From what I know, Chosen abandoned Atheism because there was too much negativism. However, he doesn't really believe there is a god(s). Not that this makes his arguments invalid, but it's a bit strange to see an Atheist arguing for Theism and claiming to be a Theist while not believing in any gods. Atheism doesn't come with "atheist culture", there are plenty of Atheists that are not aware they are Atheists because they have simply never been exposed to the idea of the existance of a god(s). While the "Atheist and proud of it" crowd may have a culture not to your liking, simply maintaining a lack of belief in a god(s) will make you Atheist.
GB-Gil: Actually, there is an athiest culture. We get together and we throw pot orgies at the Playboy mansion, then we play mailbox baseball in fundamentalist neighborhoods, then - (Xev, you are confusing "Fight Club" with whatever porn you are downloading off Kazaa. Stop it.)
What's that? Weird? To be honest, GB-GIL, it's not that strange. From Karen Armstrong: • Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994. • see also: "September apocalypse: Who, why, and what next?" (London Guardian, 9.13.2001) For the most part the links are just the easiest way to show her credentials on this one. Karen Armstrong is perhaps the eminent theologian among the Abramist descendancy. As a former student of various religions and magicks, as well as a confirmed Lutheran and Catholic high-school graduate, and as a continuing explorer of religious mysteries, experience tells me her observation is quite fair. Every religion I have ever encountered directly tends toward broader interpretations of itself than it lets on. It is, I admit, mystifying to me that common or vulgar religion should be so simplistic, especially among Western inclinations. While it's fair to serve the masses, shouldn't faith in God at least raise awareness and encourage knowledge? Nonetheless, I'm sure you've found that if you isolate a religious adherent from the flock, that person will back away from the façade theology and attempt to express something more personal and abstract. I'm quite sure Ms. Armstrong, for instance, knows exactly what it's like to back away from the façade theology; it is, after all, what she's talking about in the above citation. It may seem strange to you, but TheChosen does not seem to be alone in his sentiments. I'd say they're much more common than you realize. (For the record, I, too, found Atheism too negative an experience. But that's for another day.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Most of the atheists here at sciforums.com may argue that atheism is hardly negative, but it is. Conventionally, atheists are negative people. The individuals here at sciforums.com are barely negative but they only represent a very small side of atheism. I don't understand why one would call oneself an atheist, why not secular humanist or something along those lines? But that is just my point of view. Atheism isn't evil or any of that sort. I would consider orthdoxy one of the worst evils. I think there is a God. You can easily replace "think" with "believe." I am no atheist, atheists reject ideas of God, I don't. I am not religious either, since to be religious one must believe in religion. I just don't like orthodoxy. I don't want to be associated with atheism, they have nothing to look forward to, most likely atheists would be the extremely derogatory ones, what do you gain speaking down on others? Would such negative views help them at all? What does atheism even have to offer?
Okay, I officially declare myself a fundamentalist Muslim. I don't believe any of what they have to say, but since I don't want to be associated with any other religion on Earth, I've decided I'm this one. Wrong, Chosen. To be a Theist, you cannot THINK there is a god(s), you must believe there is a god(s), or be sure there is a god(s). To be an Atheist, there is nothing you must do unless you were once a Theist. Being an Atheist is what we all are by default. And no, Chosen, Atheism is not negativism. Are babies with no idea of God negativists? What about that Atheist in Central Africa who's never heard of the idea of God? Maybe they'll believe the concept is true if you tell them of it, but without exposure to the concept they are Atheists. I started as an Atheist as did you all, and I never changed. That's it. I don't reject the idea of a God, I simply say that since there is no proof of a God, I do not believe that there is one. Also, the default position of a human to me explains why Atheism is correct-- without exposure to the idea of a god, one cannot be a Theist. But that's not real proof if I am correct, it just seems to explain why Atheism is correct to me. To be an Atheist you needn't be an Atheist Atheist, just one who is not a Theist!
