Atheism - A crooked slant on life

there are socialist libertarians.

I imagine that you are a Libertarian Capitalist.

there are socialist libertarians.

I imagine that you are a Libertarian Capitalist.

True enough, it's just far rarer in my experience, and either way has nothing to do with atheism...although I may have generalized a bit more than I could have. And yeah, I could probably be called a Libertarian Capitalist, at least with regards to most things. :)

Socialist Libertarian? That's a stretch... a really large stretch. I've never met one. They are actually rather the opposite of eachother... as Libertarian, by definition, means you believe in free market economics.

Not exactly. A libertarian believes that you let people freely enter and leave whatever compacts they want to make, and that would include large scale economic systems that aren't free-market capitalism, if you could find a very large group of people who wanted to do form such an economy. Adam Hobson has a good article from a few months ago talking about this, and Yuriy Bilokonsky describes himself as a libertarian communist.

What about anarcho-socialism? Socialism does NOT prevent a free market; it requires one. What it really does is remove one of the constraints against free markets: private property - private property takes that property off the market; private use of public property (based on a auction / lease / market based system) does not. Royalists (be they monarchists, council, etc.) created the notion of private / inheritable property to protect themselves, rather than having to compete equally in a free market

Socialist libertarian is no strethc; you could say that most socialists (as opposed to "Socialist"'s) are libertarian which is why they are socialist. "Socialist", "Communist", "Republican", et. al. as labels for a political party mean ... nothing. People use those names to hide what they really do

Spaman - I don't think people will attempt to destroy you but they will challenge everything you put out here - this I think is a good thing.

Yet the atheist movement has failed in so many ways. It cannot explain the nature of man - at least the different churches have a go at this. Instead, atheists rely on science to explain away the meaning of life .... and yet here also, they fail miserably.

I think science explains the nature of man quite well. In fact I find the behaviour of man outside of religious edicts far more predictable, understandable and logical than within.

Phaedrus72, you say this on every single anti-atheist discussion.

I have never seen this happen. I believe you have been asked before to point out such efforts. Attempting to destroy people is probably against the CoH, but I'm not positive.

Thanks, guys. You're both correct. It's also nice to see those comments coming from people who he can't accuse of being part of the "posse" that is out to get him.

I've never interacted with either of you before, but it looks like you both have a good grasp of what Newsvine is all about. Thanks for refuting what was an outright misrepresentation of the discourse on Newsvine.

Also your "humble opinion" is based on such a twisted view of the world, and lack of even an apparent desire to understand the things which you talk about

This article is mumbo-jumbo.

It's a position based on ignorance, from ignorance and promoting ignorance.

Just a few quotes from the first few comments. I think my contention has been well validated. Spaman wrote a very good article, only to be met with rudeness and condescension. I understand that's par for the course for you guys, but seriously, try not to be guilty of the same things you accuse me of.

Phaedrus72
It is a well written piece of misinformation from the first paragraph on, a I proved. It's not rude. It's called criticism. If you produce crap, don't expect praise for it unless you have just been potty trained. It's well written crap...

Calling somone's piece crap, simply because you disagree with it, is rude, obnoxious, and condenscending. And I'm tired of the hypocrisy that castigates me when it is perceived that I do it, all the while you guys are out in force doing the same. You have validated everything that I said in my comment. I said there would be incredible rudeness directed at him and there has been, and you have proven it yourself.

If you feel a comment is offensive, report it as inflammatory. The CoH does ask us to respect each other. Personally, I see a lot of blunt criticism. It's not all totally polite, but we're big people and no one should be required to sugarcoat criticism. Especially when criticizing a piece whose headline calls one group's worldview "crooked" or any of the other slight variations that these articles typically use.

And I'm tired of the hypocrisy that castigates me when it is perceived that I do it, all the while you guys are out in force doing the same.

Sorry. It's part of being a moral person that you do what's right regardless of what others do.
Plus, that New Testament that you claim told you to.

Matthew 7:21 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"

Phaedrus72

Calling somone's piece crap,

Sorry, I do respect him. It is not a matter of disagreement. when you are wrong, your wrong. The disrespect would have been not to tell him the truth. Have you ever seen American Idol? Do you think that the ones who really sucked, and I mean, sucked Bad. had any friends who respected them enough to tell them the truth? But would rather let them go on national TV and be humiliated?

How can anyone ever improve unless they are told they suck? I'm an artist, I don't want some disingenuous ass kisser telling me everything I do is great as a friend.

Why does phaedrus have to highjack every thread and make it about himself? Enough already. We get it. He's extremely religious and cannot handle differing opinions.

Good article, even though I don't agree with it.

How can anyone ever improve unless they are told they suck? I'm an artist, I don't want some disingenuous ass kisser telling me everything I do is great as a friend.

Seriously, the friends I have the most respect for are also the ones that will flat out tell me I'm being an idiot and explain why they think so....Sometimes I disagree with them, sometimes I agree..depends on the situation and their reasons, but either way at least they are trying to be honest about it rather then either sugar coat things, or meaninglessly criticize without giving a reason for it.

Things like "you're a dumbass" are not terribly respectful, things like "what you said makes no sense and/or is just plain wrong because....." or "where did you get that information, I don't think it's right, it seems to contradict this stuff over here...." might not be NICE in all cases, but at least it's respectful of the person...even if it's not particularly respectful of something that person says or does.

Yes Phaedrus72, after you say this.

They have done it to me, but it's articles like this that inspire me to remain strong, despite the goon squad's fetid efforts to the contrary. Bravo!!!

You have the gall to lecturer me about respect. No one attacked you on a personal basis, unless you deserved it, it was your reasoning that was being questioned, no one did it to you, You did it to yourself! You used to be on my friends list, and I would defend you and you right to give your opinion. Remember? But you grew bitter, sensative, overly defensive and unreasonable, trying to support with reason, that which is not reasonable. Just say that the reason you believe in god is because you feel it. It's a personal choice. And stick to it. There is no rationalization for that, but it's valid, truthful and everyone can accept it. The problem begins when you and other fanatics don't give others the same courtesy to not believe as they do. That is what is rude.

Very well said, Dan. the problem is that religious people get bent out of shape when someone is an atheist, whether the atheist gives opinions or not. Just the fact that in their own mind, someone thinks differently is enough to send some religious people into a tantrum - violent ones, even.

Just the fact that in their own mind, someone thinks differently is enough to send some religious people into a tantrum - violent ones, even.

Indeed, you can see this with brutal clarity with the historical wars waged across major religions, and even among sects of Christianity.

Atheism is simply yet another different viewpoint -- one that can be railed against more vaguely and generally.

We get it. He's extremely religious and cannot handle differing opinions.

hahaha. You must not have read very many of my articles have you? I've never even heard of you, how can you presume to know anything about me to call me religious? I am about as far from being religious as one could be, but I get quite tired of having to explain that just because i'm not an Atheist does not mean I'm a Christian or even religious. I'm agnostic.

Just say that the reason you believe in god is because you feel it. It's a personal choice. And stick to it. There is no rationalization for that, but it's valid, truthful and everyone can accept it. The problem begins when you and other fanatics don't give others the same courtesy to not believe as they do. That is what is rude.

Let me repeat this once again, slowly just for you. I DON'T believe in God so I would never say such a thing, and I'm therefore not a fanatic. But let me rephrase your quote for you.

Just say that the reason you don't believe is because you feel it. It's a personal choice. And stick to it. There is no rationalization for that, but it's valid, truthful and everyone can accept it. The problem begins when you and other Atheist fanatics dont give others the same courtesy to believe as they don't. That is what is rude.

See how this works? Pretty cool, huh?

BTB, no, what makes me violent is when people like you claim me to be something which I'm not. Because I defended this author against yours and others attacks does not make me religious. I'm not a Christian, I'm not religious, but I'm also not an Atheist. Don't assume! You assumed that I was religous because I defended an article against Atheism. It was a wrong assumption to make.

Let me repeat this once again, slowly just for you. I DON'T believe in God so I would never say such a thing,

You say you don't believe in God, then you sayi'm not an Atheist does not mean I'm a Christian or even religious. I'm agnostic. Sorry but agnostics never say they don't believe in god. An Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God, But you claim you don't and then flip around and say you don't know. I think you should just not talk about what you are not sure what you are talking about. Simple huh.

the problem is that religious people get bent out of shape when someone is an atheist, whether the atheist gives opinions or not. Just the fact that in their own mind, someone thinks differently is enough to send some religious people into a tantrum - violent ones, even.

It's all about doubt. Faith requires an absolute belief (without doubts) in the object of that faith. Allowing for the existence of those who believe differently (and the idea that such "heathens" are not being struck down by the believer's deity of choice), leaves room to question whether or not those non-believers might have a point.

Doubt is the enemy of faith. The whole goal of fundamentalist Christianity is to remove the possibility of doubt by forcing everyone into one mold. They claim to object to socialism or to any form of government that does not include a religious influence and will even lie about the American system of government (by claiming America is a "Christian nation") because what they really want is NOT a government free of religious dominance or oppression, but a government where THEIR religion is the one and only dominant theology. This is shown over and over again in their efforts to influence our laws and elect leaders who share their religious convictions.

My personal opinion is that these folks KNOW in their own minds that the positions they take are unsupportable, and so the only way they can maintain their faith is if they can convince others to join them - as if sheer numbers of believers will make their position any more valid. They seek to suppress or denigrate any opinion that casts doubt on their beliefs, and will literally discount any actual FACTS that disprove their claims - all in an effort to convince themselves that they are right and we are wrong.

If I were a believer, I would consider these folks the anti-Christ, because they are betraying everything their icon - Jesus - purportedly stood for in their attempt to force their beliefs down everyone's throats.

Man's true nature is that he is a spiritual being - not a body - he occupies the body. When you die remember these things, because you will see that when your body dies, you will not.... that may come as a shock at the time... but just remember these words - I only wish I could be there to see the horror when you realise this and that you will not expire with your body... However, I wish you a long life...

How do you know this as a surety? It is easy to proclaim a fact no one can verify. Science keeps asking for verification. Where is yours?

The rest of the post doesn't warrant a response ........ but I'm beginning to see what Phaedrus72 means - everything is taken apart and analysed from a specific viewpoint.... but somehow in a very disagreeable manner

I think people here insist on proof or logical reasoning - you have to back up your statements with substance. If you find that people don't want to follow your reasoning blindly, then blind us with your evidence. Unless of course you expect us to take everything on faith.

Can you not admit, at least, that there are similarities in the perceived actions of socialists and the way atheists proclaim their religion to be totally devoid of anything to do with religion...

What?

What perceived actions of socialists and what atheist religion? Again what link is there between socialists and atheism? Sorry - what "verifiable" link?

It hasn't yet come up with anything verifiable in terms of death or even birth that is even remotely close to describing how, where and why

The "how" is quite thoroughly described in medical science.

The "where" is, umm, wherever the event happens to occur. What, are you expecting us to geotag every birth and death?

The "why", in terms of physical causes, is as well. Of course, if you're looking for an explicitly abstract Grand Meaning of Birth & Death that you insist must exist because you feel it into existence, I'm afraid science can't help you. We don't deal with idle musings and flights of fancy.

.... just that these theories are dragged out on every discussion about the church or the opposing view.....

Rational deductions made from physical observation and evidence?! How dare they think that such things are more credible than folk legends or pseudo-spiritual platitudes! Horrors of horrors!

Could it be that you attack anything that labels your religion as false simply because without it you wouldn't have anything to believe in...

Hmmm, yes, that must be it. I'm afraid that they'll label my religion of nothing as false, so that I'll have... nothing... to believe.

How do you know this as a surety? It is easy to proclaim a fact no one can verify. Science keeps asking for verification. Where is yours?

He just knows. It's that kind of vibe -- the kind that's infallible in the absolute.

I think you may be asking some unfair questions of science. The spark of life doesn't exist, as far as I know, it's a warming glow that turns into fire (to follow the metaphore). When people 'die' and then 'come back' that's because blood is flowing to the brain again and the neurons start firing again.

It isn't that athiests don't want to consider possibilities, the possibilities were considered and found to be highly improbable (a god) or utterly impossible (a god that is all good and allows people to have cancer). Don't think that every athiest in the world would somehow feel cheated if God came down and said "Hello." They'd all take a sigh of relief (and have a good many questions to ask).

Man I'd throw out the term "help" if you ever want to get close to a nonbeliever. That is so ridiculously patronizing and falls right in with the stereotypical guy on the corner shouting at me to save myself.

I was asking about that thing, whatever it is that delivers to us a newborn baby, with that spark of life, that spiritual element - Also, in death, why is it death, when sometimes the body still breaths, or could breath again... but the spark of life is no longer there... what is it that happens to the conscienceness that was there in the body - does it disappear into the ether....science has no real answers ....and even atheists must wonder about this too?

You're asking a loaded question, presupposing the existence of this non-physical, spiritual part as factual truth. It's akin to asking "Do you think Zeus likes you?" It presupposes the existence of Zeus. You expect me to simply take your "there's totally something more than physical" similarly at face value?

I think not.

I'm not sure that you would even if it was right under your nose, as it is

Put it under my nose. Give me something more than idle musing.

the theory that we are a part of the brain seems to have consumed all rational thought in this area...

Umm, actually, I think my brain is part of me. I'm pretty much I have other things, too, like a spleen, for instance.

that they are so set on the notion that they die with this body, then that avenue of investigation becomes closed to them

And how would one embark on this "avenue of investigation." You said it, so show me how that avenue might possibly begin. (Twiddling your thumbs, thinking about pseudo-intellectual ways to say "dude, it's so totally there, seriously" doesn't count.)

I apologize for requiring evidence to believe in something. I'll work harder on simply being convinced by empty assertions. By the way, there are hyper-intelligent flying horses in the Andromeda Galaxy playing pinball with the stars. Sane people don't want to consider this possibility, which closes that avenue of investigation. Damn those sane people.

Don't think that every athiest in the world would somehow feel cheated if God came down and said "Hello." They'd all take a sigh of relief (and have a good many questions to ask).

