your heart is the best way to avoid hurting others.

[RoeBear]

28. I'm an atheist

Honest to God

[July]

30. Somehow I was appointed godmother to my dear nephew.

Despite my lack of belief.

Why? I think it was because my brother believes that I would do what he wants, despite my own beliefs.

And he's right. I would teach my nephew, if called upon to do so, what his parents wanted him to know. Wouldn't even mention my own views unless asked, and only when he was old enough to discuss it rationally.

I respect the choice my brother and his ex made, even if it is one I wouldn't make. I couldn't lie and say, "This is what I believe, too,"
but I wouldn't have any trouble trying to impart his parents' belief, or explaining what that meant to them.

It would be tough, because I don't share their beliefs, and, if asked, I would have to be honest about my own beliefs. However, I would do my best to convey what his parents wanted him to know.

[Az]

34. We are the Godless parents

for my best friends kids. They are believers of the lite sort.

[lonestarnot]

32. I have a good friend who is an atheist...but that's all she fucking wanted

to talk about...so we don't talk much any more. Her obsession with atheism was boring.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[hatrack]

137. Is Grovelbot an atheist?

I'm consumed with curiosity!

[Az]

138. One could make the case

If he is not programmed with a sense of god then ....

[skids]

35. Still trying to figure out atheism myself.

Are atheists just pan(en)theists that don't realize it? Or agnostics that just never think about it? One of my best friends is sort-of an atheist at times (he vascillates between that and a desire for spirituality) but I still don't get it.

Not that I think that giving due consideration that consciousness is finite and there is nothing, a black endless void of non-experience after death is important to weigh all sides of the matter, but aside from not thinking about it, carrying that as a core belief should pretty much either drive people stark crazy or at least make them extremely cowardly. Not so of the atheists I know.

So, I remain completely mystified when someone tells me they are an atheist, because I have no idea what's really going on in their heads.

[China_cat]

38. Atheism

A=without Theism=god belief.

It's very simple. Atheists are people without a god belief.

No, it doesn't mean that we are satanists, pan-theists, pagans, witches or any other god believing (but not christian) people.

No, we don't DENY the existence of a god or gods, we just don't see any reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The same as your non-belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. Add god to that category.

Everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught to believe in god/s.

[skids]

43. Then it's a difference in terminology...

At least in your case, and I'll assume that you speak for some portion of those that call themselves atheists. I'd call that a flavor of agnosticism (though not the extreme brand that asserts unknowability.) We can agree to disagree on that point, that's fine, I tend to stick to the dictionary definition.

I don't know why I gave you the impression that I was so ignorant as to lump atheists in with either satanism or with paganism or wikka. And I know what a pantheist is. As such I can easily see a pantheist mislabeling themselves an atheist by confusing the concept of God(s) existing as (a) single entity(ies) with theism, which is partially why I asked.

My general impression is that what I've seen called "strong atheism" is very hard to find.

[Roland99]

61. I've often wondered about that

Everyone is born an atheist. You have to be taught to believe in god/s.

If a family raised a child somewhere and never taught it any form of religion or god-worship and kept it from all forms of media and social interaction, and asnwered "why" questions with scientific fact, would that child still wonder if something greater is out there?

[China_cat]

68. There are tribes

in outer Mongolia who have no god beliefs at all and the children grow up the same.

But wondering is not the same as believing (I wonder about Bush's intelligence but it doesn't mean I believe it exists) and is certainly not an impetus to 'worship'.

[ultraist]

101. Likely they would pose that question

But, they would seek answers in Science and ponder the wonders of nature and all of the unanswered questions of Science. They would not assume a mystical being is responsible for a lack of knowledge because that would not be in their repetoire or part of their worldview. This was how Einstein viewed it. He did not believe in any supernatural beings, but was awed by the grandeur of nature and intriqued by all of the info yet to be discovered and explained.

In that sense, one does believe that there is something greater than themselves, but it is not a supernatural being like God. No mysticism is involved. It is not a spirituality but a love of the wonders of nature.

[Az]

41. More and more atheists are rejecting the theists definition of atheism

The theists contrived the notion that an atheist is someone that rejects or denies god. That we have to actively disbelieve in gods. I just had a meeting with a group of atheists last night and to a person they rejected this notion. They consistingly reported themself to simply be people without a belief in god or gods.

Lets consider the logic behind the meaning they are rejecting.

Disbelieve, deny the existance of, reject god. What do these all have in common. They start off with the assumption that believing in god is the default or proper starting position. Lets take the words apart.

Disbelieve. Made of the word believe and the prefix 'dis' meaning to remove. To disbelieve means to remove belief. But most atheists don't have a belief to remove. They simply don't believe in god. There is no active effort to rid oneself of belief. There is no attempt to disrobe oneself of a belief.

Deny the existance of god. Well this one straight off seems to presume that god exists and that atheists simply choose to deny it. Talk about loading the argument. Atheists simlpy don't believe in god or gods. We see no gods to deny.