Yes, agreed. I'm don't claim I know there is a God, but I believe such a creator exists. This makes me fall into neither atheist or theist categories. Wrong, we do not identify ourselves as, "I do not believe in God," when we are babies. We are neither atheist or theist. Conventionally speaking, who belittles who more? Who plays the game of disparagement more often? The atheist? Agnostic? or the theist? Atheism is a negative definition. It rejects, and usually, whatever it rejects it is against, it opposes. And if it opposes whatever it rejects, then there are huge chances of dislike and belittlement. An atheist has an idea or concept of God. A baby does not. Then they aren't atheists. Atheists identify what they are rejecting. You are identifying them as an atheist. I would not call them atheists. You do reject God, you do not accept God, is that not right? I accept, that is the key difference. Whatever.
The Chosen .... A hack-version modern parable. Once upon a time Mac was thought of as a fruity sort of dude that only weirdos liked. But the fact was that Mac was merely very good at what he did and didn't pay attention to what the WINdbags kept saying. Oneday, someone down at the WINdbag Gateway decided to lash out at Mac, and everybody thought that Mac's weirdo friends would be angry, and everybody liked that idea. But some of Mac's friends whispered in their friend's ears what Mac already knew. The WINdbags only made fun of Mac because they felt threatened by him, and Mac felt good about the fact that people recognized his strength. And, furthermore, when Mac's friends listened closely to what the WINdbags were saying, they discovered that none of it really mattered anyway, for, after all, they were merely WINdbags. (The WINdbags really thought they had a hit with their commercial.) Maybe I'll explain it someday. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, agreed. I'm don't claim I know there is a God, but I believe such a creator exists. This makes me fall into neither atheist or theist categories. If you genuinely believe a god(s) exist(s), then you are a Theist. Wrong, we do not identify ourselves as, "I do not believe in God," when we are babies. We are neither atheist or theist. So what if we don't identify ourselves as such? Your religion is your set of beliefs, not the religion you claim to be. Not believing in a god(s) is the default. You haven't rejected the idea, but you do not believe it as you have never been exposed to it. How can one be a Christian or Muslim or whatever if they're never exposed to the idea? Atheist=a-theist=anybody who does not believe in a god(s), whether they know that they do not believe or do not know. Conventionally speaking, who belittles who more? Who plays the game of disparagement more often? The atheist? Agnostic? or the theist? Atheism is a negative definition. It rejects, and usually, whatever it rejects it is against, it opposes. And if it opposes whatever it rejects, then there are huge chances of dislike and belittlement. Nay, Atheism rejects, but in rejecting it is simply maintaining the original viewpoint of all its followers. Nobody believes in a god(s) when they are born, therefore we all started as Atheists. An atheist has an idea or concept of God. A baby does not. How would you religiously classify somebody who has never heard of the concept of religion? They would be an Atheist as they do not believe in a god(s), they cannot because they have never been exposed to the concept. Then they aren't atheists. Atheists identify what they are rejecting. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god(s), whether they have rejected the idea or just have never been exposed to it. I've never rejected the idea, I still consider it as a possibility, but I don't consider it the truth, although it very well could be. You are identifying them as an atheist. I would not call them atheists. ... You do reject God, you do not accept God, is that not right? I accept, that is the key difference. Wrong. I reject the concept of a god(s). Not accepting a god(s) would be reaffirming its/their existance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mark's Fun Fact of the Day: Did you know that in modern society, Atheists are discriminated against by more people than are any other ethnic, political, or religious group? ¤gallup poll results¤
Interesting A list of other things which we are born without • Ability to feed ourselves • Ability to breathe on our own • Ability to walk • Knowledge of mathematics • Knowledge of conventional language • Knowledge of history • Reading skills • Hygiene skills • Ability to reproduce There's the short list. Nobody is born believing in right and wrong, either. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Interesting Eating: simply because of live birth. Breathing: This isn't something that different people do differently and therefore I fail to see why you put them in the same category. Plus, it's usually learnt soon after birth. Babies aren't born into existance with total absence of anything else at all around them-- if they hit the ground because mommy's not having somebody tend to her, they'll cry. If somebody is tender to her, they'll cry. They'll start to breathe, hopefully. Walking: That's a accquired skill that is not required of us in everyday life. In fact, seeing as this topic is assuming that this is isolated from all other parts of life... then none of these points matter Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, and there is no right or wrong. I think you mean nobody is born with a set of morals?
