Atheist!

[wmrs2]

I like the story about the rabbinical student who'd been studying for years and finally went to his teacher and said, deeply disturbed, "Rabbi, I'm going to have to quit. I've decided that I don't believe in God."

The teacher clapped his hands in delight and embraced the young man. "Finally!" he said. "At last you're ready to learn!"

I was gratified to learn that Judaism has a strong atheistic tradition. There are atheistic Jews. There's even a Hebrew word for them: apikoros. It's a Hebrew corruption of the Greek "Epicurian", after the rationalistic philosophy.

You can be aware of the divine and the transcendent without believing in God. Whether than makes you an atheist or not, I don't know, but I think serious religion has to do with that problem, and that's why that rabbi was so happy for his student.

You have some good thoughts but they are off topic. It does not tell us why Americans do not like Atheist.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I still want to know if she shaves or not!

She's busy hunting wabbits...
She's vewwy vewwy sneaky.

 

[wmrs2]

I'd say God has no role in your life, because he doesn't exist, but your belief in God certainly has a role and a function.

Atheism is not a belief. I posted earlier about this common misconception, which I think I'm going to have to clear up again:

Atheism is simply this: Not taking the existence of God on faith. Atheism requires that you DO NOT have a leap of faith about God.

I have leaps of faith about a lot of things, but certainly not about the existence of God.

The things I have leaps of faith about are usually real things:

Like:

"I just know we should turn left here."
"I'm sure that person is right for me."

etc.

I follow hunches like that all the time without requiring evidence, but the difference is that the things I have hunches about can easily be verified or falsified either by more careful consideration or by obtaining evidence.

Do you not realize that your belief of no God is a bigger leap of faith than the belief there is a God? Everything that is tends to be a poof there is a God and you have nothing that says there is not a God. If there is something that says there is no God, name it. (This is off topic.)

 

[wmrs2]

Atheism can be divided into Strong and Weak Atheism, with Strong Atheism being the rejection of the existence of God and Weak Atheism being the absence of belief in God. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is indeterminable, either at present (Empirical Agnosticism), or in principle (Strict Agnosticism).

This off topic. So far not one tread by the atheist has been on topic. Teachers taught me in the third grade how to write on topic. Since I have not gone to college, could you tell me where in college did they teach atheist how to avoid the topic of discussion? That is an open end question, trolls my answer.

 

[wmrs2]

To me belief in a god, Allah to Zeus take your pick, and atheism are the flip sides of the same coin. Both are matters of faith. You can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove it.

Which is why I prefer to refer to myself as agnostic. I don't know, can't find out and lack the faith required to chose. It isn't that important a question anyway. I'm always more concerned with how people act than what they believe.

Welcome troll. Off topic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

trolls my answer? Well, you know-- tens to be a poof. I got no argument with you there.

*shrug*

 

[wmrs2]

Of course, there's the word 'atheism' which packs far less punch than 'atheist'.
'Agnostic' is easier to handle, but less definitive.
Crap, there was something else, but I just went blank...

Through post 74, atheist are still off topic. See why most Americans don't like you.

 

[wmrs2]

I recommend the two books

"The God Delusion" by Richard ("Selfish Gene") Dawkins

and "Breaking The Spell" by Dan Dennett.

Both very funny in places too.

Hopefully those two outspoken people will start the long overdue backlash against fundamentalism in America.

Dawkins, though British, specifically targets American fundamentalism throughout the book with a relentless mixture of logic, historical and scientific evidence, and more than a touch of his late freind Douglas Adams' humour, to whom the book is dedicated.

Jo, you should have never asked the question if you had no intention of keeping the discussion on topic.

 

[wmrs2]

it would be interesting to discuss those books, perhaps in another thread.

one thing is clear, however; we who have doubts are slapping each other on the back and congratulating each other for our insights.

we are 'talking past' most religious people as much as they 'talk past' us.

can there be any common ground? any dialogue?

---
PS why talk? because atheists, as 5-10 percent of the pop at most can't really get anything done, e.g. keep abortion legal. so it behooves NONbelievers to engage with at least the liberal wing of believers in many common causes for the good of all.

