Gripes with your own...

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Does militant atheism or the idea that atheism could become organised not annoy you to an extent as well? (i.e summer camps etc)

The term 'militant atheist' annoys me. People who are usually labelled as militant atheists can be robust, rude, even insulting. But they're not going out firebombing churches.

Organised atheism I've no real problem with. For example, I was pleased to see the recent humanist ad campaign on the Dart about religious oaths. I can't see atheists signing up for atheist sunday services:eek:

MatthewVII

To be honest, what annoys me most about atheists is the silence. Atheists (passive and non-judgemental as we are) tend to just go along with life and not get too worried about things. Which is why religion has just thrown us over its lap and had its way with us for so long. It'd be nice if atheism were more present in society so that we didn't have schools which were religious training grounds, protestors who repel lecturers and such horrors that our society is still manhandling into submission.

In short, atheists need to stand up, be counted, and stop putting up with what society has shaped itself into. I can't stand when people use the phrase "he/she is a good Catholic" or "this place has a good Catholic ethos". Religion should be something completely neutral, not seen in a favourable light or praised as a virtue.

I have no idea how this goal of achievable. More atheists "coming out of the closet" and resisting things like this silly blasphemy law would be a start.

/rant

philologos

MatthewVII: Funny enough I think the same about Christianity. People need to be more willing to stand up for their beliefs in a calm manner, and people need to start sharing the Gospel between friends and so on. If Christianity become silent to atheism people will think there is no argument against it, when there clearly are several. I include myself in this criticism.

robindch: Globally religion isn't getting numerically smaller.
According to Wikipedia Christianity is growing at a rate of 23,000 a day outside the Western world, and it is declining in the West at a rate of 7600 a day. Which if you can do maths makes a net gain of 15400 per day.

Handsome Bob

Dades wrote: »

I have gripes with agnostics who won't admit they are actually atheists.

These people that you are referring to, can honestly say with confidence that you know that they are "closet" atheists?

On topic, I have beefs with arrogant atheists who think that it's their right to patronise and to talk down to people. I also have beefs with the way many atheists seem to equate atheism to being automatically superior in intelligence to every religious person in the world.

And one last beef that I have and it's with atheists who think that their aggressive and arrogant form of argument can actually help them persuade people over to their way of thinking. I mean for **** sake do you really think people are going to be open to your line of thinking when you're basically calling them retards?

Dades

LZ5by5 wrote: »

These people that you are referring to, can honestly say with confidence that you know that they are "closet" atheists?

Here is an example (two posts after mine) of the type of person to whom I am referring (my emphasis in the post):

Myggel wrote: »

I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God but would not classify myself as atheist, agnostic or anything else...

Believe what you want. I don't mind nodding along and agreeing with religious types, as an Irish person I've been doing that all my life.

Myggel is an atheist, but has decided not to label him/herself one as in some voluntary notion of non-confrontation. This does not change the reality of Myggel's beliefs.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

On topic, I have beefs with arrogant atheists who think that it's their right to patronise and to talk down to people.

I have beefs with arrogant atheists people who think that it's their right to patronise and to talk down to people.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I also have beefs with the way many atheists seem to equate atheism to being automatically superior in intelligence to every religious person in the world.

I concur.

Handsome Bob

Dades wrote: »

Here is an example (two posts after mine) of the type of person to whom I am referring (my emphasis in the post):

Myggel is an atheist, but has decided not to label him/herself one as in some voluntary notion of non-confrontation. This does not change the reality of Myggel's beliefs.

He also emphasised that he didn't believe in a traditional God. Maybe he does believe in some sort of supernatural or spiritual force, just not any of the Gods outlined by organised religions.

If I take myself for example, I am agnostic. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. However, I will say that I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. This universe is a whole lot bigger than me and at times it inspires awe and wonder. I'm not willing to make a definitive stance and say that I know how this universe works. That's why I'm agnostic.

I have beefs with arrogant atheists people who think that it's their right to patronise and to talk down to people.

Point taken. It's not something that is exclusive to atheists. The reason I highlighted it was to compliment the third gripe about using the agressive and arrogant tone in trying to make a point. It is futile don't you think? Have you ever witnessed a religious person being receptive to this form of argument?

I concur.

Well at least that's one point in agreement.:D

Dades

LZ5by5 wrote: »

He also emphasised that he didn't believe in a traditional God. Maybe he does believe in some sort of supernatural or spiritual force, just not any of the Gods outlined by organised religions.

Why are you reinterpreting what Myggel said to revive your point.

