More to atheism...?

Scofflaw

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

well if by more to atheism you mean that it can go deeper from the "i dont believe in man made religions" to " we are all connected sentient beings that must strive to live in true harmony so that the universe can come to peace with itself and stop its expansion so time can finally slow down where the multiple dimesnions, the past future and present will be alingned at one point in existence.......back to a singularity"


Sure there must be more to atheism. But i dont really understand the question being asked:eek:

toiletduck

No, I really don't see anything more to it than that. I mean I know atheists who believe in an afterlife, reincarnation etc. Perhaps an outside opinion might differ, am I missing something?

allabouteve

toiletduck wrote: »

No, I really don't see anything more to it than that. I mean I know atheists who believe in an afterlife, reincarnation etc. Perhaps an outside opinion might differ, am I missing something?

I'm a longtime atheist myself and my unbelief is based on reason and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. It is hard to concieve of an atheist who finds the concept of a god irrational, yet can believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. In my experience most atheists have no supernatural belief.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please Scofflaw, call me Fanny.

OK, I've moved this below post from the Darwin and Evolution thread.

---

Dades wrote: »

If that is clear to you it's clear to me you don't understand what the term atheist means....

But I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

I speak generally here - I do realise that you don't all hold the same beliefs or opinions, so please bear that in mind.

If atheism was merely not believing in God(s) then that should be that really. You could all go on about your lives as happy as Larry - eating babies and mugging Christians and so on. Indeed, it is often said on this fora that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby - like it is some sort of a passive, quaint mindset. But I do think this isn't quite true.

Naturally belief in the non-existence of God leads many atheists to form an identity with similarly minded people. And as is your right, some of you deciding to gather together to form pressure groups that push your agendas (almost exclusively at theism's cost), listen to atheist music (still listening Tim?), have atheist weddings (get her to the church on time!), go to atheist conferences, and discuss the intelligence levels of theists - and this is to mention but a few things. None of this seems particularly passive in a 'not collecting stamps' sort of way. To my mind atheism - in its broadest sense - is a community based upon common beliefs and common goals and which is often proactive in attempting to achieve those goals.


Yes, I realise that it is unlikely that one of you will agree with anything I say. I'm used to that, though.


Dades, please feel free to move this if it is detracting from the OP.

---

Zillah

No.


There's usually a lot more to Atheists though.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please Scofflaw, call me Fanny.

OK, I've moved this post from the Darwin and Evolution thread.



Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

I speak generally here - I do realise that you don't all hold the same beliefs or opinions, so please bear that in mind.

If atheism was merely not believing in God(s) then that should be that really. You could all go on about your lives as happy as Larry - eating babies and mugging Christians and so on. Indeed, it is often said on this fora that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby - like it is some sort of a passive, quaint mindset. But I do think this isn't quite true.

Naturally that belief in the non-existence of God leads many atheists to form an identity with similarly minded people. And as is your right, some of you deciding to gather together to form pressure groups that push your agendas (almost exclusively at theism's cost), listen to atheist music (still listening Tim?), have atheist weddings (get her to the church on time!), go to atheist conferences, and discuss the intelligence levels of theists - and this is to mention but a few things. None of this seems particularly passive in a 'not collecting stamps' sort of way. To my mind atheism - in its broadest sense - is a community based upon common beliefs and common goals and which is often proactive in attempting to achieve those goals.


Yes, I realise that it is unlikely that one of you will agree with anything I say. I'm used to that, though.


Dades, please feel free to move this if it is detracting from the OP.

There are atheist conferences? Anyways I think you might be getting mixed up with atheists and anti-theists.

Fanny Cradock

There sure are!

Schuhart

I'd see two potential questions of interest. One is whether there are people to whom atheism has no significance beyond its what they put on the census form (all 929 of them - us Jedi Knights are a far more significant movement but guess who gets all the airplay).

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people .

I think the other question is are there implications that flow from an atheist conception of the world. I think the answer has to be yes - but this assumes the person is interested in pursuing those implications, instead of taking himself off to the fairway. If we consider questions of morality it seems to me that we do start from a different basis if we say ethics is something that we collectively or individually invent and place upon the world, rather than something put into it by God for us to discover. While we may derive a broad framework that looks morally similar to the basic framework of a religion from whatever first principles we choose, I feel there are still likely to be differences. For the sake of argument, I think an atheist approach to morality is less likely to be dogmatic about questions relating to human life, like assisted suicide or abortion. Similarly, I'd expect atheism would be less likely to create taboos around sexuality.