Not unless you stay on topic.

 

[wmrs2]

In order to effect any change in concensus, it's children that should be talking about this.

Above all, they should learn the difference between fairy tales and real life, before they start waging holy wars.

What we atheists need is a charismatic martyr, preferably one who wasn't married to a strange Japanese woman

Here is another gap in your logic. Atheist in this century have waged more holy wars that all past history of Christianity. We don't mind children talking about this but atheist should not talk to them about war. Man, once the atheist's thinking gets turned, he spins everything. This is off topic too. That is why we dislike atheist.

 

[Safe_Bet]

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.

Sure looks like it, don't it! I'll check back sometime in 2011.

 

[wmrs2]

Politicians always have careers - we seem dumb enough to elect them because we are too stupid to do without them? God can't exist without Satan? We see it every day. Both exist in the minds of the scared.

God is good. Satan is evil. The early church defined evil the absence of good. So do both exist? Can there be a negative existence?

All this stuff is interesting but off topic.

 

[oggbashan]

Through post 74, atheist are still off topic. See why most Americans don't like you.

I'm not American.

I still think your arguments are circular and devoid of logic.

You also seem to show distinct signs of a split personality. Either wmrs2 is more than one person, or you need to increase the medication, or decrease the substance abuse...

Og

 

[wmrs2]

I don't know why this topic always attracts me and affects me so strongly, or why my posts always leave me kind of dissatisfied and slightly embarrassed. Probably because I can see both sides of the argument very clearly and argue either one, and so end up arguing both. Being able to see both sides of an issue seems to be some terrible moral failing these days.

I'm infuriated by the Creationists and Biblical literalists, and I hate the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel who want to see all the Palestinians killed because they believe the bible says the land belongs to them. I hate demagoguery in any form, and demagoguery is such a natural part of organized religion.

But at the same time, I fear the tyrrany of reason too. Reason has its place, But there's a big, wide, area where it doesn't, and there's a lot of damned good stuff out there. Most of the stuff that makes life worth living, in fact, like dream and emotion. Sometimes I want to live in a world where a thing either exists or it does not. But most of the time I prefer fooling around in the land of maybe.

So I guess I resent being told by either side what I'm allowed to believe or not believe.

I know we're talking about different ideas of God and religion here, that what Joe's mostly talking about is the Judeo-Christian idea of the patriarchal Old Man In The Sky. That God was originally a kind of nebulous Semitic sky or mountain God who was filtered through Greco-Roman eyes to give us the images on the ceiling of Cistine Chapel. But there are other ways to go, just as there are other ways to worship other than getting on your knees and begging the Old Man for favors and forgiveness.

I mean, it just seems a shame to me to go to all these pilgrims and worshippers in Mexico and Lourdes and the Ganges and Mecca and hold up your hand and say, "Okay, that's enough of that. Stop. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Go home and forget about it." What do you do with all that yearning and emotion and need for meaning? Teach them to square dance?

Well, that's enough. I'm about to start writing about ancient Egyptian religion and Kabbalah and that's a sure sign that it's time to quit. I'm sure this will be embarrassing enough.

This is off topic but please allow me to reason along with you. If you clearly see both sides of the issue, it would be a fact that you missed something if you concluded that neither was a correct side more so than the other. A stand off maybe but more likely a continuation of confusion.

In your reasoning what is confusing? You say,"all the Palestinians killed because they believe the bible says the land belongs to them." The Israeli position is not what you suggest it is. Of course you can find a minority agreeing with this statement but Pa;Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel and many do; they vote and seve in the army. So, that is one gap in your reasoning.

You say"I'm infuriated by the Creationists and Biblical literalists," This complete thread is slanted this way. If it is not clear to you, the heathen are raging and not being very rational because they have been challenged. Atheist and liberals say that it is good to ask questions but what they mean is that they want the questions asked that justifies their rage so as to say they have a right to be infuriated.

Creationists and Biblical literalism have a right to be heard and in the context of what they are actually saying. The Bible might say the land belongs to the Jew but the Jew is saying anybody can live here, just allow us to live here too. Can't you agree with that position.