Reject god. Never met him. How can we reject him? Same as the previous case. Sets us up as obstinate little children holding our breath.

So why is there this concerted effort to make over atheists in this form. It could be that a simple honest lack of belief creates a paradox for some systems of belief. Consider the notion of original sin. It is in large part the basis for the reason that Jesus sacrificed himself. Even if a person were able to live a nearly virtuous life they would still be tainted by original sin and thus not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. So Jesus sacrifice helps to wash away even this sin. But only if you accept it.

This seems wonderful. But what if you don't believe the back story. Then Jesus' sacrifice is in vane. Even if you are an innocent person you are still condemned to damnation because you do not believe. It is much easier to imagine a person maliciously or spitefully rejecting Jesus than it is to imagine a relatively innocent person who simply does not believe being condemned to damnation. Thus to the believers it has to be turned so that the atheist willingly and selfdestructively decides to deny the truth of god.

The truth is we do not directly choose what we believe. I can no more choose to believe in god right now than you (assuming you believe) could choose to not believe in god.

Belief is the result of a continuing dialog within our mind. It constantly compares and contrasts our emotional opinions of matters that we have experienced and learned. Such positions that conflict with each other vye over dominance in our mind. Their means of maintaining this dominance are based on our emotional weighting of each position. We compare the emotional relevance of each position and its supporting conjectures and the weightier position dominates our beliefs.

In the case of near balances our mind enters into a state of doubt. This creates stress in our minds and we seek means to end the balance. We have learned a number of tools such as reason and rational thought to help us deal with such doubt. But these are not the only tools our mind has developed. Signs of portent and relying on friends and associates (peer pressure) are an example of other tools we rely on. The mind does not care what means the balance is broken with. Only that it is broken and a definitive position can be arrived at.

[bloom]

44. it seems like it would depend...

People who grew up with absence of religious doctrine vs. people who grew up with religion and rejected it.

Growing up without belief / growing up and then rejecting belief.


But they would both be atheists.

[China_cat]

47. In my case there never has been a 'belief' to reject

Much as I've tried in order to be able to fit in better, the idea of a god just doesn't make it and never has for me. Even as a child, the idea of a god (who sees all and knows all) struck me as a dirty old man who wanted to watch me pee or take a bath and that wouldn't be right. (Like I said, I was very young and didn't know anything about perverted adults and pedophiles) I believed in Santa longer than the teaching I received about a god lasted.

BTW...god is a job title, not a name.

[skids]

56. Well, I've got bad news for you...

According to some people's definition of god, every pee you ever took has been watched firsthand :-)

[China_cat]

64. So, their god

is a pedophilic voyeur. Nice.

[skids]

69. No, I wouldn't say that.

But I'm not here to try and "enlighten" anyone, so you'll just have to trust that the particular definition I was alluding to would by no means qualify as a pedophilic voyeur for doing so.

[China_cat]

78. I don't understand why it wouldn't.

A being who could and would watch a child in the bathroom WOULDN'T be a pedolphilic voyeur? Just because they hold the job title of god?

Why not?

[skids]

83. Because.

They weren't trying to watch you piss, they were just trying not to splash the rim.

[China_cat]

89. Is this just your way of trying to say

'because it's god'? Without actually typing the words.

[skids]

95. No, like I said.

I'm not here to attempt in any way to "enlighten" you. I said precisely what I meant, and if I wanted to argue "because it's god" (a very weak argument, I agree) I would have said that. I didn't.

[skids]

55. OK, I'll humor you guys.

Why you want to make over the definition of a word rather than just hop to one that was recently added to the english language that is much more accurate, I have no idea. It's an uphill battle, and whether or not you succeed, you'll still be viewed as a "milder form of strong atheism" because we do not have any other word that I know of for those who claim nonexistance outright.

I mean I can see where maybe you think this semantic wrangling wins arguments, but if I were you, I'd just be blunt and say "prove it."

I still would like to meet a "strong atheist" though and see what makes them tick. My friend is too wishy washy on the matter to really offer much insight.

(Oh, and by the way, connotation notwithstanding, the denotation of a word cannot always be correctly derived by breaking it into its composite roots.)

[Az]

65. The recent attempt to take a word didn;t go over too well

The word some were trying to put forward to represent atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers was "Brights". I suspect you will percieve the problem with this word.

I an others see a rather egotistical problem with that word and instead are trying to simply retake the word that really does best describe us free of presumptive positioning.

[skids]

71. OK, I'll bite.

What problem do you have with "agnostic"?

[Az]

73. It doesn't address the question

It addresses what a person knows. I would argue that everyone is an agnostic. It doesn't tell us if the person believes in god or not. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Knowledge derives from direct experience. And even such experience can be called into question.

Belief derives from an entire complex combination of things. Experience, learning, and emotions tie it all together. Belief can be entirely irrational. Simply a gut feeling. It can be leveraged by reason and rational thought. Or it can be confirmed by finding sings of portent in the world around us.

