|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 12, 2009 19:04:35 GMT -5
I find it more amusing, actually. Strong atheism is bad, but strong theism is not. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "I know there is a God, & this is what it is like," but if you're going to be skeptical, you'd better be indecisive, or you're just arrogant! We are kind of the same. As a group we don't have a problem with moderate theists, just the fundies. The difference is we don't like fundies because they are a legitimate threat that would actually destroy us if given the opportunity. The fundies don't like us because... well... uh... I guess because they are fundies.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 13, 2009 2:20:24 GMT -5
I say, "Shit or get off the pot." If you don't know, do some research. Shop around. Compare this god to other gods. Is there ANYTHING that you see that puts a particular god on a "Maybe it's true..." list above the rest? Can you really say that this religion is MORE believable than the Mayan religion? Is there one, single, solitary reason to give any god the benefit of the doubt while considering the others completely unnecessary to look into? If so, what is it? If not, why think about it any more than the gods of Finland or the birdgod, Tangatamanu? Or are you a weak atheist when it comes to Tangatumanu? You leaving the possibility that he MIGHT be your lord and saviour? Think that Babalu-Aye has enough credence to his story to justify leaving that door open? You agnostic towards Yara-Ma-Yha-Who or Aditinggi? People have been convinced without proof that they were real too. So, are you talking about weak atheists in the sense that they're open to the idea of a particular religion's god being real, then? I consider myself a weak atheist, but not about any religion's god. There's no way Yahweh is real (and if I were ever to discover that I was wrong, I still wouldn't worship that fucking asshole), or Allah or Vishnu or Zeus for that matter. The only kind of god that I can't completely rule out is a non-interventionist god who doesn't give a shit if we know it's there or not. But I'm not looking for it, nor do I hold onto the notion that I might discover it someday, and I'm as close to sure as I can be that it's not there. After all, such a god would be nearly impossible to discover anyway, and the hypothesis that there is a god who doesn't do anything isn't a useful one. But hey, I usually just tell people I'm an atheist and leave it at that unless they want me to talk more about it. I think I get what you are asking.
I'm saying that agnostic or weak Atheist is mostly applied to christianity. That same person typically will laugh off all other religions, but hold to the chance that christianity is maybe real. The bottom line is that they are giving it the benefit of the doubt with the same lack of evidence that they used to dismiss a billion other religions. That means there is something in the christian one that keeps people wondering, "Well, maybe it's true..."
But there isn't anything. Nothing more concrete than the next or the previous. I "don't know" if molemen live at the center of the earth, nobody does. But hey, someone came up with the idea a long time ago. And someone wrote about it. So I guess I should leave myself open to that idea. ;D
See how silly that is? It's giving credence to something because one DOESN'T know! I don't know if the colour of my liver is orange or blue, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt to it being striped with both colours! There is absolutely no reason for me to think that way. IDK is not enough to lend something credibility to me.
The concept of god is this; he's everywhere, does everything, makes everything we can't understand, causes all natural disasters as well as builds rainbows in his garage, he knows all and sees all, but he can never be seen or heard or proven. That's mighty convenient but nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 13, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5
I've never given much thought about the issue, partially because it never came up in conversation. Maybe the more paranoid of Christians hear the idea of "strong" Atheism and think of an overarching plot to exterminate people of religion by virtue of them having a religion or something. I don't claim to know what goes on inside the heads of Christians in general and Fundies in particular, I can just make an honest guess based on my experiences being on the inside of such a belief system since the age of four. But, I digress. Even if people did think something like that, it's a tad bit...crazy. There is no way that being certain that there isn't any higher power means that you want to utterly destroy anyone who does believe in one. So I say that people will believe or won't believe in whatever they want, it doesn't matter as long as they don't act like assholes toward me if I disagree with them. But that's my opinion. I could be wrong. I think that is exactly why "strong" and "militant" are used as prefixes to the word atheism. "Fanatic" is what they want us to be so they have a legitimate reason to complain. But we're not burning down this, or shooting that person or blowing up that thing or going door to door, or condemning ones life as "sick" or "dirty" or "sinful" or "shameful". Typically we like to be left alone, but as soon as we dare to bring up the subject and/or challenge someones faith, we are "aggressive" and "fundies" because we have a stronger case and a more thought out response on why we do not believe than most christians/religionists do for why they DO. That's scary to them so they feel they must vilify us and call us "unworthy"... a tactic used by dictators and conquerors since man first figured out how to lie for personal gain. They see dissent or mockery of their religion as the ultimate sin. ALL atheists are then considered to be "enemies" of their religion so then the inflammatory labels begin to fly. And I've been on the christian side of this, I've heard how atheists are spoken of when they aren't around. Talk about self-righteous pomposity.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 13, 2009 2:35:02 GMT -5
I find it more amusing, actually. Strong atheism is bad, but strong theism is not. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "I know there is a God, & this is what it is like," but if you're going to be skeptical, you'd better be indecisive, or you're just arrogant! Then you must admit that you are agnostic about Tinkerbell, swamp hags and Babe the Giant Blue Ox. Unless you're arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 13, 2009 11:12:58 GMT -5
Hold on there, Redhunter! Babe the Blue Ox is retired and living in Minnesota.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Mar 13, 2009 11:36:57 GMT -5
Have I mentioned lately that I hate the word "militant?" There are more militant xians than militant atheists (or GLBT for that matter). Why? Compare abortion clinic bombings to church bombings. One happens and the other doesn't. And yet, it's us who get called militant. Much like it was when the Pharisees and Saducees were grumbling about upstart religions, they're now the old establishment who are upset that their prestige and influence is now being challenged. They only remember Christianity's humble beginnings whenever it's convenient, not necessarily when it's relevant. If they did, I don't think there would be thousands of churches, nor would there have been a "war on secularism."
