Explain Atheism to Justinian2

[Jack by the hedge]

I allow gays their rights because I think natural selection will make gays extinct eventually.

If you're unaware of how condescending that sounds, you might want to have a bit of a think about it.

Natural selection has spent a long time making the human race the way it is now. What makes you think it will cause the proportion of gay humans to dwindle to nothing if this has not yet occurred? Is there some pertinent new selection pressure you believe is acting on the human race?

 

[dafydd]

If you're unaware of how condescending that sounds, you might want to have a bit of a think about it.

Natural selection has spent a long time making the human race the way it is now. What makes you think it will cause the proportion of gay humans to dwindle to nothing if this has not yet occurred? Is there some pertinent new selection pressure you believe is acting on the human race?

He probably thinks that scientology will take over the world and then shoot all the gays.

 

[Complexity]

Wikipedia makes a distiction, which I can't see, beteen atheists and the nonreligious. I'm not sure what that means. The implication is that atheists are spiritual but don't believe in a deity whereas people that are nonreligious don't believe in religion. It seems like atheism should be the larger set/group of which nonreligion is a subset.

Atheists are a group just as conservatives are a group. Atheists get lumped into the same bin with all other atheists. So, whether you think it's a creed or not, people still categorize you by your belief.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods.

The article suggested that there are some people who are religious who do not believe in gods. This is true.

Your conclusion that atheists are spiritual but don't believe in a deity is wrong.

Some atheists are spiritual, others are not - none of us believes in gods.

I am an atheist - I do not believe in gods.

I am not spiritual in the least.

I am opposed to religious belief and do what I can to help wipe it out.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is the point of all this? Justinian is being deliberately stroppy. He knows very well that atheism is not a creed.

Yes, he knows. It's just one of his Jedi mind tricks.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, he knows. It's just one of his Jedi mind tricks.

Pathetic, isn't it?

 

[Complexity]

What is the point of all this? Justinian is being deliberately stroppy. He knows very well that atheism is not a creed.

This isn't for the benefit of Justinian2 - I gave up on him... from the beginning.

Others will find these threads, however, and any time invested is for them.

Also, I'm sitting in a hospital room with far too much time on my hands (nasty foot infection) - it is either this or going back to read the global warming thread (which I'm reading from the beginning). I miss my cats.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wikipedia makes a distiction, which I can't see, beteen atheists and the nonreligious. I'm not sure what that means. The implication is that atheists are spiritual but don't believe in a deity whereas people that are nonreligious don't believe in religion. It seems like atheism should be the larger set/group of which nonreligion is a subset.

Much of that article is nothing more than the opinions of its writer.

Atheists are a group just as conservatives are a group.

Incorrect, and obviously so. Conservatives, as a group, have a set of shared values. Atheists are not a group just as "People who aren't convservatives" are not a group.

Atheists get lumped into the same bin with all other atheists. So, whether you think it's a creed or not, people still categorize you by your belief.

Are you trying to find out what an atheist is? It seems to me that you're more interested in telling atheists what other people believe them to be. Why, exactly, should I care about other people's obviously wrong opinions?

And it's worth pointing out that I live in a country where atheists are probably just about in the majority. And yet, there are no organisations or institutions devoted to promoting atheism or the interests of atheists as a group. This is because these things do not exist. Atheists in the UK don't generally get seen as a group, because there are so many of us that it's immediately obvious that we logically divide into groups in ways that don't relate in any way to our atheism.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

This isn't for the benefit of Justinian2 - I gave up on him... from the beginning.

Others will find these threads, however, and any time invested is for them.

Also, I'm sitting in a hospital room with far too much time on my hands (nasty foot infection) - it is either this or going back to read the global warming thread (which I'm reading from the beginning). I miss my cats.

Sorry to hear that. You're right, this thread exposes scientology for the evil nonsense that it is.

 

[Justinian2]

And what OT level is he [David MisCaviage]?

David MisCaviage wasn't even half way to clear (below OT) when papers were supposedly signed by LRH (after he had a stroke) that gave David the power to become the leader of Scientology, David was just a lowly courier between LRH and the church at the time.

What evidence is there that they knowingly aided him [the Green River killer]?

I always see something suspicious in the actions of the nefarious before they become infamous. The trouble is that most of the time the suspicions aren't sufficient for legal action. If you keep your ears open, the suspicions accumulate until, if you don't act you are essentially aiding and abetting.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wikipedia makes a distiction, which I can't see, beteen atheists and the nonreligious. I'm not sure what that means.

It means the set of people who do not believe gods exist is not the same as the set of people who are not religious. There are lots of highly religious Buddhists who do not believe in any gods.

Atheists are a group just as conservatives are a group. Atheists get lumped into the same bin with all other atheists. So, whether you think it's a creed or not, people still categorize you by your belief.