It is not the Jew who refuses to settle the portion of land that belongs to the Palestinians. Why did you not mention Hamas? Is there an intellectual prejudice there? Just another gap in your respect for Israel. You do not see both sides of the issue.

You say,"I hate demagoguery in any form," but why are you not speaking out against the demagoguery practiced by the trolls on this thread? Cat gat your tongue?

You say you know what Joe is talking about here but I suggest you do not know. Joe is trying to gather support for atheism from atheist by posing a question that supposedly puts Christians and Jew on the judgment seat. It is questions like joe ask that makes believers dislike atheist. I do not for one minute believe that the atheist on this thread would tolerate a Christian opinion unless that Christian would be willing to give up all her traditional beliefs. I see that happening here by the trolls.

These ar big gaps in your reasoning and this is the reason you are unstable in your opinions. You only see your side of the questions. How does your opinion differ from what I said. You will not have to call me a sob to disagree with me

 

[Stella_Omega]

Logic? What logic? This person showed up talking to fire hydrants-- now it's debating lampposts and doorknobs too.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Logic? What logic? This person showed up talking to fire hydrants-- now it's debating lampposts and doorknobs too.

post by post by post by post by post.....

W00t! She's up to post #146 already. Only 620 more to go!

 

[sadangel]

Isn't posting that everyone else is off topic....Off Topic

What interests me slightly is that several people answered their answers regarding atheism and yet they are told they are off topic....WTF????

 

[wmrs2]

my experience is that the parents trying to be very secular, say Jewish or Christian in name only, often generate kids who, in the first case become 'Orthodox', or in the first and second cases become members of some cult-like group. Perhaps this is what Mabeuse was getting at. Or maybe some become communists, as a form of secular religion.

hmmnmm// The other thought was to the effect that if america suddenly adopted an atheistic creed, rebellious reflexes would likely tempt me to profess some brand of christianity or something.//

Christianity seems paradoxically to flourish when in a weak or persecuted position as in early (to Xtianity) Roman days. Now I bet China is an area for evangelizing; just enough persecution.
Certainly Russia is being evangelized.
----

But, to return to my point, I think everyone has 'faith' in certain items for which their evidence is slender to non-existent. To pick up a point I believe Mabeuse made: The superrational folks often fuck up seriously--for example, those that have an elaborate set of 'tests' for a potential mate. Some end up with real 'doozies,' while Kendo above, did OK by going on 'cleavage.'

To put the matter a little differently: we're in many situations of imperfect knowledge; very sparse data-- as when you've known someone a couple months. Yet we must act (in the broad sense that staying home worrying about what to do is 'acting').

So we 'take a flyer' (leap of faith, so to say). To use Kendo, again, the 'figure' of the person may be as good a criterion as any (no better, no worse). That choice is NOT very much based on 'reason' and 'evidence', but intuition and emotion.

Pure, I would be interested in what atheist/liberals consider to be evidence as compared to what religious people consider to be evidence.

 

[wmrs2]

I like this.

I'm an outspoken atheist, however I have not read this entire thread because I don't want to get angry, but I do have a load of helpful atheist links that are linked to my personal site (if I ever get that up and running...hmph.)

Active Atheism: Promoting and defending the constitutional separation of church and state and changing the public perception of atheism and atheists.

ANTItheism: Ending irrational religious thought and spreading values of science and reason.

Ask the Atheist: What is an atheist? Where do atheists get their morals from? Answers to these questions and others you may be asking yourself.

Atheist Eye: An atheist's view on the christian lie.

Infidel Guy: Taking a critical look at what we believe. Listen to The Infidel Guy internet radio show every Wednesday and Friday at 8PM ET.

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers: There are atheists in foxholes.

Rational Response Squad: Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism. Listen to the Rational Response Squad internet radio show every Friday at 9PM ET.

I suggest you start a thread on the subjects mentioned above. I will be there to give you somebody to bounce your ideas around on. This thread is intended to bait criticism of Christians and Jews as far as I can tell since there has not been more than three or four post that have been on topic.

