BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM

As I have said many times, it ain't fair....atheists and skeptics, if they are right, don't get to thumb their noses and say "I TOLD you so!"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:27 PM

Yep Jeri - after all we get bogged down in defining 'True' long before we try to agree just what a 'test' is , what to 'test', how to 'test'

... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:09 PM

I think the whole concept of a "true test" of any individual's beliefs is pretty stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM

"The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?"

But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life) is just the inevitable emergent behavior of the hardware (brain circuitry), then they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down, so your comment is meaningless and from their viewpoint nonsensical - only someone who 'has faith' in the very things the atheist non-spiritualists do not can even think this .... :-)

In other words 'there is nothing to discover'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM

The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

I was JUST about to post that Mrrzy's post was well worth reading, no matter what your preference.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM

"humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself..."

I'm rather skeptical about that.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM

Just because a person doesn't believe in a deity doesn't mean we don't enjoy talking about beliefs--ours, yours, or anyone's. I find the belief that we should be exempted from all discussions on religion to be, well, defensive and pretty weird.

Mrrzy, I don't expect you'll get a lot of intelligent comments on your post as most people at Mudcat these days aren't terribly fond of reading, let alone trying to understand what a person writes. I don't always agree with you, but I found your post to be an exceptional piece of writing, honest and enlightening. It helps me know you a little bit better. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Janie
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

What Amos said....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM

the Constitution has a separation of church and state. Any law that is based solely on religion would and can be challenged and would be ruled unconstitutional. Laws are setup to maintain order in a society, laws can be changed and many should. That we why we elect law makers. You assume that no one who isn't religious could not be elected. Wrong but it doesn't hurt I agree. However there are many members of congress that have varied faiths or no faith at all ... there are many gay people in congress also. The gay marriage stuff someday will be challenged up to the Supreme court and then it will be settled. I know lots of people who are opposed not because of their religion or lack their of , but because they are bigots period and hate gay people. And it is very sad also.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM

"I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values"

Except the humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself, to pretend that Religion owned everything.


"Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!"

Well the negation response to this is along the line of the old arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If there are no angels, then the answer is simple - none....

To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'.

"Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther?"

I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'.

What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'....

Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular...

Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct ....

Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM

Textbook selection in Texas like all states is dictated by the elected school board representatives. I am the first to scream foul at some of their antics however, they were elected by their people Nuff said. Most everything you cited is based on social conduct of accepted behavior which just happens to go hand in hand with most religious teaching. I suppose in some cultures it is ok to steal but for a society to succeed it needs moral values of some kind or chaos occurs. Laws are based to preserve order. The Sunday "blue laws' were rule unconstitutional a long time ago.

In other countries sure, but take away their religion and you still have the thuds doing what they do .. your argument doesn't hold.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:00 PM

Slag- a totally uncomprehending pillock.

I think that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:42 PM

FS, it is ALL magic. That ANYTHING exists is the miracle, and yet, here we are!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM

"how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created."

Well your problem with this is just semantics - just what meaning you ascribe to the words in a particular context.

What the cutting edge of scientific speculation now says is that

"in THIS universe that we can detect with our senses, there WAS nothing. Energy flux in dimensions we cannot detect leaked though into the dimensions we CAN detect now, and created the Big Bang - all that follows is purely the effect of the natural laws, based on mathematics so complex, we struggle to untangle it slowly, bit by bit - including the delusions of the resultant thought processes that there MUST have been some magic sky fairy that created it."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:17 PM

Well, homosexual marriage is still widely illegal, mostly based on the religious convictions of lawmakers. Any laws about what can and can't be done on Sundays are certainly based on religion. Laws about nudity, drugs, prostitution, and polygamy probably all have some basis in religious belief. There are school boards all over the country, most notably in Texas and Kansas, who are dictating that religion be taught in schools. They have required that "Intelligent Design" to be taught as a theory alongside the theory of evolution. In Texas, they are requiring text book authors to paint a prettier picture of the Christian foundation of the country. People are allowed to send kids to religious schools where they are taught to believe -- and be proud of it -- things that aren't possible. I think that's part of why the Republicans are able to convince so many people to believe their crap.

