Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Mighty AC]

Check out Cybercoma's post here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21938-atheism-explained/#entry857134

The theist/atheist pair refers to belief. The gnostic/agnostic pair refers to knowledge.

Theists believe deities exist. Atheists lack this belief.
Gnostics claim to know deities exist. Agnostics lack this knowledge.

So yes most atheists are agnostic atheists. Christian groups intentionally misuse the term in an attempt to frame atheism as a belief system.

Here is another resource: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Edited September 27, 2013 by Mighty AC

[GostHacked]

A number between 1 and 100 is written on a folded piece of paper. There is no way to know what the number is.

You say the number is 42.

I reject that claim. There is no evidence and no reason to believe 42 is the number.

By rejecting your unfounded claim of 42 I am not advocating for 4, 87, 99, etc. I'm also not saying that 42 is impossible. I am simply saying that it is unlikely and silly to believe the number is 42 without evidence.

I very much like this explanation. Makes for a nice visual real world experiment which will get some people thinking.

[GostHacked]

Is it still atheism if you acknowledge that the existence of a supreme being is a possibility? I've always described myself as an Agnostic Atheist because, while I don't believe in a God, I can't say I totally believe that there does not exist the possibility of one.

I always understood atheism to be the absolute belief that there is no God.

But it's not something I lose too much sleep over, so if I'm wrong, I'll deal with it.

Poly-theists believe in multiple gods. Mono-theists believe a single god. So as an atheist has a lack of believe in a single god, mono-theists have a lack of belief in multiple gods.

I am on the notion that the possibility is there that a god exists, but with all my life experience has not proved to uncover any evidence to show that this is the case.

I could be wrong, and so could everyone else. But at least we can recognize we could be wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

Is it still atheism if you acknowledge that the existence of a supreme being is a possibility? I've always described myself as an Agnostic Atheist because, while I don't believe in a God, I can't say I totally believe that there does not exist the possibility of one.

I always understood atheism to be the absolute belief that there is no God.

But it's not something I lose too much sleep over, so if I'm wrong, I'll deal with it.

An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

An agnostic atheist does not claim know if a god exists, but does not believe in any gods.

An agnostic Christian does not claim to know if any gods do or don't exist but does believe in God.

[Guest American Woman]

I thought the example was pretty clear. Now, I'm not sure if you missed the point or you actually understood but would rather believe that atheism is a belief rather than a rejection of one.

Atheism is a belief in the "I don't believe there is a god" sense. It's what an atheist believes. What one believes is their belief. But I spoke of those who do not believe in a god and cut down all people who do. You are trying to make it about beliefs and I have no interest in discussing beliefs or convincing anyone of anything regarding beliefs.

My point is simply this: those who cut down everyone who is religious, those who feel superior to everyone who believes in a god, those who think all religious people have less intelligence, those who think all religious people are nutjobs, those who heap scorn on religion, are bigots. They are just the opposite side of the coin of the religious who believe what they believe is the truth.

By rejecting your unfounded claim of 42 I am not advocating for 4, 87, 99, etc. I'm also not saying that 42 is impossible. I am simply saying that it is unlikely and silly to believe the number is 42 without evidence.

I get your examples, but they are not relevant examples. As I said previously.

I repeat. People who believe in a god believe there is evidence. You reject that evidence. It's not evidence one can see any more than one can see "love." It's why I used love as an example. Because again, science has not proven that love exists - it has just proven that there is a reaction to love.

Edited September 27, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Is it still atheism if you acknowledge that the existence of a supreme being is a possibility? I've always described myself as an Agnostic Atheist because, while I don't believe in a God, I can't say I totally believe that there does not exist the possibility of one.

I always understood atheism to be the absolute belief that there is no God.

But it's not something I lose too much sleep over, so if I'm wrong, I'll deal with it.

You seem to adhere to Bertrand Russell's view on the matter. So do I.

He says if you want to get pedantic about it, he's an agnostic. But he was an agnostic of Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al in the same way he was an agnostic about the Homeric pantheon.

So for all intents and purposes: atheist. But yes, also agnostic.

Put that way, I don't think it's a contradiction at all.

Now, since we have determined that there are different types of atheists, I think we can see that there are different types of agnostics as well.

That is, if a self-described "agnostic" thinks only of his own culturally-dominant religion--Christianity, say--then he is as close to "believer" as he is to genuine agnosticism, I think.

