Atheism in Christian societies - DPChallenge Forums

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

01/07/2008 08:55:35 AM · #1052

Originally posted by Louis:

Insulted? Me too, when, here in a thread intended for atheists to discuss how to live in a Christian society, they started with the proselytizing, the affirmations about how christian god-belief is absolute, how the rest are damned to eternal suffering by their eternally loving deity. Welcome to my world.

Louis, I enjoy the benefits of debate, even though it is a very hard discipline. Good debaters must have the ability to step outside their own belief system long enough to debate the positive elements of another view-point. This aspect of debate "stretches" one's ability to think intelligently, and I do wish to be considered intelligent. (That said...Here goes!)

1. Atheism is a belief/non-belief that one (or many) gods/super-humans do not exist.
2. Atheism as a belief/non-belief is not the result of the same life environment/circumstances for everyone who is an atheist.
3. Atheism is a belief/non-belief that all humans are basically good and deserve good treatment/equal compassion by all compassionate individuals. (This includes the prosecuting of violators that the whole of Society may be treated with compassion. Violators,...in this case, may include religious "trouble-makers" who cause disquiet,...even to the point of causing & engaging in wars.)
4. Atheism is the belief/non-belief that since most wars are caused by religious people advancing a system of belief for the glory of their "god," then one true & loving god cannot possibly exist because a true & loving god would be compassionate to all humans who are basically good.
5. Atheism is the belief/non-belief that since one supernatural god, either can't or won't stop wars and return peace to the world, this this god does not exist, or is at least not worthy of belief.
6. Atheism is the belief/non-belief that since no god exists that is worthy of belief, then humans alone are the masters of our fate. As such we must protect the planet on which we live, we must minimize and marginalize the deleterious effects of religious insanity that we may return a modicum of sanity & peace to the Globe, and we must teach future generations about the caustic effects of belief in god that they may no longer be harmed by such beliefs.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary,
"Main Entry: reÂ·liÂ·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back â�� more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
â�� reÂ·liÂ·gionÂ·less adjective"

Now, it is my hope that you will agree that even though atheism does not fit the dictionary definition of religion in the aforementioned numbers one & two, it does quite clearly fit into three & four. I willingly allow that Christianity fits this definition of "religion" and is therefore unable to prove the existence of the God worshipped by Christians. Yet, by the same token, an atheist must, also, allow that atheism is by this definition a religion and cannot, therefore, disprove the existence of God unequivocally...either.

In summation, This thread was started as a forum for helping atheists to know how to live in a Christian Society. Whereas, that is an admirable desire, the point may in fact already be moot since these United States have not been a Christian nation for most of my lifetime. Yet, as true as that is, I have still attempted to teach you how to live as an atheist in a "Christian" Society by being a Christian in an atheist Society (i.e. this thread.)

1. In an atheist society, the religion/set of beliefs that govern said society is the belief/non-belief in one or many god/super-humans that control/liberate the human to be more than he/she would be by himself/herself.
2. In an atheist society, all atheist are considered to be intelligent by virtue of the fact that they agree with the prevailing belief/non-belief in said religion/non-religion.
3. In an atheist society, Christians and other religious people are the non-believers in the prevailing belief of society.
4. In an atheist society, Christians and other religious people live presently in the only "hell" that will ever exist, since nothing exists beyond this life.
5. In an atheist society, Christians and other religious people must present their ideas in logical, and well-defined formats/rationale in order to be even considered as slightly intelligent, yet we live with a prevailing dissonance in this life that no matter how intelligently we present evidence for God, we will still in most cases be dismissed as irrelevant.
6. In an atheist society, Christians and other religious people talk to atheists every day and "clock-out" of almost every discussion "back-at-square-one." (A. No atheists have been convinced; B. We walk by "faith, not sight!"; C. We believe (but cannot prove...which is the definition of "faith") that one day we shall be rewarded, but not for our faithfulness, for the covenant commitment & moral intent of the One Who in initiated the liaison between God & Man in the first place.)

