Atheist!

[john-the-author]

More correct would be That. The He is of course a reference to my Christian origin - although my approach might be a little closer to Zen ( I have studied and taught Zazen and Yoga ), I found enough similarities to not define myself as a Christian anymore (hope my negations don't drive you crazy by now...).

It's worth noting that, despite the popular usage, if you go back to the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, you'll see that the Holy Spirit (a poor translation itself) is female. This actually makes the Trinity make sense, you know: a Divine Father and a Divine Mother combine to form the Divine Son, who becomes the Divine Father.

It's well-documented, but it'll really piss people off. I had the some fundamentalist dickwad I was working for in Indiana tell me with absolute certainty that This Could Not Be. How the hell he'd know, he didn't say, but it Just Wasn't So!

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's worth noting that, despite the popular usage, if you go back to the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, you'll see that the Holy Spirit (a poor translation itself) is female. This actually makes the Trinity make sense, you know: a Divine Father and a Divine Mother combine to form the Divine Son, who becomes the Divine Father.

I don't believe in goddesses, either.

It's well-documented, but it'll really piss people off. I had the some fundamentalist dickwad I was working for in Indiana tell me with absolute certainty that This Could Not Be. How the hell he'd know, he didn't say, but it Just Wasn't So!

Let's not get into the outrageous misogyny inherent in almost all historically-based religions-- I am anti-religion, as I've noted, but for other reasons than I am atheist. (Note the difference, by the way-- anti-religion means there exists something for me to be against...)

 

[wmrs2]

Hmm, I thought the US was founded as a secular nation.

Educated Americans are more likely to be atheists, but you still don't find a lot of them fessing up to it in public.

Cowards.

This is absolutely false. More educated Americans are not atheists. It is the atheists that do not fess up. Joe, that is what your thread question implied, atheist being a derogatory term to mot Americans. This post does not address the thesis statement of the thread.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

More educated Americans are not atheists.

I would like to see where you got a number on that one.

 

[Safe_Bet]

This is absolutely false. More educated Americans are not atheists. It is the atheists that do not fess up. Joe, that is what your thread question implied, atheist being a derogatory term to mot Americans. This post does not address the thesis statement of the thread.

[thread jack]

So are you REALLY a married 6 grade girl that shaves her chin or what???

[/thread jack]

 

[Liar]

More educated Americans are not atheists.

Do you mean

more Americans that are educated

or

Americans that are more educated


?

 

[wmrs2]

Well, I'm an atheist, and proud of it.

A common misunderstanding about us atheists is that we "know" there is no God. We don't. It's just that we think the likelihood that God, as described in the bible, exists, is extremely small.

What about morality? Well that comes, I think, literally, from common sense. Richard Dawkins has a good argument about this:

He makes the point that nearly all Christian believers are selective in deciding which part of the bible is to be taken literally, and which parts are merely symbolic. The Old Testament in particular is full of embarrasing and repulsive behaviour, which not even the most rabid Christian fundamentalist would advocate.

So, if most Christians (and Jews and Moslems) use some kind of moral judgement in deciding which parts of the bible to take literally, and which, in effect, to ignore, when constructing a code of behaviour, then, they're obviously employing a set of morals whose origin is outside of the bible to make those judgements.

Dawkins' argument, which I hope is as simple to follow for believers as it is for me, completely undermines the role of the bible as a rule-book for behaviour.

Joe, here you are plainly off topic. You were not looking for an answer to the question you posed but wanted to slam the Bible. It is o key to criticize the Bible but be honest about your motives. Be consistent with your logic.

Belief in God has nothing to do with the credibility of the Bible. Many, many Christians do not use the Bible to prove God exist. They use the Bible to confirm their faith. There is a big difference here.

Moral laws appear to come to man in the form of self-evident truths. Before the Bible, these self-evident truths were written down by civilizations that predate Bible civilizations. Your argument that the Bible gave Christians and Jews the moral law is not valid. It would better be said that moral law gave us the Bible, which verifies our revelation of self-evident moral law. This self-evident knowledge of moral and universal law is a more solid argument for the existence of God than the doubt of atheist.

Most Americans think poorly of atheist because they intuitively know atheist make this big jump in logic and a big jump it is to believe God does not exist because the Bible does not have your respect.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Most Americans think poorly of atheist because they intuitively know atheist make this big jump in logic and a big jump it is to believe God does not exist because the Bible does not have your respect.

