NationStates Jolt Archive

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more

They hate it because they cant screw around with each other. They have desire so they seek to destroy the institutions which disagree with thier lifestyle. They seek to have a society which makes them feel good for what they do and anything which condems thier behavior must be destroyed.

Some just dont believe and wish to aid thier fellow man ( these are a minority)

The third and last part are those who are socialy presured from youth (few friends who changed because they were called extremist for simple believing in god (i still get called that for just believing in God dont tell me it aint true)) or have some vendeeta against god for some experience they had in life.

some atheists really do have a problem with people who believe in God, they call us "weak minded", stupid, naive, ect.

others could care less if you leave them alone about it.


I tend to prefer the second group (oh, but I leave them alone)

There are a lot of religious threads; in my experience they're evenly balanced between atheists and believers, with a few mickey-takes thrown in for amusement value.

Atheists don't have a problem with people thinking there's a god, the problem is when they say there is one ;)

From an atheist perspective, false hope in a god is worse than hope only in your own hands; or possible for some worse than no hope at all.

Just for the record I'm not an atheist myself.

They hate it because they cant screw around with each other. They have desire so they seek to destroy the institutions which disagree with thier lifestyle. They seek to have a society which makes them feel good for what they do and anything which condems thier behavior must be destroyed.
pretty much (John 3:20 comes to mind....)

The abuse received by some theists in secondary schools! Absolutely shocking.

Anyway, it depends on who you're dealing with really as has been said.

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more
What we have a problem with is not people beliving in god ... but using that unfounded belief to justify fucking with our lives

That I do find exception to

Pychologist say that those who believe in God or have some type of optomistic faith live more healthy and productive lives.

some atheists really do have a problem with people who believe in God, they call us "weak minded", stupid, naive, ect.

others could care less if you leave them alone about it.


I tend to prefer the second group (oh, but I leave them alone)
A lot of it is just frustration at the system that messes with their lives in un-needed ways because of someone elses faith

Pychologist say that those who believe in God or have some type of optomistic faith live more healthy and productive lives.
Care to show us rather then making informationless claims

What we have a problem with is not people beliving in god ... but using that unfounded belief to justify fucking with our lives

That I do find exception to


Do you think its bad when a policemen fucks with your life by stoping you from murdering someone???

A lot of it is just frustration at the system that messes with their lives in un-needed ways because of someone elses faith
I as a Christian have the same frustration. ;)

Do you think its bad when a policemen fucks with your life by stoping you from murdering someone???

what if the police man takes away your hamburger because he thinks you are too fat and he believes that everyone should be able to run a mile in 6 flat?

then would you be mad?

Do you think its bad when a policemen fucks with your life by stoping you from murdering someone???
Strawman … You are infringing on others rights. Your rights only extend until they reach another’s.

I as a Christian have the same frustration. ;)
Absoltuly ... other faiths can be just as overbearing to one another as they can be to people with lack of faith

Strawman … You are infringing on others rights. Your rights only extend until they reach another’s.

if thats the case, many people would have little to no rights at all

if thats the case, many people would have little to no rights at all
Oh how is that?

Care to show us rather then making informationless claims

i was hoping to not have to spend my time researching something i read in discover but ill think about it.

But since i dont want to... Ill leave you with this... List all the Atiest plays youve ever read and socialist stories you have read... Whats the ending and most of the story??? Unhappy and sad... Joyce... Depressing, Ibsen... depressing..... hawthorn... Depressing...... Williams.... Depressing..... Miller.... depressing.... Got any more to add?.... Why are all the characters depressed?? A) they dont have Faith in something better B) they are doing imooral things (well most)

Oh how is that?

name a right that you practice daily that does not have any effect on anyone else?

Pychologist say that those who believe in God or have some type of optomistic faith live more healthy and productive lives.

Ignorance is in fact bliss. All kidding aside I tend to disagree with that.

if thats the case, many people would have little to no rights at all
I don't agree. Most people have plenty of rights, and your rights stop when they infringe upon others.

I disagree with what some people think are their "rights" and how they claim that I infringe upon their made up rights.

name a right that you practice daily that does not have any effect on anyone else?
he didn't say that it wouldn't affect anyone else. effect /=/ infringing.

People will come to find faith in something, eventually. The devotion and dedication that many ascribe to their political or scientific doctrines is the same sort of madness/enlightenment that the religious suffer from.
Before anyone gets on my case. Just let me say that its ok to be crazy...everyone else is. And I'm a lapsed Buddhist...we are often accused of being aethists.

They do have a point. It doesn't matter too much the Path people take to find...god, God, Yaweh, Allah, Brahma, Liberte, Science...it is the search for self that really matters.

<cough>:p I'll stop the ranting.


If your interested...Me Li is attempting to muck arround with religion; check out this thread around pp 49 or so religion starts to play a role in the RP Danteri Civil War. It is a great thread...even before Me Li joined it:D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473224

name a right that you practice daily that does not have any effect on anyone else?
You misunderstood my statement

Your right extends till they infringe on another Persons RIGHTS. I did not say anything about affecting them.

Psychologist say that those who believe in God or have some type of optimistic faith live healthier and more productive lives.

I like the disjunction between believing in God and having an optimistic faith. :D

What they actually say is that those that are confident in their beliefs, whatever these may be, are psychologically better equipped to deal with life.

Atheists tend to live healthier and more productive lives than agnostics, the same applies to theists with respect to agnostics.

As to the original question in the thread: I am an atheist and I have no issue whatsoever with theists. It is their right to believe whatever they want.

I do have an issue with evangelism, but that is a separate issue.

You misunderstood my statement

Your right extends till they infringe on another Persons RIGHTS. I did not say anything about affecting them.

all right, your right

sorry:D

all right, your right

sorry:D
No worries :) happens all the time (missunderstanding)


Sometimes you read one thing and it turns out they ment another

No biggie

Care to show us rather then making informationless claims

sure. (this took about 3 minutes to find)

A new study by Brigham Young University researchers reveals that greater religiousness is associated with fewer symptoms of depression, with religiousness defined broadly as any attitude, belief, or behavior involving spiritual or religious content.

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2003/August/news.aspx

Some misconceptions to clear up:

1. Atheism is not a "childhood rebellion." For people who use atheism as a childhood rebellion, they soon return to whatever religion they originally were indoctrinated with or get picked up by some other religious group. True atheists have spent years of contemplation striving to understand their existence, for the most part far more than any of their religious counterparts.

2. Atheists aren't devoid of morals; "morals" are an innate characteristic of every human being. I'm not sure if anyone has decided to claim this yet on this thread, but I'm not going to wait for it to happen. This one always sickens me in its unfathomable ignorance.

3. Most atheists aren't depressed. We're realists, sure, and that can be depressing at times, but we aren't depressed. Beyond that meaningless oblivion we perceive in everyone's existence and the eventual oblivion of the existence of humanity, we find that this fatalistic mindset toward nothingness allows for an optimal appreciation of life. In short, many atheists enjoy life more so than their religious counterparts; the former experiences life in all its vividness, the latter experiences it in a dreamy stupor.

sure. (this took about 3 minutes to find)



http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2003/August/news.aspx

The bring-em-young university for LSD users isn't a valid source. :D

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more

A few do, usually because of the whole "passion of the newly-converted" thing, I think. There are some athiests who are perfectly just people; there are also those atheists who seem to equate the proof of nihilism with the proof of their own divinity, to observe how militantly derogatory they are to the lowly, stupid believers.

Atheists don't like the crap we get from some religious people (although you can be a religious atheist if you have a religion with no God, but I'm assuming you mean secular atheists).

Religious people are a large majority, atheists are the least favourite minority and the religious have control of government unsurprisingly.

They hate it because they cant screw around with each other. They have desire so they seek to destroy the institutions which disagree with thier lifestyle. They seek to have a society which makes them feel good for what they do and anything which condems thier behavior must be destroyed.

Some just dont believe and wish to aid thier fellow man ( these are a minority)

The third and last part are those who are socialy presured from youth (few friends who changed because they were called extremist for simple believing in god (i still get called that for just believing in God dont tell me it aint true)) or have some vendeeta against god for some experience they had in life.

Wait wait wait? Now atheists have a lifestyle too?!

Well god damn boy, I'm gay and an atheist, which lifestyle shall I choose?!

sure. (this took about 3 minutes to find)



http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2003/August/news.aspx


Because you know Brigham Young University, founded by noted polygamist and outright nutso is absolutely impartial when it comes to religion!

Studies differ based upon who's doing them, to find a religious institution singing the praises of religion is not exactly shocking.

A few do, usually because of the whole "passion of the newly-converted" thing, I think. There are some athiests who are perfectly just people; there are also those atheists who seem to equate the proof of nihilism with the proof of their own divinity, to observe how militantly derogatory they are to the lowly, stupid believers.

I think I'm a combination of both.

By the way, you have the most incredible sig.