Absolutely. Give us any solid evidence of God, and you'll be thanked by all around you. Of course, simply presupposing some wishy-washy hocus pocus is pretty much the opposite of solid evidence.

I would certainly not be relieved. I don't fancy the idea of living under a celestial dictatorship.

That's like saying that if slavery didn't exist there wouldn't be abolitionists.

Excellent example.

One of my fondest hopes is that some time in the distant future people will making the same comparison about what we today call "atheism" and "religion".

Given the fact that the world is more secular right this instant than it has ever been in human history, I think my vision has a fighting chance.

When it comes to religious belief, everything is going in the right direction.

I don't know about that. I think people just kept their mouth shut when they didn't believe. Now they're pretty open about it. Sadly, I find that the dumbest, most reactionary are the loudest athiests. Perhaps we should just sit down and let the world speak for us and occassionally prod theistic language when it becomes irritating. One can simply wait for those choice comments from certain Christians about how Islam is crazy because of one thing or another and then you throw down transubstantiation. Easy.

No, a difference of over 2,000 years. is what you missed. And you begin your premise with this, as a result, the subsequent remainder of your theses is as invariable flawed.

Excellent.

Of course, you are arguing with people who firmly believe that if two things co-exist it follows that one must have created or caused the other. In other words: "Religion and morality coexist, therefore religion creates morality."

This viewpoint is both logically and empirically defective.

Youssef51, this post, of yours #9.1? Did you read my post before your wrote this, or maybe I need you to elaborate? You are even contradicting yourself here! Because your premiss of what I said has nothing to do with what I said. So let me mmake myself clear here. The moral sense existed before Religion, and therefore can exist without it as well. Therefor religion had to have been created by man to help him rationalize that which he could not explain any other way, given the limited range of knowledge available in primitive societies, to explain the innate sense of morals that are within us all to varying degrees, and subsequently love, together with all emotions, not the reverse. The lack or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the lack or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. Just like all sense, some are born with lesser or greater abilities. Morality is instinct and innate. The moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing. As is necessary in an animal that is to live in societal structure.

No, science has shown us were our morals (feelings of love and family) originate, and the evolutionary advantage of having a moral sense innate in a species that lives together for survival, nothing more or less. You make a false inference. You seem to not know what science is. Simple, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Not in the believe or non-believe of superstitions. Well, anthropology perhaps, but not to prove or disprove anything, just to study and understand it.

Youssef51, never mind.
i get it. you're right.

So science is the bedrock of atheism, and nothing else counts - that's what I hear on this... here

Similarly faith is the bedrock of religion and nothing else counts.

Similarly faith is the bedrock of religion and nothing else counts.

And ignorance and fear is the bedrock of faith. Faith has its roots in darkness, not light. The darkness of not knowing, and fear, fear of the unknown, vs the light of knowledge.

Now that is just insulting to people who are not atheists

I swear Newsvine needs an < irony > highlight tag.

Your article is insulting and patronizing to atheists, and you expect anyone to actually think you care about insult? If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

And ignorance and fear is the bedrock of faith. Faith has its roots in darkness, not light. The darkness of not knowing, and fear, fear of the unknown, vs the light of knowledge

Now that is just insulting to people who are not atheists - and doesn't do the atheists argument any good

10,000 years ago or so, when primitive man was still huddled in some dark cave, and the only god he had was the fire that kept him warm and the unknowns lurking just in the edge of darkness at bay, Children asked the questions that children always do. Why is the sky blue, where do we come from, what happens after we die? And man speculated about the sounds of the night and told stories about the stars in the night sky, giving them names. Telling the children that if they don't shut up and go to sleep the boogie man will come and eat them, because that is what happens to children who don't listen to their parents! And their children would go to sleep. Confident that because they were good, the coming sun god and the creation of a new day would greet them in the morning. Fear of the unknown, and the need to explian and make sense of the world around him, was, and has always been, the driving force behind all religion. And the manipulation of this fear has always been a means of control. Fear of death. Fear of the sea. Fear of the what is over the mountains. Fear that the rains won't come. Fear of Lightning and thunder. Earthquakes and floods. All have been counted as gods by primitive man. What is insulting is that some still hold to these primitive believes, claiming that they are for salvation and eternal life, when this life now, is ignored and hell is being delivered to those who only want to be free of fear, and darkness. Sacrifices have been given in the name of these gods. I will not be made another one. This should be the new age of enlightenment, but many are still held back by the boogie man. Still kept in check by their primitive fears. The base of all faith is fear, you fear what you do not know so you make rationalizations of the unknown to make sense of it. It is a defense mechanism. A security blanket.

The base of all faith is fear, you fear what you do not know so you make rationalizations of the unknown to make sense of it.

I don't think this is true at all. Maybe for some but not for all or even for most. I personally, feel drawn back to Christianity,not because of any fear of the unknown, but because of it's beauty, and the love that it shows and tries to embody to the world. What would the world be like without Christmas?

I think your assessment is overly simplistic. Yes, the fear of God does draw some into the fold, but equally and I'd say even more so, the love of God. Many, many people have had experiences of God's love, and it has nothing to do with fear. The bible even says, "Perfect love casteth out all fear." So I think if someone becomes a Christian because of fear, they are missing the whole message of the "greatest story ever told."

That's just my opinion.

What would the world be like without Christmas?

I dunno...ask some Pagan's, it's their holiday.

Brad, that's not entirely true. First of all, the word Christmas itself. Christ - mas. Obviously, the name does not imply a pagan holiday. Originally, there was a pagan holiday celebrated on December 25, if that's what you mean, commemorating the winter solstice. During the Roman Empire,Christian holidays were incorporated into already pagan observances. Hence, Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25, on Easter we have the Easter bunny and we hunt Easter eggs, a throwback to pagan days.

So no, Christmas is NOT a pagan holiday. That is a ridiculous assertion. It is a holiday celebrating the birth of Christ. How un-pagan is that? Christmas is not "their holiday". They would laugh at such an assertion. The celebration of the winter solstice on Dec 25 is their holiday.

Brad, that's not entirely true. First of all, the word Christmas itself. Christ - mas. Obviously, the name does not imply a pagan holiday. Originally, there was a pagan holiday celebrated on December 25, if that's what you mean, commemorating the winter solstice. During the Roman Empire,Christian holidays were incorporated into already pagan observances. Hence, Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25

So your argument against Christmas being a pagan holiday, is that it's got a new name?

Almost the entire concept of Christmas is taken directly from the winter solstice traditions, right down to the tree (which is actually frow. Of course they weren't celebrating the birth of Jesus, but since it was an arbitrary day chosen as a day to celebrate the birth of Jesus even though there is no reason to think Jesus was born on (or even very close) to December 25 for the simple reason that it would be easier to convert Pagan's to Christianity if they could still celebrate their holidays, with a slightly new spin. How is that anything other than a mildly repackaged Pagan holiday?

Parts of the Bible are even interpreted by many people to condemn the concept of Christmas trees because they are a Pagan tradition and symbol. One of the most quoted passages about that would be...

Jeremiah 10:2-4 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest ... with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold.

I think your assessment is overly simplistic.

It used to baffle me as to how someone can disregard a simple explanation, that is easily variable by observation of the natural world, on the bases of it's simplicity. It's so much easier isn't it, to disregard the obvious rather then to Reevaluating an obsolete belief system. Ignoring the axiom that when confronted with a problem it is most likely the simplest answer that is the correct one. Would it be more plausible if I said that God inspired me to write it?
But I see others would rather discuss something as simplistic as Christmas as if it were more then just tradition, and excuse for the retailers to sell.

and all can celebrate a time of goodwill to all men...

sure, and elevate some of the guilt for the rest of the year when you turn your back on the suffering of you fellow man. Or even when you case that suffering.

elevate alleviate

I celebrate Christmas with my family. We have a Christmas tree, stockings, the whole Santa thing. I view it as a social holiday and not a religious one.

I view it as a great time to spend with my family and friends - regardless of their religious stance. We don't all pack off and go to church for the holiday - instead we just carry on a tradition that has been in our families.

while it is true the tradition is based on a Christian one we do not celebrate it as such; though many of my family and friends still view it as one, some of us don't.

We just love each other and accept that each of us is different and we enjoy the event.

We also celebrate Easter and do egg hunts and talk about the Easter Bunny.

We celebrate St Patricks day, the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, our wedding Anniversary, our kids birthdays, etc. We have an abundance of holidays to celebrate. All of them, for us, are about family.

I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny either by the way. However, they are fun stories to share with our kids.

BTW - what are the main holidays atheists celebrate, and why ?

... atheists eat babies on Christmas, is that what you want to hear? Like finalcut says, it's a celebration of family and friends, and in a broader sense, the brotherhood of all of mankind. I know this is counter to some of your preconceived notions, but atheists have just as high of a capacity for love as everyone has, even to the extent of being altruistic. Most of my family are Catholic, BTW. I have no problem with that, that is their personle choice. I'm not, although I wanted to join the priesthood when I was younger, and have studied scripture most of my life, in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

isn't it just a shade hypocritical though to join in the fun, when it isn't your fun.... or your religious celebrations

They just don't make irony like that much these days...so thanks for that.

You use the words "intolerance" and "hypocritical" as a justification for being intolerant to me and my family, who are tolerant and respectful of each others views? How shallow. What happened to you saying; ...and all can celebrate a time of goodwill to all men..., I guess this only means "all men" who believe as you do, and damn the atheists to hell to burn for an eternity. (no where in the Bible does it say this btw) Is this being hypocritical, or are we going to play schematics?I just can't believe you would use their holidays for your own pleasures It's a National Holiday! Is that really why you or anyone celebrates the Holidays, for your own pleasures? This sounds like masturbating. My family happen to enjoy my company, and if I happen to be away, they miss me. I feel guilty about that, because sometimes I have to work. I am sure you have atheist in your family as well, they are in the closet about it, keeping it to themselves. What would you do if your own child told you they do not believe in any gods? Burn them at the stake, for the holidays? Or just throw them out and return the gifts? Wouldn't you still love them? Wouldn't they still love you? You make me very sad with this. I feel sorry for you.

I don't get into arguments with my family and friends over my stance on religion because I respect them - but even more so they respect me, and my position enough, to not tell me my view on life is a "crooked slant" They don't slander my stance, they don't attribute "socialism" to my lack of belief in any God(s) or Goddesses (lot's of s's there).

I don't consider using the time at Christmas to spend more time with my loved ones as hypocritical at all. I'm just carrying on a social tradition that pre-dates Christianity quite a bit. I have no problems with celebrating around the yule log, or even marveling at the universe at the winter solstice.

I don't judge them (or you) and they (unlike you it seems) don't judge me. It's really amazingly peaceful and joyful, which, to me, is what the holiday is all about - not the fictionalized date of birth of a guy who died about 2000 years ago (considering many scholars believe he was born in the the summer - a source which is a very good read by the way)

A bunch of people seem to like to turn peoples quotes around so I'll join in the game:

Given the intolerance I've seen ... for pagan people - I just can't believe you would use their holidays for your own pleasures - admittedly Christmas is inclusive - but don't you feel somewhat uncomfortable ..., at these times, stealing their celebrations - It would be odd if you didn't given your views... isn't it just a shade hypocritical though to join in the fun, when it isn't your fun.... or your religious celebrations...

Or do you worship the Sun God?

- they fall into the category of people you would otherwise criticise on here ...is that another example of incompatible values... ?

I don't criticize you on the basis of you being a Christian, I criticize your intolerance towards those who are not. As to why this simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp, is why I am forced to also question your intelligence as well.

To provide a different angle on the whole Christ wasn't born on Christmas argument I actually found a site that seems exceptionally Christian that claims he was born in Sept and that even states quite clearly that Christmas was co-opted from those who worshipped the sun (which pretty much jives with every thing else I have read with the exception of a possible premature birth by 2 months which would have him born in June).

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=467

We also celebrate Easter and do egg hunts and talk about the Easter Bunny.

It's interesting that finalcut brings up this one, as I'd love to hear anyone defend Easter as a "Christian" holiday the way you're trying to defend Christmas as one.

I like what finalcut says. I'm Chinese, and a Chinese citizen to boot, yet I have no problem with celebrating St. Patrick's Day and Independence Day (along with Chinese New Year and the Chinese Harvest Festival, among other things). Am I being hypocritical for "co-opting" "their" holidays? Should I expect the Irish and the "real" Americans to criticize me for joining in on their festivities?

While you keep saying that Christmas is inclusive, it's curious that you even more fervently try to say that Christians "own" Christmas, which in this day and age, is amusing, to say the least.

isn't it just a shade hypocritical though to join in the fun, when it isn't your fun.... or your religious celebrations...

To say that Christmas is simply a religious celebration is laughable in modern society. It's a commercial and social holiday.

So, you don't get into nasty arguments with your family about your beliefs - why is that then - they fall into the category of people you would otherwise criticise on here ...is that another example of incompatible values... ?

As finalcut said much more eloquently, I have no problem with my religious friends (many are Catholic). I have had very extended religious discussions with them, but I don't argue vehemently with a person simply because he harbors religious beliefs.

I do have a problem, however, with religious people who are so pompous as to write an "article" essentially saying "Atheists are f---tards", then turn around and try to take the high ground on civility, intolerance, and hypocrisy.

So your argument against Christmas being a pagan holiday, is that it's got a new name?

No, my argument is that it is a different holiday, it just happens to be celebrated on the same day of the year. The pagan holiday celebrated the winter solstice, Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. How different can you be? It was only celebrated on Dec 25 in order to placate the pagans of the day, that doesn't make it a pagan holiday.

Yes, the date is extrapolated by the observance of one of the Jewish holidays of expiation, (I forget how to spell it in english), that is still followed on the same day, and has been for thousands of years. When Mary went to visit Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, and the mother of John the Baptist on that Holiday, and John the Baptist leapt in his mothers womb as he sensed the presence of Jesus. Also shepherds don't graze sheep in the winter, as the middle east has the same seasons we do, it would just be silly.