It's not law, in fact it's illegal, but no one who is not a religious person will ever achieve high political office in the U.S. This is a wide-spread and generally unquestioned bias that plays itself out in the way our laws are made.

If you get out of the United States or Europe, many countries have very stringent religious laws. Even in Europe, there is a push on to make insulting someone's religion illegal.

So, yes, lawmaking is heavily informed by religious belief.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:11 PM

The Pshaw, my good friend, was only directed against the implied notion that IF one were an atheist THEN one would not discuss religion. As a proposition, that strikes me as bunkum (that's how we spell it ovah heah). The rest of your rhetoric is pleasant and charming as always.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM

Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim! Don't you see any complexity? Why the hostility? Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther? for one? It is a huge and diverse field and virtually every culture in the world is somehow rooted in religion.

That is the part that interests me in my question: Why the antagonism? Why the hostility against? Think of it this way. As a parent, you care for your kids. You try to direct them in paths that will be beneficial to them. You correct them. You can be angry with them or happy for them but you are CONNECTED to them. If you see someone's child, other than your own, your connection is only at what you might call a moral level. You don't correct them unless their act has been egregious. If they are well behaved stranger-children you ignore them for the most part. They are really of no concern to you. So I would think it would be with matters of religion. No big deal, no concern, unless you are REALLY CONNECTED to it in some manner and that is my contention, otherwise it wouldn't matter and this thread would die a speedy death.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:07 PM

Oops.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:05 PM

Ah, OK, let me explain my moth to the flame response, in your terms (not explain in your terms, Ima gonna splain in my own terms, but the moth-flame analogy was yours). I see it more as a rearguard action, here in these By God Yewnited States.

You see, what I consider the worst enemy of humanity is the *harm* that is done under the umbrella of religion. Cannot recall who said that for good people to do evil takes religion, but what I think is closer to another unattributably (by my memory, try Google if you're curious) quote, that people who will believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

I *know* that Hitler wasn't a statistically normal Catholic, but without Christianity (and Islam but irrelevently here) already teaching to hate Jews, would almost my entire maternal extended family have been mass-murdered only for their *perceived* beliefs (their family was actually secular, candles on the Christmas tree and all), along with tens of millions of other people, so effortlessly?

I repeat: what I fight is the harm.

I know the terrorists who've been slaughtering Americans wholesale overseas since at least Nov. 1979, when some teenagers took over the Tehran embassy trying to commit martyrdom/suicide but the Marines couldn't believe what was happening, through the bombing of all those planes and embassies *long* before Sep. 11 2001, and who've been doing it ever since with no end in sight, weren't average moslems either.

In fact, the individual ones who blew up the Beirut embassy (the first time), killing my pacifist atheist WWII-consciencious-objector father along with 60-odd others, mere weeks before my college graduation ceremony, were Ayatollah-loving, Syrian-trained, moslem Lebanese.

I don't have a problem with Iranians, or with Syrians, or with Lebanese, but without their faith and Dad's *perceived* Christianity, that bombing, the first of its kind, would not have been *motivatable* (at least, not nearly as easily). (As an American it was always assumed Dad was a Protestant, and in fact his family's Quaker -- in fact one of our most beloved cousins, Cousin Mather (Lippincott) just died, you may have heard of him -- nonetheless Dad he always answered "none" to the question of what his religion was.