[Mighty AC]

Atheism is a belief in the "I don't believe there is a god" sense. It's what an atheist believes. What one believes is their belief.

Not so...but let's move on.

My point is simply this: those who cut down everyone who is religious, those who feel superior to everyone who believes in a god, those who think all religious people have less intelligence, those who think all religious people are nutjobs, those who heap scorn on religion, are bigots. They are just the opposite side of the coin of the religious who believe what they believe is the truth.

Okay I see, that's why you are "not interested in beliefs" and are ignoring the very clear example. You need atheism to be an unfounded belief, like gods or ghosts for that last sentence to be true.

You would have a point IF I said it is ludicrous to believe a number between 1 and 100 is 42, because it is 17. You would even have a point if I said the number absolutely cannot be 42. But that's not what has been said.

I've very clearly stated that you are crazy for believing the number is 42 without evidence. And now for the bit about believing evidence into existence.

People who believe in a god believe there is evidence. You reject that evidence. It's not evidence one can see any more than one can see "love." It's why I used love as an example. Because again, science has not proven that love exists - it has just proven that there is a reaction to love.

Schizophrenics may actually believe they hear voices, but that does not make them real. You can't believe evidence into existence. This is just the faith cop out.. "I believe so it is real". Plus it is something you wouldn't accept in most areas of your life. What if the vacuum salesperson believed it was the best carpet cleaning device money can by? I'm sure you would rather see actual evidence.

I get that people want to believe there is "more". More life after death or more to love and consciousness than electro-chemical reactions; but again, wanting to believe something doesn't make it real. We already know that feelings we associate with love follow the release of hormones, not the reverse. Science is even now figuring out the intricate details. For example the fixation on a new love is caused by a dip in serotonin levels equivalent to that of people who suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder. Cool! See the truth can be far more interesting than belief in magic.

[carepov]

Mighty AC,

I like your analogy about the number between 1-100.

Some people of a certain religion will take a leap of faith and believe that the number is let's say "42". There are countless reasons for believing that it is 42 - none of them are based on scientific evidence. For example, "42" has been passed down through generations of our religion.

Some people of the same religion will not believe the number but say, "what the heck" let's just say its 42 and move on to more important things.

I'm with them. Who cares what the number is and who cares what other think that number is and who cares why they think what they think - about his number?!

You seem to be saying: "The belief that the number is 42 demonstrates that religious people have weaker minds as it shows a lack of critical thinking"

My counter is:

1. Not all religious people actually believe what you assume they believe

2. And even if they do, taking a "leap of faith" on some questions (especially on questions that can never be answered) does not mean that the person will think less critically on other questions. Basically: "who cares?"

3. Overall, in Canada today, organized religion is the best system we have for meeting many people's spiritual and social needs and for teaching morals and values

Edited September 27, 2013 by carepov

[Bonam]

3. Overall, in Canada today, organized religion is the best system we have for meeting many people's spiritual and social needs and for teaching morals and values

Care to provide any evidence for the latter half of this statement?

[Moonlight Graham]

Furthermore, not everything has "scientific evidence;" there is no scientific evidence of love, but we don't dispute its existence.

There is certainly much scientific evidence for love. When you love someone, "love chemicals" like dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin are released in the brain and make us feel good. I can prove, using science, whether you love somebody or not.

I've said repeatedly that those who believe see evidence, have evidence, but not everyone is willing to accept it. This has been true of many claims throughout history.

Can you please name one example of this evidence?

Why would I want to convince you of anything? I don't care what you believe. I see no reason at all why anyone should give you any good reasons to believe anything other than what you believe. It's not about trying to convince you, or anyone else, what to believe.

I'm not trying to make you convince me of any beliefs whatsoever. I'm asking you a key question about the validity of believing in God(s). I'll ask again, and if you won't I'll assume it's because you can't:

I challenge you (or anyone else) to tell me one good reason why anyone should believe there is one god and that there isn't actually 5...or 20 gods. Many Christians believe there is one God (monotheism). Why ? Why isn't there be 5 Gods? Or 20?

It's about accepting and respecting that not everyone is going to believe as you do. And I see none of that among the 'holier than thou' posters who have shown themselves as biased/bigoted against the religious - painting them all with one brush, looking down on all of them.