Actually Phaedrus if you follow the links I provided they pretty clearly show that the Romans decried Dec 25 (explicity) as the birthdate of the Sun God (who was the official god of that civilization at that time).. About 60 years later the Pope (in Rome) against the advice of many other religious leaders declared Christs birthday as Dec 25 specifically to co-opt the Sun Gold holiday that many Christians at the time still celebrated.

Interestingly enough, before that Christians didn't celebrate Christs birth at all because it was more traditional for the church to celebrate someones death and not their birth at all.

finalcut, I understand all that, that still does not make Christmas a pagan holiday, just because of the date it is celebrated on. It is a celebration of the birth of Christ, pure and simple, the date being superfluous.

It was only celebrated on Dec 25 in order to placate the pagans of the day, that doesn't make it a pagan holiday

And Easter? Which is a derivative of Ēastre and Ishtar the Babylonian goddess of Love and War, celebrated on the spring equinox by running into the woods and having sex with whoever you find, and all the symbolisms that goes with it. Rabbits, Eggs, hidden in the woods. The word "Easter" is not even in the original scriptures, it replaces the the word "Passover", but that sounded far too Jewish. That's very easy to verify, unless they changed the concordance as well. In Phoenician she was called the goddess Astarte.

Yes, now it is primarily a Christian holiday but at the time it was clearly co-opted. The date isn't superfluous because it was clearly chosen in order to perform "Borg-like" assimilation of other religions.

If I'm being accused (by the author not you) of being hypocritical for using a Christian holiday I think it is entirely relevant that he (and all those Christians before him) are doing the same thing by using a pagan holiday and calling it their own.

finalcut, Seems to be plausible.

Actually, finalcut's Borg analogy is surprisingly accurate.

When Christianity was first instituted, its holidays were designed to land on prevailing pagan holidays to ease the transition to Christianity, to make Christianity more attractive to would-be converts.

The birth of Christ was celebrated on December 25 as a PR ploy.

Further, early in the Anglo-Saxon conversion to Christianity, Christmas itself was called Geol, the name of the pagan solstice festival (and the root of the word "yule") -- quite different from the claim of "It is a celebration of the birth of Christ, pure and simple, the date being superfluous."

When Christianity was first instituted, its holidays were designed to land on prevailing pagan holidays to ease the transition to Christianity, to make Christianity more attractive to would-be converts.

That reminds me of that old saying to the effect that one of the easiest ways to become a leader is to find a mob, get out in front of it, and then go in the same direction it's going. I think I first encountered that idea in conjunction with a discussion about Napoleon.

At this point your ignorance is problematic to any progression of this discussion. At least Phaedrus is here trying to analyse facts alongside religious dogma, you are just completely out of your depth when it comes to processing information.

Now, whats that little word beginning with s... ah yes its coming to me now.....STUPIDITY.

...and one final point on these holidays - just what is the reasoning... or even the purpose, of atheists celebrating any of these holidays - did one of your own get born... did some significant atheist event take place at these times.??

It's a social holiday: the Day of Winter Togetherness & Gift Exchange.

Again, it's laughable that you think Christians still somehow "own" Christmas. That ended with the first pre-Christmas sale.

With respect to "it's totally a Christian, religious holiday", Christmas Day was chosen based on criteria entirely irrelevant to its claimed meaning. So actually, the joke's on you.

just how could you possibly be around them while they extol the virtues of their religion

Seriously, how can I even have religious friends, or attend Evensong at Westminster Abbey?!

After all, as you imply, OMFG, I f---ing hate anything to do with religion!

Oh wait, but you said: If you were a real atheist

Judging from your article and comments, you dictating "real atheist" is like a horse dictating "real white dwarf star."

Whew. I thought I'd have to deal with a credible judgment there.

O, EITHER YOU ARE A CREDIBLE ATHEIST and show your disgust openly as displayed here so frequently for non-atheists or you are a hypocrite who ignores his own convictions and joins in the celebrations of others..

Answer one question straightly - which one are you ?

Almost a well thought out "do you spit or swallow?" conundrum. I haven't seen someone seriously pose such a question since the seventh grade. In a fair multiple choice question you would be presented with a few more options not constructed to be self incriminating. Just so you understand this, the next not meant to be taken seriously. One of the oldest examples of a conundrum.

Answer one question straightly - which one, do you spit or swallow?
because either saying one or the other means you suck. Not a fair question.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just ignorant, or you are in league with the first evil twister of words and clever deceptions, a spawn of the most sinister of all fallen angels Lucifer himself, Come on, answer one question straightly - which one is it?

LOL, and your questions was not leading? Typical fanatic, where do yo take your vacations? Jones town? I here they have the best homemade kool-aid there.

SO, EITHER YOU ARE A CREDIBLE ATHEIST and show your disgust openly as displayed here so frequently for non-atheists or you are a hypocrite who ignores his own convictions and joins in the celebrations of others..

Answer one question straightly - which one are you ?

Unsubscribing. You are a obviously a twat.

I show disgust for non-atheists in general? Where? I may attack religion, but as Phaedrus was so eager to point out, that isn't tantamount to showing disgust for theists.

No, I respect many of them for being far better at reconciling their theism and others' atheism than you. Don't insult large numbers of theists by presuming that you're as tolerant as they come. You fall far short of that mark by about the same distance as you fall short of Jesus.

As for celebration, when Christmas becomes a purely religious holiday in the US, let me know. I'll bet good money that it won't be within our lifetimes.

Then again, you still presume to dictate credibility and atheism, so I guess I shouldn't expect much sense.

As the author himself pointed out, the pagans celebrated a Winter Solstice holiday long before it was hijacked by Christians. It is the Christians who adopted much of those early holiday traditions and practices, so athiests, agnostics, humanists, and other non-believers are not "copying" Christianity. In fact, the opposite is true.

Non-Christians like myself often return to those pagan traditions, celebrating the winter holiday as our ancient forebears did. We gather with family, friends, and neighbors. We make lots of food and share it with others. We decorate our homes with wreaths, lights, bunting, trees, etc. We send out cards and give gifts. The only things missing are the religious references - which are often replaced with symbols of life, nature, or the universe.

There is a star on my tree because there are stars in the sky. The tree is decorated with pine cones, handmade snowflakes, strings of beads, keepsake ornaments commemorating special events in our lives, etc. - but no angels, nativity scenes, or other religious symbolism. The music is non-religious, and we don't say a prayer before we eat, unless it is simply a word of thanks to the cook. Gifts are often useful items, or things we make ourselves, and even the wrapping is done with natural materials whenever possible - or at the least, with recycled paper. The decorations are a combination of ornaments that have been in my family for decades, various ornaments we have made ourselves, and a few that we bought for special occasions (like the year we were married, one for the birth of our son, etc.)

We would roast a pig and dance around a bonfire, but local ordinances forbid that, so we settle for hot chocolate and toasting marshmallows in the fireplace.

So your argument against Christmas being a pagan holiday, is that it's got a new name?

finalcut

If I'm being accused (by the author not you) of being hypocritical for using a Christian holiday I think it is entirely relevant that he (and all those Christians before him) are doing the same thing by using a pagan holiday and calling it their own.

jackhuang

It's a social holiday: the Day of Winter Togetherness & Gift Exchange.

Oh I see, first you (pl) say Christians co-opted a pagan holiday and made it their own so its not a Christian holiday.

Yet...........now atheists, humanists, merchants, whatever are now co-opting a Christian (not) holiday and making it a 'social' holiday. But according to your reasoning it doesn't matter that you are co-opting this holiday. It is still a pagan holiday because pagans got dibbs on Dec. 25. End of story.

So no, its not a social holiday, is it? Its still a friggin' pagan holiday because the pagans got there first.

Jack, no wonder you are still an evolutionist. Can't quite make up your mind if its a new species of holiday or not.

Yet...........now atheists, humanists, merchants, whatever are now co-opting a Christian (not) holiday and making it a 'social' holiday.

I'd wager that most of the merchants and consumers making Christmas a social holiday are theists, reflective of the population at large.

But according to your reasoning it doesn't matter that you are co-opting this holiday. It is still a pagan holiday because pagans got dibbs on Dec. 25. End of story.

No, it was (FYI: that word is past tense) a pagan holiday. Anyone claiming Christmas to be this wondrously exclusive Christian holiday is ignorant of its history and its present mode of celebration.

So no, its not a social holiday, is it? Its still a friggin' pagan holiday because the pagans got there first.

It's now a social holiday. The point is that Christmas was never "owned" by Christians. They piggybacked a pagan holiday to encourage conversion as a PR stunt, then turned it into the "all sales lead to Christmas" event.

I think a lot of ideas start out as counterpoints, and yet they never make good philosophies.

Even assuming that to be true, which you haven't shown, simply saying "this trend exists" doesn't mean "everything describable as such conforms to my trend."

Either, you want some sort of control, or you want to be controlled by some sort of vision of your reality.

Perhaps that's how many religious people see things, but I don't necessarily see those as the only options. You can also go for understanding of the world as a way to arrive at courses of action and belief.

B4B

Well said. This is an interesting thread. Taken together with the comments there is a lot here.

Spaman - This is not my area, but I don't buy into the atheism - socialism bit.

Was it the original catholics who brought us capitalism? Was that part of Christ's message? If so I missed that one in Saturday class. Also, why is it assumed that socialism is so bad and naturally flows from atheist beliefs? Isn't socialism at its foundation based on equality rather than privilege? Are you saying that man's true nature is to rise above fellow man through the accumulation of wealth? If not, then what exactly do you mean when you say socialism

begets a society that disallows hope for the future by denying man's true nature.

? Very confusing to me on this point - perhaps you could clarify/enlighten me.

Yes the premise that atheism begets socialism and vice versa is simply absurd.

Yes the premise that atheism begets socialism and vice versa is simply absurd.

Yeah, I was rather dumbfounded by that one.

I've seen a lot of smearing of atheism, but that one is rather unusual.

I absolutely agree with B4B's last point, and it deserves emphasis. A dialog cannot be opened if you already presuppose an entirely erroneous concept of what atheism is, then strongly imply that your version of atheism is what atheists actually believe.

That's not a dialog. That's a soapbox.

It's not a seed, it's an article.

ahh, beg your pardon, another useless article then.

Well that's pretty much a useless comment, seeing as you provided no counter-arguments whatsoever.

A counter arguments requires an argument. I don't believe you will see any arguments in this article, only statements (I think x is the case, also y is the case, etc.). That is, unless his argument was, x, y and z are true, so athiests are stupid, in which case, it does not deserve this many comments.

Ratigan

A counter arguments requires an argument. I don't believe you will see any arguments in this article, only statements ,

I guess you just don't know the difference between a "statement" and an "argument". How sad. You can't have an argument, which is just an exchange of diverging or opposite views, until someone states their side of it, their view. How wonderful for you to ignore this fact, never having to argue against any opposing views, simply by disregarding them as "statements". I don't know everything, but what I do know, I know allot about. I don't know what position you take in this, but I do know, you need to reevaluate your definition of what constitutes and two way argument, or discussion.

Dan, you clearly don't know the difference between an argument and a debate. An argument goes like this.

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That is, from the facts, as I assume them, I come to this conclusion. Then you may say that some of my premises are false, as you did just now.

I said, the article has no arguments because it only presents statements (or assumptions) but does not hold a conclusion of any value. You questioned my assumption (an argument is not a formulation, but a type of statement that is in opposition to another view), and came to the conclusion that I was wrong in my conclusion.

LOL, You are not even cognizant that this spurious reasoning results in nonsense, are you. Debate, arguments, discussions. Demonstrating a simple common sense logical formula as a comparison in order to support your illogical argument. And then you continue...That is, from the facts, as I assume them, I come to this conclusion do you even read what you write? If you assume something, it is because you don't know the facts. But you wouldn't know this because you assume to much.
All statements that defend "faith" by it's very nature are nothing but unprovable assumptions.

I'll not bother with this waste any longer, have your fun with your next, rebuttal response, statement argument, or whatever you want to call it. I will let the totality of this exchange stand by its own merit. Thank you.

Alright, are there any logicians in the audience that are going to back me up on this one?

Apparently, we are using our terms in different ways. One assumes a fact for the purpose of the argument (mostly because you can never be sure that what you say is fact except in cases that are definitional, like "all men are mortal" or "all bears are mammals"). That is, one makes clear the premises that are made so that the argument follows. Assuming that it rain comes from clouds, and that it is raining, then it must be cloudy. It has nothing to do with unjustifiable claims, but with the claims that you assert as facts (whether they be "common sensical" or more questionable).

The formula has nothing to do with common sense and only served to present the oldest example of an argument there is.

A couple gets into an argument about what movie to watch. I make an argument. One refers to a dispute (to no end) that rarely includes premises (other than "your an idiot") or conclusions (other than "you're sleeping on the couch"). The latter refers to a formulation of a conclusion (or conclusions) based upon premises.

But hey, why try to argue a point when you can remain wrapped in the warmth of your unjustified faith and ignorance of the opposing position....oh wait!

I'm a deist! Don't dare come near my Daughter buddy!

Really? Are you going to rule out all scientific discoveries? This to me is extremely close minded.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for any explanation as to why science is wholly unworthy of explaining any mysteries of life.

publius76, thank you for your comment. It'd be interesting to see Spaman's responses to such points coming from a theist.

I agree with Jack, and I don't actual have a daughter of my own.... she's someone else's though, so stay away from her!

Is it OK to make jokes here? I mean if the author adds a satire tag all would be forgiven.

Jack, why is religion incapable of the same? Oh, sure, your religion explains mysteries in a particular way. But other religions do so in a totally different way. And there are probably schisms within your own religion as to how to explain things.
So why, if religion is right, are there so many different conclusions? Truth is truth and not subject to interpretation.

Jack, why is religion incapable of the same?

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I think religion is incapable of... what I can only assume to be "explaining the mysteries of life." (if that's what you were referring to)

Care to elaborate? Further, if you were referring to that, what's this "your religion" you reference?

Haven't you got it yet Jack - no replies are made to good points - just shallow ones or he makes responses that don't really address the actual point. This is how every article about religion or atheism on here goes.. None of the hard questions are ever answered in the comments.