And where I grew up, in the largest city of barely-post-colonial west Africa, there were roughly equal proportions of (I didn't know they were Sunni but they were) Moslems, Catholics, and animists who didn't consider their various beliefs to be a religion per se, and I had some Jewish relatives. So at home, the moslems would all pray on their little carpets, all at the same time, no matter what else was going on like they were your taxi driver, and on Sundays the christians ate their god. Then when we touristed the girls all covered their heads for mosques, males covered theirs for synagogues if we were in Europe, and throughout the animists could believe, and argue about since there were so many different tribes, way more than 6 impossible things before breakfast. So basically you end up seeing that all these various beliefs are equally worthy of respect, to wit, equally silly, you might say... if it weren't for the harm they can do.

I was occasionally asked "est-tu croyante" meaning kind of Do you believe, but No was always an acceptable answer. I miss *that* kind of tolerance...

Again, what I fight is the harm that only belief in the completely unverifiable can do with the minds of the credulous. I do it mostly to protect the minds of the credulous, in a "teach a man to fish" kind of philosophy, since by getting people to think for themselves means you end up with people who won't be led into incredible nastininess *without good reason* - and "My shaman/priest/imam/rabbi is better than your SPIR" wouldn't be good enough.

Faith, defined by Mark Twain as believing what you know ain't so or something similar, can do so much harm when harnessed by bigots to the believers, that many of us, not only those whose mom happens to be a Holocaust survivor and whose father was blown up by islamic terrorists, have stopped putting up with the whole shebang. I work on one smalal piece of the puzzle: getting really smart people to question their rationales, and to know how to think critically (which is why I so enjoy teaching experimental methodology, but wow, this is getting to be a really long post so I'll shut up now...)

It's The Harm.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM

I have heard this many times ... what laws can someone give me an example of a law that is based on religion? Laws are based on a code of moral and social conduct ... it so happens that they go hand in hand with religious doctrine ... but what ones would you like to get rid of .. the killing one or the stealing one or the cheating on taxes etc ..

I submit the same character defect that causes a pediphile priest to assult a child is the same character defect that causes a non believer that does the same. If you remove all religion .. it is what it still is .

In any event I wish mudcat had a separate category for religion bashing .. at least it wouldn't get cludder up in the stuff that makes me laugh or feel good. In any event, no disrespect intended on my part .. I am what I am ... sometimes I don't like me, other times I do ... I am human   but my faith tends to keep me in line somewhat

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:50 PM

This is a pretty sterile discussion unless you consider ethics and codes of conduct, including humanist as well as religious belief.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

Thank you for your post Slag. I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values. If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple?

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM

I did notice one interesting thing in the survey results which no one else commented on:

While "Atheists/Agnostics" ranked high in their knowledge of religion, people who said their religion was "nothing in particular" ranked rather low.

One wonders, what is the difference between "atheists/agnostics" and "nothing in particular?" Well, my first guess is, the "atheists/agnostics" are people who are interested in religion (as a social phenomenon, or whatever), and the "nothing in particular" people who are not interested, and therefore don't even bother to adopt a label for themselves. Another possibility: the "nothing in particular" people believe in some kind of god, but they don't want to join any religious group. But that doesn't explain why they would rank so low in their knowlege of religion--or does it? I guess we are free to speculate.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM

If it's a big deal to other people, and shapes how they make decisions, then unless you're going to squirrel yourself away in isolation it helps to have some knowledge and understanding of others' beliefs, even if you don't share them, no matter what perspective you are coming from. True in democratic society, true for the mobile world we live in. For these reasons, I'd say "Pshaw" to your assertion, too.

I don't see value in being confrontational about differences in belief. That I'll happily ignore, if I can.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM

"So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion?"
Atheists question - believers accept without question.
Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale.
The slogan of The Christian brothers is "give me a child of five and I will give you a believer for life."
Here in Ireland we have just become aware of a massive and long-term outbreak of clerical child abuse by Christins using their influence though their position in the church to carry out serial rapes of children. We want to know how they got away with it for so long and on such a scale - oh - and where was their god while all this was taking place?
No mystery, just open your newsaper.
Now let's here your theory.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