That's just to scratch the surface with some (I think) obvious points. I think the key point is it would seem to me that there is a difference between conceiving of the world as something God made and places us in with a divine purpose, and us finding ourselves in a world that exists without any particular divine purpose which we can decide to relate to as seems fit.

mickoneill30

eoin5 wrote: »

There are atheist conferences?

Yeah. Must be where we eat the babys.

toiletduck

allabouteve wrote: »

I'm a longtime atheist myself and my unbelief is based on reason and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

Same as!

It is hard to concieve of an atheist who finds the concept of a god irrational, yet can believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. In my experience most atheists have no supernatural belief.

I would lean towards that aswell but have met such individuals! I suppose I was trying to get across that unlike religion, atheism comes with no "baggage" i.e. common opinions that all atheists hold (except for the only one!), do and don'ts, practices etc.

estebancambias

Schuhart wrote: »

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people.

Yes.

daveyjoe

atheism - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is there more to not believing in God than not believing in God?
Obviously atheists will tend to share similiar viewpoints on a lot of things but that is intrinsic to any minority. However, there are no real underlying principles that atheists believe in besides a lack of belief in a God. This topic wont lead anywhere.

eoin5

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

Soul Winner

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

As a non atheist or theist or better still an a-atheist myself I can only assume that there is no more to atheism other than it is the position whereby someone who doesn't believe in a supernatural God would regard themselves as having a standing.

But I'm sure there is plenty more to atheists than the fact that they don't believe in God. There are many fascinating people who are atheists, some I'd have over most Christians any day in terms of interesting company. Most so called Christians I've met on the street would do your head in if you were to around them for any length of time. Jesus was (is) astoundingly amazing though Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

daveyjoe

eoin5 wrote: »

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

Out of interest, would you classify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic? Or somewhere in between?

Fanny Cradock

daveyjoe wrote: »

atheism - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is there more to not believing in God than not believing in God?
Obviously atheists will tend to share similiar viewpoints on a lot of things but that is intrinsic to any minority. However, there are no real underlying principles that atheists believe in besides a lack of belief in a God. This topic wont lead anywhere.

Fannny is trolling as far as I can tell.

If you really think that you should really use the report option instead of making claims in public. Let the powers that decide - then I can be banned or your baseless accusation need not bother me.

Anyway...

Theist - noun - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

What exactly does quoting the dictionary prove? I know that Christian faith isn't encapsulated by a line in a dictionary. Why do you think atheism is?

Fanny Cradock

eoin5 wrote: »

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

I'm confused. You criticise theists as irrational for believing in God, yet you go on to say that your own belief aren't really rational either. Your post is chock full of subjective terms used to justify your own beliefs.

Sorry, that is probably dragging the thread off topic.

eoin5

daveyjoe wrote: »

Out of interest, would you classify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic? Or somewhere in between?

I'm an Agnostic Theist. I believe in the godess Eris, mainly because if there was a god I'd like it to be her because shes pretty cool.

18AD

Schuhart wrote: »

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people .

Good point!

Also, some people may say they are affiliated with a certain group, while the reality is that by that official group's standards they don't qualify.

To say 'I'm a golfer' can be verified by the practice of golf, which has a standard. I don't think I'd consider someone who goes to a field with a golf club and fires at ditches a golfer. However it has borrowed from the practice of the ritual called golf.
So one is defined by what they practice and how close it fits to the largely accepted view of the definition....?

Why is there such a heavy weight upon defining people by what they believe? Does it have a purpose beyond statistics? ...enforcing personal dogmatism.

Atheism, to me, seems like the religious answer of a humanist or even a scientist. I am not implying that they are all atheists.

A golfer gets asked 'do you play chess?' I don't think people would define him as being a non-chess player because generally I think it's more productive to look at what people can do! If even for practical reasons because you'd be there all day describing something by what it is not.

This sort of labeling can only divide people. Especially since you are completely free to believe in anything you want, even santa, unicorns, levitation or living to 129. I think all children should be defined as santaists and tooth-fairists...

I'm tired and rambling...

Hail Eris!
All the best.
AD.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm confused. You criticise theists as irrational for believing in God, yet you go on to say that your own belief aren't really rational either. Your post is chock full of subjective terms used to justify your own beliefs.

Sorry, that is probably dragging the thread off topic.

Yep I'm irrational in my beliefs, I criticise theists who think that their beliefs are rational. I can justify being irrational too if you want .

Yea sorry my fault for this off-topic thing.