Eh, worth a shot.

I thought there was genuine misunderstanding there.

So far, Spaman has made no responses to publius' comments.

I guess he really has nothing beyond crude demonization of this evil "atheist" thing.

Sounds to me like wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

Since having morals is not contingent on belief in a god, or lack thereof.....I can't see how it could matter either way.

I think you can have morals and the option to not believe in god without joining any organisation.

Not that the organisation you join is at issue, but individualism and personal moral choices without a belief in God works for me.

Phaedrus, are you saying morals and belief in god go hand in hand and you cannot have one without the other?

I'm saying that the history of morality goes hand in hand with the history of religion.

Phaedrus72

I'm saying that the history of morality goes hand in hand with the history of religion.

For someone who make a firm claim to not believe in god and is an agnostic, (a near contradiction in terms) this might almost seems logical, except the history or morals go hand in hand withe the evolution of man as a social animal, allowing him to work and live in a social system for his survival. Just as we see in other primates. So what came first? Morals or Religion? I think the answer is obvious.

Also when you consider that when believers read religious texts, they say that some are outdated and others are simply false. What they're doing is bringing their own value judgments and saying that the Bible does a good job at saying what you value and how you came to those values, but those judgments that the Bible makes that I disagree with are somehow false (hopefully without undermining the validity of the text--though it does). What I think this shows is that morals a separate from religious texts. There is no doubt that it is possible for a person to read the Bible and accept every moral judgment that it makes, but if that person can be convinced away from any, then they must be separate issues.

I'm saying that the history of morality goes hand in hand with the history of religion.

And that means nothing in terms of causality.

I can just as easily say "the history of mass murder goes hand in hand with the history of religion," yet I cannot make the explicitly causal argument that "mass murder comes from religion."

Nice dodge, though.

The history of "morality" is far longer than the history of religion. Observe the actions of any social animal (chimps, dolphins, termites), and you can see "morality" at play. It's laughable to think that one needs a belief in a higher power to develop any sort of rules of behavior.

Sounds to me like wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

This is damn controversial coming from a self-proclaimed agnostic, since a common argument against agnosticism is that agnostics wants to "have their cake and eat it too." I do not ascribe to this position, being an agnostic myself, and I am hard-pressed to see why you would assert this contention against a Unitarian, as many Unitarians are simply agnostics with a moral code.

Look, I am an agnostic, when I said that I do not believe in God, I meant that I am not a Theist. Agnostics don't actively believe in God either, they don't disbelieve either, they just don't know. I just don't know. So when I said that I do not believe in God, I did not mean that in the Atheist way. I meant that I am not a theist, I'm not an Atheist either. Does that make more sense? Some here accused me of essentially being a theist, or even worse, religious which couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe one day I'll be a religious person, that's not today though.

So when I said that I do not believe in God, I did not mean that in the Atheist way. I meant that I am not a theist, I'm not an Atheist either. Does that make more sense?

No. No it doesn't. The only way that would make sense is if you redefine the terms "agnostic", "theist", and "atheist". If you don't believe in any gods, by definition you are an atheist, because that's what the word means. That is not to say you have to identify with other atheists, since there is no collective thought process. Most atheists (and I would argue, all rational atheists) are both atheist and agnostic, as the alternative is to have evidence of a lack of god, which of course there is none.

If you don't believe in any gods, by definition you are an atheist, because that's what the word means.

That's not true, because I don't NOT believe in God either. I don't believe or disbelieve. I don't know.

And actually, as most Atheists here and elsewhere will tell you, an Atheist is not someone who believes there is no God, but rather someone without a belief in God. That's what the word means, A-theism, without belief in God(s).

Most atheists (and I would argue, all rational atheists) are both atheist and agnostic, as the alternative is to have evidence of a lack of god, which of course there is none.

Having heard the argument made, that if you throw an atheist off a cliff, he would be praying to god to save him all the way down, I would have to say out of having an actual experience of this, that this is not true, They would spend the time looking for something to grab on to, or a soft place to land. In contrast, my opinion is that the theists are more likely to pray on the way down, hit the bottom, go splat, and just die. Still, I consider myself to be a deist. :)

That's not true, because I don't NOT believe in God either. I don't believe or disbelieve. I don't know.

So that would make you exactly like most atheists, being atheist and agnostic....

And actually, as most Atheists here and elsewhere will tell you, an Atheist is not someone who believes there is no God, but rather someone without a belief in God. That's what the word means, A-theism, without belief in God(s).

Had I misspoken and said something like "atheists believe there is no god" (a positive belief, which would not describe most atheists) instead of "atheists don't believe in god" (a lack of belief), then you might have a point...a point based entirely on semantics, but technically a point. As it stands, what IS your point? You just repeated my definition with slightly different wording and argued against a statement that I didn't make, as I never said "an Atheist is not someone who believes there is no God"

Really not worth bickering about either way though really. Call yourself whatever you want, I was simply pointing out that redefining terms (as you have done) is not a good way to breed honest dialog. You can call mouse a cat all you want, it's still a mouse, and if you want to discuss something with others, using your own definitions rather than the commonly accepted ones won't get too far.

You know what I like about arguments about semantics? That semantics means 'meaning'. So what the argument is about the meaning of words. I've never understood why that made the argument silly or of little importance. But there are plenty of things I've never understood, like why we don't use blimps more than we do. I suppose that depends on what I mean by "use" doesn't it?

You know what I like about arguments about semantics? That semantics means 'meaning'. So what the argument is about the meaning of words. I've never understood why that made the argument silly or of little importance.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I tend to choose my words carefully. Typos occasionally get the best of me though hehe

I'm not sure it's answers he seeks.

He's pretty much decided what the answers are, and is trying to jury-rig reality into his mold.

What about those of us who HAVE read tons of philosophy and science books, and still have not found the answers for which we seek. You can not claim that all the questions have been answered, they most certainly have NOT.

What about those of us who HAVE read tons of philosophy and science books, and still have not found the answers for which we seek.

Perhaps they aren't asking the right questions.

but by ignoring a vital component, as atheists do

Please tell me how it is a vital component if you cannot prove it true or factual. It would be the same thing as saying that the belief of walking underneath a ladder gives you bad luck is a vital component to life as well, or that taking supplements are vital to athletic performance. Nothing can be "vital" unless you can PROVE in a laboratory that life would end without it. Vitamins are vital, amino acids are vital, nucleotides are vital, sunshine is vital ... how is religion in that list of vitals?

Atheists seem to be living fine. I should know; I am one. I am successful and happy; I have never committed a crime (besides speeding); I have never cheated on my wife of going on 8 years; I have contributed to society; I am extremely healthy; I have a wonderful family; I have a deep respect for life and all living things; I recycle and mindful of the environment; I was a personal trainer for nearly a decade and lent my expertise in helping people become healthier and happy; and I am now going back to school to finish my degree and become a physician. So tell me how religion is vital again?

Please stop throwing around words like you own the definition of life, and the meaning of it. It makes you sound very narrow minded, and "amateurish" in trying to prove your point.

Daniel, you conveniently left out the second part of my comment. ARe you suggesting that all the questions of mankind have been answered? If so, that would be a monumental statement, please direct me to the answers.

Some of us have some of the answers, but by ignoring a vital component, as atheists do, then even with science mixed in, we will likely never get the full picture

By this "vital component", you're referring to God?

Prove to me that God (or whatever you wish to call this thing) exists, using real-world evidence which can be independently verified or observed. Then, come back and tell me "Dude, you're so missing out on, like, this vital thingy!"

I can just as easily say "Some of us have some of the answers, but by ignoring a vital component (flying immortal unicorns), as most everyone does, then even with science mixed in, we will likely never get the full picture"

I realize that you're trying to sound all deep and philosophizimical, but you'll need to try much, much harder to make up for your utter lack of substance.

You can not claim that all the questions have been answered, they most certainly have NOT.

And no one said all questions have been answered, simply the ones obliquely posed in the article.

B4B: I think that when he says "vital", he means "vital to a full understanding of our universe." Your point still stands, though. He hasn't even attempted to actually show us how this vital component is actually vital. You'd think he do so by now, if he just knew how.

ARe you suggesting that all the questions of mankind have been answered?

Grasshopper, all the fun is in asking the questions, and pressuring the answers. after the answers is found, what then, just a new questions to pursue. it would be most boring indeed to know everything. Be glad you live in this age.

Some of us have some of the answers, but by ignoring a vital component, as atheists do, then even with science mixed in, we will likely never get the full picture - You know, a bit like global warming, where the scientists are only allowed to consider one argument and have to ignore anything that doesn't fit into the preconceived game plan.

Wow... you think of atheist in terms that are contrary to one basic fact. They do not hate religion, they do not exist to discredit your faith. Discovery of truths in the natural world like the earth not being the physical center of the universe was not a planed attack on the church! It was an observation of the natural universe, that proved contrary to the church. Scientist are not all atheist either. They love truth and the pursuit of it. The reason that you hate atheist is that faith is not based on empirical truth. Atheists don't believe in something, god, just because it makes churches mad, or think that it's fun. It's something that they help because they can't see, They can't force themselves to believe in something they don't think is real, why do you think you can? This is called reason, I am asking you to be reasonable. it is not as an attack on any church. Science is not out to get you. Atheists are not your enemy, but you make them yours, because just by their existence it is a challenge to what you believe. They defend their rights to think as they choose, just as you do. What answers can faith give you, empirically, name one? Science does not make assumptions and state them as facts, they make observations and test them for accuracy for years or wait and see if it proves true over time, if it is false, science will be the first ones to admit it, when a test is devised to prove it one way or another, if a theory doesn't prove out, they are discard. All you hear and see are the results of this long process and those ideas that have a high probability of being correct, and then you make false assumptions based on that as if years of very intelligent man and women have not asked every question that they could conceive to disprove a theory already before ever reveling it to the public, sorry. Who is this Science God, that only allows them to consider one argument? Copernicus? Newton? Darwin? Einstein?

And no one said all questions have been answered, simply the ones obliquely posed in the article.

Are you suggesting that Atheism has been proven without a doubt true, that there truly is no God? It's been proven? Direct me to this information, please, I would be a much happier person if I could know one way or the other.

Hint: There is no such information, because it has NOT been proven, not even "the ones obliquely posed in this article.

I think the same could be said for believing in God.

Are you suggesting that atheism religion has been proven without a doubt true, that there truly is no God? It's been proven?

Hint: There is no such information, because it has NOT been proven, not even "the ones obliquely posed in this article

Yes, Cash, you're right, that's why I'm an Agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve. I don't know.

See, Atheists are basically saying that even though they admit to there being a chance that God could exist, the chance is so small that they are happy and fine with saying that there is no God. For all intents and purposes, for them, the chances of God's existence are so small that one can confidently proclaim that they don't believe in him. I can't do that. As long as there is an admitted chance that God could exist, then I can't call myself an Atheist. As long as there is an admitted chance that he could NOT exist then I can't call myself a Theist either. That leaves only Agnosticism as a choice. Unless there are other choices that I don't know about.

The other problem is that I have yet to hear any scientist or mathematician reduce the probability for God's existence to an actual number. Atheists act like it is a given that the chances are infinitesimal,but this is simply not true. Is it a 1% chance, 25%, 50/50? Who knows?

Atheism has been proven. I found a real one, I have no doubts they exist at all, he didn't believe in and kind of god. Amazing. I tried to prove that he is wrong, but I couldn't. No miracles, no voices from above, no divine intervention, and I got arrested for arson because the burning bush thing got out of hand. The Judge did not by my "Act of God" defense.

Phaedrus - I would like to believe God exists, that we carry on after death in some perfect kind of afterlife. Raised in religion I was taught that without faith we cannot know God. I initially had hope but unfortunately no faith to speak of. I have always believed there was a chasm between the aspirations of man and the nature of man.
Now I believe in the cycle of life and death and I can only speak personally - it has given my life and my choices different meaning. This is it for me, all there is to work with.
I envy those of religion who have hope and faith and the promise of an everlasting life. Although I find myself drawn into this kind of adversarial position I actually don't wish to tear down Christianity. I understand that people anchor their world views differently. I actually think there are atheists and Christians who feel as I do. Whatever rocks your boat is fine with me, just don't try to sink mine.
(I think I hear Jack coming to tell me to get off my high horse again)

@Phaedrus72,

That doesn't mean the two possibilities have equal probability. We all have to be technically agnostic about Zeus, Apollo, Unicorns, Fairies and Orbital Tea Pots. That doesn't make the existence of any of these things as likely as their non existence, or even likely at all.

We have absolutely no reason to believe in any of them, including any particular modern god. That isn't the same as saying we have proved they don't exist. However we don't have to prove that. The believer has to do the convincing, not the unbeliever.

There is no reason at all to believe any of these things. Not a single shred of evidence exists in their favour.

I don't get you at all.

The words you highlight should have perhaps read:

...it has given my life and my choices...meaning

"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -

-Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787.

Are you suggesting that Atheism has been proven without a doubt true, that there truly is no God? It's been proven?

Nope, and nope. However, Spaman hardly questioned the veracity of atheism. He questioned its use and feel-bad qualities, and asserted that it was flat-out wrong. Heck, he even tried to redefine it as a religion and characterize science as some spirit-breaking bogeyman. Answers and corrections to these questions and assertions can be readily found in science and philosophy books.

Whatever rocks your boat is fine with me, just don't try to sink mine. (I think I hear Jack coming to tell me to get off my high horse again)

Nope, I fully agree, actually.

If I could actually bring myself to believe in this modern-day Elysium, then sure, that'd be great: when I die, I don't really die! But, I value truth and facts over stories and false hope.

If religion stayed a wholly personal matter, I wouldn't give a whit what a random person thought. Of course, Spaman tried to cobble together a Fisher-Price torpedo with this article, thus my criticisms.

Phaedrus, what Ryan Booker said is essentially why I call myself an atheist agnostic, which is what most atheists are. You don't believe in many things -- atheists simply disbelieve in one more.

If not god then what sector of life do you to refer to?