Finally, Louis, I will not insult your intelligence by taking the time to write-out the "flip-side" of this list of six "how-to"s. I consider you to be highly intelligent, and a formidable force intellectually. I leave you with a request...for your mental "simmering pot." Since it is rare for an atheist to come to any kind of faith through the use of intelligent means, would you consider giving time to the definitive works of Lee Stroebel, one atheist who has written about his valiant efforts at discrediting Christianity. Thanks for your time.

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 10:58:41.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

01/07/2008 11:45:42 AM · #1053

Stan:

First, let's set aside how you could possibly see the U.S./western developed world as atheist. (That's just nutty and can only rely on the most narrow and pendantic definition of Christian to exclude the vast majority of the population who believes themselves to be Christian as well as ignoring the Christian/religious rhetoric that pervades the culture.) Even if you aren't willing to concede "Christian", then there still can be no argument that the prevailing culture is "religious."

But to my main point -

Your definitions/propositions regarding atheism are wrong. Without recreating all of the discussion that has gone before in this thread (including the several attempts on my own part to clarify this point in regard to the use of the term "belief"), the attempt to define atheism as a "belief system" is incorrect. I understand why you and other believers would like to define atheism as a "religion" - it would make it easier for you to dismiss atheist arguments. However, atheism does not fit the definition of religion because it does NOT rely on faith.

- Christians/religious adherents believe - they have faith (belief without, or in the absence of evidence).
- Atheists don't believe - they don't have faith (they are unwilling to believe in the absence of evidence).

Further, while this lack of faith is a defining commonality among individual atheists, it is pretty much the only thing you can say about them as a group. I have met and known atheists from just about every type of background, every political stripe, every ethnic group, every socio-economic rank, every education level, etc. We're about as diverse a group as you could come up with. This shouldn't be surprising, either, since a lack of faith IS NOT a defining ideology.

If you can't wrap your head around this distinction, I don't see the point of further exchange with you on this issue. To insist upon characterizing atheism as a "religion" is to operate from a starting point of bad faith (no pun or commentary intended) on your part as it deliberately mischaraterizes the term and is a blatant attempt to slant the argument in your favor before debate even begins.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 12:58:09.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/07/2008 12:08:18 PM · #1054

Earlier today, I had begun crafting a reply to 777STAN's post, but decided it would have been a time consuming exercise in futility. Letâ��s just say that I agree in essence with shutterpuppyâ��s post.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

01/07/2008 12:10:52 PM · #1055

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If you can't wrap your head around this ________________, I don't see the point of further exchange with you on this issue.

This should be the first reply in all religious/anti-religious threads. Sure would save a lot of time and server space! :D

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/07/2008 12:16:21 PM · #1056

Originally posted by milo655321:

Too exhausted to begin crafting a reply to 777STAN after reading his post, I was also happy to read shutterpuppy's in-a-nutshell response. I also agree in essence.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 12:16:37.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/07/2008 12:57:57 PM · #1057

Originally posted by 777STAN:

1. Atheism is a belief/non-belief that one (or many) gods/super-humans do not exist.

Hi Stan

I hope that you donâ��t mind me sticking my nose in to your discussion.

It is interesting to have some of your preconceptions around atheism expanded upon. However, I wonder if they are slightly misconstrued.

IMO, the fundamental element of atheism is to treat the probability of the existence of god realistically, based on what we can see and measure. A reasonably objective assessment would have to place the likelihood of there being any god-like being at almost infinitely unlikely, and the concept of a specific god as being as infinitely unlikely again.

So it is not a belief in the absence of god, nor a non-belief in god, but a realistic assessment of the odds (unblinded by historic conventions or pass-me-down tales).

Your further extrapolations are therefore somewhat nonsensical â�� â��goodâ�� does not exist except as a philosophical construct. There are human actions and consequences. The moral discrepancies that Christians must try to reconcile (disasters, wars) are not arguments â��forâ�� atheism, but â��againstâ�� there being a Christian god. In this they support one aspect of atheism (that a Christian god is less likely to exist than that of a more simple, amoral, god) â�� but in the context of an incredibly unlikely thing in the first place.