|
|
|
Post by johntheatheist on Mar 13, 2009 12:36:27 GMT -5
I am totally a strong atheist. I understand that one can't prove a negative yada yada yada but the shades of probability get pretty balck when considering the possibility that there is an invisible man that lives in the sky. The notion is preposterous in and of itself, but then again so is Quantum Physics...however, we have this thing called evidence, of which the god theory presents none.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on Mar 13, 2009 12:42:59 GMT -5
I'm saying that agnostic or weak Atheist is mostly applied to christianity. That same person typically will laugh off all other religions, but hold to the chance that christianity is maybe real. The bottom line is that they are giving it the benefit of the doubt with the same lack of evidence that they used to dismiss a billion other religions. That means there is something in the christian one that keeps people wondering, "Well, maybe it's true..." But there isn't anything. Nothing more concrete than the next or the previous. I "don't know" if molemen live at the center of the earth, nobody does. But hey, someone came up with the idea a long time ago. And someone wrote about it. So I guess I should leave myself open to that idea. I see. Yeah, I'll agree with you there. The only reason to think that Christianity is more likely to be right than all the others is if you were raised in a Christian society. The concept of god is this; he's everywhere, does everything, makes everything we can't understand, causes all natural disasters as well as builds rainbows in his garage, he knows all and sees all, but he can never be seen or heard or proven. That's mighty convenient but nothing else. I feel pretty comfortable saying such a god doesn't exist at all. It doesn't even sound plausible to me, with what I know about the world.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 13, 2009 12:50:54 GMT -5
I certainly don't mind people with religious convictions but once it moves out of their lives and starts to negatively affect others around them, that's where I think it goes overboard. And the same holds true for atheism. I think the internet only amplifies the issue since everyone can spout off at the mouth without fear of retaliation but that doesn't make it right.
Truth be told, there are a number of great virtues that are called out in the New Testament. Granted, a lot of them are common sense. There's also some not so great parts in the New Testament (role of women, acceptance of slavery, disassociation from rival groups, etc). And I've seen people change for the better once they embrace religion but we all have seen the case where people go, in our minds, ape shit once they embrace religion as well. So it's about the balance.
Myself, I don't reject the idea of a god. It's not a prove/disprove thing. I would be called a "strong atheist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of the Abrahamic god. But do I reject some higher power that kicked things off, possibly from another dimension or from some aspect of the universe we don't understand yet? Nope, I think it's certainly plausable and the Abrahamic trio are just attempts to explain it and set the groundrules so that if they're right, they'll somehow gain favor.