Our actions are always governed by our belief systems whether spiritual or scientific. What would be your point? People believe in science and live accordingly. So?

Sorry pseudonihilist, but this is a typical response from atheists who feel they are being attacked

Once again, we see an irrational generalization, with no evidence to back it up. Sorry, but I think it's been made pretty clear you don't know the first thing about anything to do with atheism, let alone what "we" feel.

I might say this is typical behavior of an ignorant, closed-minded religious pseudofundie, but since generalizing is rarely accurate that would be wrong.

Perhaps, Spaman, if you stopped acting like a sanctimonious, condescending, holier-than-thou jackass, you'd see more of the civility that pretty much makes up this entire thread, and less of the justly deserved hostility in this comment string.

My point is that even if we grant that people are right about the existence of god, complete with every grandiosity that can be assumed, so what? All of existence is a void within which we act, even if we commend all of human struggle as so many sparrows over their crumbs, and even if some god, even THE god, presides over it, so what? What could be the basis of a distinction between being and nothingness, and, even more significantly, what could be the perch from which a mind, any mind, could make such a distinction?

Your answer should be that there is only the moment, that the only ultimate is the intimate. Just like everything else that stands at a distance from yourself, "god" doesn't mean squat. Nothing other can ever confer meaning upon the self. Look at the world: everybody is always leeching upon their fellows, as though they would fill themselves. They call it community. Always feeding, never fed, so they find their god. Now there's a deep well. "God" is just a dumping ground for the problems of human existence, a solution to life, conceived as a problem. Such a convenience, salvation as beyond the human condition.

To look for meaning beyond life is to deny life. To think that something, anything, external to life is necessary to life is to denigrate life. Theism, at its core, is nihilistic, for it attests that life as we know it is not enough, that we need some other, some "supreme" other, to endow our existences with meaning.

What's amazing is that it took thousands of years for nature to come up with an adequate response to blind faith and hope, a response which took the form of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche was right: god is dead. But then it was always a bad, meaning merely useful, idea.

My point is that even if we grant that people are right about the existence of god, complete with every grandiosity that can be assumed, so what?

I hear some people think God burns gays and abortionists in hell. So what, right?

What could be the basis of a distinction between being and nothingness, and, even more significantly, what could be the perch from which a mind, any mind, could make such a distinction?

Oh, things like the Spanish Inquisition.

Religious belief does not exist by itself, which I think is the point you're missing. It infects every facet of society. Religion is one of the most easily co-opted, and most propagandistically successful, ideas ever conceived. It suspends rational thought in favor of feel-good platitudes and empty assertions of truth. It did start as a superficial explanation for the unexplained, a way to convince ourselves that we had more control over our violent world than we actually did (e.g. Aztec sun worship, Egyptian rituals to ask for Nile floods). But, our actual understanding has long since superseded much of religious dogma, yet the dogma still persists. At that point, it's not simply fanciful guessing, but misinformation.

Spaman, show me that that sector of life exists.

are you following certain tennents...doesn't seem that way.

EXACTLY. There are none. So all the generalization you made in your article are completely without merit unless you explain why you think they might be accurate, which you didn't do.

So would you say Friedrich Nietzsche is your God - you follow his words and translate his ideas into your own life...

Definitely not. His ideas resonate for a given reader because of something preexisting within that reader. Otherwise it's mostly water of the duck's back.

And I do not accept that his "free spirit" is capable of genuine "reevaluation of all values". But I do believe that we are our own gods, and that we are autonomous, in the sense that an asteroid plummeting through the voids of space and time, ever subject to the emanations of all of rest of being, remains autonomous. Each of us is a singular manifestation of being, nothing more, nothing less.

and who started with the hostility

From the article:

Yet the atheist movement has failed in so many ways. It cannot explain the nature of man - at least the different churches have a go at this. Instead, atheists rely on science to explain away the meaning of life .... and yet here also, they fail miserably.

but atheism is just a protest movement against religion. It has no substance of it's own - if religion didn't exist then it couldn't.

Hell, I could just quote your entire article.

Jack, I don't see any hostility at all in those quotes or in the article as a whole. Once again, attacking the idea of Atheism is not the same as attacking Atheists personally.

By the way, I'm taking you off my ignore list, just seems so childish to ignore people. No point to it really.

By the way, I'm taking you off my ignore list, just seems so childish to ignore people. No point to it really.

Man, and you gloated so proudly about doing that, too. Oh well. Just couldn't stand not reading my comments, could you? ;-)

No, I'm just in better spirits these days, Jack. Isn't that preferable to you?

Jack, I don't see any hostility at all in those quotes or in the article as a whole.

Atheism - A crooked slant on life

Let the scales fall from your eyes, Phaedrus. This is supposed to be objective and incisive journalism?

No, I'm just in better spirits these days, Jack. Isn't that preferable to you?

Meh. At least you're growing up a bit. (You yourself called it "childish")

Chaos, it says Atheism, not Atheists, as I've said elsewhere on numerous occasions, ideas are not sacrosanct. There is nothing hostile at all in the title or in the article itself. If someone wrote, and they do quite a bit around here, attacking Christianity, the idea of it, as many have done in this very thread, I wouldn't call that hostile either. Not unless it devolves into attacking Christians themselves as people. I'll say it again, ideas are NOT sacrosanct.

I guess that's just where you and I differ. I see a pretty clear difference between challenging the merits of an idea and openly showing contempt for the idea and those who identify with that belief, all without knowing the first thing about it. This article clearly crosses that line.

Well said, ChaosLight.

But aren't you guys guilty of the same, showing contempt for Christian beliefs, while really not knowing all that much about it? Just saying.

Well, I try not to be anymore, though I'll be the first to admit I went through that phase in my teenage years. But I'd wager I know quite enough about, at the very least, the core tenets of several major sects. Having read both the original and the sequel, I feel I'm.. well versed, if you will, if by no means an expert.

Furthermore, show me the contempt. One can challenge the merits without being condescending. One can at least make the effort. Once can certainly take the hint after a while and change their tone. Since the author here does none of these things, I refuse to be made to feel bad calling him out on it.

showing contempt for Christian beliefs, while really not knowing all that much about it?

You'll find that most of the active atheists have either extensively studied Christianity, or were once Christians themselves.

Statements like "atheism begets socialism" show an utter lack of understanding of what atheism is.

Statements like "atheism begets socialism" show an utter lack of understanding of what atheism is.

Jack you are a nice guy, I like to think of myself as a nice guy, I Love my family give extensively to charities, have my mother living with us as I would never put her in a old folks home. I do volunteer work at a homeless shelter in Chicago on the weekends, and holidays when I can. And I am sure, the focus of this article has nothing to do with a lack of understanding. If it did, he would have been open to input from atheist and adjusted is attitude, changing his opinion based on the new information. But no. He argues against it. Adheres venomously to his preconceived notions and refuses to compromise his position. This denotes either stupidity, or blind hatred, both hinder his ability to understand.

And I am sure, the focus of this article has nothing to do with a lack of understanding. If it did, he would have been open to input from atheist and adjusted is attitude, changing his opinion based on the new information. But no. He argues against it. Adheres venomously to his preconceived notions and refuses to compromise his position. This denotes either stupidity, or blind hatred, both hinder his ability to understand.

I like to sound overly optimistic about people sometimes. The contrast between my light criticism and very apparent reality only serves as its own sort of criticism.

I learn as we speak.

Phaedrus72!

If you turn the other cheek all the time, you end up being marched to the gas chambers or burned as a heretic. Look back on history. This is fact. We are going through the equivalent of an intellectual inquisition for the suppression of heresy in America. You have to fight back in the face of those who want to subjugate and suppress you!

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810.

You confuse arrogance with defending ones rights against those who would take them from us. You can call this a personal attack if you wish, I can't stop you. But what is it, to deny ones right to believe as he feels, if it is not personal? Having said that, What is the very subject of this article? Tolerance of the views of others? Hardly! Sorry, But I will fight to my death to defend myself from someone who wants to take from me my rights. Just as out forefathers died to secure them.

Phaedrus,

Spaman is not being attacked from all sides because of his Christian beliefs.

This discussion is all about context. If he had come out and shared his faith and belief as a personal testament we would have nothing to say, maybe we could have been positive. But he came out attacking the belief or non- belief of others and therefore we insist that he defend those attacks with evidence and fact. When he continually fails to do that, he is on a slippery slope that cannot be disguised by more posturing and cries of victim hood.

"It would seem impossible that an intelligent people with the faculty of reading and right of thinking should continue much longer to slumber under the pupilage of an interested aristocracy of priests and lawyers, persuading them to distrust themselves and to let them think for them... Awaken them from this voluntary degradation of mind! Restore them to a due estimate of themselves and their fellow citizens, and a just abhorrence of the falsehoods and artifices which have seduced them!" --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

I agree with all that, except you should listen to lawyers. They know what they're talking about. Ok, maybe not Dean Starr, but there are plenty of others that are great people.

Dan, get serious, no one is trying to take away your rights, he is merely stating his beliefs,and mine as well, by the way that Atheism provides nothing emotionally satisfying.

it is a negativity that doesn't brighten lives

What you are doing Dan, is what I have been accused of myself, being overly dramatic. No one is trying to take away your rights to be an Atheist. That's not what this article is about at all. It's one man's opinion. Take it for what it is.

See, that's the thing that I have been wrestling with. When one loses their religion as I have, the question remains what to replace it with. I've tried to be an Atheist, but it offers nothing. It's like saying, "Ok, we're gonna take away your most cherished beliefs, and we're not gonna replace it with anything, you're just gonna be left with a huge gaping hole where your heart and soul used to be." That might not be your experience but it has most certainly been mine and I'm sure many others.

Dan, also quoting Thomas Jefferson all the time proves nothing other than that he, in the context of the quotes you provide, agrees with what you are here trying to say. It most certainly does not prove Atheism to be a viable or true philosophy. In other words, just because Thomas Jefferson may have been an Atheist, he wasn't by the way, he was a Deist, but even if he was, it doesn't prove that Atheism is true.

Phaedrus,

I've tried to be an Atheist, but it offers nothing. It's like saying, "Ok, we're gonna take away your most cherished beliefs, and we're not gonna replace it with anything, you're just gonna be left with a huge gaping hole where your heart and soul used to be."

Atheism doesn't ask this of you. You cannot adopt Atheism as a belief system without adopting a methodology or approach as to why it works for you - that would be like adopting religion without faith.

You cannot adopt Atheism as a belief system without adopting a methodology or approach as to why it works for you

No Atheist that I have ever spoken to has ever been able to articulate any such methodology. To me, it's always been along the lines of "what works for you". Actually, you even just said it yourself just now. To me, truth doesn't work like that. There is a truth outside of ourselves, not a billion different truths, whatever works for each individual person. So yes, Atheism says, "There is no God, work the rest out for yourself, we can't help you." "Oh, that huge empty feeling you feel inside, that huge hole we left in place of your heart and soul? Fill it with whatever makes you happy." Seems empty to me, and I think the whole point of this article is that Atheism doesn't offer anything in return for what it takes away from a person. It is not a viable philosophy all on it's own. No one goes to Atheist churches. It's not so much a philosophy or religion as it is a reaction against religion. It's fundamentally negative, not positive. If you want to fill the hole that Atheism has left, well then you have to look elsewhere, Atheism has no answers, only refutations.

P72

Atheism then is based on little more than an opposing view, which by itself wouldn't be harmful - Yet it has affected how men think and the policies that are implemented by governments following socialist mores. You only have to look around the world, in Europe, and even in the US to see the fruits of these policies... A link does exist to socialist politics from atheism, particularly in the area of religion, which cannot be missed if you listen to debates on the role of the church. There are many socialists who would remove all forms of religion from having any effect on socialist policies in government, and by so doing would remove that final barrier to their unchallenged power – not to mention their last real grasp on moral behaviour.

This is as much of an attack on my personal integrity and that of others, and my moral constitution as Hitler saying that the Jews are responsible for all the social and economic problems of pre WWII Germany! I know what Thomas Jefferson was and If you were to bother, I have said here in this article that I am a deist as well. So If you are going to chastise me, get you facts straight. I know far more about Thomas Jefferson then most, having written a book about the man, Published by Scholastic and being put into the High schools in the spring of next year. He was also a promoter of the Quakers, and America is based on this. Atheism is not a philosophy! Why can't you get that? I am not, and no one else is trying to prove it as a "viable or true philosophy" It is not even a real belief in the sense of the word, it is Non-belief! You don't like personnel attacks, but you insist on repeating this, like it is some wisdom that you are capable of grasping and no one else can. But it is not. No one can make me believe in something that I don't, just by telling me I am wrong to believe it. I am not wrong! I guess this is what you see as arrogance. After the constant insisting that something is true a million times over, without any prove, just pisses people off. I quote Jefferson because I agree with him. Atheism is true. It is the theory or belief that God does not exist. Nothing more! Yes this believe is spreading in the world. Not because of any proof, that God does not exist. But because of not having any proof that he does! How can I change that? Why is this My or anyone else's fault! It is nothing but a word to describe someone who does not believe in any Gods. Not a religion or philosophy of any kind. Refusing to accept this is nothing but bigotry, the intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. I have no intolerance for those who are in intolerant towards me, or anyone else's right to think as they wish. I am not trying to tell Spam that he should be a deist, atheist or anything. In fact i will defend his right to be a christian with the same tenacity I defend my own right to not be. This will not matter to you because in a month or two I will see you making the same statements as now. We have been through this before, so I know you don't listen. From now on I am going to call myself an Atheist. That is what Spam and you have convinced me of. They are on the side of truth in the defense of their freedom to think as men, and not be told what to think by anyone.

Phaedrus:

I have been an Atheist as long as I can remember - I have no hole in my heart, no longing. I am very happy with my lot tyvm.

You seem to think that there must be "something", why? Why do you want to exchange one empty philosophy, that of your religion, for something else - why can't you just "be"?

Atheism in itself is not a "philosophy" it is a lack of belief. I don't approach each situation by thinking WWRDD (what would Richard Dawkins Do?) - I approach it according to how I believe I should, not how the non-existent atheist church thinks it should be.