He/she said: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God".

Now, quite simply, that makes Myggel an atheist under any definition of atheism I've ever heard.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

If I take myself for example, I am agnostic. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. However, I will say that I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. This universe is a whole lot bigger than me and at times it inspires awe and wonder. I'm not willing to make a definitive stance and say that I know how this universe works. That's why I'm agnostic.

Here's the thing. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. The universe is bigger than me, too, and I also find it awesome and wondrous. I'm not sure what constitutes a "definitive stance" but I hold the belief that gods (traditional or an entity in any shape that might be called a "god") do not exist. I don't claim to know it - it's just my belief.

What is the difference between you and me?

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

What is the difference between you and me?

The difference is strength of your belief.
You've stated you don't believe in the existence of gods using any definition, whereas if I'm not wrong LZ5by5 rejects the belief of the traditional personalised god, but is open to alternative definitions.

Handsome Bob

Dades wrote: »

Why are you reinterpreting what Myggel said to revive your point.

He/she said: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God".

Now, quite simply, that makes Myggel an atheist under any definition of atheism I've ever heard.

I'm not reinterpreting what he said. To me he didn't elaborate enough in the sense that he may not believe in any traditional or any type of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's ruling out a possibility of a "higher power" (I hate that phrase) or some other supernatural force.

Here's the thing. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. The universe is bigger than me, too, and I also find it awesome and wondrous. I'm not sure what constitutes a "definitive stance" but I hold the belief that gods (traditional or an entity in any shape that might be called a "god") do not exist. I don't claim to know it - it's just my belief.

What is the difference between you and me?

What I meant by mentioning how the universe can be awe inspiring is that due to the wonder of it, I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all.

I guess that is the difference between you and me. I do have a spiritual side.

Otacon

Dades wrote: »

Here's the thing. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. The universe is bigger than me, too, and I also find it awesome and wondrous. I'm not sure what constitutes a "definitive stance" but I hold the belief that gods (traditional or an entity in any shape that might be called a "god") do not exist. I don't claim to know it - it's just my belief.

What is the difference between you and me?

Is there not a difference between:

"I don't believe there is a God"

"I believe there is no God"

If you qual;ify hte first statement with "... but I don't know for sure" then are you not agnostic?

Sam Vimes

dvpower wrote: »

I have read Dawkins. I have it in front of me.
Chapter 9 is titled 'Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion'. Dawkins doesn't make the direct accusation, but my point is that the harsh language he uses is counter productive.

For example:

You missed the bit where he said it was a flippant comment that he hadn't thought through and he was very surprised that it got an applause

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The difference is strength of your belief.
You've stated you don't believe in the existence of gods using any definition, whereas if I'm not wrong LZ5by5 rejects the belief of the traditional personalised god, but is open to alternative definitions.

Which brings us back to your post on page one. You can only be atheist about a god that is given some sort of definition - i.e. one within realistic parameters. We're all agnostic about something undefined that hasn't even been contrived yet.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not reinterpreting what he said. To me he didn't elaborate enough in the sense that he may not believe in any traditional or any type of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's ruling out a possibility of a "higher power" (I hate that phrase) or some other supernatural force.

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

LZ5by5 wrote: »

What I meant by mentioning how the universe can be awe inspiring is that due to the wonder of it, I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all.

But I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all!

That said, it sounds like you have belief that there may be something which I don't share so I think we're all clear.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You missed the bit where he said it was a flippant comment that he hadn't thought through and he was very surprised that it got an applause

I'm not sure how a book would get an applause

But again he didn't say (that I'm aware of) that raising a child in a religion is automatically child abuse.

He said that from his experiences of talking to some people the trauma of a child being exposed to concepts such as hell can be as damaging to a child as something like sexual abuse.

I'm not sure anyone here, Christian or atheist, would disagree that that can happen. I have known people who were basically, for want of a better phrase, seriously f**ked up by the religious upbringing they had. Seriously messed up.

But then most of the Christians this has been discussed with would say they wouldn't dream of teaching their children anything about hell or sin until they are at an age where they can understand it properly.

Zamboni

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch: Globally religion isn't getting numerically smaller.
According to Wikipedia Christianity is growing at a rate of 23,000 a day outside the Western world, and it is declining in the West at a rate of 7600 a day. Which if you can do maths makes a net gain of 15400 per day.

A net gain of 15,400 people more likely to catch AIDS and die from not using contraception?

Fanny Cradock

Zamboni wrote: »

A net gain of 15,400 people more likely to catch AIDS and die from not using contraception?