From an intellectual standpoint, the concept of god is a foolishness. That is the reason that I debate it so â�� but that is not to say that it should be rejected in all situations.

From a practical perspective there are reasons to support the concept of religion. For example, religion maintains order within the proletariat with its promise of subsequent life or lives â�� the misery or crushing mundanity of ordinary life can be made tolerable, justified, even made virtuous. The authority of those in power can be given a religious slant hard to challenge (eg most Egyptian Pharoahs, Roman Emperors, various Popes, British Kings and Queens).

However, religious insanity can be deleterious for the reasons you highlight and those are good reasons to constrain and ameliorate it.

To summarise â�� Intellectually, I think that the concept of god and religion is dishonest and objectionable. Practically, I think that religion is useful in some circumstances and I would not argue for its abolition â�� just its moderation. Importantly, presidents and prime ministers should wield the wand of religion, not be influenced by it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/07/2008 07:26:45 PM · #1058

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Stan:

First, let's set aside how you could possibly see the U.S./western developed world as atheist. (That's just nutty and can only rely on the most narrow and pedantic definition of Christian to exclude the vast majority of the population who believes themselves to be Christian as well as ignoring the Christian/religious rhetoric that pervades the culture.) Even if you aren't willing to concede "Christian", then there still can be no argument that the prevailing culture is "religious."

But to my main point -

Your definitions/propositions regarding atheism are wrong. Without recreating all of the discussion that has gone before in this thread (including the several attempts on my own part to clarify this point in regard to the use of the term "belief"), the attempt to define atheism as a "belief system" is incorrect. I understand why you and other believers would like to define atheism as a "religion" - it would make it easier for you to dismiss atheist arguments. However, atheism does not fit the definition of religion because it does NOT rely on faith.

- Christians/religious adherents believe - they have faith (belief without, or in the absence of evidence).
- Atheists don't believe - they don't have faith (they are unwilling to believe in the absence of evidence).

Gentlemen, first of all, Thank You for considering me worth the time for responding! I DO understand that talking to me can be a "complex experience" (ref. the first Mr. Bean Movie: BEAN!) I readily admit that I am Stubborn with a capital "S"! (I have often been called uncomplimentary names because of it!)

That, sirs, in itself is the crux of the problem! The definition of the word, FAITH! I have always and will always believe that atheism requires more FAITH than I have! To my best ability to express it "FAITH is the balance between proof and disproof that allows for the dissonance of doubt in which the scales are tipped to the side of proof or disproof based solely on the believe-ability/character of a person or construct that has a consistently secure track record of trustworthiness."

O, by the way, I never said that the US is an atheist nation! THAT would be foolish! My inference is totally to the fact that this nation has become so multi-cultural, it can no longer be considered a "Christian nation."

Finally, atheists appear to consider themselves purely logical & factual, but in truth the internalization of certain assumptions/constructs required before such a world view can be believable (and assumed provable.) To have faith in the religion of science & pure logic, one must have faith in the character/believability of the assumption that only what can be proven through the use of the five senses is true and therefore acceptable socially, intellectually, logically, legally, ad infinitum/ad nauseum.

Were this a legal case, Matthew could prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am a Christian, and as such I am guilty of the crime of believing/having faith in a set of dogma that cannot be scientifically proven, and am, also, guilty of believing/having faith in the character of Jesus, of Whom I have chosen to believe His claim to be both 100% God and 100% Man (which is unprovable and illogical using mere human logic.) I AM happily guilty of putting my faith in the trustworthiness of a Man who lived two millenia in the past,...because he has much higher character than men like yourselves who live today.

Besides, since I am the defendant in this case, then the claim that Jesus is God is, also, on trial...since that IS what I believe. According to this long dialogue, I am accused of believing something that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, according to jurisprudence, the fact that I am the accused (having been engaged as defendant,) the burden of proof is not mine. Your assertion that God does not exist is the point that must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt...in order for a conviction to be handed down.