Life and the universe are pretty amazing in and of themselves does there have to be "meaning" as well?

Again because it is personal methodology. We are born into cultural and familial belief systems, where we go from there is a choice. Atheism is simply another choice, a path taken because of our exposure and interpretation of life. There is no church of Atheism and just because a person rejects a belief system does not mean they have to replace it with one that offers similar solace. The fact is it is harder to accept we live and die and will become dust than it is to believe our soul will continue.

sprydle, have you ever just sat and contemplated your own existence, your own consciousness? Why can't I just be? Simple, because I just can't. I wasn't made that way. The fact that you are perfectly capable of just being makes you an anomaly, as most people in this world DO need meaning of some sort.

Life and the universe are pretty amazing in and of themselves does there have to be "meaning" as well?

Yes, it does because I find it highly doubtful that the universe just is, that it came about for no reasons, that we are all just a great big cosmic accident, the chances of which are infinitesimally small. You know, Atheists use the argument that the chances of God existing are infinitesimally small, therefore they don't believe in him, yet the chances of mankind existing is infinitesimally small as well, yet here you are. I just can't believe that we are nothing more than Biology. In addition to our consciousness, what about love? Is that just our biology as well? You might not believe this, I can't.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I would have no earthly idea what to tell you to believe in anyway, I'm just telling you MY thoughts on Atheism, and the reasons why I can't be one. Certain people here should not take such offense. Once again, if one is so emotionally attached to Atheism that they get offended at anyone even discussing it, then perhaps Atheism IS a religion to them.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I would have no earthly idea what to tell you to believe in anyway, I'm just telling you MY thoughts on Atheism, and the reasons why I can't be one. Certain people here should not take such offense. Once again, if one is so emotionally attached to Atheism that they get offended at anyone even discussing it, then perhaps Atheism IS a religion to them.

I actually liked your reply here until the above paragraph. Of course you are rubbishing the belief of Atheists when you make comments about the emptiness of Atheism per se rather than the emptiness of Atheism to you. You constantly move from the personal to a generalised statement as follows:

It's not so much a philosophy or religion as it is a reaction against religion. It's fundamentally negative, not positive. If you want to fill the hole that Atheism has left, well then you have to look elsewhere, Atheism has no answers, only refutations.

Everyone can respect your personal understanding. They will not respect it when it is projected onto Atheism as fact.

They will not respect it when it is projected onto Atheism as fact.

But that's not what I have done. You have never seen me preface anything I said with, "Now this is a fact". Everything I stated is my personal opinion. As contracted to Daniel who said that "Atheism is true". That is a statement of fact, not opinion.

As contracted to Daniel who said that "Atheism is true".

To clarify that, I was just trying to make the point that atheism is real. Sorry that you didn't get it. If you want to read what I say there more closely and in the context that it was presented, you will see that is what I meant. That it is true, and undeniable so, that some people simply do not believe in god. Nothing will ever change this, they are convinced. So in this sense, Atheism is just as valid as any believe in God is.

It's fundamentally negative, not positive. If you want to fill the hole that Atheism has left, well then you have to look elsewhere, Atheism has no answers, only refutations.

Here is where you speak for others. You need to discern when you speak only for yourself. You cannot assume an earlier statement can be carried throughout all your statements. We all move from personal to objective.

That it is true, and undeniable so, that some people simply do not believe in god. Nothing will ever change this, they are convinced

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Here is where you speak for others.

No, I am only speaking from personal experience. And I believe you agreed that Atheism is not a whole philosophy. Atheism begins and ends with the statement, "There is no God." Or, "We don't believe in God(s). So I think I'm right when I say that Atheism offers nothing to replace what it takes away. Now, one could supplement their Atheism with something like secular humanism,but Atheism alone "has no answers, only refutations."

No one is arguing though that Atheism doesn't exist, of course it is valid, that doesn't mean though that it's true. I asked elsewhere, as Pilate asked, what is truth? Anyone care to expound on this? Either here or in their own article? I would love to hear what you guys would have to say on it. I get so angry when I hear people misuse the word truth, Christians do it all the time. I saw a church sign the other day that said that the best argument is the truth? Do they not understand what they are saying? What truth? What is truth? Whose truth?

No one is arguing though that Atheism doesn't exist, of course it is valid,

Ah, Atheism is valid, is it any less valid then Christianity? If so, why?

It's like saying, "Ok, we're gonna take away your most cherished beliefs, and we're not gonna replace it with anything, you're just gonna be left with a huge gaping hole where your heart and soul used to be."

As Sprydle said, some don't have that "huge gaping hole" that requires feel-good platitudes to fill.

Why can't I just be? Simple, because I just can't. I wasn't made that way. The fact that you are perfectly capable of just being makes you an anomaly, as most people in this world DO need meaning of some sort.

You weren't made that way? Too bad for you, then.

Don't confuse "a sense of purpose" with "religious significance," and conveniently equate the latter with "meaning of some sort."

No, I am only speaking from personal experience.

And you're expanding your argument to atheism in general when you say "atheism has no answers, only refutations." That's far from saying "I've found no answers in atheism."

Further, for someone supposedly so self-righteous about semantics (e.g. "truth"), you've rather overlooked the fact that "I don't believe in any gods" is an answer to "Do you believe in any gods?"

So, yes, atheism provides answers. Apparently you're just selectively anal about semantics.

The difference there, if you're still drawing a blank, is like the difference between "Cars have no value" and "I don't value cars."

If you're truly only speaking for yourself, and making no general statement about atheism (which I highly, highly doubt), then you need to learn to write more clearly.

Daniel, at the risk of angering Jack, I have to bring up semantics again in reference to your question. It all depends on what you mean by valid? Is Atheism equally true as Theism, or Deism, or Agnosticism? No, of course I don't think that it is. You are equating the idea that every philosophy is valid which contains adherents. I am saying that there is only ONE ultimate truth in this world. Not a billion equally true or valid truths. What that ultimate truth is, I'm not sure, but logic suggests that both Atheism and Theism can not both be true at the same time. Either there is a God or there is not. So if by valid you mean equally true, no, and emphatically no. If you mean by valid that people should be able to hold to that belief if they so choose, without fear of harassment or retribution, then of course I'd agree with that and that's what I meant by valid. I believe in not only the freedom of religion but the freedom FROM religion, whatever one chooses. The Bible teaches this as well, Dan. It's the whole concept of free will. Man has free will to believe whatever he chooses to believe, and since God gave man that free will then I, personally don't believe that any man, institution or government has any place or right to take that free will away. What God has given let no man put asunder, so to speak.

So, should Atheists be allowed to exist? Yes. Is Atheism equally true as Theism? Absolutely not. Notice, I'm not saying which is ultimately true, Atheism or Theism, I'm just saying they both can't be true at the same time. Some things are mutually exclusive. I can't both be dead and alive at the same time. Either there is a God or there isn't. It's really as simple as that.

Jack, I really don't understand where you confusion is coming from. Yes, I am speaking in generalities about Atheism, based upon my own opinions and experience. One doesn't need to preface everything they say with, "This is my opinion." It should be a given that what I'm saying is my opinion. One can speak in generalities about a concept or idea based on their opinions. I really don't need to learn to write more clearly, in this regard, because when I say Atheism has no value, it should be a given that I mean Atheism has no value for me. If it has value for you, great. For the vast majority of mankind, all throughout history and today, this has not been the case.

Yes, I am speaking in generalities about Atheism, based upon my own opinions and experience.

Sure, but that hardly means you're not projecting opinions as credible in a pseudo-factual manner. If I said "If you truly seek the truth, you will find that Hitler was a kind, gentle, and compassionate man," I can hardly expect to get away with simply "Dude, it's like, just my opinion, man."

Theism can not both be true at the same time. Either there is a God or there is not.

Or there could be 1500 higher beings, running the Universe like a huge game of Risk. After all, theism isn't exclusively monotheistic.

Is Atheism equally true as Theism? Absolutely not. Notice, I'm not saying which is ultimately true, Atheism or Theism, I'm just saying they both can't be true at the same time. Some things are mutually exclusive.

True. ;-) Atheism could very well be much more true than theism. You never know.

For the vast majority of mankind, all throughout history and today, this has not been the case.

Care to support that glib claim with... anything? Or, will you simply, once again, duck out with "dude, just an opinion"?

Care to support that glib claim with... anything? Or, will you simply, once again, duck out with "dude, just an opinion"?

A cursory glance at history is enough to show that the vast majority of the world's people's have been of a religious nature. I'm sure I could go to Google and provide statistics if you like, but then again, so could you.

Here, I'll do it for you, took me all of 2 seconds.

worldwide percentages of adherents by religion

This obviously only includes the adherents of today, doesn't even include all the peoples throughout history. But if you look, only 2.35% of people worldwide are Atheists. 11.92% non religious. That leaves 85.73% as adherents of one religion or another.

A cursory glance at history is enough to show that the vast majority of the world's people's have been of a religious nature. I'm sure I could go to Google and provide statistics if you like

Are you saying that popularity equals validity? Cause if you are, your stance as an agnostic is a bit strange isn't it?

No, I merely stated that the vast majority of the world's people have not been able to find happiness through the nihilism of Atheism. Jack asked me to back up that assertion, and I provided statistics. Of course, popularity doesn't equal truth, I am merely speaking to the human need for meaning, and to show that the vast majority seeks meaning out of life, and that statistically Atheism does not provide that.

Plus, people change. I may have been an Agnostic yesterday, which means I have an open mind, tomorrow I could be a God fearing bible believing Christian. I have stated elsewhere that although I lost my religion years ago, I still feel drawn back to the religion of my youth, Christianity.

An agnostic is just someone who says they don't know. That doesn't preclude an Agnostic from one day becoming a Theist or an Atheist. He could go either way.

what does "of a religious nature" mean exactly? That they actively practiced a religion? That they were "spiritual"? That they were theists?

Nihilism of Atheism? Phaedrus72, these are two totally separate things! Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles and the belief that life is meaningless. The doctrine, that is the origin of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900, and which has Nothing to do with Atheist. Mix metaphors often? Ok then is it fair to equate all of Christianity with the slaughter of millions in the Crusades? Or the torture of the Inquisitions, and burning of innocents in the Salem witch trials, just on the bases of some did this in the past? At least there is an actual correlation there. Please stop with these ridiculous and unfounded accusations. I think you should admit to yourself you are a Christian. You're sure not fooling anyone else.

I agree that atheism does not involve commitment to nihilism, and that the opposite is also true. A person could believe in god and still be a nihilist. In fact, a person could believe in god and still assert that god's existence is itself meaningless.

Dan, in my opinion, Atheism leads to nihilism. If this is all there is, if we are nothing more than our biology, if we all just some great big cosmic accident then life has no meaning. It renders love itself impotent, as nothing more than our biology.

Your opinion is flawed Phaedrus. I know many atheists, not one of them show any nihilistic tendencies whatsoever. You may believe that because this is all there is then your life has no meaning, I and all of the atheists that I know certainly do not believe that.

Those suffering from a crisis of faith on the other hand...

Dan, in my opinion, Atheism leads to nihilism. If this is all there is, if we are nothing more than our biology, if we all just some great big cosmic accident then life has no meaning. It renders love itself impotent, as nothing more than our biology.

Unfortunately your opinion isn't based on reality.

Phaedrus is entitled to an opinion that may be relevant to his experiences.

This opinion however does not reflect the reality of my atheism.

The love I feel towards my child brings me great joy. The compassion I feel for others exists outside of religious imperatives. Belief in God does not gift me biological, emotional or social imperatives. I am not empty or devoid of love, compassion or connection to the physical world I inhabit and the emotional bonds I form.

Weighing in in agreement that while Phaedrus may have some personal aquaintance who is both an atheist and a nihilist, this fact in no way reflects my experience or the experience of those I know.

Dan, in my opinion, Atheism leads to nihilism.

No it does not. But still ask yourself, what if your wrong, and there is no God? You could spend your whole life, and never find meaning, because you think the answers will come after you are dead and gone. To me and most atheist, the meaning to life is simple. It is the cycle of life. Leave a better world for your children and your children's children. Make the world a better place. I think when Jesus said, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, he meant that it is up to us to bring it about. At hand, this means "what you do". The mark of the beast, is on the forehead and the back of the hand, for all to see. It is not what goes into a mans mouth that defiles him, it is what comes out of it. This is what you think, and what you do. and what you say, that defines us. I am not here to rewrite scripture, but to write it into every mans heart. Who said this? Who claims that morals are not innate and only can be found if you go through the church? End the inhumanity of man to man. Why trust some church that only tells you to endure the suffering that others inflict on you or anyone? Saying you will be rewarded after you are dead, what if this is a mistake? It would be the biggest mistake of your life. I would rather live my life as if it was the only one I have, doing what I can to insure that I Leave it better then I found it, or at least have not done harm to it or anyone. Then to think that i wasted it on something that no one can prove or see. I believe that Jesus was a great man, but just a man. Not a God. If you knew how to read scripture, and understood the idioms and lexical of the day, you would see that Jesus says this himself. It is your duty to your fellow man to leave the world better then you you entered it. Why is that so hard to understand? What higher calling can anyone hope to have to give meaning to life? If you belief in Heaven is correct, then certainly this will get you there. If you are wrong, then you only have done good, and will be remembered for it. If you live life fatalistically as many people of faith do. Waiting for a savor to fix the world, or e raptured away to some better life. Thinking that those who do evil to their fellow man will be punished for it, to be burned for eternity, (take a piece of paper, and burn it, how long does it stay burned?) and so you do nothing but pray and there is no god listening. You have wasted your life on a superstition, that was it. I do not want a wasted life, when there are things I can do. But you can. You may as well just jump off a cliff for all the good you do though.

I think Phaedrus is entitled to that personal opinion.

Phaedrus is absolutely entitled to that personal opinion. However, we are also entitled to point out why it's based on a sharply flawed view of reality.

He has decided that "meaning" is something which must come from the intangible and outside of the physical, and tries to extend this to an indictment of those who don't possess such tunnel vision.