It's fine if other people believe different things than me. However, different beliefs that deal with how life and the universe works have different levels of validity. If Christians want to belief what they do in their own private life and not provide evidence then so be it.

If anyone makes any claim whatsoever that is based on the existence of a God, it should be held up for scrutiny like any other claim. Belief in God is a scientific claim, because people believe God physically influences aspects of our world (ie: creation of man and/or the universe, or changing someone's health based on prayer etc.). Scientific claims need to be held up to scientific scrutiny. If you don't want your belief in God to be held up to scientifically scrutiny, then you can't claim God has any influence on the universe. Also, once these certain beliefs affect my life and the lives of others, then the burden of proof falls on people to provide valid reasons why ie: homosexuals should be denied certain rights, why evolutions shouldn't be taught in schools etc.

The point is, If people believe something then provide good reasons to validate it or prepare to be ridiculed. Every belief in existence is held to the same standard. I believe that when we die we are all transported to a giant shopping mall run by a pink marshmallow named Steve...I have no evidence or logical reason to believe this besides an old book I found in the library that says so and because "I feel it"...but don't think I'm crazy and don't ridicule me or look down on me and please respect my beliefs!!!

[carepov]

Care to provide any evidence for the latter half of this statement?

No, not right now, it's my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

In the meantime, imagine yourself in the following hypothetical situations where you are in Canada and the only thing you can know about the person/people is: are they religious or not, otherwise the person is random. You chose the definition of "religious", for example: attend a religious service at least once per month:

-You must lend $1000 to a stranger and trust them to pay you back in a month

-You must rent your basement suite to someone

-You are walking at night in a sketchy part of town and are coming up to a group of 5 people

-You are running a charity and can only call one person for a donation

In these situations would you go with religious or non-religious?

[Bonam]

-You must lend $1000 to a stranger and trust them to pay you back in a month

-You must rent your basement suite to someone

-You are walking at night in a sketchy part of town and are coming up to a group of 5 people

-You are running a charity and can only call one person for a donation

In these situations would you go with religious or non-religious?

For 1-3, whether they are religious or not would not influence my decision. For #4, I'd likely prefer the religious person, sure, because the gullible are easier to make part with their money.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bonam

[carepov]

For 1-3, whether they are religious or not would not influence my decision. For #4, I'd likely prefer the religious person, sure, because the gullible are easier to make part with their money.

Interesting opinions, thanks. When I think charity I relate it to generosity and you seem to equate it to fraud/trickery, hmmm....

[Mighty AC]

I'm with them. Who cares what the number is and who cares what other think that number is and who cares why they think what they think - about his number?![/size]

If religious beliefs were benign and rare, I wouldn't care. However, that is not at all the case, is it? That is why I agree with the statement that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

[bleeding heart]

Care to provide any evidence for the latter half of this statement?

I'd be interested to hear some support for this claim, too.

Especially since it's the half-sister of the "Atheists must not have any moral compass" claim that I've heard eleven thousand times.

[bleeding heart]

No, not right now, it's my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

In the meantime, imagine yourself in the following hypothetical situations where you are in Canada and the only thing you can know about the person/people is: are they religious or not, otherwise the person is random. You chose the definition of "religious", for example: attend a religious service at least once per month:

-You must lend $1000 to a stranger and trust them to pay you back in a month

-You must rent your basement suite to someone

-You are walking at night in a sketchy part of town and are coming up to a group of 5 people

-You are running a charity and can only call one person for a donation

In these situations would you go with religious or non-religious?

I find the questions a little surprising, since I anticipate that you feel they are, or are almost, rhetorical.

The honest and genuine answer is that I could not care less.

[cybercoma]

I thought the example was pretty clear. Now, I'm not sure if you missed the point or you actually understood but would rather believe that atheism is a belief rather than a rejection of one. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try again. I originally chose an example with only two options because it mirrors the discussion we're having here. However, maybe an example with more outcomes will be more clear.

A number between 1 and 100 is written on a folded piece of paper. There is no way to know what the number is.

You say the number is 42.

I reject that claim. There is no evidence and no reason to believe 42 is the number.

By rejecting your unfounded claim of 42 I am not advocating for 4, 87, 99, etc. I'm also not saying that 42 is impossible. I am simply saying that it is unlikely and silly to believe the number is 42 without evidence.