Telling someone you are an agnostic simply doesn't convey any information. Its an adjective. Switch the terms to do you think there is a god vs do you know if there is a god. You can think there is a god even if you don't know there is a god.

[skids]

82. Still not getting it.

Not that I won't try to detect and accomodate people with your definition of "atheist" in the future.

But your definition of agnostic is off. An agnostic doesn't just "not know." You could call a raving cultist "agnostic" that way, simply by saying that they don't actually know, they just believe. An agnostic believes that they do not know, a "strict agnostic" not only that, but believes that it is not possible for them or any other person to know.

I fail to see the difference between believing you don't know and not believing. It would seem to me that the less strict agnosticism would certainly include, though not be limited to, your definition of the word atheist, especially given the "because it isn't based on proof" angle many of you seem to abide by. Proof implies knowlege.

It's that shade of meaning that I'm trying to comprehend here.

[von Staufenberg]

107. You raise good questions

Your point regarding "An agnostic believes that they do not know," is a salient one, and I've just been mulling that over myself. Az is correct in his (or her) assertion that agnosticism/gnosticism are different constructs than atheism/theism. The former pertain to our understanding of knowledge (I'll acknowledge the semantic untidiness of the word "understanding" in a second, please allow me the shorthand for the moment), while the latter deal solely with belief. This appears to be the accepted philosophical differentation of the two, at least amongst atheists. And yes, this discussion is replete with semantic, as well as philosophical, issues. Now, getting back to the issue of my use of the term "understanding of knowledge," my point is that it is at this point, this nexus between knowledge and belief, that things get a little fuzzy. As you acknowledge, the agnostic must seemingly interject the concept of belief to account for his statement on knowledge (i.e., it is a statement of belief that accounts for whether things are "knowable" or "unknowable").

To be honest, I've not stumbled on to a completely logical workaround for this (been a loooong time since my last philosophy or logic course, and I barely even know how to spell epistemology any longer), but please humor a little freeform thinking. You must start with the assumption that nothing is knowable and then work your way backwards by proving those things which are knowable. Obviously, a little circumscription is in order here or that would be a very long exercise (and a BIG detour into existentialism). For the sake of argument, let's just focus on the question at hand and that is the existence of god, and to simplify the exercise let's distill it down a bit further and simply look at the question of what happens when we die. Without going into details, I think it is safe to say that the answer to that question is "We don't know." This is not a belief, per se, that we don't know, it is a statement of fact because there has been no syllogism proffered to answer this, nor can observable data provide an answer (syllogy and observation being the pillars of epistemology). You are correct in your statement (I believe you made the statement, I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth) that we would all be agnostic under these terms. Most theists acknowledge this by placing emphasis on the concept of faith as a replacement for knowledge. Now, if one goes further by stating that "it is not possible to know," one does start sliding down a slippery slope because then you ARE interjecting belief (i.e. you are stating a belief that nobody will ever know and that falls outside the scope of knowledge).

OK, now where does this lead us in terms of the difference between believing you don't know and simply not believing? Well, the first is an affirmative belief (I admit I've completely forgotten the correct term in logic, sorry) while the second is a null statement (again, not the accurate term...damn memory). This distinction is very critical in philosophical terms. The first requires argument to support, the second can only be negated (i.e. doesn't require an argument to support). I cannot understate the importance of this difference. It defines the course of argument and it is why you see many atheists going out of their way to make the distinction between Webster's (et. al.) definition of atheism and what is considered to be the more accurate definition (a lack of god belief). A previous poster was correct about Webster's bias, and he wasn't alone in foisting the incorrect definition of atheism on the masses.

Now, one final challenge. In a previous post I think you spoke about "strong atheism" (or gnostic atheist) and whether or not someone could be one. The answer is yes, and in fact I am one. Keep in mind this is a relative statement, however, because each potential god construct must be viewed independently (unless you are talking about pantheism, but I won't go there for now). First off, we need to define "strong atheism." The commonly accepted meaning is that strong atheism basically goes from a lack of god belief to the knowledge that a specific being cannot exist. I didn't say belief, because we are addressing a concept that can be tackled through syllogy. Here's an example called the argument from evil: The diety in question is one that is "tri-omni" (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent). Such a god construct is common amongst many religions (but not universal, even amongst the same sects). This being cannot exist. One word negates it: suffering (which is epistemologically established by direct observation). No matter how you slice it, a tri-omni god could not allow suffering. I can go through the motions of how it works, but you should be able to figure it out for yourself. No successful challenge for the argument from evil has been brought forth (at least since I've checked, but hey, I'd love to see how it could be done!). Hence, it is fair to say I am a strong atheist in relation to this one god construct, because I recognize the argument from evil as an unassailable negation. Now, I suppose you could argue that one could DISBELIEVE the argument, but that opens up the epistemology can of worms and is clearly not an appeal to reason.