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you really think that you should really use the report option instead of making claims in public. Let the powers that decide - then I can be banned or your baseless accusation need not bother me.

Anyway...

Theist - noun - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

What exactly does quoting the dictionary prove? I know that Christian faith isn't encapsulated by a line in a dictionary. Why do you think atheism is?

The dictionary reference is used to provide a basis on which to ask the question. Atheism is bandied around so often in relation to so many things that we often forget what we're actually talking about. Atheism often gets confused with anti-theism or gets interpreted as some kind of social movement or moral framework. It is not!

For those reasons it was relevant to define the word, my argument stands.

pH

Whilst we're defining terms ...

MILITANT AGNOSTIC : I don't know - and you don't either!

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

No.


There's usually a lot more to Atheists though.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Dades

Fanny wrote:

Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

A bit of both.

Doesn't it boil down to what criteria you need to meet to be labeled an atheist? If you stop a man on the street and he tells you he does not believe in any gods - that is enough to make him an atheist. Or would someone disagree with that?

Therefore any further opinions he holds, or does not hold make no difference to this fact. Those opinions may make him a nihilist, a secularist, a Humanist, a Buddhist, a Bright or an anarchist - but they are not a requirement for him to be atheist.

So to agree with Zillah & Wicknight - there may more to an individual atheist, but not to atheism.

5uspect

+1
I would consider myself to be a rationalist. Atheism extends from that as do my views on alternative medicine and astrology. I also consider myself to be anti theist because of what I see as religions undeserved influence in society.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

As a non atheist or theist or better still an a-atheist myself I can only assume that there is no more to atheism other than it is the position whereby someone who doesn't believe in a supernatural God would regard themselves as having a standing.

But I'm sure there is plenty more to atheists than the fact that they don't believe in God. There are many fascinating people who are atheists, some I'd have over most Christians any day in terms of interesting company. Most so called Christians I've met on the street would do your head in if you were to around them for any length of time. Jesus was (is) astoundingly amazing though Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

On behalf of His Imperial Majesty Norton I of America, I beg to differ!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

I have no idea why you guys keep saying that (ignorance of history perhaps)

Jesus (sans-deity status) was simply one of dozens of Jewish messiahs around that time. He didn't say anything particularly profound (even if one assumes the ideas in the Bible attributed to him were actually his ideas) nor did he do anything particularly remarkable. There were "messiahs" around those times who managed far more remarkable feats, such as raising large groups of followers.

Jesus simply ended up, probably by fluke, having better PR

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

On behalf of His Imperial Majesty Norton I of America, I beg to differ!

By all means please differ but tell me explicitly why or copy and paste from the aforementioned Wikipedi URL you posted instead of making me grudgingly search it to see what you are referring to.

Thanks

humanji

I think he was pointing out that Norton, rather than Jesus was the most unusual man in history. Read the first paragraph and you'll likely agree

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

By all means please differ but tell me explicitly why or copy and paste from the aforementioned Wikipedi URL you posted instead of making me grudgingly search it to see what you are referring to.

Thanks

If you went around proclaiming yourself as the king of Ireland and telling the guards to tidy their uniforms I think you might find yourself locked up, but this guys own currency got accepted and 30000 people turned up for his funeral!

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no idea why you guys keep saying that (ignorance of history perhaps)

Jesus (sans-deity status) was simply one of dozens of Jewish messiahs around that time.

Dozens? Ok then name one.

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't say anything particularly profound (even if one assumes the ideas in the Bible attributed to him were actually his ideas) nor did he do anything particularly remarkable.

He never said anything profound? Even if we assume that the things attributed to Him in the Gospel record are actually His sayings? So for instance saying "Before Abraham was I was" is not a profound statement? Abraham lived 400 years before Moses and Moses lived over 2000 years before Jesus yet Jesus says “Before Abraham was I was”. Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement? Or "I beheld Satan cast down as lightening" nothing profound about that either I suppose? Not only does that one assume the existence of Satan but it also suggests that Jesus was in heaven when this event took place which was long before Adam was created. Or how about "I am the way the truth and the life" sure that's just your average everyday saying that anyone would say. If you don't believe these statements are profound please tell me what you would consider to be a profound statement.

What makes them more remarkable is that the one who is attributed to saying them is the same one who is claimed to have risen from the dead. No other respected founder of religion made such claims about themselves. And Jesus is a respected founder of religion. He is not in the same camp as a Father Divine or David Koresh or any other nut job of religion. He is respected even in other faiths as founder of religion. And respected as good and wise.