The very fact that you yourselves believe that the bulk of Humanity believes in some kind of god appears to demonstrate your own belief that atheism can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I am, therefore, legally innocent of your assertion that there is no possible way God could exist.

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 11:01:31.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/07/2008 10:11:32 PM · #1059

Originally posted by 777STAN:

I have always and will always believe that atheism requires more FAITH than I have!

Well, then there's two things you believe simply because you choose to believe them.

Originally posted by 777STAN:

I AM happily guilty of putting my faith in the trustworthiness of a Man who lived two millenia in the past...

Actually you have put your faith in the written accounts of people who never actually met Jesus, and whose real names we don't even know. Jesus left no records of his own. No recordings, no eyewitnesses, nothing, and many of the key stories (virgin birth, resurrection, son of god, etc.) existed in cultures long before his time. At best, you are resting your beliefs on the word of the translator of the reporter of the messenger of the messenger of one god out of many. That's some faith indeed!

Originally posted by 777STAN:

The very fact that you yourselves believe that the bulk of Humanity believes in some kind of god appears to demonstrate your own belief that atheism can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt...

This makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe less. One has no bearing on the other, and if someone doesn't believe in a god, then they're an atheist. There's nothing to prove.

Incidentally, I love scientific hoaxes. Whether it's Piltdown Man, human cloning or cold fusion, unmasking such hoaxes demonstrates science at work... always trying to confirm or disprove any claim. If there is only one true god or gods (as each religion claims), then all the others HAD to be invented by people- drawn up by regular humans intent on getting others to follow their claims. Out of the thousands of religions, past and present, how many times has THAT form of hoax been revealed? :-/

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/07/2008 11:01:08 PM · #1060

Originally posted by 777STAN:

However, according to jurisprudence, the fact that I am the accused (having been engaged as defendant,) the burden of proof is not mine. Your assertion that God does not exist is the point that must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt...in order for a conviction to be handed down.

I had difficulty following your post, but I'll respond to this. Nobody cares. You can believe anything you like. For example, you can believe in the almighty power of Oxyclean, if that makes you happy. Unless you have an alarming and serious persecution disorder, your courtroom analogy is way over the top. Nobody has to "unprove" God's existence to you for any reason whatsoever.

You're a sweet guy. However, when you start prosyletizing, as you usually do, and making broad assertions about the de facto existence of god, the divinity of Jesus, all our wretched damnation, etc. etc., expect to be challenged in ways that include requiring you to offer proof of your outrageous claims. When you start frothing like that, and including everyone and his grandmother in your weltanschauung, it is, in fact, incumbent on you to offer compelling evidence of your claims that go beyond simply saying, "Because I say so," or, "Because such-and-such has said so in such-a-book."

Additionally and especially in a forum such as this, expect your beliefs to be treated as high-handedly as you treat others. Expect also to find yourself at the receiving end of Thomas Jefferson's exhortation to counter unintelligible propositions with ridicule.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/08/2008 02:42:32 AM · #1061

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by 777STAN:
However, according to jurisprudence, the fact that I am the accused (having been engaged as defendant,) the burden of proof is not mine. Your assertion that God does not exist is the point that must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt...in order for a conviction to be handed down.

I had difficulty following your post, but I'll respond to this. Nobody cares. You can believe anything you like. For example, you can believe in the almighty power of Oxyclean, if that makes you happy. Unless you have an alarming and serious persecution disorder, your courtroom analogy is way over the top. Nobody has to "unprove" God's existence to you for any reason whatsoever.

You're a sweet guy. However, when you start prosyletizing, as you usually do, and making broad assertions about the de facto existence of god, the divinity of Jesus, all our wretched damnation, etc. etc., expect to be challenged in ways that include requiring you to offer proof of your outrageous claims. When you start frothing like that, and including everyone and his grandmother in your weltanschauung, it is, in fact, incumbent on you to offer compelling evidence of your claims that go beyond simply saying, "Because I say so," or, "Because such-and-such has said so in such-a-book."