It's not just saying the number is 42. It's saying that the number is 42, children should be taught that it's 42, everyone else should revere the number 42, it's oppression to tell her it's not 42 and ask that she doesn't teach your children that it's 42, that anyone who believes it's the number 7 is a horrible person that will burn for all of eternity for believing such ridiculous things, and legislation should be passed that would appease the number 42 in all that it demands of us because she's privy to its innermost wants and desires and it demands obedience. Edited September 27, 2013 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Interesting opinions, thanks. When I think charity I relate it to generosity and you seem to equate it to fraud/trickery, hmmm....

Indeed, a large portion of charities spend as little as 10% of their total revenues on their actual professed causes, instead using their gathered money for advertising/marketing, to pay rich salaries to executives, and for political donations and political campaigns. Charity is big business, and operates like any other big business.There are far far better ways to help causes you care about than throwing money at most charities (although there are a few good ones).

[bleeding heart]

It's not just saying the number is 42. It's saying that the number is 42, children should be taught that it's 42, everyone else should revere the number 42, it's oppression to tell her it's not 42 and ask that she doesn't teach your children that it's 42, that anyone who believes it's the number 7 is a horrible person that will burn for all of eternity for believing such ridiculous things, and legislation should be passed that would appease the number 42 in all that it demands of us because she's privy to its innermost wants and desires and it demands obedience.

There. This is the crux of it.

[cybercoma]

But yeah. Saying I don't know if it's 42 or not, but it very likely isn't....yeah, that's exactly the same as claiming it's 42. Equal positions you see. Both beliefs.

[cybercoma]

By the way, 42? I see what you did there. Well played.

[carepov]

I'd be interested to hear some support for this claim, too.

Especially since it's the half-sister of the "Atheists must not have any moral compass" claim that I've heard eleven thousand times.

I strongly reject the "half-sister" claim of "Atheists must not have any moral compass".

[carepov]

If religious beliefs were benign and rare, I wouldn't care. However, that is not at all the case, is it? That is why I agree with the statement that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

It's not just saying the number is 42. It's saying that the number is 42, children should be taught that it's 42, everyone else should revere the number 42, it's oppression to tell her it's not 42 and ask that she doesn't teach your children that it's 42, that anyone who believes it's the number 7 is a horrible person that will burn for all of eternity for believing such ridiculous things, and legislation should be passed that would appease the number 42 in all that it demands of us because she's privy to its innermost wants and desires and it demands obedience.

There. This is the crux of it.

Yes indeed it is the crux of it.

"I beleive in 42" - benign

"Children should be taught in 42" - as benign as Santa

"Everone else should revere 42 and ..." - this should be opposed and not tolerated. The trouble is that, here in the West, there is small (yes but vocal) minority of releigious people that do this and the vast majoirty of "normal religious poeple" are unfairly ridiculed and ostricized.

"religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises"

how about:

"religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its negative influence arises"

[carepov]

Indeed, a large portion of charities spend as little as 10% of their total revenues on their actual professed causes, instead using their gathered money for advertising/marketing, to pay rich salaries to executives, and for political donations and political campaigns. Charity is big business, and operates like any other big business.There are far far better ways to help causes you care about than throwing money at most charities (although there are a few good ones).

Can you name a few charities that spend 10-20 % of their revenues on their actual causes?

[Moonlight Graham]

Indeed, a large portion of charities spend as little as 10% of their total revenues on their actual professed causes, instead using their gathered money for advertising/marketing, to pay rich salaries to executives, and for political donations and political campaigns. Charity is big business, and operates like any other big business.There are far far better ways to help causes you care about than throwing money at most charities (although there are a few good ones).

I think you have that mixed around. Charities get criticized for spending more than 15-20% of their revenue on non-cause related things. A general rule that many advise is to never donate to a charity that spends more than about 15% on overhead. You can check their books since charities post their annual audited financial numbers publicly, and if they don't I wouldn't touch them. It may even be a law requirement in Canada, not sure, but most major charities post their numbers on their websites.

The fact is, you need to pay people wages in order to implement programs, and charities need to advertise in order to fundraise. Obviously there's limits to these, and there's some crooked charities, but if you don't think you're mistaken then I want to know where you're getting your info from on this. I don't know of any major charity in Canada that spends anywhere near only 10% on cause/project-related costs.

Info here: http://www.moneysense.ca/the-2013-charity-100-grades

Edited September 27, 2013 by Moonlight Graham