The bring-em-young university for LSD users isn't a valid source. :D


it might convince me if i read the study but BYU is not a source an athiest will accept. they need a person on "thier side" to say it or they just wont accept it. Just how people in general work.. Who you believe more a friend or a stranger. Even I dont think thats credible source and i agree with thier analysis

sure. (this took about 3 minutes to find)



http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2003/August/news.aspx
Lol not only is it by berminghan young which puts the validity into question they do not cite ANY of the statisitical information about it

Care to show us something either semi respectable or with enough information to make an educated decision on the accuracy of the study

LOL Saipea your a Buddhist. Come to the Path. You'll get about a billion allies in your fight against the imperialistic materialistc culture of the West.:D
The rest of you seem to fight for the sake of fighting...

Empirical damnsmirical. Tell me this think it through before you answer. You believe in something...you take comfort in knowing what you know...Of course your going to be better off.

Even if what you believe is true is false. You are heretics and shirk...but to you you are true toyourself???

NOTE: English needs a second person Plural--I suggest Y'ALL or Youzah

Some misconceptions to clear up:

1. Atheism is not a "childhood rebellion." For people who use atheism as a childhood rebellion, they soon return to whatever religion they originally were indoctrinated with or get picked up by some other religious group. True atheists have spent years of contemplation striving to understand their existence, for the most part far more than any of their religious counterparts.

2. Atheists aren't devoid of morals; "morals" are an innate characteristic of every human being. I'm not sure if anyone has decided to claim this yet on this thread, but I'm not going to wait for it to happen. This one always sickens me in its unfathomable ignorance.

3. Most atheists aren't depressed. We're realists, sure, and that can be depressing at times, but we aren't depressed. Beyond that meaningless oblivion we perceive in everyone's existence and the eventual oblivion of the existence of humanity, we find that this fatalistic mindset toward nothingness allows for an optimal appreciation of life. In short, many atheists enjoy life more so than their religious counterparts; the former experiences life in all its vividness, the latter experiences it in a dreamy stupor.

it might convince me if i read the study but BYU is not a source an athiest will accept. they need a person on "thier side" to say it or they just wont accept it. Just how people in general work.. Who you believe more a friend or a stranger. Even I dont think thats credible source and i agree with thier analysis


Multiple sources is always good. Remember, us Atheists are a cagey and skeptical lot.

it might convince me if i read the study but BYU is not a source an athiest will accept. they need a person on "thier side" to say it or they just wont accept it. Just how people in general work.. Who you believe more a friend or a stranger. Even I dont think thats credible source and i agree with thier analysis
No we need real accurate information … something this posted article does not give

it might convince me if i read the study but BYU is not a source an athiest will accept. they need a person on "thier side" to say it or they just wont accept it. Just how people in general work.. Who you believe more a friend or a stranger. Even I dont think thats credible source and i agree with thier analysis

Actually, I just wanted to make a pun about their name and LDS.

I'll take it as a source, but I still don't really believe it for several reasons:
1. There has to be a distinction between religious people simply being happier, rather than atheists being more depressed.
2. Intelligent people are more likely to be depressed; intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. Thus, you can't prove that it's the atheism that makes the person depressed.

i was hoping to not have to spend my time researching something i read in discover but ill think about it.

But since i dont want to... Ill leave you with this... List all the Atiest plays youve ever read and socialist stories you have read... Whats the ending and most of the story??? Unhappy and sad... Joyce... Depressing, Ibsen... depressing..... hawthorn... Depressing...... Williams.... Depressing..... Miller.... depressing.... Got any more to add?.... Why are all the characters depressed?? A) they dont have Faith in something better B) they are doing imooral things (well most)

Try reading 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressell. It's both socialist and atheist but the ending is truly beautiful, if a little deus ex machina.

Atheists don't like the crap we get from some religious people (although you can be a religious atheist if you have a religion with no God, but I'm assuming you mean secular atheists).

Religious people are a large majority, atheists are the least favourite minority and the religious have control of government unsurprisingly.

Theists also dislike the "crap" that they receive from some athiests so the balance is restored.

Do religions have absolute control of government? Just wondering because I am interested in politics. Admittedly, there are some Anglicans who sit in the British House of Lords, but there are only twenty-six of them. Hardly controlling in my own opinion. Any other examples?

LOL Saipea your a Buddhist. Come to the Path. You'll get about a billion allies in your fight against the imperialistic materialistc culture of the West.:D

I never properly explored Buddhism. I'm tempted. I certainly am an ascetic.
But you won't get me anywhere near those cheesy koans.

Actually, I just wanted to make a pun about their name and LDS.

I'll take it as a source, but I still don't really believe it for several reasons:
1. There has to be a distinction between religious people simply being happier, rather than atheists being more depressed.
2. Intelligent people are more likely to be depressed; intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. Thus, you can't prove that it's the atheism that makes the person depressed.
Agreed … all that would show up in things like P-Value analysis or possibly things like adjusted R^2

But of course this “source” does not give you any such information

In the US, the politicians are driven by their religion, when it suits them, and when they can pander to the religious right and win themselves votes. They may not follow through, but every election cycle they make a show of their piety.

Silly foreign devil barbarian. Koans are truly one of the greatest jokes the Yamabushi tengu monks ever pulled on mankind. The Tengu take great delight in fuckin' with your head. There is wisdom in them...just as it is difficult to translate:

WHAT IS LOVE? to those that have never experienced it. So to it is difficult to translate the countuors of spirituallity to those that have never really felt it.

The Aethists...well the true ones...not the reactionary revolutionaries...they KNOW spirituality. Tell me when you gaze upon the stars...do you not see the face of GOD? Subatomic fusion, The dance of creation and Destruction?:p

I never properly explored Buddhism. I'm tempted. I certainly am an ascetic.
But you won't get me anywhere near those cheesy koans.

hmmm...was it something I said.:D

The rooster crows in the morning after all if he didn't the sun wouldn't rise.

Some just dont believe and wish to aid thier fellow man ( these are a minority)



Thats me! I dont hate religion and dont have a problem with organised religion or oppression or whatever, or get pissed at God for letting evil happen. It just upsets me to see people wasting their lives. I feel the same about star trek conventions - its just fiction, get a life!

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more
In my personal opinion, I have no problem with "god" or people who believe in it. I suppose I can give them credit for having quite the imagination. Though, I believe in what Marx said, that being that religion is "the opiate of the masses." I DO have a problem with Christians and whoever else trying to convert me and everyone else. It's like a popularity contest.
This religious line also reaches into a social issue, that I don't want to go into at the moment.

Oh, and of course anyone with different beliefs must be a High School rebel, and in that fashion, relgious people are ignorant people with an imaginary friend.

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more

I think that atheists will notice the theist-started threads more and notice the theists being unreasonable (in their minds) or being peristently counter-intuitive in the face of reasonable argument (again, in their minds) on threads that end up dominated by atheists.

Theists will also notice the atheist-started threads more and notice the atheists being unreasonable (in their minds) or being persistently counter-intuitive in the... [do I have to write it out again?]


I am probaly describable as implicit atheist, when I'm forced to think about it (mostly just on here, due to sermons from theists, which is not to say that there aren't similar-if-non-religious versions of sermons coming from the explicit atheist camp) and don't have a problem with anyone believing in God, a god, a particular spiritual world-view or whatever.

I do have a problem with people saying "The world is obviously designed/created/whatever" or "God hates fags" (not that I smoke, either... a little British reference there... ;)) or (topically) that there are no flaws in Pascal's Wager. When people are reasonable (I can accept that someone has a belief in a God that I don't, that they live their lives like that) you won't hear a peep fom me.

I don't understand the issue of 'hope' from belief. Maybe that's why I don't have a belief. I don't know anyone who has "rebelled" towards atheism, but then I reside in the largely secular coutnry that is the UK. (Strange, really, given that we have a state religion and so much more history with religion than the US, which is supposed to have a secular goverment and be free from religious oppression, but that's the difference a few hundred years of history does for you... ;))


My views.

The third and last part are those who are socialy presured from youth (few friends who changed because they were called extremist for simple believing in god (i still get called that for just believing in God dont tell me it aint true)) or have some vendeeta against god for some experience they had in life.
HA! I have never heard anyone called an extremeist for believing in God, and, in fact, I've heard just the opposite. I've been pressured to convert more than any other religious person I've ever known. Not once have I said to anyone "You believe in God? Wow, what a rebel! Extremist S.O.B.!!!" Though, I and many of my friends have said, "You believe in God? Okay."
I'm criticized by religious folks for my smoking habit among other things. I've never seen an atheist say "Stop praying, I don't like it."
And, after all, you can lump all atheists' beliefs into three groups. But I can do that too:
Christians and those who aren't.

hmmm...was it something I said.:D

The rooster crows in the morning after all if he didn't the sun wouldn't rise.

See, nothing but silly words meant to inspire meditative thought:
"Does the crowing of a rooster necessitate the sun?" No. "Is my conception of a daily rising sun infallible?" Yes. "Can two things not mutually exclusive not be related by cause and effect?" Yes.
I don't need rudimentary mental exercises.

NOTE: English needs a second person Plural--I suggest Y'ALL or YouzahIt does. Or did. Depends on how you look at it.