I think atheism, once it becomes an aggressive stance, is equally as dangerous. I'm not keen on group a tearing apart group b, be it verbally or physically, because they disagree. And two wrongs have never made a right. So if a hardcore fundie were to engage me in a conversation/debate, I'd kindly tell them why I don't believe, share my experience and when they condemn me to hell and get all bat shit crazy, I'll just end the conversation.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 13, 2009 18:03:06 GMT -5
I certainly don't mind people with religious convictions but once it moves out of their lives and starts to negatively affect others around them, that's where I think it goes overboard. And the same holds true for atheism. I think the internet only amplifies the issue since everyone can spout off at the mouth without fear of retaliation but that doesn't make it right. Truth be told, there are a number of great virtues that are called out in the New Testament. Granted, a lot of them are common sense. There's also some not so great parts in the New Testament (role of women, acceptance of slavery, disassociation from rival groups, etc). And I've seen people change for the better once they embrace religion but we all have seen the case where people go, in our minds, ape shit once they embrace religion as well. So it's about the balance. Myself, I don't reject the idea of a god. It's not a prove/disprove thing. I would be called a "strong atheist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of the Abrahamic god. But do I reject some higher power that kicked things off, possibly from another dimension or from some aspect of the universe we don't understand yet? Nope, I think it's certainly plausable and the Abrahamic trio are just attempts to explain it and set the groundrules so that if they're right, they'll somehow gain favor. I think atheism, once it becomes an aggressive stance, is equally as dangerous. I'm not keen on group a tearing apart group b, be it verbally or physically, because they disagree. And two wrongs have never made a right. So if a hardcore fundie were to engage me in a conversation/debate, I'd kindly tell them why I don't believe, share my experience and when they condemn me to hell and get all bat shit crazy, I'll just end the conversation. This pretty much sums up my views well. I am agnostic as to whether there is some sort of god, with the term god being a pretty undefined and blurry idea, but when it comes to specific gods and religions I'm a strong atheist. I dislike all organized religion because it clouds people reasoning and questioning abilities. A person should take observations and experiences, use there ability to reason and question, and come to a conclusion on there own, and accept that others might not believe what they do, or draw the same conclusions. Organized religion does not allow for this, it's a blind acceptance of faith from someone else, often when you're too young to resist it.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 13, 2009 19:04:35 GMT -5
I personally don't give a hairy rat's ass what people chose to believe or not to believe. However, the instant that someone's belief system interferes with my personal freedoms, I have a HUGE problem with faith. This includes paying nickel one to support it, which my tax dollars certainly do. By not taxing the businesses that religions are, they ARE infringing on my personal freedom, by forcing me to pay more taxes than I should, with no return for it.
Call me militant, radical, whatever, but fair is fair. My money subsidizing something that contributes nothing to society, and, in fact, is generally a detriment to society is patently unfair. Yes, I know all the arguments about the charitable work that churches do, but those "good works" are subsidized by ME, with religious strings attached. We're talking, to misquote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, sucked into the con-job that religion is.
sorry, rant over...
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 13, 2009 19:44:55 GMT -5
I personally don't give a hairy rat's ass what people chose to believe or not to believe. However, the instant that someone's belief system interferes with my personal freedoms, I have a HUGE problem with faith. This includes paying nickel one to support it, which my tax dollars certainly do. By not taxing the businesses that religions are, they ARE infringing on my personal freedom, by forcing me to pay more taxes than I should, with no return for it. Call me militant, radical, whatever, but fair is fair. My money subsidizing something that contributes nothing to society, and, in fact, is generally a detriment to society is patently unfair. Yes, I know all the arguments about the charitable work that churches do, but those "good works" are subsidized by ME, with religious strings attached. We're talking, to misquote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, sucked into the con-job that religion is. sorry, rant over... I don't think that's militant OR radical, but then I agree, so maybe I'm militant and radical too. Why the Hell should we be paying for religious organisations? Why should Churches be tax exempt? For that matter, why should they have their cake and eat it too?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 13, 2009 20:53:59 GMT -5
I always thought it was just me that looked at religion that way. (jk)
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 13, 2009 22:16:55 GMT -5
It is. I'm actually a figment of your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by amindfarfaraway on Mar 13, 2009 22:41:51 GMT -5
As an agnostic, I feel that I'm on the same quest for truth that both atheists and theists are. However, when it comes to the real world, and what we know, I think that, if I had to choose between atheism and theism, I would have to go toward atheism. Theirs is just the more logical point of view between the two. With that being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with strong atheism, and no, I don't think it's an arrogant position to take. I know that agnostics get the brunt end of the stick from both ends, but I see no reason to condemn a point of view (atheism, particularly strong atheism), that's based in real world knowledge and experience. And yes, for those who wonder, I am also "agnostic" about other things as well, such as fairies, leprechauns, UFO's, ghosts, and Bigfoot (I must add here, that I don't actually believe any of these things exist, apart from the human mind and legend and folklore, but some of the stories seem to have a tinge of credibility to them, and, while I don't agree with the common definitions of such things, I do admit that I think there's a possibility that there is a world out there that we cannot see, however, I don't think that this world has anything to do with a divine entity, or even spirits and magick and such, just that there might be something else there that we, as of yet, don't understand).
|
|