What?

 

[wmrs2]

Do you mean "secular", or "atheistic"?

I think the big problem with "atheist" is that there's an association of the word with former Soviet regime.

Like the word "Aryan", whose true meaning has been irrevocably obliterated from common usage, the word "Atheist" is now besmirched with images of oppression.

That is correct Joe, but don't you think the word atheist under the USSR and Red China has earned this connotation?

 

[wmrs2]

They cannot and will not just "live and let live". It's their job to build the New Jerusalem here in the USA, and that's what their religion teaches.

So when you call yourself an atheist, to these people, you're declaring yourself the enemy.

What you say about the religious right is true but it is also true of atheist and liberals. Both sides are equally incorrect, don't you think. Look how enraged the atheist and liberals are on this thread. They have not addressed the thesis question of the thread but they have been extremely intolerant.

If we could get the trolls out of religion and off this forum, we could have a good discussion and find the logical gaps in each others logic. I assure you that there are many gaps of logic on both sides.

 

[wmrs2]

Interesting that you make a claim that American's most notable contribution is Evangelical, then define EC as judgemental, then justify the argument by saying they are obviously the enemy. It's funny, in 40 years of being involved in EC, I've never met anyone like you're describing and don't know a soul who believes we are "supposed" to build a New Jerusalem here. Maybe the reason you feel that religious people judge Atheists is because you are just seeing a reflection of what you are putting out. I noticed quite a lot of judging in your post. Funny, I never bothered to judge what an Atheist thought in any way (other than being annoyed by the countless lawsuits that get publicized with people trying to eliminate public displays of religion or getting a word removed off the dollar). The fact is, what someone does or doesn't believe has no effect on my day to day life whatsoever. Obviously, you've worried about it a lot.

Guess I must not be religious enough.

Here you point out a major reason that Americans regard atheist as a derogatory term. Good job.

 

[wmrs2]

I agree with every word dr_mabeuse said, and I wish I could have said it as well!

Now, my confession: I find atheism and evangelical christianity equally unappealing. I would never try to argue either extreme away from their beliefs, but, to me, that's what they are--extremes.


A little off the point, but to reply to a particular posting:

There was a comment about educated Americans being more likely to be atheists, whether or not they profess it. I wouldn't count on that as a truth. I am educated; I hold a couple of degrees. I believe in God (if not religion.) I've yet to meet a doctor who is an atheist; I only know one who is agnostic. If you listen to or read interviews with some of the world's leading scientists, you are more likely to hear them say they just don't know.

A Jewish friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I do think there is some truth in that.

I think both sides of the argument here should listen to you. The extremes will not listen as evidenced by the trolls lurking about.

 

[wmrs2]

I buy that argument. Basically you're saying you're a bunch of immigrants.

What I still don't understand is how the influence of the Evangelical church has got to be so powerful? There are religious nuts everywhere, but thankfully they weild power only in a few countries. And they don't normally get to weild power in countries where the level of education and affluence is as high as it is in the US.

Perhaps Israel is another exception, where for a number of reasons (one of which is their proportional representation voting system) the religious right are disproportionately powerful.

Joe, the answer to your question is right under your nose. You criticize the religious right and then point out the two most democratic countries in the world as an example of the results of the efforts of the religious right. I don't think it is exactly like the irony of your statement but your logic has great gaps because of your world vision is so atheistic.Trolls stay away.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

 

[wmrs2]

"Belief" implies that there may or may not be an empirical basis...And, to play devil's advocate, where is the empirical basis for a "belief" that God does not exist?

There may be but can you not see that you direct the course away from the thesis question of the OP? that is why people do not like extreme atheist.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

*coke spew*

 

[wmrs2]

I apologize if I've personally offended you, but given the innacuracies involved in using generalities, I'd stand by my assertion that Evangelical Christianity is the most politically active and influential religion in America these days. That's not to say that all Evangelicals are political activists, but when you look at religious leaders who have political agendas, they seem to be largely Evangelical: Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, etc.

Certainly Catholics have political power, as do members of the Mormon Church, but I don't think they have the clout of the Evangelical Christians.

As to judgmental, perhaps I used the wrong term, for which I apologize again. I was under the impression though, that one of the tenets of Evangelism is the moral imperative of spreading the Christian gospel. The very word "Evangelize" means to convert to Christianity, doesn't it? And doesn't the spreading of the gospel imply a kind of us/them mentality?

As for worrying about it a lot, yeah, I do. I especially worry about it when I hear we have a President who believes in the literal truth of the Book of Revelations and the Rapture and what has to be done to fulfill the conditions for the Second Coming. I worry about that a lot.

I was raised a Jew and probably see a different view of America than you do. Quite honestly, although I no longer practice my religion, it still makes me uneasy to travel to some parts of the country and see crosses and biblical exhortations displayed all over the place. I'm not disputing your right to display them, I'm just saying that it makes me uneasy. Just like one person can look at a Billy Graham Crusade, say, and think, "What a wonderful thing" and another can look at it and be just a little bit frightened.

Do you not see a great similarity between the atheistic communist world of the former USSR, Cub, and Red China and the religious people in the USA? I suggest that if Christians and Jews did not stand up to atheist that the atheist would take over as much of our minds as possible and would not apologies in the least. There are extremes and their are extremes. You don't see Christians lining up people against the wall and shooting them, now do you? You choose your extreme and Americans will chose their extreme.

 

[wmrs2]

I've met atheist doctors. Perhaps we move in different circles. I associate with freethinkers when I can, because I enjoy reasoning unencumbered with the burden of dogma. And so, as you say, do "leading scientists," I daresay. Certainly a lot of them have been freethinkers.
Atheists have served in America's armies since the founding of the nation. There have always been atheists in foxholes.

That sentiment is arrogant, in that it assumes that under stress, any atheist will waver and recant. Believers imagine that atheists recant on their deathbeds, too. If I claimed there were no Christians in foxholes, basing my argument on the need of the Christian to kill and thereby suspend his obedience to the tenets of his faith, it would seem to Christians to be a repugnant argument, would it not? One that betrayed a deep ignorance of what it means to be Christian? And further, one that assumed Christian faith to be paper, giving way under the first stress placed on it?

A very good point of view but it is off topic. (Trolls stay away.)

 

[wmrs2]

I didn't say there were no atheist doctors or scientists. And, I hope you don't mean to say that those who believe a God are not freethinkers? To be dogmatic in a belief that there is no God is no more free than to insist there must be. Either way, it is a matter of faith, not fact.

As far as this whole foxhole thing is concerned, I can only speak from my own experience here, and I don't believe that makes me--or the sentiment--arrogant. Extreme stress does change people; it tends to bring out the best or the worst. I've seen both.

Correct! Notice how trolls act when their logic is challenged.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Correct! Notice how trolls act when their logic is challenged.

Are you going to repost this entire thread?

Do you know that you are reading things that were said in 2006?
It's 2009 now.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Do you not see a great similarity between the
communist world of the former USSR, Cub, and Red China and the religious people in the USA? I suggest that if Christians and Jews did not stand up to atheist that the atheist would take over as much of our minds as possible and would not apologies in the least. There are extremes and their are extremes. You don't see Christians lining up people against the wall and shooting them, now do you? You choose your extreme and Americans will chose their extreme.

Right. Religion has NEVER been the cause of murder and death. Oh, except maybe other than the:

Crusades
French Wars of Religion
Thirty Years War
Milhemet Mitzvah
Seisen
Jihad
Saxon Wars
Sassanid Persian Empire Wars

Not to mention the killing "in the name of god" in:

Iraq
Afganistan
Ireland
Pakistan
India
Tibet
China
Malaysia
etc.?

 

[wmrs2]

Funny, I've never heard of any such special associstion between Soviet and atheism. Did the regime use it as a buzzword of sorts in propaganda?

"The opiate of the people", did you ever hear of that?
(Trolls, I know you are hurting but stay away.)

 

[wmrs2]

Atheism in the Madalyn Murray O'Hair sense of the word is indeed a leap of faith. There is perhaps little basis for an assertion, flatly, that there is no God, despite a total lack of evidence for any. Most atheists seem to arrive there through Ockham's Razor. There's no need to postulate an entity unnecessarily. God has no role. God fills no function. There's no direct evidence for any god. You just add it up, that's all.

Off topic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What a nut!

 

[Safe_Bet]

What a nut!

I still want to know if she shaves or not!