I would rather live my life as if it was the only one I have, doing what I can to insure that I Leave it better then I found it, or at least have not done harm to it or anyone.

Dan, I enjoyed your comment. I just wanted to say that I've come to believe that the world might have turned out much better if more people had made it their goal merely to leave the world no worse than they found it, because just about everything that screws up the world comes out a will to make it better.

Say what you will about the "lower" beasts, at least they are not possessed of or by a will to "improve" the larger world they inhabit. It's a simple matter to imagine the entire history of the Earth, but with a complete absence of humankind, in which cheetahs would hunt gazelles almost forever. There would be constant excellence and no virtue whatsoever. And "the flowers would bloom like madness in the spring."

It's a simple matter to imagine the entire history of the Earth, but with a complete absence of humankind, in which cheetahs would hunt gazelles almost forever.

Hardly. If sudden extinctions don't wipe either out, evolution will probably select their particular species out of existence.

The world is violent and unforgiving with or without us.

There would be constant excellence and no virtue whatsoever.And "the flowers would bloom like madness in the spring."

Tell that to Earth, circa 63 million years ago, or Earth circa 10,000 years ago.

Wow, Jethro Tull lyrics used as philosophy...

I think Phaedrus is entitled to that personal opinion.

Of course he is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone, but neither he, or anyone else, entitled to make up their own facts!

I don't think he intends to make up facts, although he is often guilty of projecting his own opinion as facts. I applaud the subtle shift from when he makes definitive statements based on his opinion to when he clearly states it is his opinion. I feel I can still debate the flaws I may perceive from his reasoning but I do not have to do so from a position of defence.

what if your wrong, and there is no God? You could spend your whole life, and never find meaning, because you think the answers will come after you are dead and gone.

Ok, I'm going to continue the rest of the argument from the point of view of me being a Bible believing Christian, it will make the arguments much easier to follow. You keep referring to me as such, even though I've stated I'm Agnostic, so I'll play along.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, I've lost nothing, the only thing that will have changed is that I will have the chance to lead a much richer, fuller, more beautiful life. Once again, before anyone pounces on me, I shouldn't have to say this before everything I say but ok, "this is my opinion." If you are wrong and Christianity is true, then you are in big trouble, my friend, you risking your whole eternity on this one question. I'm not. If I'm wrong, then I will just rot in the earth as will you. It's called Pascal's wager, which you just tried your own hand at by asking me what if I'm wrong. I've been asking myself this very question lately. Why be a Christian? I was brought up that way, but lost my religion years ago, but I keep getting drawn back to it, time after time again. So I have asked myself why. Why be a Christian? What if it isn't true? And the answer that I've come up with is, so what if it isn't ultimately true? In my opinion, once again I have to say that, Christianity is the most beautiful religion in the world. There is no other religion like it. All other religions leave salvation, or nirvana, or whatever up to the individual. In Islam it is up to us to be good enough, to follow the five pillars, to pray five times a day, do a pilgrimage to Mecca, all that stuff, it's all about ritual. Contrary to this, Christianity is all about Love, with a capital L. It is the only religion that recognizes that human beings can NEVER be good enough, that we are all sinful by nature. If it was up to us, there would be no one ever going to heaven. Christmas is one of the most beautiful expressions of this love. So in effect, even if I'm wrong, what exactly have I lost? If I am empowered to live a better life, to try and live as Jesus did, to love my enemies, to do unto others as I would them do unto me, what exactly have I lost? Even if Christianity isn't true, it is surely the most beautiful mistake the world has ever known. So tell me, if I'm wrong, what exactly have I lost? The chance to live a sinful life? I've already done that, been there. There is nothing new under the sun, and there is hardly any sins that I have not partaken in. But ultimately there comes a time in one's life when the pursuit of physical pleasure becomes unfulfilling.

As to me thinking the answers will come when I'm dead and gone, that is a misunderstanding as well. As a Christian, I necessarily believe that all the questions, at least the pertinent ones, have already been answered, that all the answers are right there in the Bible. I'm not waiting for death to tell me that Love is the answer. The Bible tells me that.

Sorry to jump around but chasencash said:

The love I feel towards my child brings me great joy. The compassion I feel for others exists outside of religious imperatives. Belief in God does not gift me biological, emotional or social imperatives. I am not empty or devoid of love, compassion or connection to the physical world I inhabit and the emotional bonds I form.

But you experience an emotion, love that you have no explanation for. For you it is all just biological, something that evolution gave us to help us survive. In my opinion, once again I shouldn't have to say that, evolution renders love impotent, if it's all just biological, it has no meaning, there is no real love, it's just biology, a figment of our imagination. Yes, you experience love, even the heathens do. Jesus said "you have done well to believe in God, even the devil and his demons do and tremble." That's paraphrased. I would extend that and say, "You experience love, even the heathens do." The point is that you really have no explanation for it. Why do you love your children? Is it just biology? If so, I contend that it isn't really love. Even the animals have the instinct of preservation. It isn't truly love though.

Who claims that morals are not innate and only can be found if you go through the church?

Only the Catholic church historically said this and it was actually one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants don't believe you have to go through the church to do anything, but they do believe that morals come from God, not the Church, from God.

If you knew how to read scripture, and understood the idioms and lexical of the day, you would see that Jesus says this himself.

Many Godly men have done just that, Augustine is one, read his Confessions, many Atheists have done just that, and come away as believers. You can't say that if I read the scriptures, which I have, then I would understand Jesus to be just a man. Many more people HAVE read the Scriptures and have come away understanding him to be "Nothing less than the Son of the living God." Want some references to this?

The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)

Those are just a few to show that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

To answer your questions of me wasting my life if I choose to be a Christian, Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly." I really believe that all of your assertions to the contrary are nothing more than a gross misunderstanding of Jesus true message. If I am wrong, then I have still lived a more abundant life.

I do appreciate that you have remained civil in these discussions though. I am trying to do the same. As you know, it hasn't always been easy for me.

As I said though, I was raised Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist to be exact, then lost my religion years ago, as a young man, called myself an Atheist, then for the last few years identified as an Agnostic, but recently I feel like I'm in the process, not there yet, of coming full circle back to the religion of my youth. I've read numerous books on both sides of the great debate. I know all the arguments for and against belief. In the end it all comes down to what a person's heart tells them is true. For many years, I have been in a personal "crisis" whereby my intellectual side has been at war with my heart. When I left Christianity years ago, it wasn't because I wanted to, it wasn't because I wanted to live a sinful life, although I was, it was because my analytical brain just would no longer allow me to believe. So please understand that I fully comprehend what it is like not to be able to believe. My article, "What you don't know won't kill you" is testament to that. But the whole time, my heart keeps telling me that it really is true, that Jesus really is the "Son of the living God." The conflict has been overwhelming at times, it truly is a "crisis of faith", like no one who hasn't gone through can understand. I cant fully explain to you why my heart tells me it's true, but it does. I'm not here telling you what you should believe. I can't do that. I wouldn't know how to do that, even if I wanted to. I would be a hypocrite if I tried to tell you what to believe. Most of the time I'm not sure what I believe, that's why I sometimes seem to say different things on the very same day. I'm only here arguing my own experience and nothing anyone ever tells me can invalidate my experience, just as I can't invalidate yours. That's why the Bible even says that no one can come to God until he is ready. I personally feel drawn to Christianity, for some reason that that my logic can't explain. It transcends reason. I can't explain it, I just know what I feel in my heart.

I hope that we can continue to discuss this in an ecumenical spirit of civility.

Messed up the quotations again, sorry, didn't notice till the time allowed for editing had expired.

Here is how the second half of my comment should read:

If you knew how to read scripture, and understood the idioms and lexical of the day, you would see that Jesus says this himself.

Many Godly men have done just that, Augustine is one, read his Confessions, many Atheists have done just that, and come away as believers. You can't say that if I read the scriptures, which I have, then I would understand Jesus to be just a man. Many more people HAVE read the Scriptures and have come away understanding him to be "Nothing less than the Son of the living God." Want some references to this?

The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)

Those are just a few to show that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

To answer your questions of me wasting my life if I choose to be a Christian, Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly." I really believe that all of your assertions to the contrary are nothing more than a gross misunderstanding of Jesus true message. If I am wrong, then I have still lived a more abundant life.

I do appreciate that you have remained civil in these discussions though. I am trying to do the same. As you know, it hasn't always been easy for me.

As I said though, I was raised Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist to be exact, then lost my religion years ago, as a young man, called myself an Atheist, then for the last few years identified as an Agnostic, but recently I feel like I'm in the process, not there yet, of coming full circle back to the religion of my youth. I've read numerous books on both sides of the great debate. I know all the arguments for and against belief. In the end it all comes down to what a person's heart tells them is true. For many years, I have been in a personal "crisis" whereby my intellectual side has been at war with my heart. When I left Christianity years ago, it wasn't because I wanted to, it wasn't because I wanted to live a sinful life, although I was, it was because my analytical brain just would no longer allow me to believe. So please understand that I fully comprehend what it is like not to be able to believe. My article, "What you don't know won't kill you" is testament to that. But the whole time, my heart keeps telling me that it really is true, that Jesus really is the "Son of the living God." The conflict has been overwhelming at times, it truly is a "crisis of faith", like no one who hasn't gone through can understand. I cant fully explain to you why my heart tells me it's true, but it does. I'm not here telling you what you should believe. I can't do that. I wouldn't know how to do that, even if I wanted to. I would be a hypocrite if I tried to tell you what to believe. Most of the time I'm not sure what I believe, that's why I sometimes seem to say different things on the very same day. I'm only here arguing my own experience and nothing anyone ever tells me can invalidate my experience, just as I can't invalidate yours. That's why the Bible even says that no one can come to God until he is ready. I personally feel drawn to Christianity, for some reason that that my logic can't explain. It transcends reason. I can't explain it, I just know what I feel in my heart.

I hope that we can continue to discuss this in an ecumenical spirit of civility.

It's called Pascal's wager, which you just tried your own hand at by asking me what if I'm wrong.

*facepalm*

As a "logical" excuse to be religious, the idiocy of Pascal's Wager is matched only by its popularity.

What if a non-Christian religion was true, instead of the Christian one? You're royally f---ed, even more so than atheists, as worship of false gods/idols is a popular element in the world's religious Shortlist of No-Nos.

It is the only religion that recognizes that human beings can NEVER be good enough, that we are all sinful by nature. If it was up to us, there would be no one ever going to heaven.

You have a curious definition of "beauty" and "love." If someone said "listen, you're royally f---ed without my charity, that's how it is," I wouldn't consider that a message of love.

But you experience an emotion, love that you have no explanation for. For you it is all just biological, something that evolution gave us to help us survive.

You just said "no explanation," then mentioned the "biological" explanation. Riiiight.

When you said "no explanation," you must've meant "no abstract, intangible, and superficlaly happy-sounding explanation."

Those are just a few to show that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

I can claim to be God, as well. That doesn't change the fact that I am a man.

And you're entitled to those beliefs, just as I'm entitled to mine. I'll be just as respectful to you as you are to me.

Atheism is just an idea. As an idea, it can be attacked with impunity.

Bull@!$%#! It's not an idea you have, and then think you will try it for awhile and see if it works or not! it's a realization you come to! Did I wake up one day and have this wonderful idea, that something does not exists? If I said this about Christianity "Just being an idea, it can be attacked with impunity." that would be more accurate then your statement there. Do you know how utterly and absolutely absurd you sound? it is not something you choose to try on for a day and see how it feels.

♬♬ ♬ Of course, you know, ♬ ♬ ♬ there is no relapse ♬ ♬ once you finally get that nasty god monkey♬ ♬ off of your back ♬ ♬ ♬

Well I had thought you were arguing civilly. It would be nice if you got back to that.

Obviously, you misunderstand what I mean by the term idea. I don't mean it as in "Eureka, I've had an idea." If you look at Dictionary.com there are many uses of the word, the one I use is as follows:

A belief, option, or doctrine; a characteristic or
controlling principle; as, an essential idea; the idea of
development.

Atheism is a belief or a doctrine, it is the 'idea' that there is no God. So I will rephrase, beliefs are not sacrosanct, and therefore they can be attacked with impunity.

OK Phaedrus72 , let me restate it this way;

As an atheist, and someone who has no doubt the origin of man can only be attributed to evolution, and there is no other possible explanation within the confines of reason for the origin of man. The first man had no knowledge of any gods. He had no culture or history to look back on for reference to suggest anything to him otherwise. And therefor had never even heard of the concept of a god, so had no need to Not believe in one, or believe in one, not having ever had the concept presented to him for evaluation to begin with. So haveing said that, I am convinced that first there was man in the natural state of mankind, living life with no concept of god, and the Idea of a god came after the fact. So when the concept of god was first introduced, (probably by one of his friends who happen to eat a bad mushroom) and hearing it for the first time, then not believing that it is a valid one, ( and may have even seemed silly to him), can not be an called another idea per-se, but only the rejection of one. therefore in conclusion, Atheism is not an idea and never has been. So, when I say "Atheism is true", It mean that there are people who do not, and never will, accept the idea of a god or gods. Having never seen any proof of it. If you told me you believe in Unicorns, or a million people told me, and no one every saw one, or had any proof of it, just based on a feeling. it's the same to me. Delusional, and I accept it as such, an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.

Dan, there is truly nothing new under the sun, as such there is nothing you just said that I have not heard before. That's why these types of discussions can really go nowhere. I know what I feel in my heart, you know what you think you are confident is true. We will continue to talk past each other all day. I tend to think that the desire to seek God has been ingrained in us as humans since the first humans walked the earth. The concept of God wasn't invented, mankind inherently knew there was something or someone outside of ourselves that is much bigger. You don't believe in God, fine, I will not try to convince you, just know that you will not be able to convince me either.

The concept of God wasn't invented, mankind inherently knew there was something or someone outside of ourselves that is much bigger.

There is no god gene. So it is not innate. What you inherent is what your parents tell you is true, and then is supported by what is believed by society as a whole, cultural. If you had never been told of the existence of God when you were a child, When you grew into a man, you would not accept the concept as true if it were presented to you, given you have developed any capacity for reason. If you did, it would only show your credulousness.

There is no god gene

Well that's funny, because that is exactly what the Evolutionists are telling us, even in this very thread it has been posited.

It's a name, it would be better described as a morals gene.

I tend to think that the desire to seek God has been ingrained in us as humans since the first humans walked the earth. The concept of God wasn't invented, mankind inherently knew there was something or someone outside of ourselves that is much bigger.

I think that man has always tried to conceptualise life, death and nature. So yes we have always sought knowledge. Whether we resolve our understandings through spiritual or scientific beliefs is a personal and subjective choice.

The earth was once considered flat, Clearly the ways we have perceive our world must change when confronted with overwhelming evidence. Atheism is not a fixed place of being, it is not a new religion, it is simply a choice to search for more knowledge through scientific evidence.

The concept of God wasn't invented, mankind inherently knew there was something or someone outside of ourselves that is much bigger.

And "I think there's something outside of ourselves" is hardly "whoa, like, God."

At best, it is an abstract sense of spirituality, or awe at the beauty of the world around us. Explain the steps you take from "Whoa, the Universe is grand" to "Dang, big awesome creator man is totally there", of you can.

Religion was created as a means to justify thinking that we have more control over the world than we do (sun worship, rain dances, prayer), and as a system for psychologically enforcing social law (Ten Commandments, kosher rules). The concept of God was simply a way to prop up our own egos, to convince ourselves that the Universe operated, on a basic level, by our rules. Thus, we anthropomorphized "grandeur" into God, then warped it into a celestial emperor figure.

ow that's what I meant by falling back on science - for an answer - at every discrepancy atheists revert to science to answer the things they cannot, for they have no philosophical answers of their own - is this not a blind acceptance of something they don't fully understand but acts as a counterweight to religious assumptions...?

Do you understand what the purpose of humanity's scientific endeavours are? The entire point is to answer our questions. To shine a light into the darkness. Religion was our first and worst attempt at this, and science and moral philosophy has long since surpassed its feeble ravings.

Your comment doesn't even make sense. Are you implying that each person needs to rediscover everything themselves? Or that only a 'philosophy' can provide answers? What answers do you actually think religion provides to anything? Do you view atheism and theism as competing philosophies? Atheism isn't a philosophy at all. There is no unified set of atheistic principles. It is simply a lack of any belief in the supernatural, particular gods. The word shouldn't even exist. It only exists because our world has been defined in terms of religious affiliation for most of our intellectual history.

'Faith' in science is not the same as 'faith' in a god. There is a stark and very important difference. Science is based on evidence and reason, and it is thoroughly testable and verifiable. You can in fact consult the raw data, go back to the source with respect to any science you have 'faith' in. On the other hand religion has none of this support or verifiability. Faith in any particular religious doctrine is simply a blind acceptance of dogmatic assertions.

When someone says they have Faith in God their usage of the word faith does NOT have the same meaning as when someone says I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that this rock will hit the ground when I drop it, or that man and tree share common ancestry.

it still relies on science - it must do, for in every discussion on the subject science is used as a response...because atheism has no answers of its own

Yes, I don't consider idle musing, flowery words, and feel-good folk legends as sufficient justification for a belief. I apologize for that -- I'll work on lowering my standards.

what people do need to do, as they grow up, honestly, is to evaluate the knowledge passed to them to see how it fits in with their understanding so far, and they can make up their minds about what is real for them...

Curiously, that's how many current atheists lost their faith.

The only problem is sorting the lies from the crap, and the spin from the genuine - there are too many vested interests that will lead people astray - smooth talkers with an axe to grind...political puppeteers

Ah yes, because religious rhetoric is totally without spin or snake oil.

As for axes to grind, considering what are you doing with science here, it's curious you accuse others of this. What's that word? Starts with an h...

I have a suggestion, and it starts with the letter h. Horse. Take a horse, kill it, cut it in half, cut in into a bunch of individual pieces and then stamp each individual piece with the words, "DEAD HORSE". Because that's what this thread has become. An Atheist is NEVER going to convince a believer who trusts what he feels in his heart is true and a believer is never going to convince an Atheist unless and until the Atheist has a personal experience of his own to show him that God is real. All the rest of this is just talking around each other, each side thinking they are smarter than the other. What we need is mutual respect, everyone needs to respect the beliefs of others no matter how illogical those beliefs may seem to be. I see a lot of disrespect on both sides. I personally, am trying my best to be more respectful, while at the same time expounding on my reasons for believing the way that I do. I hope that most people find me successful in that endeavor.

What we need is mutual respect, everyone needs to respect the beliefs of others no matter how illogical those beliefs may seem to be.

I agree, Morality begins with respect for others. But if you treat others disrespectfully, it is foolish to expect it from them. You can not accuse atheist here of disrespect for defending their right to think as any freeman, and call it disrespectful, You can not call intolerance to lies and defamation of someone's character, with false assumptions based on those lies as being disrespectful. You cannot call someone disrespectful, for having self-respect and being true to himself. I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.

Self-respect is the cornerstone of all virtue.
John Herschel

I have no respect zealots. The reward to the atheist for doing right is self-respect, dignity, integrity, and self- esteem, what do you get out of it, points?

I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.

I like that.

It didn't come from me, I just don't know who said it first.

Totally agree ... but it still relies on science - it must do, for in every discussion on the subject science is used as a response...because atheism has no answers of its own

Atheism doesn't rely on anything. It is simply a non belief in the supernatural. It makes no claims other than that there are no god(s) or other supernatural entities or occurrences, and seeks to provide no 'answers' in the fuzzy wuzzy sense that you want. It is simply a designation for someone that doesn't seek answers in myth and superstition.

However, if you think a broad understand of science can lead to atheism, you are right. The majesty of the universe and life clearly show up the parochial iron age superstitions for what they are.

That would be something of an impossibility - we rely on what went before to form the basis of our understanding - but what people do need to do, as they grow up, honestly, is to evaluate the knowledge passed to them to see how it fits in with their understanding so far, and they can make up their minds about what is real for them...

Sorry but you have this completely backward. It is understandings that change when ideas and evidence require it. You can't reject evidence and reason in favour of maintaining you beliefs. This is simply dishonest and delusional. The notion 'what is real for them' is tripe. When the evidence disagrees with your understanding of the world or life etc, it is your understanding that is wrong. That is a very important issue that you need to come to terms with.

The only problem is sorting the lies from the crap, and the spin from the genuine - there are too many vested interests that will lead people astray - smooth talkers with an axe to grind...political puppeteers

This is just the usual nonsensical rubbish spouted by people who fear the erosion of the lies they have lived with their whole lives.

Yes - as I said before... it relies on religion being there, otherwise it wouldn't be - couldn't be - it is a response to religion, and has no substance of its own

Yes - as pointed out before... you're still dead wrong.

Isn't the purpose of these comment boxes to engage and find out more, perhaps even, at times to modify ones viewpoint, as in growing up and finding out what the world is about, you initially take the views of those around you..only gradually changing that as you meet new people

Again, we need that < irony > tag.

But this gives us no philosophy of life.

Ha, like bare spirituality gives you a philosophy of life. After all, that's your excuse for being religious, isn't it? "It totally thinks we're like, spiritual, dude." Atheism's philosophy simply disagrees with yours. It disagrees with your empty speculation that there's, like, so totally something intangibly spiritual and impossible to see through this science thing, man.

I would support it for the simple reason that it acknowledges tht man is a spiritual being ............. and not a descendant of mud

So essentially, you like it because it agrees with your "vibes" and your ignorance of science. Noted.

At least talking to people like Paddy was interesting. /ignore

That's what makes you and I different people. That's all. You said that all religions think they are right but they can't all be right. Well, Atheists think they are right as well, does that mean they are included as well in all those people that are therefore probably wrong? I'm just saying that you are accusing people of religion of thinking they are right, when in fact, EVERYONE thinks they are right, including Atheists.

Seems a shame to me though, the destination is not all important.

If Christianity is true then the destination is ALL important. Whether we go to heaven or hell is of the utmost importance, if it is true. I surely don't want to burn in the everlasting fires of hell. Dont construe this to mean that I believe in it, I'm just saying that if it IS true then it is important.

If christianity is true, and god is upset with me for using the brain I was given to think critically about life and coming to the conclusion that he doesn't exist, and condemns me to hell for that reason, then god is an @!$%#, no better than a tin pot dictator and I'll take Hell with a smile on my face.

I believe I read somewhere that the ability to have faith is looking more and more like an intrinsic factor of neurological or genetic makeup: that there is, in fact, a "faith gene." If that's the case, and god demands belief in life, then he is an INCREDIBLE @!$%# for making it IMPOSSIBLE for some people to believe in him, and once again, I'll take Hell gladly.

If, on the other hand, there is a god that is just and benevolent, then when my soul is up for judgement and he sees how (I hope) I have lived my life, then he'll say "Wow, this is a lot better than those southern baptist @!$%#s that beat gay kids to death with sticks. Come on in."

And, in defiance of Pascal's wager, I will still have my integrity, and a lot of free time on Sudnays.

You should read my article, What you don't know, won't kill you! I have said everything in the past that you just said. As I said there is nothing new under the sun. And from my readings I have come to find out that these same questions, the same answers that I came up with over the years, thinking it was fresh and new, wasn't new at all. Augustine wrestled with these types of questions 1700 years ago.

In the end though, in the quiet spaces of my heart and soul, of my mind, I keep getting drawn back to Christ. It's like a little, still, small voice deep down inside that keeps telling me, despite my intellectual complaints to the contrary, that Jesus is Lord.

"Wow, this is a lot better than those southern baptist @!$%#s that beat gay kids to death with sticks. Come on in."

That's more than just a little rude isn't it?! I was raised Southern Baptists, I have never heard of any of them beating gay kids to death with a stick, and if they did they were not true Christians at all. "Not all who cry Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of heaven." "And on that day they will say Lord, Lord, and I will say depart from me, for I know you not."

I skimmed your article, and I found it a pretty standard retread of Socrates' "He is wisest who knows he knows nothing." As you did indeed say: nothing new under the sun.

Perhaps it is rude, but it's exactly what the god I'd most like to meet would say, as he pointed you to one of the more famous cases in the last ten years. I may, however, be mistaking the particular sect of christianity that his assailants adhered to. If so, I will apologize for that. They all tend to blend together.

Two things, though:
a) Enough of the No True Scotsman, please. Everyone thinks their sect has a monopoly on the truth. A maximum of one entity knows who, if anyone, is right, and I don't think that guy exists.
b) Quoting scripture at me is not the most effective way to make a point.

God bless!!

No thanks. If you think the belssings are valuable, I wouldn't dream of taking them from you.

Is there a specific word for someone who does not believe in Satan, but believes that man is the only one responsible for the evil in this world?

Yep. Realist.

LOL. I didn't expect a response, I thought I was asking a rhetorical question. But it is the appropriate answer, none the less, isn't it.

Twice now you have taken this out of context that I wrote it in, to misrepresent me. I would ask that you stop, as it is tantamount to lying. I am given you the benefit of the doubt that you don't have a reading comprehension problem and are just a liar. This is what i said Atheism is true. It is the theory or belief that God does not exist. Nothing more!

Do you comprehension the difference of what I say here and what you would make it sound like I said. I hope so. sorry I used a period instead of the comma I meant to use, but it is not hard to see, what I actually meant. You must have just skimmed over it and focused on that one statement, this is not reading. As for Jefferson I never said he was an Atheist! again you did not read what I wrote or you are stupid, please admit to the first. I have more respect for you then that. Nowit is only bolstering your arguments against religion but it does nothing for your arguments for Atheism. I am not arguing AGAIST RELIGION! I am Arguing for the Atheists right to be atheists! I have no idea how you bent this, the way you have?

Sorry you just pissed me off I apologize for my anger. And it screws up my typing too.

Dan, if all you are arguing for is an Atheists right to be an Atheists, then we really have no argument here. I have no quarrel with you on that. I don't think this article even intended to say that Atheists should not be allowed to be Atheists. You're making an argument that doesn't even exist, in the context of this article and thread. If you think this article or anything that I personally have ever said here implies that you should not be allowed to be an Atheist then please show me. I am arguing about the veracity or truth of Atheism vs Theism, nothing more. It has nothing to do with your right to believe what you want to believe. You seem really sensitive about your right to believe what you want and therefore I think you are finding offense where none is present.

I am arguing about the veracity or truth of Atheism vs Theism, nothing more.

That also has nothing to do with the article.

The article is making a political and value-based judgment of atheism, based on erroneous politics, unsupportable personal "values," a (probably willful) mischaracterization of atheism, and revisionist history.

why do I need to believe in God to have morals?

You don't.

My morality is based on some pretty strongly held beliefs that are not predicated on the idea that if I'm good I'm going to heaven

And that's perfectly fine.

Oh and that whole division of church and state thing, well its not really a socialist idea now is it?

Oh, we all know that the Founders were really closet socialists. :-p

Oh, we all know that the Founders were really closet socialists.

And that's why the founding fathers were unpatritic!

Okay folks I am confused again. Jack has assured me that I don't need to believe in God to have morals... quite a relief I might add.

But now, a new source of terror.

If I don't believe in God I can't believe in ANYTHING?

Goodness what will that mean for all the stuff I believe in? What's more I had no idea my life was so miserable and now I discover it is all atheism's fault.

That's IT!

Somebody get me a God, or a religion, I guess either would be fine to solve my apparent life crisis.

Somebody get me a God, or a religion, I guess either would be fine to solve my apparent life crisis.

May you be touched by the noodly appendages of the flying spaghetti monster in all his saucitude.....RAmen.

Somebody get me a God, or a religion, I guess either would be fine to solve my apparent life crisis.

I'll be your God.

I'll tell you what to do to make yourself look better in my eyes. It really just involves making offerings of money to your God.

Somebody get me a God, or a religion, I guess either would be fine to solve my apparent life crisis.

Have you considered letting Discordia into your life?