In the end, there are four possible states that vary relative to the diety in question: Agnostic/atheist, gnostic/atheist, agnostic/theist, and gnostic/theist.

Finally, one final word on semantics: Free thinker is sometimes self-applied by atheists. A bit presumptious, if you ask me, so I still just go by atheist, with a dash of gnosticism/agnosticism thrown in depending on what god we're talking about.

[Az]

109. The Variable god

The trouble with pinning down what type of atheist one is, is entirely dependent on which gods you are considering. This becomes further complicated with the notion that perhaps the human race has not even stumbled upon the correct claim of god. As many claims as there are for god there are potentially an infinity of unstated claims.

This creates the conundrum of defining an atheist. Vs some claims we may have very well developed and logically consistant refutations. So much so that we may be perceived as gnostic regarding them. But these arguments are useless against a completely different claim for god. A sufficiently different claim can throw an otherwise strong gnostic atheist off their game and leave them with the weak atheist argument that they simply do not see sufficient evidence to acknowledge the claim as valid.

[skids]

112. A bit much to chew on.

A lot of good points. To cherry pick:

Really the confusion (on my part) is not with either "strong agnotiscism" or "strong atheism" as far as the semantics go, but between the weak forms. Perhaps I was brash in saying a weak agnostic believes that they do not know. Let's try "thinks they do not know" as perhaps more accurate, wheras the weak atheist "thinks they do not believe." Substitute "knows" for thinks if you like, but I think it is only fair to do so to both, not one or the other. Where then is the difference, if weak atheists ground their definition in "It hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it." The weak atheist isn't saying that they wouldn't believe it if it was proven, nor are they saying that they have proof of the negative. The weak agnostic likewise does not believe that proof, either way, is impossible. Both of them believes that they are not relying on a belief as the basis of this claim (or, if you grant them accurate observation in that matter, neither is, in fact.) I just still fail to see the difference.

Buddhists (if I'm not generalizing) don't seem to have a problem with the "argument from evil." In fact, if you view things with a somewhat cynical/critical eye, you could say that they have a one word answer to the one word challenge "suffering." That being "masochism." Though actually if you asked a Buddhist for a one word answer, I'm guessing they would say the answer is instead "suffering." They are like that. Really it goes to the question of whether we allow our response to pain, most often dictated by the character of our being, to jade our impression of pain or negative emotions, and hence influence our further reaction in our opinions about what implications suffering has to philosophy. I suppose then we get into quibbling over the definition of benevolence, though.

Actually, the interaction between "strong atheism" and pantheism is a primary area of interest of mine, if it wouldn't require you to write a book.

I think what you may be getting at is that the word "atheism" isn't really well adapted to being used as an aggregate nown, but is essentially being used that way often.

[von Staufenberg]

116. More good questions

First off, I don't think there is such a thing as a "weak agnostic," or really even "weak atheist." Knowledge either is, or isn't. If proof is attainable through either syllogy or observation, it is knowledge (at least according to the less existentially complex considerations of epistemology). Everything else that someone holds to be true, but is not supportable by logic or observation, is belief. All atheists are weak unless they are gnostic/atheists (again, keep in mind the relative nature of the question).

Regarding Buddhists, this is a complete non-issue because they are not theists, so they are not apt to consider tri-omni beings. But you are 100% correct about their relationship with suffering. In fact, I had a remark about Buddhists in my last post before I deleted it (in the suffering discussion, naturally).

Now, about pantheism, that's both a big issue and a small one. Big, in that by its nature it covers a lot of ground. Small, in that there really is very little dogma attached to the concept to be broken down. Without specific constructs (like the tri-omni deity), it is really hard to assail such an amorphous concept, at least in terms of trying to come to a "hard atheist" (gnostic/atheist) position.

I think you are right about the scope of the word "atheism." Hence, the appeal of the simplistic "thinks god doesn't exist" definition.

[Az]

119. Pantheists and redefining god

This goes into the Variable god problem. Some arguments for god take the definition so far outside the common claims that it may stretch the definition beyond recognition. God is love. Does this mean that the claim is no longer being made that god is an entity and instead is just an emotion or is it something else?

[skids]

125. I think pantheism and panentheism qualify as "common"

I mean, there are tiny hints of it at the roots of a lot of other religions, perhaps most easily at hand, the formlessness and literalized meaning of YHVH. It's my impression that mystic offshoots from many of the major religions delve into pantheism (in this case, Kabbalism).

But if it is the general trend among atheists not to consider that and similar definitions amoung the atheisms they hold, then I think I have a better impression now of "what makes atheists tick."

Thanks to you all, it's been great. Will be crashing soon though.

Oh, someone mentioned truisms, and since we were starting to get ridiculous with the "i think i think i think" type stuff, mostly my fault, granted, I'll leave you with the following (desky, admittedly) haiku I happened to write a week or two ago:

A true pessimist
believes himself engaging
in optimism.

[Az]

126. In the end labels really mean nothing

But in conversations with other individuals where we want to get to the meat of a conversation they serve a purpose.

