Growing Acceptance of Atheists in the US, Would you vote for an Atheist?

[brad9798]

Explain, Durnik ... HOW- PRAY TELL, do I contradict myself? (and why are so many folks here named, bobby ... and sign- enjoy
bobby ...

Just curious.

But more importantly- HOW do I contradict myself?

B

[Steve McMahon]

Atheists, oh crap, I thought it said Aliens. I'd vote for an Alien.

[Durnik]

Here's an interesting commentary of retrieving the concept of "spirit" from the Bible belters.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a...r-spirituality

Nice. I've long said that spirituality is the recognition that life is more than the sum of the chemicals -

& religion is (one particular type of) societies attempt to make sure we don't follow that thought too closely.


As an aside, Buddhism, at its core, _wants_ us to follow that awareness! ;-)



Brad..

Explain, Durnik ... HOW- PRAY TELL, do I contradict myself?

Look at your sig.. Think about exactly what it means.. Then explain your vehemence in making your "NO" statement.. keeping in mind "Nothing else matters..."


Now, perhaps you _really_ mean something along the lines of "what matters most.."? Say what you mean - mean what you say. ;-)


as to those who sign themselves

"enjoy
bobby",

there is only I. Hokiefan signs "Bobby", Bobby of Tulsa lets his login sign for him & bobbys signs 'bobbys". Those seem to be the predominant bobby's (who sign as such - varadero is a Bobby, but doesn't (always) sign as such) down here (apologies to any I've missed!) plus assorted "Bob's". You can (so far as I know) safely presume a sig. of "enjoy bobby" is my mark - and only truncated (tho still lower case & singular) when writing concerning peoples sorrows.

- to satisfy your curiosity.. & add to the confusion? ;-)

Atheists, oh crap, I thought it said Aliens. I'd vote for an Alien.

Yea.. but what if it didn't believe in gawd.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[brad9798]

WOW! Now we are so wound up that we are nit-picking sigs ... WOW! Re-the-HECK-LAX bobby ... I am out on this thread!!! Nothing of merit to see here any longer ...

B

[Durnik]

WOW! Now we are so wound up that we are nit-picking sigs ... WOW! Re-the-HECK-LAX bobby ... I am out on this thread!!! Nothing of merit to see here any longer ...

B

Ah, yes. You're a 'conservative'.. "That was not meant to be a factual statement".

Bye Brad.

enjoy
bobby

[Peerie Maa]

Atheists are no less delusional than theists. I'd prefer an agnostic, someone who, like all of us, doesn't know, but who is aware and honest enough to admit it.

I used to be agnostic.

Now I'm not sure.

[skuthorp]

Originally Posted by Gib Etheridge
Atheists are no less delusional than theists. I'd prefer an agnostic, someone who, like all of us, doesn't know, but who is aware and honest enough to admit it.

People are 'athiests' for different reasons I suspect. It's a very individual position to take and despite the recent rise of 'militant and protheletising atheism' continues to be so. Certainly I don't even use the term for myself as it has become somewhat besmirched and labeled by the religious as just another belief. I can however understand that as, so far as my experience has led me, those who believe cannot conceive of a lack of the same. In other words they can only categorise non belief as a belief in itself.

[John Smith]

Can you give an example of an Atheistic goverment that "just ask you to practice YOUR religion, but let others practice theirs,"

All of the Atheistic goverments that come to my mind... USSR, Poland, E Germany, China, have been major Big Brother types outlawing, persecuting, imprisoning etc christians and other religions...



Look at some of the leaders in the world that thought they were doing ...Atheist... work

What's more "big brother" type intusiveness that some of the anti abortion/contraception laws, or being against gay marrigae?

what is more big brotherism than putting "under God" inour pledge?

I ask people to show me evidence not so much that there is a God, but that he is either loving or caring, or gives a S**t about what we do.

Religious people seem to think they have the religious right to impose their religion on me. I make no effort to impose my beliefs on them, past asking them to explain their beliefs.

I would not think of denying them their rights to believe as they wish, as long as they make no effort to etch their beliefs into our laws.

We are dangerously close to the Christian version of Sharia Law. Those "inalienable rights" described in the DOI, are rights of men, not organizatons.