Do you have a point? Or are you happy just typing any old crap?

dvpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You missed the bit where he said it was a flippant comment that he hadn't thought through and he was very surprised that it got an applause

I didn't miss any bit. I read all of the book. I know this because I was there when I read it.

But perhaps you missed my original post, where I complained about the language that Dawkins sometimes uses. In this case, he used this language twice, once at the lecture in Dublin and then again in his book.

Zamboni

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you have a point? Or are you happy just typing any old crap?

What is crap about it?
Jack was pointing out that there is an increasing christian population outside the Western world. I was pointing out one of the many potential downsides of that.

Or are you just happy typing any old crap? Indeed.

dvpower

Otacon wrote: »

Is there not a difference between:

"I don't believe there is a God"

"I believe there is no God"

If you qual;ify hte first statement with "... but I don't know for sure" then are you not agnostic?

I think both statements can be made by atheists. And an atheist can say 'I don't know for sure' without being an agnostic. Someone who says
"There is no God and I know this for sure" would need to provide evidence to back up their certainty.

Equally for someone who says "There is a God and I know this for sure".

I must say, I'm confused by agnostics. It might be an interesting subject of a seperate thread, to ask agnostics to define what it means to them.

Handsome Bob

Dades wrote: »

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist

That statement could be used as a definition!

To be fair looking back on what Myggel said he also says that he doesn't consider himself agnostic. Or atheist. So again to properly put that quote that you keep bringing up into the right context we would need Myggel to elaborate on what exactly he believes in.

But in regards to the quote in itself, if someone says that as a stand alone statement then I would agree that they are an atheist.

That said, it sounds like you have belief that there may be something which I don't share so I think we're all clear.

Well there you go. Can I go home now?:p

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Which brings us back to your post on page one.

I absolutely agree, there really no difference between an agnostic and an atheist other than one has a narrow definition of what a god is and the other doesn't. The strength of that definition allows for an absolute statement, in the case of the latter.

Dades wrote: »

You can only be atheist about a god that is given some sort of definition - i.e. one within realistic parameters. We're all agnostic about something undefined that hasn't even been contrived yet.

Again I agree.
But you're making the assumption that your definition of the word is the only possible one which can be applied. The very fact of saying you're an agnostic is an act of sticking your hands up in the air and saying I don't know. Saying you don't know doesn't the statement invalid.

Dades wrote: »

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

And I totally agree with you.

Dades wrote: »

But I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all!

Which sounds like an agnostic from here.

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

I have read Dawkins. I have it in front of me.
Chapter 9 is titled 'Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion'. Dawkins doesn't make the direct accusation,

Dawkins wrote:

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place.

Yes, I agree with you that he doesn't make the direct accusation of psychological (not physiological) damage. If you carry on to read the sentence after the one you've quoted, he goes on to say:

Dawkins wrote:

It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience [...includes the "hell" example from above...] But the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical.

Which puts his comments in some kind of context -- basically, that he believes that some religion does constitute "child abuse", otherwise the "hell" story lady wouldn't have said so, and neither would the Dublin audience have applauded his off-the-cuff comment. But by no means does all religion constitute child abuse. And while Dawkins' comment was certainly off the wall, and stupidly so, in suggesting that catholicism in general is tantamount to child abuse, it really should be read only in the light of his subsequent semi-retraction.

FWIW, I would like to see that the subsequent clarification gets as much coverage as the original quote which has attained an unfortunate life of its own on the internet entirely independent of the clarification.

Anyhow, so summarize again. Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

sink

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I guess that is the difference between you and me. I do have a spiritual side.

Buddhists are atheists, atheism is not aspiritualism.

My gripes are with the wider community not just atheists. I have a gripe with the way some people (atheists included) think atheism is a dirty word.

For all those who say "I don't believe in god but I don't consider myself an atheist", tough you are an atheist. Atheism is just a word, it does not mean anything other than and absence of belief in deities. It not a church, a religion or a belief system. It has no leaders, it has no followers, it has no comities, it has no members list. It has no doctrine, no dogma, no sacred texts, no requirements beyond not believing in any type of god. You can be an atheist and be a Buddhist, Spiritualist, Scientologist or any other wacky cult that does not have a god component. Being an atheist is not something you choose like which church you want to be a member of, atheism is the default position (implicit atheism), you can only choose not to be an atheist by believing in the existence of a god.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass, I notice that you have no gripes with the Bible, as such. Just with issues regarding human interpretation of its teachings. Do you really have no problems with the Bibles validity or its authors? No problem with any of the stories contained within, such as the more gruesome/unfair elements?