Each atheist is going to respond to different claims of god differently. But generally speaking when someone asks if a person believes in god the dominant notion of god is a person or entity that created the universe.

Once you move away from that particular definition of god matters become increasingly muddled. Once we stray into notions that the entirety of existance is connected and may form some superstructure that may or may not have its own identity we have moved into a different theory and discussion. One that may very well have some traction to it.

In the end the label will always fail. But in general it conveys some information.

[skids]

128. Parting shot...

I'm not being mean spirited here, but just to poke some harmless fun...

>> First off, I don't think there is such a thing as a "weak agnostic," or really even "weak atheist."

<...>

>> All atheists are weak unless they are gnostic/atheists

[von Staufenberg]

130. valid observation

I should have been more clear, but not really a contradiction. What I meant was that there is little point in labelling any atheist "weak," because that is the common state with the exception of the gnostic/atheist. The words "strong" and "weak" are just shorthand usually applied to the atheist according to whether or not one is gnostic or agnostic in relation to a particular deity. Since most atheists don't have ready-made arguments to counter multiple god constructs, they tend to be more often "weak" than "strong." Hence, it really is only useful to distinguish when one is gnostic, or strong, in relation to a particular conception of god. Sorry for the confusion.

[Az]

108. Proof?

Listen to what atheists say or ask for. I don't think you will hear them ask for proof. Most I know when in a rational state of mind ask for evidence. Evidence is not exactly the same as proof. Proof doesn't really belong as a word in the evidentiary process. Its more appropriate for math and brewing.

As to knowledge vs belief. Yes, I would argue that a raving cultist despite their vehement proclomations to be absolutely correct in their beliefs probably cannot honestly claim to know they are right. There is a chance of knowing you are right in both cases (belief and nonbelief) but they are extreme examples and are still open to logical problems.

In the belief column you could directly experience god. The real deal. Full FX and everything. If your belief coincides with what you directly experienced you could claim to be a gnostic believer. Of course you will have to put up with others asking what you were on at the time.

The nonbelief column has some different issues to get to the gnostic state. On minor issues it is possible to achieve a gnostic state. Particularly where the claims for are absolutely ridiculous (ie Carrottop made a good movie). But for broad general claims such as god its kinda tough to be gnostic about the entirety of the universe. Thus logically an atheist will posit that they simply have not seen satisfactory evidence for the various claims for god that they have come across. Do they know god does not exist? Perhaps some claims for god are so spurious that they can claim knowledge of that particular god to be false. But for the general open ended question there is no real way to posit that there is no god without total knowledge of the universe.

[von Staufenberg]

110. Yep

"But for the general open ended question there is no real way to posit that there is no god without total knowledge of the universe."

Proving a negative can be a bitch. Especially when the parameters are the universe.

[skids]

115. Not to mention...

If you gained total knowlege of the universe, that might sabotage your proof a wee bit :-)

[Az]

118. Lol

Indeed. Doh! I think I Just became god and refuted my own existance!!!!

[ScreamingMeemie]

135. a=without....To me, the two terms are interchangeable.

One just seems to be more socially acceptable.

Atheism has negative connotations in today's society. Agnosticism, not so much.

[Peak_Oil]

111. I'm a strong atheist

Fire away. Note that I speak only for myself.

[skids]

113. Speaking for yourself is fine.

I guess the obvious first question is, what's your definition of "god"?

[Peak_Oil]

114. Definition of God

I don't have one. Before you think that's too short of an answer, or that it dodges the question, I think it's the most accurate and the least offensive.

To get more specific is usually insulting to believers of almost any stripe, but I'll try to get that out of the way with a minimum of fuss.

Which one are we talking about? YHVH? Shiva? The Dali Lama? Allah? Satan? Ganesh? Krishna? As far as I know, people believe in all of these right now. You can find people that profess a faith in each one of these.

Older ones that may or may not have followers anymore include Roman, Japanese, and Egyptian politicians.

Precursors to Christ such as Zoroaster, Prometheus, etc etc etc. had their days in the sun, as did the pantheons of Roman gods, Greek gods, Aztec gods, Polynesian gods, Native American gods, Chinese gods, Japanese gods, I don't know anything about them but I'd assume the Africans had gods...

Or is it some other God, not listed above, with no holy book and no body of followers, that has no features or evidence pointing to his/His/her/Her/its/Its existence?

You gotta pick something.

[Az]

120. Evil ahead

Please refute all possible arguments for god. :evilgrin:

[skids]

122. All your examples...

No worries about me viewing that as "dodging."

The examples offered seem to be dieties which usually are portrayed through personification (or the animal/object equivalent thereof.) Atheism on those grounds doesn't really mystify me, though the general criteria you use to establish a "strong" atheism for that set might be interesting to hear.

What's your definition of "consciousness"?