Excellent GB-GIL The point being that thought must also be learned, and thought involves both the objective and the subjective. Some people have more use for the subjective than others. Dickens: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Absolute crap: he can't prove that. Religious and theistic thought aren't much different. They're different manifestations of the subjective. They're different tools to be used in different ways. While I find the infantile use of the theistic tool common to most religions to be repugnant, I tend to look around at other subjective ideas and it seems that religion is not as much a sore thumb as it seems. Patriotism, economy, it's all just myth. Knowledge: Drinking alcohol in excess can cause health problems. Wisdom: What wisdom? I like drinking alcohol to some degree of excess. The subjective standard, in that case, is more important to me. In the end, it's how people treat each other that counts. I would like to see some better performance from the religions on that count, but I can hardly pretend that, as ideological overviews, religions are alone as badly-exploited paradigms. The myth of economy is as bad as religion, but we don't wake up and do away with money, do we? No, we just keep looking for a better way. Think of it this way: religion, like art, deals with concepts that cannot be easily put to words. Some people have use for such ideas. Others do not. It does well enough to compare Picasso or Van Gogh to Catholicism and say, Which one should be preserved, when it comes right down to it? But then again, there are some to whom a world without art seems a reasonable thing. We tend to regard those people as a little unbalanced. Does one need to understand the laws of thermodynamics in order to achieve decency, or is the observable result that fire burns and hurts the flesh enough to go on? Or is it enough to not wish to be burned and hurt? Such is the case with religion. In that case, it is impossible to understand the laws at play, but people do, in their insecurities about the Universe, employ various parlor tricks to comfort themselves. It's fair enough if they keep it to themselves. My problem with religion is functional: it needs to stay out of other people's faces. However, that I have no particular need for any given religion does not mean that I should take to religion as those to art who imagine no purpose or use for art. Besides, with so much of the world being religious, it has occurred to me that I must understand religions as much as possible in order to address the problems they bring to the human endeavor. Frankly, I'm surprised at the number of atheists who haven't figured out that relatively minor point. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa yew our thess gud mewve, bat yew our nat a krischen sew yew wil bern in heigh'll ef yew due knot ripent naugh four yore sinnes.
Re: Excellent Tiassa I admire your perspicacity concerning religions and many other issues. One needs to actually read and acquire some sort of discernment before rejecting anything. If you are not cognizant of the religion(s) you are rejecting, such as rejecting the Bible when you have never even read it to understand and analyze in order to form a strong conclusion, then I would say your atheism is extremely pathetic. I'm not an atheist for one of those reasons. Usually, atheists have a certain need/want to belittle others be it agnostics, theists, and etc. to secure their own identities. Athiesm isn't propitious, it offers nothing.
Beautiful What intelligence this young man is capable of. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Setting new lows Funny, it actually sounds marginally more intelligent coming from a Christian. And that's even after I adjust for sarcasm. I'm curious, actually, as to why you speak out on religious matters at all. For as odd as I find most religions, and for as many reasons as I can find to avoid and even oppose them, you manage to set even a lower standard than that for the merits of the atheistic voice. What kills me is that there's this guy from the Catholic League, I think his name is Donahue ... Bill Donahue. Next time someone's in the news for badmouthing Catholics, look for him on news-talk on the cable nets. You remind me of him in a certain way. I remember what I held against religion when I was an atheist. I know what I hold against religion now. You are the impersonation of so much of what I would hope a new consciousness transcending the current state of religion would get rid of. Be it atheist, a new New Age, a philosophical rediscovery, whatnot ... I find both your level and manner of engagement to be of a form best left to narrow minds rushing toward extinction, and not reflective of any progressive human notion. Do you not understand that you are representative of what you advertise? Look at this, GB-GIL ... you're reduced to singling out The Chosen merely because you cannot fit him into a neat classification well-slathered for the requisite barbs. It's almost as funny as Ekimklaw getting pissed at me because he can't understand me. Not all theistic thought is out to steal your children. Come out from under the covers and discover for yourself that there are fun things hidden in the shadows, too. And while you're at it, read some Lovecraft. Among other things, you'll find a way to write pigeon; many of the superstitious boondockers you come across, especially in the Derleth knockoff tales, speak a peculiarly broken and uneducated dialect. As it is, you're putting too much effort into it. Use apostrophes, take letters out. Since the words have to be sounded out phonetically, anyway, save a few letters. As it is, you sound like an Irishman on chlorpromazine. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