Additionally and especially in a forum such as this, expect your beliefs to be treated as high-handedly as you treat others. Expect also to find yourself at the receiving end of Thomas Jefferson's exhortation to counter unintelligible propositions with ridicule.

Thank You, Louis, for your honesty! You are a great sparring partner in this thread I like to call, "Bold's Gym!" (The place for indoor rock-climbing.) However, as any athlete knows there is a time to exercise, and there is a time to rest! It is now time for me to rest.

As I go I offer but a couple of parting thoughts.

First, I try, but I evidently can't see how I am coming across as "frothing" when I am trying to be purely intellectual. (Once again, I suspect that when people read words they mentally "hear" as it would sound if they spoke it, but once again I have no proof,...Just doing a little "out-loud processing!")

Secondly, in your last paragraph, you & I agree. If I did not expect to be ridiculed by atheists, I would not attempt to debate you. So, if in some way I have come across as simpering, then I beg your pardon!

Being one of the LORD's fools in this life is one of my job descriptions. Being a "simpering fool" isn't! (Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 53:1-3, KJV.)

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 11:04:01.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/08/2008 05:47:24 AM · #1062

Originally posted by 777STAN:

The very fact that you yourselves believe that the bulk of Humanity believes in some kind of god appears to demonstrate your own belief that atheism can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I am, therefore, legally innocent of your assertion that there is no possible way God could exist

You have reversed the burden of proof [and mischaracterised the atheistâ��s assertion, which is that god is extremely unlikely, not that there is no possible way for him to exist â�� but Iâ��ll not deal with this all over again].

The starting assumption should be that there is no god â�� much like the starting assumption in a court that the accused is innocent.

The reasoning for this was best explained by Bertrand Russell: he said that if he were to claim that there was a teapot in orbit around Mars, too small for us to see with our most powerful telescopes, then no-one could disprove its existence. However, in any rational conversation, it would be absurd for the starting assumption to be that such a thing existed (no matter how passionately Mr Russell might believe in the existence of the teapot).

[This goes to my point about the nature of atheism: it is all about assessing the realistic probability of the existence of a god or gods.]

In other ways your thinking here is unclear: I donâ��t â��believeâ�� in the bulk of humanity believing in a god â�� there are figures, rendering my â��beliefsâ�� mute (see Eurobarometer poll results here). The fact that there are large numbers of religious adherents is in no way linked to whether something is or can be proven.

Originally posted by 777STAN:

First, I try, but I evidently can't see how I am coming across as "frothing" when I am trying to be purely intellectual.

I will try to explain â�� please forgive any offence caused by my frankness.

Your use of capitals and bold as emphasis are very distracting and make you less persuasive as a debater. Rather than emphasising the key elements of your argument, you usually appear to emphasise your articles of faith. Given that debate revolves around the strength of argument, not the strength of belief, you appear to be peppering your argument with uncontrolled outbursts of faith (as if you are in a religious mania â�� hence â��frothingâ��).

The starting point of intellectualism tends to be objectivism â�� that does not sit easily with your style, which is passionate and heartfelt, but illogical and wandering.

The constant quotations from the bible are also unconvincing â�� by way of example, they are as persuasive to me as would be quotes from Star Wars as to the existence of Jedis and the Force. They can be intelligent and wise, but ultimately they evidence nothing.

You also tend to choose quotes of a particular character â�� they come across as somewhat self congratulatory. Eg your last quote - â��I come to you as a Man, and as a Man, I can take it! I maintain the same judgment of youâ��. Whether intended or not, by using a quote rather than saying something yourself you seem to indicate that your belief guides you to some special capacity or understanding to be thick skinned and non-judgemental. However, I donâ��t believe that you are any less judgemental than most other people â�� it is entirely normal in secular society not to be unduly judgemental or to take offence quickly. This appears to be a case of you attributing to religion something that is entirely normal â�� which can be indicative of a misplaced sense of superiority.