"Thee" was second person singular (objective), "Thou" second person singular (subjective), ("Thy" and "Thine" singular possessives) "You" originally reserved for second person plural (objective) and "Ye"[1] subjective, thereof.

While "You" and "Ye" started to refer to the respective singular second-person references as well, and "You" eventually absorbed all meanins, regional dialect words in many parts of the UK still reflect some of the distinctions ("thee" and "thar", even the Birmingham "yaou" (for want of a better spelling for the inflection).

Still, it's at least some dumbing-down of the English language that we can't blame on our Left-Pondians cousins, given the decline started somewhere around the 13th Century when they were still living here in Merrie Olde Englande.... ;)


[1] Not "ye" as in "þe", which is "the" spelt (and pronounced) with the letter "thorn". True experts on Old English please feel free to correct me...!

I am an atheist, and my problem with other people being religious is (aside from many people attempting to force their religion on others) that religion clouds the mind and hinders scientic advancement.

I didn't read any previous posts, so I may ahve duplicated a previous statement.

As for the rebellion amongst the youth. I doubt it, I just think modern youth haven't been corrupted and are therefore able to make the intelligent decision that the concept of a God is ridiculous and irrational.

I am an atheist, and my problem with other people being religious is (aside from many people attempting to force their religion on others) that religion clouds the mind and hinders scientic advancement.


....but all science before the year 1900 was discovered by religious people.

Oh ya, one more fact about atheists to clear up:

4. Atheists are as contemptuous about their beliefs as their religious counterparts. Anyone who really believes something looks down upon those who don't see eye to eye on that issue.
Thus, this thread is pointless, presumptuous, and hypocritical.

I find it intresting about the whole "Christian faith brings hope" type thing. I used to be Christian, and I converted to athiesm, and I can say it improved my life, big time. Before, I had to try and believe the Christian system, which I never did, and try and justify how I believed the bible somewhat but I could never accept there was a hell. I have much more hope and happiness as an athiest, knowing that I do things not because I'm going to be rewarded after death, but because I just plain care for my fellow man and wish to help. I don't need a reward.

Although, I have no problem with religious people as long as it's a live and let live situation. I could care less if they believe in God or not, I'll assosiate and be friends with them regardless. It's when people try to convert us athiests, or start insulting us, that we get mad. When they preach their high-handed crap or call us worthless sinning wretches and lesser beings, I begin to get mad. But I have no problem and I respect their beliefs if they are willing to let me live how I want to.

Just because science advanced during religious times doesn't mean religion doesn't hinder science in this day and age. Bio-engineering, human cloning and so forth will take hundreds of years to happen now, because of the ignorance of religion.

Just because science advanced during religious times doesn't mean religion doesn't hinder science in this day and age. Bio-engineering, human cloning and so forth will take hundreds of years to happen now, because of the ignorance of religion.

Want to bet?

Who will develop bio-engineering first, (religious) US or (athiest) Europe?

Atheists object to religious-folk for the same reason religious-folk object to atheists. Each holds a firm, unprovable belief which directly oppose one another.

Me, I'm annoyed by both of them. I don't see how any rational person can hold any unprovable belief. I also don't see why it matters who's right. As long as the answer to the question, "Does God exist?" has no measurable consequences, who cares?

Atheists object to religious-folk for the same reason religious-folk object to atheists. Each holds a firm, unprovable belief which directly oppose one another.

Atheism is lack of belief.

Atheists object to religious-folk for the same reason religious-folk object to atheists. Each holds a firm, unprovable belief which directly oppose one another.

Me, I'm annoyed by both of them. I don't see how any rational person can hold any unprovable belief.
[snip]


In which case you are either irrational or have absolutely no beliefs whatsoever. Take your choice.
Either leaves you incapable of any coherent action.

@Fass

Agnosticism is absence of belief. Atheism implies that you believe that there is no god.

Europe isn't atheist... Italy is Catholic, England is Church of England etc.

Bio-engineering is hampered by religion. The idea that altering the genetic structure of existing creatures is an affront to a non-existant being is ridiculous, and yet it is the case that you cannot do genetic experimentation on animals or clone humans due to this concept that it is an affront to 'God'.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

It's a false hope, though, and one that leads to bad decisions. Think of the people who crash airplanes into buildings because they believe they will get 72 virgins in heaven or who allow environmental destruction because they think the world will end in a few decades, anyway.

Atheism is lack of belief.

In contempory usage, atheism means belief in the non-existance of God, although you are correct that that would be the correct literal interpretation of the latin root.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aatheist

Europe isn't atheist... Italy is Catholic, England is Church of England etc.

Europe is atheist

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0222/p01s04-woeu.html


Bio-engineering is hampered by religion. The idea that altering the genetic structure of existing creatures is an affront to a non-existant being is ridiculous, and yet it is the case that you cannot do genetic experimentation on animals or clone humans due to this concept that it is an affront to 'God'.

...we do cloning all the time.

We do not alter the genetic make-up of animals on a radical level, nor do we clone HUMANS.

Currently we have inspected the genetic build-up of humans and animals. We have also cloned a few animals. It is possible to do SO much more, but religion, either due to a belief in god or considering nature as something sacred, it is not done.

In which case you are either irrational or have absolutely no beliefs whatsoever. Take your choice.

The second one.

Either leaves you incapable of any coherent action.

I think you need to support that claim. It's possible to act on assumptions without believing them to be true. It's like trial & error.

What evidence have you that Europe is atheist?

List three credible sources that show Europe to be an atheist continent.

If you look at Eastern Europe, it is very religious and fairly superstitious.

In contempory usage, atheism means belief in the non-existance of God, although you are correct that that would be the correct literal interpretation of the latin root.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3AatheistThat's the problem. Contemporary usage seems to vary. I was a bit hurt when Llewdor lumped me in with the 'atheists' he didn't like, because I consider myself a fellow atheist, an implicit atheist, just as I think Llewdor was trying to describe [as what Llewdor was]. You could always class me as agnostic, if you considered that to be the 'middle ground' in the single spectrum of fundementalist theism through to explicit atheism, rather then seprate dimension of philosophy that it really is.

The problem is when I say "I cannot see a reason to believe in God", and you hear "I say that God cannot exist".

The second one.



I think you need to support that claim. It's possible to act on assumptions without believing them to be true. It's like trial & error.

Action depends upon desire. To act you have to have some desire for the circumstances to change. The fact that you wish the circumstances to change implies that you have a belief that it is possible for the circumstances to be better. Is that sufficient for you, or are you going to try and claim that we either

a act without desire or
b do not desire to improve our circumstances when we act.

What evidence have you that Europe is atheist?

List three credible sources that show Europe to be an atheist continent.

If you look at Eastern Europe, it is very religious and fairly superstitious.

England's going that way, there was an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2169809.html) on the subject in the Times this morning.

THE Church of England has debunked the widely held view that young people are spiritual seekers on a journey to find transcendent truths to fill the “God-shaped hole” within them.

A report published by the Church today indicates that young people are quite happy with a life without God and prefer car boot sales to church.
_________________________

Yet the Church continues to atrophy. The number of young people attending has been halved since 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 and 5 per cent of those aged 20 to 29 attend church. The number of children in Sunday school is less than a tenth of what it was in 1930.

That does not make Europe an atheist state. It just shows England appears to be the most intelligent and free-minded people in Europe. Heh.

That's the problem. Contemporary usage seems to vary. I was a bit hurt when Llewdor lumped me in with the 'atheists' he didn't like, because I consider myself a fellow atheist, an implicit atheist, just as I think Llewdor was trying to describe [as what Llewdor was]. You could always class me as agnostic, if you considered that to be the 'middle ground' in the single spectrum of fundementalist theism through to explicit atheism, rather then seprate dimension of philosophy that it really is.

The problem is when I say "I cannot see a reason to believe in God", and you hear "I say that God cannot exist".

I think agnostic is much closer in contemporary usage to the mere lack of belief in God, although it is usually explicitly linked to the idea that God can neither be proven nor disproven

Speaking as an atheist, I think there are a few reasons that some atheists try to talk people out of their religion.

- they were oppressed by religious people as a kid/teen/whatever and are trying to strike back
- religious people often try to talk THEM into changing their beliefs and it's pissing them off
- they see being religious as ignorance and/or stupidity. Imagine somebody telling you they still believe in Santa Claus at the age of 30 or whatever...I think you'd probably be weirded out by it and try to talk them out of it.

Generally, I don't bother trying to discredit religious people because a) there's no point, b) neither side can prove anything, and c) I wouldn't want them to bug me about being a nonbeliever.

As for atheism as a form of rebellion, sure, sometimes maybe it can be. I've seen becoming very religious as a form of rebellion, and I've seen converting to another religion to rebel, and I've seen a bazillion other things that are a result of rebellion. It doesn't mean atheism is always a form of rebellion, because if you come from an atheist family (as I do) it wouldn't make sense.

That does not make Europe an atheist state. It just shows England appears to be the most intelligent and free-minded people in Europe. Heh.

Naturally. :p

As an atheist I have no intellectual problem with people believing in a god. If people want to believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden, or some-such, then good luck to them.