Same goes for deeds that are also ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel record. Raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to blind people, casting out demons, making cripples walk, walking on water, rebuking storms, feeding multitudes with miniscule amounts of food and on we can go. Now you don’t have to believe these things happened (and I’m sure you don’t) but to say that they are not remarkable is silly. If they are not remarkable deeds then please tell me what you consider to be a remarkable deed? And can you give me an example of someone who has performed such a deed?

Wicknight wrote: »

There were "messiahs" around those times who managed far more remarkable feats, such as raising large groups of followers.

Like who?

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus simply ended up, probably by fluke, having better PR

Ah yes, one of the beauties of the world we live in. You can believe whatever you want to.

Christianity stands or falls on whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened as a fact of history. Disprove that that happened and you will have proven Christianity a false religion. Saying you don't believe it happened because it can't happen is not proving it didn't happen. Just like me saying I believe it happened therefore that is proof that it did happen. In NT days they had eye witnesses to these events, we only have the Gospel records and those records must be scrutinised to be sure of their veracity and they have been for 2000 years and they have yet to be proven to be liars. Read Frank Morrison’s “Who move the stone”. He set out to prove that the story of Christ’s Resurrection was only a myth and Sherlock’s “Trial of the witnesses” who put the apostles on trial for faking the resurrection.

Anyway I thought we were supposed to be talking about Atheism? You always go off topic you know that Wicknight??

Soul Winner

humanji wrote: »

I think he was pointing out that Norton, rather than Jesus was the most unusual man in history. Read the first paragraph and you'll likely agree

Ah ha! "I see" said the blind man. Yes he was unusual to be sure but he’s not even in the same solar system as Jesus. Please read my response to Wick above for things that are attributed to Jesus as Him saying and you will agree that Jesus wins hands down in the “Most unusual person in history” competition

Dades

* pulls up chair *

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement?

Not at all. Rather megalomaniacal, I'd have said. Most of the rest are poetic renditions of pretty standard sentiments. You'll find most poets able to come up with stuff that's at least as good and the ancient world was not short of excellent poets.

BTW, if you're looking for profundity in the ancient world, I'd recommend anything that Plato wrote. And I challenge you to read the end of the Phaedo, where Plato recounts the death of Socrates, and remain unmoved. It depicts a far more heroic death than the strange account of Jesus' death.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/phaedo.html

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dozens? Ok then name one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

Soul Winner wrote: »

He never said anything profound? Even if we assume that the things attributed to Him in the Gospel record are actually His sayings? So for instance saying "Before Abraham was I was" is not a profound statement?

No

How is that profound?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Abraham lived 400 years before Moses and Moses lived over 2000 years before Jesus yet Jesus says “Before Abraham was I was”. Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement? Or "I beheld Satan cast down as lightening" nothing profound about that either I suppose?

Again no. Jesus is basically saying he is God. That isn't profound at all. I can find 10 people in Dublin inner city who will claim the exact same thing.

Do you understand what I mean by profound. I mean though provoking, something enlightening. Claiming to be god isn't enlightening. Quite the opposite in fact.

I though at least you were going to pick something like "Love your enemy", which many Christians think was a profound thing Jesus said, largely because they are unaware of the others who said it before him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not only does that one assume the existence of Satan but it also suggests that Jesus was in heaven when this event took place which was long before Adam was created.

Or it suggests that Jesus was simply nuts.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or how about "I am the way the truth and the life" sure that's just your average everyday saying that anyone would say.

Actually it is, at least your average everyday saying that a cult leader would say.

Claiming to be the only route to salvation or authority is pretty much standard practice for a cult leader, so much so it is part of standard definition of a cult

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis3.html

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you don't believe these statements are profound please tell me what you would consider to be a profound statement.

One I came across recently -

A gun gives you the body, not the bird
Henry David Thoreau

Soul Winner wrote: »

What makes them more remarkable is that the one who is attributed to saying them is the same one who is claimed to have risen from the dead. No other respected founder of religion made such claims about themselves.

Er, again your ignorance in this regard is rather shocking.

Claiming to have leaders or significant figures rise from the dead is something religions do all the time. Followers of a Zambian priest claim he did it a few months ago, and he has many followers who will "verify" the event.

Of more significance in would be someone like the Indian mystic Kabir, who appeared at his own funeral to direct his followers how he wanted to be buried.

Or Rabbi Judah, who used to go home to his wife for dinner, witnessed by his neighbors.