[John Smith]

Originally Posted by Gib Etheridge
Atheists are no less delusional than theists. I'd prefer an agnostic, someone who, like all of us, doesn't know, but who is aware and honest enough to admit it.

People are 'athiests' for different reasons I suspect. It's a very individual position to take and despite the recent rise of 'militant and protheletising atheism' continues to be so. Certainly I don't even use the term for myself as it has become somewhat besmirched and labeled by the religious as just another belief. I can however understand that as, so far as my experience has led me, those who believe cannot conceive of a lack of the same. In other words they can only categorise non belief as a belief in itself.

I refer to myself an an Irrelevantist. I don't think the actual existence of a God is relevent, as there seems no evidence that he's at all concerned with the affairs of man. He's certainlly neither caring or loving if he makes the food we like bad for us and allows innocent people to be convicted and executed. At some point, in some way, a caring, loving God would interfere.

[TomF]

I used to be agnostic.

Now I'm not sure.

Oops, Nick's gone into a loop again.
Anyone know where the reset button is?

[Peerie Maa]

Oops, Nick's gone into a loop again.
Anyone know where the reset button is?

The reset button is located in context.

[Sam F]

Buddhism is a religion says Websters... and not a few other dictionaries and Buddhists themselves But no matter... pefjr knows better.

Websters also says College Football is a religion.

Really?
Where?

They also list know-nothingism as a near antonym for religion, which tells me something about Websters.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...now-nothingism
And I ought to remind you that an antonym is not the thing it is an antonym of. You do realize that, don't you?

Most Buddhists deny the existence of silly gods which makes them Atheists,

Duh, if one denies any god then by definition one is an Atheist. But you deny definitions, don't you?

...but according to Websters they are just being religious about Atheism, which suits the religious , right Sam?

It's all in the definition, right? Religion is faith-based. If you can prove Buddhism, please do so.
Heck, if you can even prove that Gautama existed please do so.

Websters would says Phillip is religious.... about his guns, Norm religious about his slanted politics, and Sam F religious about his Catholic Encyclopedia.

The problem is that you have used Humpty Dumpty's "reasoning":
"When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

And that's fine by me - except that since words don't have any objective meaning, there is no possibility of reliable communication to exist.
No doubt that explains Humpty's demise - and yours.

Congratulations!

[Sam F]

Websters says you're wrong:...

If that is what you believe, then that's how it is... for you...

Ah, no.
What Webster's definition is, is a fact quite apart from what I may or may not believe.

What you believe about what Webster's dictionary says, may be contrary to reality. If it is - You have a problem.

[pefjr]

Websters says you're wrong:...

Ah, no.
What Webster's definition is, is a fact quite apart from what I may or may not believe.

What you believe about what Webster's dictionary says, may be contrary to reality. If it is - You have a problem.

Could the problem be Webster's? http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2008/...d-towards.html

[Arizona Bay]

Websters says you're wrong:...

Ah, no.
What Webster's definition is, is a fact quite apart from what I may or may not believe.

What you believe about what Webster's dictionary says, may be contrary to reality. If it is - You have a problem.

I say Webster's definition is as it is, and in fact quite apart from what I may or may not believe.

What you believe about what Webster's dictionary says, and Webster's definition itself may be contrary to reality.

[Sam F]

I say Webster's definition is as it is, and in fact quite apart from what I may or may not believe.

Exactly, well sort of exactly since exactly might mean to you "not at all alike", or "sort of similar" or even, "orange"

What you believe about what Webster's dictionary says, and Webster's definition itself may be contrary to reality.

Uh huh. And you just said: "When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Like Mr. Dumpty, you've had a great fall.

Which in both cases (yours and his) was a descent into linguistic chaos.

Such chaos makes any communication with you impossible.
And as icing on the cake, it makes your view entirely irrational and unreasonable. I only expect that you won't claim that any religious view is ever unreasonable.

[Sam F]

Could the problem be Webster's? http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2008/...d-towards.html

Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Very funny! As usual, today's Atheists are so ignorant that they mistake their own society's history as a form of bias.
TOO FUNNY!

[Arizona Bay]

Uh huh. And you just said: "When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Like Mr. Dumpty, you've had a great fall.

Un huh.... no, PfJr said that.