Religion as a social force fairs about the same as many other human endeavors as to whether is causes harm or helps Mankind. Millions upon millions of people died in WWII under the banners of socialism, Russian and German versions but todays socialists would tell you that it was the leaders and adherents who were flawed, not the theory and that forms a mighty big debate. So too, religionists might rightly argue the same: it is the users and abusers of relgion who do the harm. I fail to see any validity in the wholesale dismaissal of religion as a force for good rather than evil. You might want to rephrase.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:27 PM

Well Amos, Pshaw! tells me something about you but Yes! You are right. And that is the only other alternative I see, that would answer my question. As an element of the humanities, religion holds a certain facination as a phenomenon and an object of study. That was why my undergrad major at Cal State U. at Bakersfiled, was "Special Major, Religious Studies" under the Philosophy Department.

Why "Pshaw!" Isn't my question valid?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM

I recently saw on Larry King Live a "debate" between a Jesuit, Choprah, and the guy that wrote the recent book with Hawking.

The arguement of "logic", as an example, which asks, "Can God make a stone he cannot lift?", was countered by the Jesuit, and I paraprase, without quotes... how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created.

Soooo, logic in itself neither confirms nor denies the existence of God OR the existance of God within the human mind. Perhaps humans need to define and REFINE their morality rather than debate it based on the "God" thing.

Anyway, it's all in Rapaire's mind. If he calves out, we no longer exist.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

When the laws of my country the world are completely free of religious influence I will stop worrying about it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM

Religion remains relevant to atheists because of the harm that it does, and the harm it reflects.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:01 PM

Thought provoking indeed. Well said and questioned, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

Pshaw! People will debate anything in which they have an interest. Being an atheist does not mean one is not interested in religiosity, as a phenom.

A

Subject: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

Well, a survey was given and the same old teams have donned their uniforms and gear...AND they're off! And getting nowhere fast.

A couple of points got me to thinking. One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers. The other is that atheists and agnostics are drawn like moths to the flame whenever something about faith is posted. What would be my response if I were really a decided non-believer?

If I grew up not believing, I most likely would not respond at all. Why should I? I would not care what others thought or felt about the subject nor would I try to convince someone they were wrong or that I was correct in my thinking. There are so many things in the world that could capture my attention and so many other matters of timely importance that it most likely would not reach even the threshold of curiosity.

The other group would be those who have been raised under a "religious" influence. Theirs would be a more complex picture. You would have to consider matters such as: 1) Which religion(s) are they rejecting? 2) What aspect of the religion do they reject? 3) Are there any other psychological factors in their opposition? 4) Have they looked in depth at their religion or at all religion?

Not an exhaustive list to be sure but I would conclude this. It acounts for WHY atheists and agnostics have parity in knowledge or even surpass folks who purport to have religious convictions. After all, the unexamined life is not worth living! Right? But I still run up against the problem of "response" as with those who were unschooled in any religion and reject religion and God altogether. It seems to me that if someone has really ultimately decided to not believe, it would no longer be of any concern to them.

So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion? If you truly do NOT believe why not just go your way and leave those who do to wallow in their collective imagination? Could it be that you really do have some part of your being that is not convinced that there are things beyond you knowledge that do or may have a real existence? That would put you in the agnostic boat and not in the atheist category. Or is it that you have a deep-seated hostility against God and or religion? Do you feel superior to those who believe and want to rub their noses in it? Why the seeming fascination?

And to the agnostics, why are you still looking? You should know by now that matters of faith are not really subject to pure logical thought. That is why it is called faith. The two can never truly intersect in a way that will allow reason to triumph over faith by proving one way or the other. Rational answer comes by why of the rigorous application of scientific thought(although I would argue here that modern theoretical physics has far exceeded religious thought in imagination and speculation as to the true, ultimate reality). So why don't you leave it alone?

And I would submit that this IS the true test that you are truly an atheist or an unbeliever: That you do not respond to matters of faith and religion. It does not leave you hot or cold but just dissinterested. Otherwise, you are maybe not being honest with yourself.