(and before you ask, no I don't believe either of those stories either, just like I don't believe Jesus appeared to his followers)

Soul Winner wrote: »

He is not in the same camp as a Father Divine or David Koresh or any other nut job of religion.

One mans cult leader is another mans messiah. A cult leader is always respected by his followers. And once his followers grow in significant numbers they are "respected" by everyone else. Look at Scientology that has been granted religion tax status in America

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now you don’t have to believe these things happened (and I’m sure you don’t) but to say that they are not remarkable is silly. If they are not remarkable deeds then please tell me what you consider to be a remarkable deed? And can you give me an example of someone who has performed such a deed?

I can give you hundreds of examples of people who have claimed to I don't believe any of them actually did, nor do I believe Jesus did.

Are you being serious or are you simply trolling? Do you seriously believe that what Jesus' followers claimed he did has never been claimed by other cults before or since? Because TBH I find it hard to believe you are that naive.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like who?

Well Simon ben Kosiba for one, who lead a revolt against the Romans and formed an independent Jewish state in Israel that lasted for 3 years, until they were captured once again by the Romans.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity stands or falls on whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened as a fact of history.

Considering that there is no actual evidence that that happened beyond the contradictory ramblings of the cult members written years after the event was supposed to happen (kinda like how everyone knows someone knows someone who knows an asylum seeker family that have been given a car by the government), that assertion would seem unlikely.

A more accurate assertion would that Christianity stands or falls on whether or not people are prepared to believe that Jesus was resurrected. And it turns out they are. For obvious reasons (again a bit like the asylum seekers and cars/holidays/pocket-money)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Disprove that that happened and you will have proven Christianity a false religion. Saying you don't believe it happened because it can't happen is not proving it didn't happen.

That is brilliant logic there Soul Winner. Kinda falls down when you apply it to every other supernatural claim made by every other cult or religion. :rolleyes:

Since when did claiming something supernatural happened become support that it did actually happen. Did I miss that memo?

Soul Winner wrote: »

In NT days they had eye witnesses to these events, we only have the Gospel records and those records must be scrutinised to be sure of their veracity and they have been for 2000 years and they have yet to be proven to be liars.

Er, those books were NEVER scrutinized in any time period after the events where it actually would be been useful to do so, because they were the sole property and responsibility of the church itself for hundreds of years.

And cults/religions tend not to scrutinize themselves (in the same way that company CEOs tend not to fire themselves).

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway I thought we were supposed to be talking about Atheism? You always go off topic you know that Wicknight??

Hey you brought it up by making the rather silly claim that even if someone doesn't believe Jesus was a deity he was the most unusual person in history :rolleyes:

Trust me, if a person doesn't believe Jesus was the messiah he becomes simply one of an almost infinite number of wack jobs who believed crazy things about themselves.

karen3212

I think that once I stopped believing in a loving God and a heaven, then there were a lot of things going on in the world that seem much worse given that I now thought people have only one short life to live. So yeah I think that not believing in justice in the afterlife made me look at a lot of things differently. I think atheism brings with it a different way of thinking about things than believing in a God does.

Scofflaw

karen3212 wrote: »

I think that once I stopped believing in a loving God and a heaven, then there were a lot of things going on in the world that seem much worse given that I now thought people have only one short life to live. So yeah I think that not believing in justice in the afterlife made me look at a lot of things differently. I think atheism brings with it a different way of thinking about things than believing in a God does.

That, I think, is a really excellent point. The world-perspective that atheism implies (?) is very different from that of theism, or that of materialistic ignorance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. Rather megalomaniacal

Wicknight wrote: »

Or it suggests that Jesus was simply nuts.

Let's just stick with these two positions shall we? You guys are dead right, if He was not who He claimed to be then yes He was a megalomaniac nut. He is either a nut, a crook or who He claimed. CS Lewis calls Him a man that was of the order of a man who thinks He's a pouched egg if He was not supernatural. Why then in western academia is it ok to believe in Jesus as a good and wise man?

If He was good and His miraculous claims are not true then He cannot be wise because He is not wise enough to know that his ridiculous claims are not true. If He is wise then he knows that the claims He is making are not true He is therefore knowingly lying and thus is not good. He can't be both good and wise without being supernatural because of the supernatural claims He makes about Himself. The same source that makes academia call Him good and wise also has Him making these supernatural claims about Himself.