[Sam F]

Un huh.... no, PfJr said that.

I quite agree that the Metro bus schedules are a mess. You're either always late for work or get there an hour early.

[pefjr]

Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Very funny! As usual, today's Atheists are so ignorant that they mistake their own society's history as a form of bias.
TOO FUNNY!

Big Surprise! I knew you wouldn't read it.

[Sam F]

Buddhism

2. The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Buddhism

a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buddhism

Buddhism is a religion and philosophy indigenous to the Indian subcontinent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion and teachings of the Buddha, founded in India in the sixth century. (noun)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/buddhism

Evidently there's a lot of Christian bias out there.

But this irrational denial of reality is just a standard representative of Atheism's pervasive ignorance and solipsism.

Solipsism, quite naturally, means whatever you want it to mean.

[Sam F]

Big Surprise! I knew you wouldn't read it.

Of course I read it - except that I think they come out better if cooked at 350 for 45 mins.

[Tom Montgomery]

So I'm guessing SammyF would not vote for an atheist under any circumstance?

If so, what a surprise.

[pefjr]

Buddhism

2. The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Buddhism

a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buddhism

Buddhism is a religion and philosophy indigenous to the Indian subcontinent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion and teachings of the Buddha, founded in India in the sixth century. (noun)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/buddhism

Evidently there's a lot of Christian bias out there.

But this irrational denial of reality is just a standard representative of Atheism's pervasive ignorance and solipsism.

Solipsism, quite naturally, means whatever you want it to mean.

Sure Sam, you are going to be very happy in the company of Buddhists , especially when you pull out your Catholic Encyclopedia. Even the few religious Buddhists will get a good laugh at that.

[Osborne Russell]

I refer to myself an an Irrelevantist. I don't think the actual existence of a God is relevent, as there seems no evidence that he's at all concerned with the affairs of man. He's certainlly neither caring or loving if he makes the food we like bad for us and allows innocent people to be convicted and executed. At some point, in some way, a caring, loving God would interfere.

There are at least two components to faith as understood by modern MEM.

First step, you contemplate the universe and say wow man, there's a lot of crazy stuff out there, makes you feel small. And so you decide to put it all under the heading of God the Creator Who Is Beyond Comprehension. That makes a certain amount of sense; it at least pretends to be based on evidence.

Then you go on to assume that this God loves you and you and you and the little birdies too. This is the whacked out second step, AKA omni-benevolence. It requires to you to disregard a mountain of evidence that grows more every day as homo sapiens records its experiences down through time.

The second step is so crazy that, even within MEM, for much of its history, even within Christianity, people just couldn't swallow it.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one
holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire,
abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath
towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy
of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer
eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are
ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes, as the most
hateful and venomous serpent is in ours.

Jonathon Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741).

[skuthorp]

I refer to myself an an Irrelevantist. I don't think the actual existence of a God is relevent, as there seems no evidence that he's at all concerned with the affairs of man. He's certainlly neither caring or loving if he makes the food we like bad for us and allows innocent people to be convicted and executed. At some point, in some way, a caring, loving God would interfere.

I like that John, 'Irrelevantist' if one has to have a label.

[Durnik]

I like that John, 'Irrelevantist' if one has to have a label.

So.. First (well, 'long time ago ;-)) we had John the Baptist. Now we have John the Irrelevantist.. Some might say the latter speaks of the former?

Oooh, I'm a bad boy! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Old Dryfoot]

Oooh, I'm a bad boy! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

10 Hail Marys for you!

[Durnik]

10 Hail Marys for you!

I never went to bartending school.. that'd be Jamie.. - so Hail Marys anything like Bloody Marys?? Nah.. I'll stick with my beer.. One bottle, one church key (there's religion for ya! ;-)) & I'm good_to_go!

Wait.. 10 you say? Oooh, that's gonna hurt.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Old Dryfoot]

I never went to bartending school.. that'd be Jamie.. - so Hail Marys anything like Bloody Marys?? Nah.. I'll stick with my beer.. One bottle, one church key (there's religion for ya! ;-)) & I'm good_to_go!

Wait.. 10 you say? Oooh, that's gonna hurt.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

No pain, no gain. Or you could convert to Rasta...

[skuthorp]

No pain, no gain. Or you could convert to Rasta...