Rev Hellfire

sink wrote: »

Buddhists are atheists, atheism is not aspiritualism.

Some buddists are athiest, but not exclusively so.
But Buddhism itself has very little to say on the subject. Not to mention the small matter of spirits and other such supernatural agents which you would imagine would be equally rejected by atheists, though I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure how a book would get an applause

He was talking about a time when he said it in a lecture

dvpower wrote: »

I didn't miss any bit. I read all of the book. I know this because I was there when I read it.

But perhaps you missed my original post, where I complained about the language that Dawkins sometimes uses. In this case, he used this language twice, once at the lecture in Dublin and then again in his book.

When I say you missed it I mean you didn't mention it here. If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

I would suggest the time when he called religion a mind virus although he only did that to make a point

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Some buddists are athiest, but not exclusively so.
But Buddhism itself has very little to say on the subject. Not to mention the small matter of spirits and other such supernatural agents which you would imagine would be equally rejected by atheists, though I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.

Remember now, atheism is the rejection of the notion of there being a God.

That is all.

It's not an umbrella term for denying the existance of all supernatural beings.

Naz_st

LZ5by5 wrote: »

He also emphasised that he didn't believe in a traditional God. Maybe he does believe in some sort of supernatural or spiritual force, just not any of the Gods outlined by organised religions.

If I take myself for example, I am agnostic. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. However, I will say that I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. This universe is a whole lot bigger than me and at times it inspires awe and wonder. I'm not willing to make a definitive stance and say that I know how this universe works. That's why I'm agnostic.

I would suggest you are an agnostic atheist. Perhaps with a leaning towards "agnostic atheist deist".

Dades wrote: »

Why are you reinterpreting what Myggel said to revive your point.

He/she said: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God".

Now, quite simply, that makes Myggel an atheist under any definition of atheism I've ever heard.

Here's the thing. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. The universe is bigger than me, too, and I also find it awesome and wondrous. I'm not sure what constitutes a "definitive stance" but I hold the belief that gods (traditional or an entity in any shape that might be called a "god") do not exist. I don't claim to know it - it's just my belief.

What is the difference between you and me?

I would say mainly semantics, or possibly the lack of the leaning mentioned.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not reinterpreting what he said. To me he didn't elaborate enough in the sense that he may not believe in any traditional or any type of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's ruling out a possibility of a "higher power" (I hate that phrase) or some other supernatural force.

What I meant by mentioning how the universe can be awe inspiring is that due to the wonder of it, I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all.

I guess that is the difference between you and me. I do have a spiritual side.

Depending on what you mean by "having a spiritual side", I don't think that this is ruled out at all in atheists. (Buddhists being an obvious example)

Dades wrote: »

You can only be atheist about a god that is given some sort of definition - i.e. one within realistic parameters. We're all agnostic about something undefined that hasn't even been contrived yet.

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

But I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all!

This is about the 4th thread in the last couple of weeks that has had some form of "Atheism/Agnosticism definition" debate in it. Given the name of the whole forum, is it not possible to sticky some sort of definitions thread that could be referred to in subsequent threads?

I thought robin's definitions in a previous thread on this topic was a good start:

Here's a definition from last year which tries to pin down exactly what the word means in a bit more detail:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4).

And Dawkins' scale (below) isn't bad, but doesn't cover deism explicitly.

(from Wikipedia)
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

I think it's a case of "It's one thing to say I don't believe in God but an atheist :eek: No way!!"

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Remember now, atheism is the rejection of the notion of there being a God.

That is all.

It's not an umbrella term for denying the existance of all supernatural beings.

Which is why I said "I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.", there was an interesting thread on the subject in the Buddhist forum a while back.

Fanny Cradock

Zamboni wrote: »

What is crap about it?
I was pointing out one of the many potential downsides of that.

There was nothing "potential" about the claim in your post. You stated that these 15,400 people where more likely to catch AIDS because they were Christians. It's pretty brazen to suggest that an increase in levels of HIV/ AIDS infection is directly connected to Christianity and not provide anything to back up your claim.

Let me guess, in your ignorance of the facts, you think that all Christian denominations are against contraception. You also seem to ignore the basic doctrines promoting monogamy and abstinence held by the denominations that do not support the use of condoms. Your castaway remark smacks of nothing more than an ill-conceived side-swipe at something you clearly don't understand very well.

I'm not in anyway interested in getting into this debate. I just felt that your remark warranted a challenge.