He is either one or the other (good or wise) or He is all three. I can respect anyone who will think He's one or the other, that means they know that the claims He makes about Himself cannot be made by a mortal man. The Jewish leaders of His day recognised this and proclaimed Him a blasphemer. They are only right if He is not in fact a supernatural being. What validates Jesus as being supernatural is the resurrection from the dead. If that happened as a fact of history then it gives validity to His other claims. Once you get to this stage then it all boils down to the Gospel records and whether the reporters who tell the story actually made it up for whatever reason (I can’t imagine why) they all (save one) died horrendous horrific deaths at the hands of their persecutors and all because they would not renege on their testimony. There is no way that if their story were a made up lie that they would give their lives in such a way for it.

I don’t need Christianity if Christ is not risen I don’t care how good or wise He was. I’ve looked at the evidence and I am convinced he was who He claimed to be. I would suggest reading those two books as starting point in establishing a basis for faith in Jesus as a supernatural God. If you don’t want to do that then fine.

Can we get back to atheism now?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can we get back to atheism now?

Never left it!

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

So to agree with Zillah & Wicknight - there may more to an individual atheist, but not to atheism.

I do concede that there are atheists who would not define themselves by their atheism in any discernible way. I can think of close friends who I think would fit into this category. That said, I personally believe you are splitting hairs when you make a prescriptive statement about atheism in large. Why? Because there are atheists (both individuals and groups) who define themselves by their atheism, just in the same manner as there are theists who define themselves by their theism. I don't think there is any need to highlight this point by providing links to atheists groups who are *cough* vociferously passionate about their beliefs - we've all seen the sites.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think there is any need to highlight this point by providing links to atheists groups who are *cough* vociferously passionate about their lack of beliefs - we've all seen the sites.

fixed

Fanny Cradock

Thanks for that! But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

lookinforpicnic

Clearly, if you are a rational person it is going to effect many aspects of your life. A whole host of ideas and tendencies of other people will just look completely idiotic to you, like superstitious behaviour, astrology, fortune telling, being a lucky person as if luck is something you can catch, having a soul, fulfilling ones destiny, life after death, reincarnation, cyclic life energy or some other energy force, having a purpose to fulfill, looking for a meaning to your life, organised religion, believe in a god.

Most (all in most cases) of these things will seem meaningless to you and that is undoubtedly going to effect your social behaviour, to different degrees depending on your personality or your political/ideological aspirations etc. given that we live in a world teaming with this nonsense.

Of course if the person from a rationalistic/naturalistic or scientific worldview is an atheist that is just one of the many upshots of his worldview, but given that the idea of god is so prevalent throughout society, this non-belief will become artificially inflated in minds of people that you tell you’re an atheist, and they may mistakenly think that this belief drives other beliefs (as in religion), when in reality it is in fact the opposite.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's for that! But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

I think "not dancing at a ball" is a better analogy, myself. Not enough people collect stamps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

I do. Or at least I did when I was 12.

I gave up after I got fleeced when I bought a ream of stamps with inverted bi-planes on them. Burnt the lot.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

Or indeed, being bald is just another hair color.

If you visit the sites you say are "vociferously passionate about their beliefs", you'll usually find that, far from gettting over-excited about something that's not there as you seem to think, they're actually anti-clerical, anti-wishful thinking, anti-dishonesty, anti-(other-unfortunate-human-attributes) etc.

Anyhow, what sites exactly are you referring to?

Dades

Fanny, why don't you pop in here and tell them their real agenda!

Obviously there must be more to it than laying off the gargle!

Zillah

Fanny Cradock is weird. Its like he's deliberately misunderstanding everything. So he's either a little bit crazy or trolling. Quite remarkable if he's genuine.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? Because there are atheists (both individuals and groups) who define themselves by their atheism, just in the same manner as there are theists who define themselves by their theism.

How does one define oneself by their atheism?

I think you might be confusing atheism with religious freedom (or freedom from religion)

As has been explained before there is a difference in doing something to support atheist and doing something in the cause of atheism. Atheism doesn't have a "cause", you can't do something in the name of atheism, though you can do something in the name of allowing people to right to be atheists (but that is more likely to be secularism than anything else).

Perhaps Fanny you need a new name when describing actions like these, because I think people like yourself have become confused by the fact that it is often atheists calling for these things that it is some how an "atheist belief" or "atheist cause"

I traditionally tend to use secularism, or secularist.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

Fanny Cradock is weird. Its like he's deliberately misunderstanding everything. So he's either a little bit crazy or trolling. Quite remarkable if he's genuine.

i thought fanny is a girls name?