I do have a practical problem with it though. They do have a tendency to try and convert people to their own little superstitions. Failing that (or more often "on top of that") they try to get laws passed that force people who do not share their superstitions to live lives according to the tenets of their cult. Up to and including making belief in their superstitions mandatory for everyone. Death could be the penalty for non-compliance.

More-over, the idea that a theocracy could get its hands on the nuclear button scares the crap out of me. At least when secular governments had that option, the abhorrence of obliterating life was a deterrent. Theocracies have no such problem when it comes to "unbelievers". The Crusades, Jihads and 9/11 are testament to that. Especially when they believe what happens "beyond this world" is of greater importance than what happens here.

I've always said that if there is an end of the world scenario, it wont be the atheists with their fingers on the buttons. It'll be religious nutters.

As an atheist, I have given up on trying to convince people of my point of view. I think that people can only become atheist when they choose to let go of their irrational beliefs. You can't force logic on them.

I am very proud of having been instrumental in someone realising he wasn't actually Catholic, and taking up a position as an agnostic.

My tiny counter-strike to all the forced conversions down the ages. It wasn't a conversion at all. Just helping him to work out what he really thought; not least by presenting a cogently argued alternative to the view he held initially.

I am a strong atheist. And I think thats were a mistake in destinction is made. 90% of people who call themselves atheists are not really atheist. They stopped beliving in the religion they were brought up in, but that alone does not label you an atheist. At the most these people are weak atheists. Chancces are they are agnostic.
Strong atheists do at times, go out and bash religious people. But most of us can control our selves. The only time we get up into an argument is when a religious person begins to talk about his religion and tries to convince us. This annoys us greatly, especially when the person knows we are atheist. I have been in so many religion discussions in the past two years that I dont even feel like arguing about it anymore.

I was talking with my friends today and we were talking about religion, I said "If god has our lives planned out and already has our destiny determined, thenwhy do we pray? Why do we ask him for something when he has already planned out everything that will happen.?"

The answer, prayer is not a form of communication with god, it is a way to keep you alert and religious. People take prayers seriously, and if theyre "prayer" is answered they say "God llistened" When its not anwsered they say "God has his plan for me". Give me a break.

Speaking for myself, I just find that Christianity as commonly practiced is self-contradictory on a number of levels. If I think that someone's genuinely interested in discussing theology with me, I'll happily discuss it with them: I think it's a fascinating topic, albeit one which too often becomes too emotionally-loaded.

I've got no problem with people holding theistic beliefs. I've got every problem with people who thing that their faith is a reason why I should believe.

That, and I've got rather disturbing memories of a conversation with one guy who tried to persuade me that the Dark Ages were a Good Thing because they helped the spread of Christianity, despite involving the fall of pretty much all of Western civilisation.

Action depends upon desire. To act you have to have some desire for the circumstances to change. The fact that you wish the circumstances to change implies that you have a belief that it is possible for the circumstances to be better. Is that sufficient for you, or are you going to try and claim that we either

a act without desire or
b do not desire to improve our circumstances when we act.


No. You've muddled the modal logic. I don't need to believe that anything is possible. I just need not to believe that it isn't.

You're presupposing belief.

My default position is that I don't know whether a given thing is possible. As such, it is possibly possible. That's all I need.

I am a strong atheist.

I'm a strong agnostic. I think atheists and theists alike have made remarkably similar logical errors.

No. You've muddled the modal logic. I don't need to believe that anything is possible. I just need not to believe that it isn't.

You're presupposing belief.

My default position is that I don't know whether a given thing is possible. As such, it is possibly possible. That's all I need.

Inherently not believing that something is not possible is logically the same as believing that it is possible.

Additionally, if you have only a negative belief (which is still a belief by the way), you have no motivation to do anything. Show me how motivation can arise without a positive belief.

The abuse received by some theists in secondary schools! Absolutely shocking.

Anyway, it depends on who you're dealing with really as has been said.


The absuse recived by some atheists in the past, absolutly shocking.

I've never seen a christian burnt at the stake at my school

In my experience, in a moderate, largely secular country, the only religious believers to regularly come in for abuse are the proselytizing ****s who stand in the streets with sandwich boards and/or megaphones.
Atheists rarely come in for any abuse, on any noticeable scale.

So I'd call that honours even. Cos anyone standing in the street with a megaphone is asking for it, basically.

The absuse recived by some atheists in the past, absolutly shocking.

I've never seen a christian burnt at the stake at my school

not a very good refernce for there have been many christians burnt at stakes and killed in numerous other ways.

i also didnt want to concentrate primarily on christians being the religious group, but i guess that kind of difficult assuming that christians make up the majority of those that follow a religion here on NS

I'm a strong agnostic. I think atheists and theists alike have made remarkably similar logical errors.

Thats fair. But a smart atheist does not make illogical errors.

I have a problem with people who claim to be agnostics, because when you parse down their position, they're still either theists or atheists. A theistic agnostic tells you "I believe in God, but I can't tell you anything about it - because God is beyond our comprehension." The problem? By telling me that God is 'beyond our comprehension', you're telling me something about your God. That's a contradiction. An atheistic agnostic says "I don't know anything about God so I don't believe in one." This position is very difficult to discern from atheism in the first place.

To review: an agnostic is either an atheist or is trapped in a logical contradiction.

Not true.
Agnosticism is "It is impossible to know whether or not there is a God"
Perfectly reasonable position.

Not true.
Agnosticism is "It is impossible to know whether or not there is a God"
Perfectly reasonable position.

Gah! Not this again! Damn, chart time.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

Yes, it's a reasonable position, but not one you can take alone. You're either Theist or Atheist, and either Gnostic or Agnostic. Agnostic is not a middle ground to Theist and Atheist. Chances are most people who call themselves Agnostic are Agnostic Atheists. And no, "Strong Atheism" does not necessarily mean Gnostic Atheism.

I think I'm a combination of both.

By the way, you have the most incredible sig.

*beams* Thanks.
**************************************************

As a fairly substantive theist, I've found two fairly common "problems" among atheistic thinking. The first is that if I am a Christian, then I must be a Jerry-Falwellesque Christian who wants to burn homosexuals at the stake. Apparently, the thought that you can be religious, and out of that sense of religion fight for equality, eludes them completely. Heaven only knows how they make sense of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The second is the Rorty-like position that we can't know anything about God, therefore my claims to religious knowledge are at best mere unprovable suppositions. I counted several times on just the last few pages where someone baldly asserts that "You can't prove the existence/nonexistence of God." My problem with that is twofold: first, that few if any atheists actually know enough about religious theory or post-modernism to even know the philosophical grounding they are building this premise off of, and second, that if they did know they'd know how thoroughly goofy and limiting the Rorty-esque conception of knowledge is. In my view, Rorty's views are in themselves nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum for the ultimate conclusions postulated by Sellars and Quine; there must be a way out of them, because by Rorty's standards, we wouldn't have a claim to know many of the things that seem like knowledge purely prima facie. Every time I try to point out how goofy a conclusion we have to reach with post-modern thinking, however, I get nothing more than retorts that beg the question, because after all, everyone knows that you can't prove the existence/non-existence of God; thus, we clearly can't have a standard of knowledge that falsifies this claim.

The second is*snip*

This sounds as though you know something of God then...Care to share? (hehe...ryhme...)

Pychologist say that those who believe in God or have some type of optomistic faith live more healthy and productive lives.
I don't care for this pseudoscience.

Originally posted by Xenophobialand
As a fairly substantive theist, I've found two fairly common "problems" among atheistic thinking. The first is that if I am a Christian, then I must be a Jerry-Falwellesque Christian who wants to burn homosexuals at the stake. Apparently, the thought that you can be religious, and out of that sense of religion fight for equality, eludes them completely. Heaven only knows how they make sense of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Religion in a secular state tends to be a pretty benign creature. It's when it gets into a position of power (which, if it is to carry out the work of the lord, it has to strive for) that it all goes a bit wrong. Those who wish to achieve power try to show how pious they are by either pointing out the religious shortcomings of their rivals, or advocating an ever increasing hard line on the non-believer "problem". Just look at pre-Enlightenment Europe or the modern day Middle East. This leads to a slippery slide into theocratic nightmare I would rather not experience.

Xenophobialand, though I have been known to bow to superior knowledge, I did not think it was post-modernism to consider the existence of God unprovable; rather I thought it had been a theme at least from the earliest days of the Christian faith that God's existence was not proven, but had to be taken on faith?
Here I'm really risking showing my ignorance, but I thought Augustine had argued as much?

The abuse received by some theists in secondary schools! Absolutely shocking.

Anyway, it depends on who you're dealing with really as has been said.
Its both ways Ive seen some theists abusing atheist a lot in y school. most of those theist abusing atheist there are Islams though.

Thats fair. But a smart atheist does not make illogical errors.

Nor does a smart theist. They do exist, a rare and endangered species, but they are out there.

Xenophobialand, though I have been known to bow to superior knowledge, I did not think it was post-modernism to consider the existence of God unprovable; rather I thought it had been a theme at least from the earliest days of the Christian faith that God's existence was not proven, but had to be taken on faith?
Here I'm really risking showing my ignorance, but I thought Augustine had argued as much?