[Peak_Oil]

123. OK

I will note that you didn't answer my question, implicit though it may be. Which God are you talking about? Any of the above, none of the above, the featureless/no holy book God? You have to pick something to make this exchange meaningful.

Consciousness:

1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.
3.
1. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.
2. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice.
4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.

[skids]

127. Too tired...

To do this justice. I'll have to check back tomorrow.

But if you take a look back to my original post, it is the attitudes of "strong atheists" towards such questions as the continuity, or lack therof, of consciousness, that I am trying to comprehend. Is this an area where the vast majority of even "strong atheists" punt to agnosticism... so far that seems to be the implication from the others on the thread. If so, my question is answered (and initial impressions, entirely based on my own paultry understanding of the state of philosophy, bolstered)

Sorry I couldn't stick it out longer guys, but the neurotransmitters are starting to run out :-)

[von Staufenberg]

131. Quick thought

I punt. I do that a lot. In fact, I believe that tendency is perhaps the most critical in terms of whether one becomes a theist or an atheist. The atheist tends to not bother with speculating about things not readily encompassed by epistemology (I think the term "materialist" is the philosophical operative). Well, perhaps idle speculation, but the compulsion to latch onto answers to certain questions seems a bit lacking in many of the atheists I've encountered. To paraphrase the great Carl Sagan: "I don't want to believe, I want to know." Or something like that.

[Az]

134. Shortsighted

An atheist doesn't necissarily jump to conclusions even while they are considering evidence. You'r statement makes it seems as if they simply discard things that do not have sufficienti evidence. For most I would suggest that they do retain such considerations but until they have sufficient support they don't rise to credible levels. And until they do the atheists position remains the same. That is they are still unconvinced that a valid argument for god exists.

[von Staufenberg]

136. Clarification

By punting, what I mean is that I don't form beliefs about things for which I think there is insufficient evidence. This seems to be precisely what you are saying, so I fail to see how I am being shortsighted. I don't dismiss (discard) things out of hand if there is insufficient evidence (or in the case of a syllogism, proof), but I recognize that until such proof or evidence exists, it is little more than speculation. In terms of an existential question, I don't adopt an affirmative or negative position until such evidence or proof is established/discovered. Again, I fail to see how this is any different than what you have just said.

On edit: I can see why you raised your point now, I assume it was my statement that "atheists tend not to speculate." Again, imprecise language is the problem. My next statement about latching on to conclusions is a more accurate summary of my position.

[ultraist]

104. Yes, there are various types of athiests

I believe we do directly choose what we believe though! :)

[Modem Butterfly]

42. What goes through your head when you read about belief in Santa?

Or Zeus? Or Allah? Or The Great Turtle? It's pretty much the same thing to me.

Face it: you and I are both atheists. It's just that I believe in one less god than you.

[skids]

57. I think you are assuming a bit.

I haven't said what I believe in, or not. Fact is, to me religion is more of a recreational activity than anything else. What I believe as I type this, probably isn't what I believed yesterday, and might not even be what I believe when you read it. So at any moment, the number of Gods that I outnumber you by may be more than one. Or, depending on your definition of what constitutes a god, may be zero.

(edit: nominee for most inexplicable typo I ever made.)

[Modem Butterfly]

59. When you understand why you don't believe in one particular god

You'll understand why I don't believe in any.

[skids]

70. Oh, I have no problem with that.

Just that I wouldn't use the word "atheist" to describe you.

I'll try to keep in mind that this alternative definition exists and be respectful of that.

[Modem Butterfly]

75. I feel the word best describes me

And I consider it respectful for others to use my chosen language, just as it would be respectful to refer to someone who is Jewish as a Jewish person rather than, say, a Kike.

[China_cat]

79. Why do you want to redefine a word that already exists

into one that means what YOU want it to?

Please pick up a copy of Cohen's "The Mind of the Bible Believer" and turn to the chapter on logocide.

Trying to redefine non-believers is just another attempt to demonize them.

[skids]

84. I have no interest in demonizing anyone.

I just tend to go by Websters.

[China_cat]

90. You do realize that Webster

is the fundamentalist dictionary?

And yes, trying to change the meaning of words IS a subtle way of demonizing.

[skids]

93. Actually, I didn't know that.

It's just the one I happen to own.

I'm not googling many dictionaries that don't have the "deny" listed first and foremost. Do you have a recommended dictionary?

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the word did not always have the "strong atheist" definition attached to it. And I wish you guys luck in nudging that along. Were I in your shoes, I wouldn't bother. The word is too polluted.

To your credit, you've been quite... no offense intended... religious in your defense of the term. I just hope the effort achieves what you want, rather than just hindering you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

87. Excellent reply, Modem...I would have never thought to put it that

way. :hi:

[BlueEyedSon]

86. Sigh... here is the quote you are looking for:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen Roberts

[Modem Butterfly]

92. Why thank-you! I never knew that it was an actual quote

I simply thought it was a truism. Thanks!