Atheists are probably better described as a category than a group. And categorized by their lack of belief, not their belief. By calling them a group you wrongly imply some cohesion or common purpose. They are merely the set of people who are not members of the set of people who believe in any of the various gods.

 

[DrDave]

Atheism means I am angry at god. Specifically, the Christian god.

 

[dafydd]

And it's worth pointing out that I live in a country where atheists are probably just about in the majority. And yet, there are no organisations or institutions devoted to promoting atheism or the interests of atheists as a group. This is because these things do not exist. Atheists in the UK don't generally get seen as a group, because there are so many of us that it's immediately obvious that we logically divide into groups in ways that don't relate in any way to our atheism.

Dave

Same here in Belgium. I don't know anyone who goes to church. I assume that most of my friends and acquaintances are atheists but it's not something that anyone ever mentions. The are all too smart to be scientologists.

 

[Justinian2]

<snip>
Are you trying to find out what an atheist is? It seems to me that you're more interested in telling atheists what other people believe them to be. Why, exactly, should I care about other people's obviously wrong opinions?

And it's worth pointing out that I live in a country where atheists are probably just about in the majority. And yet, there are no organisations or institutions devoted to promoting atheism or the interests of atheists as a group. This is because these things do not exist. Atheists in the UK don't generally get seen as a group, because there are so many of us that it's immediately obvious that we logically divide into groups in ways that don't relate in any way to our atheism.
Dave

The belief system of many, but not all, atheists is that theism is bad. The belief system of theists is that atheism is bad. If a sufficient number of atheists oppose religion, they (atheists) will probably become the enemy of the religious.

 

[Complexity]

Same here in Belgium. I don't know anyone who goes to church. I assume that most of my friends and acquaintances are atheists but it's not something that anyone ever mentions. The are all too smart to be scientologists.

My cats are too smart to be scientologists (and far too nice).

 

[Lamuella]

The belief system of many, but not all, atheists is that theism is bad.

I'm sure that some hold this opinion, but that's not a belief system.

 

[Justinian2]

It means the set of people who do not believe gods exist is not the same as the set of people who are not religious. There are lots of highly religious Buddhists who do not believe in any gods.


Atheists are probably better described as a category than a group. And categorized by their lack of belief, not their belief. By calling them a group you wrongly imply some cohesion or common purpose. They are merely the set of people who are not members of the set of people who believe in any of the various gods.

From Wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God.[2]

To me, agnosticism is more valid that atheism. Agnosticism does not make war with the theists as do the nonreligious.

As a Scientologist, I think much like the atheistic Buddhists except that I have a slight belief in spirits of all sizes - except those powerful enough to dictate my life. Scientologists are tolerant of all other religions.

 

[zooterkin]

To me, agnosticism is more valid that atheism. Agnosticism does not make war with the theists as do the nonreligious.

Do we need to start another thread to explain agnosticism to you, as that's clearly another word whose meaning you don't understand. Did you go clear with that, yet?

 

[Ignosticist]

Atheist, Agnostic, Ignostic

"An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."

To me, agnosticism is more valid that atheism. Agnosticism does not make war with the theists as do the nonreligious.

Well, then ignosticism is even more valid than agnosticism, ignosticism realizes you guys do not even know what you guys are talking about. The central subject of the discussion, "god" , is, due to the extremely nonsensical way it is used, meaningless.

As a Scientologist, I think much like the atheistic Buddhists except that I have a slight belief in spirits of all sizes - except those powerful enough to dictate my life. Scientologists are tolerant of all other religions.

See? All nonsense. You can talk about squares of different sizes... but "spirits"? aren't those supposed by some people to be incorporeal and therefore "sizeless"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

David MisCaviage wasn't even half way to clear (below OT) when papers were supposedly signed by LRH (after he had a stroke) that gave David the power to become the leader of Scientology, David was just a lowly courier between LRH and the church at the time.

So this lowly inferior was able to steal power from people who had much higher OT levels than he did? Again, it sounds like higher OT levels offer no discernible advantage in life.

I always see something suspicious in the actions of the nefarious before they become infamous.

So you've known a lot of infamous people then?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The belief system of many, but not all, atheists is that theism is bad.

Wrong. That is a belief, not a belief system. And, unlike religious beliefs, it is - for specific definitions of the word "bad" - in principle a falsifiable claim, and therefore one worth considering.

The belief system of theists is that atheism is bad.

Again, not a belief system, but a specific belief. This confusion betrays extremely wooly thinking.

If a sufficient number of atheists oppose religion, they (atheists) will probably become the enemy of the religious.

And if a sufficient number of them decide to paint their houses green, they will probably become major consumers of green paint. Is there any particular reason why you've stated that rather obvious tautology?

Dave