I don't think that Augustine argued such a claim; after all, if all you have to do is take God on faith, then why would you need to provide theodicies or defenses of God in the face of logical difficulty? He did argue that you need to have faith in God; indeed, faith was a crucial element that could not be ignored if you were to be a godly and virtuous person, but faith for Augustine was definitely not a magical hand-waving gesture that suddenly got rid of worries like The Problem of Evil. In any case, Augustine was in many ways swept aside by the more rigorous Aquinas, who followed the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides that faith is more properly defined as having a logical proof so conclusive that you cannot concieve of any reason to disbelieve in God. In Thomist logic, faith in God is dependent upon being able to logically validate His existence.

I think that more than anything, our current conception of faith has less to do with writers like Augustine and more to do with the charismatic tradition of many of the more vocal faiths like Baptists. In many places where religion took hold in the first and second Great Awakenings in American history, they didn't have access to any book other than the Bible, so it's not surprising that their religion is less doctrinaire than it is using a smattering of Augustine to trowel cracks in the faith-based brick wall.

That being said, post-modernism as Rorty defines it is mistrust of any metanarrative, because his interpretation of modern philosophy is that such a metanarrative is impossible. As such, because knowledge of what the world is like is impossible to gather, and because such knowledge impedes our knowledge of God (definately a meta-narrative "kind" of thing), we can't claim knowledge or non-knowledge of God, only that in our culture's narrative, God has properties X,Y, and Z.

Nor does a smart theist. They do exist, a rare and endangered species, but they are out there.
Endangered indeed. I have yet to come across a theist (whether christian or muslim) that ha sbeen able to give me a logical and thorough answer to my or other atheist questions. Im not trying to be cocking, but its true.

But one has to think, who defines logic? Logic is subjective. (I dun knw,s omething to think about).

Religion in a secular state tends to be a pretty benign creature. It's when it gets into a position of power (which, if it is to carry out the work of the lord, it has to strive for) that it all goes a bit wrong. Those who wish to achieve power try to show how pious they are by either pointing out the religious shortcomings of their rivals, or advocating an ever increasing hard line on the non-believer "problem". Just look at pre-Enlightenment Europe or the modern day Middle East. This leads to a slippery slide into theocratic nightmare I would rather not experience.

I don't see that this is necessarily the case. If you look at John Locke, he's an ardent supporter of religious toleration from a purely religious perspective: religion and government serve two very different ends, one for this world and one for the next, thus they must be seperated because they are two different kinds of things. Furthermore, a central element of any religion is religious faith in that religion, but faith is not the kind of thing you can impose with the tools of the state; you can't legislate not lusting after your neighbor's wife, for instance. Still further, there have been ardently religious leaders who have nevertheless maintained strict seperation, largely because they recognized the veracity of Locke's teaching.

What you seem to be concerned about, then is not religion. It's the use of religion to reinforce or justify tyranny. That being the case, then you really ought to focus on preventing tyranny, not preventing religion.

Ok. Did say I bowed to greater knowledge *does so*
Lol. What theology I have read is patchy and misremembered; most of my knowledge, if you can call it that, is from arguing over this ground with people of all faiths and none.

Locke...I love him. :fluffle:

Locke...I love him. :fluffle:

Why? His epistemology is dubious, his theory of meaning is downright crazy and he is defending a protestant theist ontology. He also repeats himself a lot, and I mean a lot. What's to love?

Because his 2nd treatise on civil government is, apart from his theories on the origin of human society, one of the truest things I ever read.

EDIT: And I'm no Protestant, not even a theist.

Why? His epistemology is dubious, his theory of meaning is downright crazy and he is defending a protestant theist ontology. He also repeats himself a lot, and I mean a lot. What's to love?

Yes and no. His epistemology and theory of meaning were certainly. . .primitive, but you can love Locke without being a Lockean empiricist. His political works: Two Treatises and A Letter Concerning Toleration are both outstanding works of political literature that rank in the Top Ten of political theory books ever produced. I do have a few problems with his thinking, and in some places I think later writers like Rawls and Marx amended places that Locke failed to adequately deal with, but by and large, he's still the 800-pound gorilla of that political theory that has ultimately been the most successful revolution in governance of the people ever.

And Xenophobialand has not only put it better than I did, but possibly better than I could have. Yay.

No. You've muddled the modal logic. I don't need to believe that anything is possible. I just need not to believe that it isn't.

You're presupposing belief.

My default position is that I don't know whether a given thing is possible. As such, it is possibly possible. That's all I need.

You appear to believe that modal logic is valid and truth-preserving, that there are people on the other end of this conversation (or at the very least, entities). You also appear to believe that what happens in the future can be predicted in some meaningful way but what has happened in the past, otherwise you could not learn (hypothetically, on that last point, you could act as though past events predicted future events without believing that they do, however, you would then have no discernable reason to take these actions aside from any other pattern of actions, which makes this nevertheless strong evidence of your belief in these matters). You believe that these symbols are capable of holding information that you or somebody else could later retrieve.

And if you claim not to believe these things, I claim that you are lying, or at the very least deceiving yourself to an astonishing degree.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe I am currently hungry and I believe that travelling up the stairs will lead me to visual range of a refrigerator, which I believe can be used to access food, which I believe I can consume to relieve this hunger (after all, it worked in my memories that I believe I have).

You appear to believe that modal logic is valid and truth-preserving, that there are people on the other end of this conversation (or at the very least, entities). You also appear to believe that what happens in the future can be predicted in some meaningful way but what has happened in the past, otherwise you could not learn (hypothetically, on that last point, you could act as though past events predicted future events without believing that they do, however, you would then have no discernable reason to take these actions aside from any other pattern of actions, which makes this nevertheless strong evidence of your belief in these matters). You believe that these symbols are capable of holding information that you or somebody else could later retrieve.

And if you claim not to believe these things, I claim that you are lying, or at the very least deceiving yourself to an astonishing degree.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe I am currently hungry and I believe that travelling up the stairs will lead me to visual range of a refrigerator, which I believe can be used to access food, which I believe I can consume to relieve this hunger (after all, it worked in my memories that I believe I have).


*nods* :)

Originally posted by Xenophobialand
What you seem to be concerned about, then is not religion. It's the use of religion to reinforce or justify tyranny. That being the case, then you really ought to focus on preventing tyranny, not preventing religion.
History shows us that when religion,any religion, achieves a position of influence or power, it will use that position to force it's agenda on the populace. Whether that populace is willing or not. If it does not do this, it will be failing in its mission to spread the one true faith to all the peoples of the world.

What form of government is in place is irrelevant in this instance as it is whoever shows themselves to be the most pious who will make it into positions of power. A deeply religious state would not countenance a non-believer in a position of power. And again, history shows us that those in power in a religious society will use some very unpalatable methods to establish there credentials.

Yes and no. His epistemology and theory of meaning were certainly. . .primitive, but you can love Locke without being a Lockean empiricist. His political works: Two Treatises and A Letter Concerning Toleration are both outstanding works of political literature that rank in the Top Ten of political theory books ever produced. I do have a few problems with his thinking, and in some places I think later writers like Rawls and Marx amended places that Locke failed to adequately deal with, but by and large, he's still the 800-pound gorilla of that political theory that has ultimately been the most successful revolution in governance of the people ever.

OK if we discard two thirds of Locke's work and stick just with the two treatises on government then I can begrudgingly grant him a little respect. (But only for political theory, not for philosophy as a whole)

History shows us that when religion,any religion, achieves a position of influence or power, it will use that position to force it's agenda on the populace. Whether that populace is willing or not. If it does not do this, it will be failing in its mission to spread the one true faith to all the peoples of the world.

What form of government is in place is irrelevant in this instance as it is whoever shows themselves to be the most pious who will make it into positions of power. A deeply religious state would not countenance a non-believer in a position of power. And again, history shows us that those in power in a religious society will use some very unpalatable methods to establish there credentials.

I agree fully, but again, what you are concerned about here is tyranny, not religion in itself. If you replace the term "religion" in your above statement with "Marxist(s)", "monarch(s)", "aristocracy(ts)", "fascist(s)", "bourgeois liberal capitalist(s)", or "timocrat(s)", your statement would be equally true. It's not religion, then, that you should be worried about. It's the erosion of the purpose of the state for the narrow interests of the few, whatever the ideological tools they use to do so.

OK if we discard two thirds of Locke's work and stick just with the two treatises on government then I can begrudgingly grant him a little respect. (But only for political theory, not for philosophy as a whole)

I'm not sure if you're looking at it the right way: sure, he didn't in and of himself create great solutions to problems. He did, however, highlight issues and offer possible solutions that kickstarted some of the finest thinking in philosophy. Russell, Mill, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Hume were all people who presented some brilliant ideas in the process of plugging holes in Locke's account. The fact that he plays Heraclitus to later philosopher's Plato and Aristotle doesn't mean that he's worthless as a philosopher or a doofus.

Originally posted by Xenophobialand
I agree fully, but again, what you are concerned about here is tyranny, not religion in itself. If you replace the term "religion" in your above statement with "Marxist(s)", "monarch(s)", "aristocracy(ts)", "fascist(s)", "bourgeois liberal capitalist(s)", or "timocrat(s)", your statement would be equally true. It's not religion, then, that you should be worried about. It's the erosion of the purpose of the state for the narrow interests of the few, whatever the ideological tools they use to do so.
No. The difference is that all your examples are secular and can be reasoned with. Religion is based on a supernatural faith in what happens after death and a fear of an all powerfull deity. This is nigh on impossible to reason with. As somebody once said:- "left to their own devices, good men will do good and evil men will do evil, but for a good man to do evil, takes religion". (Possibly paraphrased)

i was hoping to not have to spend my time researching something i read in discover but ill think about it.

But since i dont want to... Ill leave you with this... List all the Atiest plays youve ever read and socialist stories you have read... Whats the ending and most of the story??? Unhappy and sad... Joyce... Depressing, Ibsen... depressing..... hawthorn... Depressing...... Williams.... Depressing..... Miller.... depressing.... Got any more to add?.... Why are all the characters depressed?? A) they dont have Faith in something better B) they are doing imooral things (well most)

Ibsen is not depressing. You see it as depressing becuase your requirements for something to be uplifting is for it to involve belief. I read Ibsen and see people coming out of their little rut and realising the possibilities they are faced with. In fact, in A Dolls House, Nora realises her life is more than social amusement and attempts to discover something more important than that. In the process rejecting religion, and faith in external sources of personal meaning.

We should be moral because its moral to do so, not because some all-powerful being says so.

We should be moral because its moral to do so, not because some all-powerful being says so.
It's the All-Powerful Being who gave us our morals to begin with.

It's the All-Powerful Being who gave us our morals to begin with.

...Do we need to do a "morals are subjective" thing? Someone should seriously make an archive of posts refering to subjects...Ya know what? I'll start now. Everyone, do your thing!

I'm not sure if you're looking at it the right way: sure, he didn't in and of himself create great solutions to problems. He did, however, highlight issues and offer possible solutions that kickstarted some of the finest thinking in philosophy. Russell, Mill, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Hume were all people who presented some brilliant ideas in the process of plugging holes in Locke's account. The fact that he plays Heraclitus to later philosopher's Plato and Aristotle doesn't mean that he's worthless as a philosopher or a doofus.

I admit to being particularly unimpressed by Locke. I feel strongly that his work is of no greater stature than that of say Pufendorf or Cumberland, but he is simply much better known today. Mostly due to his political work and the supposed influence this had on the founding fathers of the USA.

i.e. I feel he lucked his way into a place in posterity. There are many better English language philosophers who are almost completely unknown.

Additionally to attribute to Locke the impulse that drove Hume (the only near contemporary you mention) is to completely ignore the influence of Berkley, Butler, Hutchenson, Clarke, Shaftesbury, Newton etc. Do not over estimate the importance of Locke. He had his good moments, but so did many others.

...Do we need to do a "morals are subjective" thing? Someone should seriously make an archive of posts refering to subjects...Ya know what? I'll start now. Everyone, do your thing!
I have a few hundred on my other computer somewhere ... have been spending the last few years doing such ... but I had some corrupt file issues that I am still sorting out lol

Gah! Not this again! Damn, chart time.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

Yes, it's a reasonable position, but not one you can take alone. You're either Theist or Atheist, and either Gnostic or Agnostic. Agnostic is not a middle ground to Theist and Atheist. Chances are most people who call themselves Agnostic are Agnostic Atheists. And no, "Strong Atheism" does not necessarily mean Gnostic Atheism.My oft-touted ideas about how agnosticism fits into the whole spectrum (i.e. that it doesn't reside in the same dimension uses the character "A" as the basis... (Or just a triangle, but the letter A is a good start.)

You have a theism as (say) to the left, atheism to the right, agnositism as height. Fundelemantalist theists inhabit the left leg of the capital 'A', explicit atheists the right leg, and as you move away from hardened believers in either position, you get into the "well, I worship God in the hope of his existence, but cannot justify it" or "I don't do anything to appease any God, but that's not to say that he isn't there". It's arguable whether or not the tow dialgonals meet.

But in the triangle (either of the 'A' or of the whole triangle, base to apex) lies a whole area where people can be "a bit religious" or "a bit of the opinion that there really isn't any need for a God" and "maybe there's some way to find out if there is" through to "we can never no, in this mortal life, whether He exists".

Anyway, that's how I see the permutations of humanity, quite a few of us up in the "don't know, don't care" area, but perhaps a bit to one side or another, but with the obvious extremists who know they are right.

They hate it because they cant screw around with each other. They have desire so they seek to destroy the institutions which disagree with thier lifestyle. They seek to have a society which makes them feel good for what they do and anything which condems thier behavior must be destroyed.

Some just dont believe and wish to aid thier fellow man ( these are a minority)

The third and last part are those who are socialy presured from youth (few friends who changed because they were called extremist for simple believing in god (i still get called that for just believing in God dont tell me it aint true)) or have some vendeeta against god for some experience they had in life.
That's pretty right on. Don't bother me when I'm screwing. It's annoying.

My oft-touted ideas about how agnosticism fits into the whole spectrum (i.e. that it doesn't reside in the same dimension uses the character "A" as the basis... (Or just a triangle, but the letter A is a good start.)

You have a theism as (say) to the left, atheism to the right, agnositism as height. Fundelemantalist theists inhabit the left leg of the capital 'A', explicit atheists the right leg, and as you move away from hardened believers in either position, you get into the "well, I worship God in the hope of his existence, but cannot justify it" or "I don't do anything to appease any God, but that's not to say that he isn't there". It's arguable whether or not the tow dialgonals meet.

But in the triangle (either of the 'A' or of the whole triangle, base to apex) lies a whole area where people can be "a bit religious" or "a bit of the opinion that there really isn't any need for a God" and "maybe there's some way to find out if there is" through to "we can never no, in this mortal life, whether He exists".

Anyway, that's how I see the permutations of humanity, quite a few of us up in the "don't know, don't care" area, but perhaps a bit to one side or another, but with the obvious extremists who know they are right.
Don't get involved in this. Arguing with athiests is worse than arguing with theists.

Don't get involved in this. Arguing with athiests is worse than arguing with theists.No argument sought. And in all the number of times I've brought up this mental image, I've never had a peep of feedback from either extremity (of any axis of the graph you'd care to mention), so I'm not sure whose toes I might be treading on.

But as an implicit atheist (and agnostic), I've never had any problems from the hardcore explicit atheists, who always seem to understand and toleate my non-commitment. I suppose I ought to refrain from saying who I do have problems from, but I've probably left no doubt as to which extreme of the spectrum tends to see no difference between I, in my IA capacity, and my esteemed EA co-correspondants, and wish equal and unqualified damnation upon us all.

I have no doubt that there are mildly religious agnostics on the other side who have an oppositely polarised problem (and end up llooking more radical as they defend their right to their nominally unobtrusive beliefs against people stating absolutes) but from my position on the spectrum, the foreshortening and perspective of the scene makes the specific movements and stretching of anchor-lines difficult to resolve. I certainly don't manage to resolve similar tolerance for the "secularly-inclined theists" from the fundementalists, but honestly I wouldn't know which sectarian disagreements were due to a matter of degree rather than interpretation issues.

Perhaps I'm just fighting too much for acknowledgement that there are degrees to everything plus a modern contemporary misconception in certain quarters that "it takes belief to not believe" inherant in the way that 'atheist' has been bandied around as a monotomic viewpoint (though, to be fair, the theistic side's "non-monatomicity" is squarely muddied by the multiplicity of 'brands' of theism that can be defined, coloured by both ideological and political shades, as well as stated sources of divinity). And that's without even considering the location on the "grand plan" of atheistic religious viewpoints espoused under the banner of Buddhism and the like.

Or perhaps I just need to shut up, as you suggest.

Don't get involved in this. Arguing with athiests is worse than arguing with theists.
I have not really noticed that?

No argument sought. And in all the number of times I've brought up this mental image, I've never had a peep of feedback from either extremity (of any axis of the graph you'd care to mention), so I'm not sure whose toes I might be treading on.

But as an implicit atheist (and agnostic), I've never had any problems from the hardcore explicit atheists, who always seem to understand and toleate my non-commitment. I suppose I ought to refrain from saying who I do have problems from, but I've probably left no doubt as to which extreme of the spectrum tends to see no difference between I, in my IA capacity, and my esteemed EA co-correspondants, and wish equal and unqualified damnation upon us all.

I have no doubt that there are mildly religious agnostics on the other side who have an oppositely polarised problem (and end up llooking more radical as they defend their right to their nominally unobtrusive beliefs against people stating absolutes) but from my position on the spectrum, the foreshortening and perspective of the scene makes the specific movements and stretching of anchor-lines difficult to resolve. I certainly don't manage to resolve similar tolerance for the "secularly-inclined theists" from the fundementalists, but honestly I wouldn't know which sectarian disagreements were due to a matter of degree rather than interpretation issues.

Perhaps I'm just fighting too much for acknowledgement that there are degrees to everything plus a modern contemporary misconception in certain quarters that "it takes belief to not believe" inherant in the way that 'atheist' has been bandied around as a monotomic viewpoint (though, to be fair, the theistic side's "non-monatomicity" is squarely muddied by the multiplicity of 'brands' of theism that can be defined, coloured by both ideological and political shades, as well as stated sources of divinity). And that's without even considering the location on the "grand plan" of atheistic religious viewpoints espoused under the banner of Buddhism and the like.

Or perhaps I just need to shut up, as you suggest.
Well, yeah. I muddy the waters by believing that it takes belief to not believe or at least to actively not believe. Which I believe is what most athiests spend their time doing. But I've decided to give up arguing the point due to running around in circles by putting God in odd places (mostly about a bedroom). Also, it gets a bit hard to wade through your posts this late at night.

But yeah... I mistook your post as agreeing with my position without really giving it all that hard of a look and decided to warn you from taking my position.

I'm purebred agnostic as both my parents were Catholics.

But it all really doesn't matter.

I have not really noticed that?
I had troubles...

Just because science advanced during religious times doesn't mean religion doesn't hinder science in this day and age. Bio-engineering, human cloning and so forth will take hundreds of years to happen now, because of the ignorance of religion.

But, there exists concurrently sound, ethical reasons, from a scientific standpoint, to be conservative in certain areas rather than rush in just because we want to. Some consequences can't be undone. You don't have to be religious to accept the wisdom of being informed beforehand.

I had troubles...
Personally I have seen a large sample from both sides being asses lol so many its hard to tell lol

I have no doubt that there are mildly religious agnostics on the other side who have an oppositely polarised problem (and end up llooking more radical as they defend their right to their nominally unobtrusive beliefs against people stating absolutes).

I think you just described ME!

What we have a problem with is not people beliving in god ... but using that unfounded belief to justify fucking with our lives

That I do find exception to

Seconded

Personally I have seen a large sample from both sides being asses lol so many its hard to tell lol
Maybe it's because I've been paying too much attention to my agnostic priest?

" Because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Maybe it's because I've been paying too much attention to my agnostic priest?

" Because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
Lol he somehow reminds me of the last speaker in the life of brian

Lol he somehow reminds me of the last speaker in the life of brian
I just saw that last night!

It's time to go to bed. I shouldn't have been that excited.

I just saw that last night!

It's time to go to bed. I shouldn't have been that excited.
Lol dont worry I am drunk and sleep deprived (finals week for my last masters) lol

Just to point out, most atheists and religious types are pretty much the same. Both incredibly set in their beliefs that it is incocievable that their generally egotistical opinions might be mistaken in any way, shape or form. They just finds way to project their own vices on others, so neither side has to look inward and see that the problems are of their own making and not of the immoral and godless atheists or the ignorant and hypocritical religious.

That being said, I've also met some very spiritual/enlightened people on both "sides" of this non-issue.

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

i also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more
I do have an issue with people thinking there is a god because such beliefs lead to unnecessary death, pain, and suffering. This has been the case throughout history and will be the way until people come to their senses and realize religion holds no answers to life. I love seeing people with hope just not the fake hope that comes with religion. If you want to put your faith in something, put in yourself not an floating pink bunny. You will have more hope that way. If atheism is a rebellion its only a rebellion against ignorance and nonsense. As one of my good friends put it; 'religion is nothing but a cult, just more popular'. I didnt read this thread so if someone has stated what I have before, just ignore this.

What we have a problem with is not people beliving in god ... but using that unfounded belief to justify fucking with our lives

That I do find exception to
amen.

They hate it because they cant screw around with each other. They have desire so they seek to destroy the institutions which disagree with thier lifestyle. They seek to have a society which makes them feel good for what they do and anything which condems thier behavior must be destroyed.

Some just dont believe and wish to aid thier fellow man ( these are a minority)

The third and last part are those who are socialy presured from youth (few friends who changed because they were called extremist for simple believing in god (i still get called that for just believing in God dont tell me it aint true)) or have some vendeeta against god for some experience they had in life.
Has anyone else pointed out what preposterous, unmitigated malarkey this post appears to be? Just askin'. Appearences can be deceiving.

i was hoping to not have to spend my time researching something i read in discover but ill think about it.

But since i dont want to... Ill leave you with this... List all the Atiest plays youve ever read and socialist stories you have read... Whats the ending and most of the story??? Unhappy and sad... Joyce... Depressing, Ibsen... depressing..... hawthorn... Depressing...... Williams.... Depressing..... Miller.... depressing.... Got any more to add?.... Why are all the characters depressed?? A) they dont have Faith in something better B) they are doing imooral things (well most)
Yeah, the bible ends really happy - like, for example. :rolleyes:
Wait, how did "The Passion of the Christ" end (even though it WAS heretical) end again ... did he ever play the piano again?

Gah! Not this again! Damn, chart time.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

Yes, it's a reasonable position, but not one you can take alone. You're either Theist or Atheist, and either Gnostic or Agnostic. Agnostic is not a middle ground to Theist and Atheist. Chances are most people who call themselves Agnostic are Agnostic Atheists. And no, "Strong Atheism" does not necessarily mean Gnostic Atheism.

On the question of whether God exists, I have no opinion. That's Agnosticism.

I don't hold any relevant beliefs. That precludes my being a Theist or an Athiest.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe I am currently hungry and I believe that travelling up the stairs will lead me to visual range of a refrigerator, which I believe can be used to access food, which I believe I can consume to relieve this hunger (after all, it worked in my memories that I believe I have).

But you don't need to belioeve those things in order to carry out that action. Try this.

I perceive that I am hungry, and I recall that travelling up the stairs and accessing the refrigerator has allowed me access to food which has made the hunger go away. Let's try that again.

See? No beliefs.

@Fass

Agnosticism is absence of belief. Atheism implies that you believe that there is no god.

Nope. Atheism implies you don't believe at all.

On the question of whether God exists, I have no opinion. That's Agnosticism.

I don't hold any relevant beliefs. That precludes my being a Theist or an Athiest.

No, agnosticism is the belief that we couldn't prove God's existence either way.

And not believing in a god is Atheism. Do you believe in a god? No? Atheist.

Nope. Atheism implies you don't believe at all.

Ok, dammit, cite that. You're defining Atheism to be synonymous with Agnosticism, thus leaving what I'm defining as Atheism (the belief that there is no God) without any label at all.

No, agnosticism is the belief that we couldn't prove God's existence either way.

And not believing in a god is Atheism. Do you believe in a god? No? Atheist.

No, because that makes Agnosticism a positive belief. When I claim to be an Agnostic, I'm not saying that we can't know if there's a God, or even that I can't know if there's a God. I'm saying I DON'T know if there's a God, and I'm leaving it at that. I'm saying I have no opinion regarding the existence of God.

Gnostics are those who know. Agnostics are those who don't know.

Why can't you let there be a middle ground? You're making Atheism a really broad category.

And, you haven't offered any support of your position. Cite something.

Ok, dammit, cite that. You're defining Atheism to be synonymous with Agnosticism, thus leaving what I'm defining as Atheism (the belief that there is no God) without any label at all.

Look at the word. It's Theism with the prefix A-. It means "Not Theism". It's a dichotomy. B or not B. Anything and everything not Theism is Atheism.

Ok, dammit, cite that. You're defining Atheism to be synonymous with Agnosticism, thus leaving what I'm defining as Atheism (the belief that there is no God) without any label at all.
You can't cite stuff like that. Atheism is a broad sweeping label used to classify those ideas that are merely in contradiction to Theistic ones and those groups that propose such ideas, and is therefore open to whatever ideas its members see fit to include. Whether something is Atheist or not can change at the drop of a hat depending on the preference of its current bearer.

No, because that makes Agnosticism a positive belief. When I claim to be an Agnostic, I'm not saying that we can't know if there's a God, or even that I can't know if there's a God. I'm saying I DON'T know if there's a God, and I'm leaving it at that. I'm saying I have no opinion regarding the existence of God.

Gnostics are those who know. Agnostics are those who don't know.

Why can't you let there be a middle ground? You're making Atheism a really broad category.

And, you haven't offered any support of your position. Cite something.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.

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

If you don't like wiki, you can go to some of the sources at the bottom.

I would just like to state, that as an atheist, I have no problem with people who believe in god, just so long as you don't try and force your beliefs on me.

Besides, life would be a hell of a lot more boring without catholic women. Personally, I'd like to thank the catholic church for all that divine guilt they install into those girls. ;)

Look at the word. It's Theism with the prefix A-. It means "Not Theism". It's a dichotomy. B or not B. Anything and everything not Theism is Atheism.

Why do you continue to insist that the definitions of English words are necessarily based on their etymological roots?

You can't cite stuff like that. Atheism is a broad sweeping label used to classify those ideas that are merely in contradiction to Theistic ones and those groups that propose such ideas, and is therefore open to whatever ideas its members see fit to include. Whether something is Atheist or not can change at the drop of a hat depending on the preference of its current bearer.

Yes you can. Words have meanings, and those meanings matter.

Why do you continue to insist that the definitions of English words are necessarily based on their etymological roots?

Apolitical, Amoral, Apathetic. Who are you to say they aren't?

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

and if they do why?

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?


i find it frustrating when people i respect tell me they believe in god and then are unable to explain why. i also find it upsetting how people put so much faith into what i see as a false hope. like those people not long ago who were praying for lower gas prices. it upsets me that people really are that moronic. i have hope, but i base that hope on my own abilities. i hope that i get at least a 2:1 in my degree, and implicit in that is a hope that i will have the motivation to work hard enough to do that. that hope isn't provided by god it is provided by me and anyone who cares enough to help me get motivated.

i also feel almost physically ill when i go to churches or other religious institutions especially when i see people practicing their religions.

I do have an issue with people thinking there is a god because such beliefs lead to unnecessary death, pain, and suffering.

That's true because all beliefs can, in the wrong hands, lead to unnecessary death, pain and suffering! Political beliefs, even scientific beliefs (the anchient Greeks once thought the irrational nature of PI a state secret and they killed people who wanted to make that secret public) have been used to "justify" pain, suffering and death.

The Soviet Union is not proof that athiesm leads people to unnecessary death, pain and suffering any more than Al-Quedia or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Mayan Empire. People who believe in 0 gods have lead to death, pain and suffering. People who believe in 1 god have lead to death, pain and suffering. People who believe in more than 1 god have lead to death, pain and suffering. The problem, I think, is people!

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

If you don't like wiki, you can go to some of the sources at the bottom.

I'm familiar with that wiki entry. In fact, I wrote some of it.

It asserts that Agnosticism is the view that truth values of certain claims are unknown, unknowable, or incoherent. Not that they're necessarily unknowable - they could simply be unknown. You've been defining Agnosticism unnecessarily narrowly.

You appear to have won me over the the Atheism front, however. I never spent much time on the wiki article for Atheism because I didn't consider myself one. It would appear, however, that I am a critical atheist.

I also self-identify as an Ignostic.

Apolitical, Amoral, Apathetic. Who are you to say they aren't?

I'm saying we can't induce that they all are from a handful of instances. That would be unreasonable.

I'm familiar with that wiki entry. In fact, I wrote some of it.

It asserts that Agnosticism is the view that truth values of certain claims are unknown, unknowable, or incoherent. Not that they're necessarily unknowable - they could simply be unknown. You've been defining Agnosticism unnecessarily narrowly.

You appear to have won me over the the Atheism front, however.

Eh, it's possible. I'm just annoyed by people that think Agnosticism is a middle ground on the same spectrum as (A)Theism, and they're above everyone by choosing that. You have any idea how many times you hear something that basically means "They're all alike, jumping to conclusions and making assumptions, not like us, we're better than that."?

I'm saying we can't induce that they all are from a handful of instances. That would be unreasonable.

How many would you need? It's reasonable inductive reasoning, tis how science works after all. Admittedly, it can't prove anything, but it provides some...reference. I pulled those out of a World Book Dictionary. It actually defines the prefix ^_^ Yay World Book!

How many would you need? It's reasonable inductive reasoning, tis how science works after all. Admittedly, it can't prove anything, but it provides some...reference. I pulled those out of a World Book Dictionary. It actually defines the prefix ^_^ Yay World Book!

I don't think inductive reasoning is reasonable, largely because it can't prove anything.

I tend to look at words as labels that point to definitions. I don't think they're necessarily descriptive labels.

This point of view, incidentally, makes me the world's most annoying database architect.

You have any idea how many times you hear something that basically means "They're all alike, jumping to conclusions and making assumptions, not like us, we're better than that."?

Yeah, I say that all the time. :)

I don't think inductive reasoning is reasonable, largely because it can't prove anything.

I tend to look at words as labels that point to definitions. I don't think they're necessarily descriptive labels.

This point of view, incidentally, makes me the world's most annoying database architect.

Well....Yeah...That's why things don't go beyond theories. You can't actually prove it...Technically, you can't prove anything (but math...ish).

Yes you can. Words have meanings, and those meanings matter.
The Democrats as a group can be as authoritarian as they like and still be Democrats.

Names and labels are not bound by meaning.

Yeah, I say that all the time. :)

Exactly. :p

The Democrats as a group can be as authoritarian as they like and still be Democrats.

Names and labels are not bound by meaning.

That's becuase, as far as I can tell, Democrat only says they're a member of the Democratic party, and has nothing to do with authoritarian...ness. Can they not be a member of the Democratic party and be a Democrat? (Assuming, that the definition of Democrat is indeed "in the democratic party", if you have another definition, what is it, eh?)

The Democrats as a group can be as authoritarian as they like and still be Democrats.

Names and labels are not bound by meaning.

But words are. What it means to be authoritarian doesn't change, regardless of who's doing it.

That's becuase, as far as I can tell, Democrat only says they're a member of the Democratic party, and has nothing to do with authoritarian...ness. Can they not be a member of the Democratic party and be a Democrat? (Assuming, that the definition of Democrat is indeed "in the democratic party", if you have another definition, what is it, eh?)
A democrat is also one who is "an advocate of democratic principles", which is the literal interpretation of the word. You can be the exact opposite of that and still be a member of the Democratic party, and hence a Democrat.

A democrat is also one who is "an advocate of democratic principles", which is the literal interpretation of the word. You can be the exact opposite of that and still be a member of the Democratic party, and hence a Democrat.

So, A Democrat is "an advocate of democratic principles" or " a member of the Democratic party". You don't have to meet all possible definitions of a word for the word to be applicable. How would we ever use the word "cleave" then?

But words are. What it means to be authoritarian doesn't change, regardless of who's doing it.
Unless they are the Authoritarian party, part of the Authoritarian Movement or even part of an intellectual trend called Authoritarianism, in which case what it means to be an Authoritarian can be shifted and manipulated at the whim of the group.

Atheist is a name. It also is a word in itself, but the word has become less important as the name has spread, and the role it plays in society now is primarily one of conscious association rather than anything in particular to do with the original conceptual origin.

Wait wait wait? Now atheists have a lifestyle too?!

Well god damn boy, I'm gay and an atheist, which lifestyle shall I choose?!




Because you know Brigham Young University, founded by noted polygamist and outright nutso is absolutely impartial when it comes to religion!

Studies differ based upon who's doing them, to find a religious institution singing the praises of religion is not exactly shocking.

That goes both ways too, you know.

That goes both ways too, you know.

You have some studies you'd like to dispute?

as an athiest, i say i have nothing against those that believe in god. But i do wish that more people would actually read the book(s) they hold so dear. Many christians simply accept what people tell them is in the bible, and yet never read it themselves. No where in the bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin, or that abortion is murder. No where. And then people use the Bible as a way to further their own causes. Read the book before you profess to know all about it.

Belief in God is a choice, and while i wish there was a larger seperation of church and state the way there's supposed to be (i mean come on, the government obviously supports chritianity a lot more than any other religion...) but there are strides in the right direction. Banning "Intelligent Design" from public schools is an example. I have no problem with practising Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, no one. I just wish more people would stop using religion as a means of personal gain or furthering a cause that is not even discussed in their religion.

and i dont think those that arent athiest have any right to vote on this poll

So, A Democrat is "an advocate of democratic principles" or " a member of the Democratic party". You don't have to meet all possible definitions of a word for the word to be applicable. How would we ever use the word "cleave" then?
No, you don't have to meet all possible definitions, you're right. Being one kind of Democrat does not necessitate being the other kind of democrat. It is even possible for one to logically oppose the other - that's doublethink in action for you.

It is similarly the case with Atheism; one can chop and change what being Atheistic entails as a bearer of the Atheism name at will as long as it is accepted by other Atheists that you are a part of their group. At any given moment, it may well be that the Atheism label is largely borne by those without belief, in which case calling one's self Atheist does indeed imply such a leaning. But such an implication is uncitable; it is entirely dependent on the fact that Atheism is, above and beyond its status as word, a personal identifier.

Unless they are the Authoritarian party, part of the Authoritarian Movement or even part of an intellectual trend called Authoritarianism, in which case what it means to be an Authoritarian can be shifted and manipulated at the whim of the group.

And that would make them members of the Authoritarian Party, or part of an Authoritarian movement, but it wouldn't make them authoritarians.

The meaning of the word doesn't change just because people are misusing it. Old meanings never go away (love live the OED).

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist....

Actually, the majority of religious topic threads are started by religious people.

i have noticed alot of religious threads. many i think are started by atheist. im curious although i am sure i will probably get an unclear/untrue answer.

Who knows. Who fucking cares? There's no way of proving one way or the other.

Do atheist have an issue with people thinking there is a god?

No. What I do have a problem with is people shoving their religion/morals on other people (me), taking away my liberty, in the name of society and liberty.

and if they do why?

See above.

do they not like seeing people with a little bit of hope?

Yes, we're horrible, miserable cynics who hate happiness.

QUOTE=Slaughterhouse fivei also believe atheism has become a form of rebellion for young people, especially in high school. perhaps this is just to carry their rebellion even more[/QUOTE]

Try proving that.