I haven't got enough hair...............

[Old Dryfoot]

I haven't got enough hair...............

...

[Durnik]

...

What's This?! Capitalism to the 'rescue'?


;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Sam F]

Buddhism is a religion...

Sure Sam, you are going to be very happy in the company of Buddhists , especially when you pull out your Catholic Encyclopedia. Even the few religious Buddhists will get a good laugh at that.

Missed it again.
I merely did two things:
1. Proved that Buddhism is a religion by definition.
2. Proved that Webster's "anti-atheist" bias is all-pervasive among dictionaries.

Oh, and then there's #3 - A conclusive demonstration that Forum Atheists, won't think, or can't think - and are thus irrational and unreasonable. (see your non-reply above for another example)

[Sam F]

No pain, no gain. Or you could convert to Rasta...

You never know where that'll end up. Take Bob Marley for instance:

What many don’t know is that Bob Marley can also be called a Christian. He was baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox faith before his death in 1981.

...Bob MarleyMarley had become a zealous Rastafarian as a young man. The dreadlocks and pot smoking that became central to his image weren’t just accessories to a rock star lifestyle. They were pillars of Rastafarian faith. Rastas believe that cannabis removes mental barriers to enlightened thinking, and they base their dreadlocks in Old Testament law. As debatable as these doctrines are, it’s clear that a sincere faith in God and service of his people were the driving forces in Bob’s life and music...
Marley developed a friendship with Ethiopian Orthodox Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq who had been sent from Africa by the Emperor Haile Selassie I after he found out that many in Jamaica were worshipping him as God incarnate. (This belief is the center of Rastafarianism.) ...
“Bob cried when the archbishop invited him to conversion and to give his heart to Christ. He decided to accept baptism.”

Bob’s baptism is marked by the heroic conviction with which he lived his life. For some Rastas, conversion to Christianity is tantamount to sacrificing the sacred cow. Yet this man who had become the international icon of Rastafarianism converted anyway, deeply upsetting many people, including some of his closest friends. Marley showed a willingness to renounce everything in his pursuit of God...
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/6031

Now you know.

[skuthorp]

Interesting little sideline on what constitutes a religion in Aus. According to the census Scientology has about 3000 adherents and according to the High Court is a religion. Jeddi number round 65000 and are not. Go figure.

[pefjr]

Buddhism is a religion...


Missed it again.
I merely did two things:
1. Proved that Buddhism is a religion by definition.
2. Proved that Webster's "anti-atheist" bias is all-pervasive among dictionaries.

Oh, and then there's #3 - A conclusive demonstration that Forum Atheists, won't think, or can't think - and are thus irrational and unreasonable. (see your non-reply above for another example)

Yeah, you have proven some things, but not what you listed. I can use your method of proof and prove most Buddhist are not religious by definition( a belief in the supernatural). But since most all of the reasonable know this already, then ..............

[Sam F]

Yeah, you have proven some things, but not what you listed. I can use your method of proof and prove most Buddhist are not religious by definition( a belief in the supernatural).

Once again the facts stand against you. Your definition is inadequate as anyone who regularly opens a dictionary would know:

"Religion:
3. a cause, principle or system of belief held to with ardor and faith"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

"2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I could go on and on, but what's the point? Your mind is closed to evidence and reason.

But since most all of the reasonable know this already, then ..............

All reasonable people know that using Mr. Humpty's irrational method - "When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less" - like you have, is unreasonable.

[pefjr]

"Religion:
3. a cause, principle or system of belief held to with ardor and faith"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

"2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I could go on and on, but what's the point? Your mind is closed to evidence and reason.

You want company Sam, that is why you pick and choose partial definitions. Is a belief in a supernatural a requirement for a religion, Sam? Simple question, and I assume it is not for you, as you chose definitions that excluded that main function. You define religion and then we will discuss your definition and why you choose it. Then we can both go to Rome and meet with the pope and advise him that he and the catholic Religion don't need that silly belief in god anymore, and for 2000 years they have been wrong.

[TomF]

From here, some forms of buddhism look like religion - particularly those with bodhisattvas etc.. Others strands look more like a philosophy - with no supernatural stuff involved at all.