:)

[Thtwudbeme]

39. That's nothing! I am in school in my last year of religious

studies undergrad before I go to Divinity School...and I married an atheist a year and a half ago!

[JanMichael]

132. And it's been WONDERFUL!

Love you too baby!

[Bouncy Ball]

45. One of my dearest friends online is an atheist

and we have had some of THE most wonderful, stimulating discussions about religion.

My best friend in real life is an agnostic, wavering on being an atheist and again, have had some really fantastic religious/philosophical discussions with her.

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. The friend I was describing used to describer herself as an agnostic.

She has said the the social stigma placed upon atheists and atheism kept her from using the word.

[Roland99]

50. As an atheist myself, thank you!

Morals are not obtained from a religious text. They are innate. Our children are not born hating. Hatred is learned.

[SmokingJacket]

52. I'm an atheist, and my best friend is a devout Catholic.

We actually have a lot in common: we both think and talk a lot about what it means to live a good life and how to be a good person. For her, it's connected to what God wants; for me it's because I don't feel as though I have any purpose in life other than to be a good person. Ultimately it boils down to the same thing.

[sarcasmo]

53. Thank you Mrs Grumpy, from an Atheist.

[Dorian Gray]

58. I am also Roman Catholic.

Though I am still practicing. I have many friends that are agnostic, not strict athiests. (Though they, at times, describe themselves that way, also!)

They are also good people, who would do anything to help another in need.

I don't understand how many Christians say the things that they do about non-believing people. I guess, growing up in the Northeast, I'm used to a mix of belifs around me. I didn't grow up in a town where everybody believed the same evangelical stuff, so it's actually quite foreign to me.

We judged people on their individual traits, and I can't imagine not doing that now. Luckily, I live in a big city, and I don't find that people really care what other people believe. They just like people for their own individual traits, or they don't. I'm happy to have friends from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and I don't care what anybody else believes.

[usregimechange]

66. Only on DU would I read something like that, Thank you! nt

[BunnyPuncher]

74. muddled thoughts...

It's a bit funny to me to hear someone ask "what is it like to be atheist?"

I've always been curious to understand the working of a mind that has "faith." I find the surety of faith to be disturbing (to me) yet I realize that the vast majority of people around me hold "faith" in some spiritual sense (be it traditional religion, new-age, alternative etc.) and I have to admit in some moments of self-searching that I've wondered why I don't understand the appeal of a "creator" when everyone else seems to take it for granted.

To me, the ideals of hope, happiness, peace and love (and their associated opposites) are more noble and wonderful (or terrible) when they are the result of human labour & thought as opposed to "divine will" or even the idea of a shared "spiritual-connection" between everyone.

The current religious atmosphere in the USA appears to me (as a watching Canadian) as more of attempt to use God a justification for political realism (aka doing bad things to people home and abroad) than anything else. But that hardly needs to be said.

We have our own "conservative" backlash movement in Canada now too, but I don't think they will have the impact that the neo-cons have had in the states, and for the most part we remain practically a one party state (I'm sure the NDP supporters I've seen floating about here would disagree on an ideological level) so I cannot really comment on the cultural situation in the US.

Just a few muddled thoughts.

[BlueEyedSon]

88. NYT OpEd on the "God gene"

February 12, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
God and Evolution
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

An "analysis" of Democrats and Republicans from the Ladies' Home Journal in 1962 concluded: "Republicans sleep in twin beds - some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats."

That biological analysis turns out - surprise! - to have been superficial. Instead, modern science is turning up a possible reason why the religious right is flourishing and secular liberals aren't: instinct. It turns out that our DNA may predispose humans toward religious faith.

Granted, that's not very encouraging news for the secular left. Imagine if many of us are hard-wired to be religious. Imagine if, as a cosmic joke, humans have gradually evolved to leave many of us doubting evolution.

The notion of a genetic inclination toward religion is not new. Edward Wilson, the founder of the field of sociobiology, argued in the 1970's that a predisposition to religion may have had evolutionary advantages.

In recent years evidence has mounted that there may be something to this, and the evidence is explored in "The God Gene," a fascinating book published recently by Dean Hamer, a prominent American geneticist. Dr. Hamer even identifies a particular gene, VMAT2, that he says may be involved. People with one variant of that gene tend to be more spiritual, he found, and those with another variant to be less so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/opinion/12kristor.html

[BunnyPuncher]

94. I've seen that book mentioned...

And have been meaning to read it (it is currently "on order" at my library). From the reviews I've read (in New Scientist and if memory serves - Scientific American) there are a lot of reasons to be sceptical (heh heh) of this claim (mainly to do with this researchers history of communicating results through popular literature as opposed to peer reviewed journals).

But in any event it may hold a piece of the truth, or at least a few interesting lies.

Thanks for the memory jolt!

[ultraist]

105. That is a very inaccurate review of that study

The "God gene" does not predipose us to believing in God, it predisposed humans to being susceptible to being brainwashed through endorphin highs from practicing rituals whether it be a religious ritual or secular (like dancing which creates a surge of endorphins).