 

[Liar]

Wow, this went bizarre fast. Did wmrs2 hit the "display posts in reverse chrolonogy" button and haven't realized it yet, or is this a case of a blown fuse?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Wow, this went bizarre fast. Did wmrs2 hit the "display posts in reverse chrolonogy" button and haven't realized it yet, or is this a case of a blown fuse?

Hey come on dude! She's up to post !55 already. At this rate she'll be current by July!

 

[wmrs2]

This thread has been such an interesting read. I haven't seen such a well thought out, intelligently debated conversation since...maybe since some of my better literature classes in University. I am always interested to see what people think about religious issues and I have to say reading this topic and the truly interesting posts therein has made my day. Thanks everyone who posted. You gave me a totally different kind of faith, even more important to me than any sort of faith in a higher power or whatever...I have a renewed faith that there are actually intelligent people in this world who can listen to the arguments of those who have differing opinions from themselves and be civilized about the debate instead of lowering themselves to stone throwing and insult flinging. I am so very impressed. I feel much better about humanity now. Thank you, guys.

You allow your students to talk off topic in class and call it scholarship? There has not been any interesting new thought on this thread. Just the same old atheist arguments that have been rejected by broad minded Americans since the beginning of the nation. Your academic standards are much too low.

 

[wmrs2]

My problem with organized religion is, the organization. To organize something means some person or people put thought into it, assigned rules and customs to it, wrapped it up in a pretty package and sold it, usually to those who haven't got the intellectual ability, or will to question it, and then turn it into a set of 'laws' that 'must be obeyed' to stave off some form of eternal damnantion. Organized religion is fear-based and reward-promising but never really seems to give people much more than something to work toward and hope for in the same way a child makes his bed, not because he wants his bed made and likes neat and tidy beds, usually to keep from getting grounded and to hopefully earn his allowance at the end of the week. We use those natural drives to avoid punishment and strive for reward as a way to control masses, and in between we feed them all of these 'laws' and 'rules' and things which were never created by anyone but other men, so how do we ever know that what we're teaching others is the right thing? If there is a higher power, is that really what 'it' intended us to do with those instincts toward morality, with our curiosity, with our natural awe of the universe and fascination with creation? It is obvious to me that we are a learning and adapting animal, and that perhaps we are meant to make mistakes and learn from them, but then do we also need to have another person stare down at us in our attempts to make ourselves better people and shake their head and wag their finger at us and tell us that because of our mistakes we will 'burn for all eternity' and because someone once decided to write something in a book it's the only thing we can believe? On one hand we have in most religions, a rule against killing others, but then it's ok to kill a whole race of people because we think they are on land 'God' gave us? Look, if 'God' wants something to happen it will happen, without our interference and I don't think wars and genocide were meant to be a regular part of the development of ANY religion. That's just mankind being mankind, people always scrambling over one another to be in the seat of power, however fleeting that moment of power may be and whatever the form. Organized religion seems to me like an invention by mankind to control others. I'm a live and let live kind of gal, we usually all accept the same fundamental moralities as far as killing, stealing, lying and cheating goes, why can't that be enough? Why do people have to go and make religions out of that?

The point is that without universal laws and an absolute bases for thought, man is free to do as he damn well pleases. Without law the choice is anarchy. That is the reason that humanism is the default philosophy of the atheist and the dictator. If I made the rules do you think you would be safe? Are you not glad that the moral code of the universe is made by universal truth?

 

[wmrs2]

I agree. The problem with power in leadership is that usually the people who want it are the people who should never have it because it's dangerous in their hands, and addictive to those sorts... and those who would best serve the interests of the people they could help don't want the power and usually are only leaders by pure accident, they'd usually rather work from the background or from a smaller venue where they can affect change only where it matters to them most.

This is one of the best explanations I have heard that supports the need for universal laws and a justification for belief in the Eternal One.

 

[jomar]

Jo, you should have never asked the question if you had no intention of keeping the discussion on topic.

Yo. I'm Jo, he's Joe. Sub Joe's on sabbatical studying the recent liberal movement among Southern Baptists.