While I'm aware of the benefits of good taxonomy and recognize that there can be forest/trees difficulties, it is rather presumptuous to tell people that the way they define their own lifestyle practices and belief systems is a rather colossal misunderstanding. A bit of humility and deference might be in order.

[Old Dryfoot]

From here, some forms of buddhism look like religion - particularly those with bodhisattvas etc.. Others strands look more like a philosophy - with no supernatural stuff involved at all.

While I'm aware of the benefits of good taxonomy and recognize that there can be forest/trees difficulties, it is rather presumptuous to tell people that the way they define their own lifestyle practices and belief systems is a rather colossal misunderstanding. A bit of humility and deference might be in order.

Well spoken as always.

BTW, if you ever ran for office I'd vote for you. Even though you're not an atheist.

[TomF]

Well spoken as always.

BTW, if you ever ran for office I'd vote for you. Even though you're not an atheist.

Ha! I've worked brushing shoulders with enough elected folks to have zero aspirations for running for office. I like having a private life too much ... so your vote's safe from this God-mongerer.

[Old Dryfoot]

Christians... selfish to the last.

[Sam F]

From here, some forms of buddhism look like religion - particularly those with bodhisattvas etc.. Others strands look more like a philosophy - with no supernatural stuff involved at all.

A distinction without a difference. Try this - type into Google "department of religion and philosophy". I get "About 53,600,000 results".
Gee! You know why that is?

While I'm aware of the benefits of good taxonomy and recognize that there can be forest/trees difficulties, it is rather presumptuous to tell people that the way they define their own lifestyle practices

So you're going to agree that I have a perfect right to use dictionaries and that you'll defend my lifestyle practice in doing so. Isn't that correct?

...the way they define their own lifestyle practices and belief systems is a rather colossal misunderstanding...

You and everyone else are welcome to descend into solipsism to your hearts' content.
Just don't expect understanding when someone says:
"I'm an atheist and don't have faith" when that person in fact practices a religion. To those of us in the reality based community, such a situation is ludicrous.

A bit of humility and deference might be in order.

Oh yes, that would be naughty to leave that out. Practicing humility and deference would be an excellent idea - why don't you try it?

[Sam F]

You want company Sam, that is why you pick and choose partial definitions. Is a belief in a supernatural a requirement for a religion, Sam? Simple question, ...

The answer is No.
Simple answer.

and I assume it is not for you, as you chose definitions that excluded that main function.

Don't you know how dictionaries work?
Try this: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Dictionary

You define religion...

I did no such thing.
I learned what the word religion means many years ago by using dictionaries. I used several dictionaries to demonstrate that meaning to you - all of them agreed.
Don't blame me for your own closed mind.

[Old Dryfoot]

Sam this should help, I hope, to illustrate further what Tom is saying. Unless you wish to argue with the Dalai Lama about what is and isn't. Though I think his schedule is pretty full...

"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."

[wardd]

how is not believing there is a god a religion?

i have never attended a non worship service in my life

[pefjr]

Is a belief in a supernatural a requirement for a religion, Sam? Simple question, pefjr

The answer is No.
Simple answer.Sam F

This news will rock the World. This means Atheists can be religious and deny gods at the same time. Can we deny miracles too? How about the resurrection? All that ridiculous stuff that Nanny keeps trying to prove is true? You have my interest and I want to hear more.

[pefjr]

how is not believing there is a god a religion?

i have never attended a non worship service in my life

Well, get ready, this news opens up all kinds of possibilities for non worship.

[TomF]

The problem, of course, is that there are semantic differences in the use of the word "religion".

Sam's quite right, using the term one way, to maintain that one can have quite a "religious" adherence to many ideologies. To Leninism, say, or to nationalisms. In this sense, religion is the set of beliefs to which a person ascribes their most ultimate committment. Usually the term here would be only metaphorical, but there are absolutely some extremists for which the word "religion" applied to these secular beliefs is entirely apt. Despite no God being involved.

But in general - and in the sense the Dalai Lama used the language in that wonderful quote Dryfoot found, "religion" really does mean the belief in some form of the supernatural, and/or God(s).

The argument rests on refusing to acknowledge the semantics, insisting instead on an absence of any linguistic nuances. Makes for great rhetoric, but poor fence-mending.