The religious right is misinterpreting that study to support their agenda. Please read the actual study not just reviews, before you draw any conclusions.

[ultraist]

102. Welcome BunnyPuncher!

:hi:

It baffles me how someone can "believe" so strongly in a mystical being. Your questions remind me of some Einstein writings. Of course, Einstein was an athiest and did not believe in any supernatural beings. He was dismayed by the idea that people engage in religions that use fear and damnation to control behaviors.

We are seeing a big surge in evangelcalism in our nation and it's quite disturbing. It's yet another result of Bush's culture of hate.

[ultraist]

96. What a lovely post!

A shining example of love, tolerance and respect.

Interestingly, my best friend of 20 years, who died last year from cancer at 43, was an athiest. She was one of the most loving, giving people I have ever known.

Thank you for that.

[KnowerOfLogic]

103. Spread the word, Sister! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Thanks From Another One. Really Well Said. nt

[Zhade]

121. Thanks for this post.

We atheists just lack any kind of religion or belief in gods, not ethics and values.

[dr.strangelove]

124. GET OUT - You mean us godless heathens are people too!

Atheist or theists, good people are good people and assholes are assholes.

It sounds like you have a good person in your friend.

[Lexingtonian]

129. ah, yes.

Why am I talking about this? Because I will never be able to get over the differences of opinion. That somehow being nice has to be equated to a belief in God. It doesn't.

These are ludicrous times and have this wierd schizophrenia. In every church the Right pretends that their kind owns all the virtue now and prevails by shouting down the others.

They accept substitutes and counterfeits, and that's what this thing about owning 'niceness' is about. It's about the way they claim to own humility and compassion and a moral voice, but absent any of it they seize on gentleness and niceness and reactionary politics. In the end they're really all about emotional comfort with The Way Things Are Going. They- the world- just can't bear too much reality, you know....

Children learn by example, not bible studies...trust me, I've known more than a few corrupt Catholics in my time. They have an easy out...the confessional.

Ex-Evangelical theologian Robert M. Price says- and he was a fundie evangelist- that he doesn't think anyone has ever been converted to Christianity by reading the Bible or any intellectual effort. He believes it's all based in emotion/sense of psychological security and rationalizations to achieve it. And that maintaining ostensible Evangelical beliefs and the like is achieved by will, by ignoring the evidence the world provides and dwelling on what the Believer desires.

The idea of achieving freedom to go and offend against the god(s) again after an oral or written confession and small compensatory sacrifice is an idea from the European and Middle Eastern pagan world, and was assimilated into the Church. Real atonement including a pledge not to reengage in the same kind of offense is the (nominal) tradition in Judaism. The distinction is that the pagan religions assumed people to be essentially unchangeable entities, chess pieces to their gods, where Judaism assumed every person to be capable of growth/transformation- indeed, dutybound to its pursuit. (Which is where the distinction between Catholic guilt and Jewish guilt is found too, btw.)

The argument in the churches these days is between the Believers in the Sky God/Gods of Nature, who the Right champion via exclusionary theism, and the de facto followers of religious humanism- who think God isn't far off, who are sure every person can know and live some attribute(s) and represent them.

Of course, that first belief- in the Far Off God(s)- is actually impossible to maintain on the evidence and is too 'cold' to maintain emotionally without infusing it with some stuff whose power is that of religious humanism- but these pieces have to be banged up so that the humanist element is not recognizable, even though it is the essential attribute. (This is why they engage in e.g. leader and 'martyr' cultisms.) And so you get people who dwell on "nice" because the experience of compassion is too dangerous, too genuine, too infused with spiritual ability to touch them and overpower them and topple their fragile beliefs in Nature Deity and their own Electedness.

The saddest part is why they cling to these ideas. In the end you can only conclude that it's for the oldest reasons to cling to any form of paganism- it confers social and political status, which amounts to authority about "morality" and more, and it permits rejection of science and other rigorous- but unbearable- ways of understanding the world. At the moment it's even associated with political majority, with dominion over those with greater integrity and insight.

At the moment it's easier to live with integrity and some degree of humanism by avoiding the mainstream churches. And the Far Off God is not the one that matters, people find. So, bluntly, the way to be a good person in this society is to stay away from the mainstream churches as much as possible and end all commitments to the Far Off God. We leave Egypt and Pharaoh and his minions and the idolatries behind and head into the Wilderness, or maybe that is: leave the Pharisees behind and make our journey to Mount Carmel.

[ScreamingMeemie]

133. This deserves a reply. Very well said...

So much of the church today is living in judgement of others, and trying to prove one's self more worthy of God's graces than one's neighbor. It's why I struck out on my own. My dear friend of whom I spoke walks more closely in the footsteps of Christ than anyone else I can think of.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

[von Staufenberg]

139. Well said

Excellent observations, and very eloquently stated.

[arwalden]

141. My Favorite Post This Year...

:hi: