10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[kuzadd]

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means.

Atheists can call themselves whatever they want - it does not change the fact that Atheism is just another form of religion.

Anyone who presumes that they have a monopoly on the 'truth' and that all other belief systems are inferior are, by definition, religious zealots. Atheists are often guilty of exactly that behavoir.

who presumes to have a monopoly on truth?

who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?

Or are you presuming that is what atheists do?

That is what it seems.

[cybercoma]

Riverwind, what you'r saying makes no sense. You're not proving your point by repeating the same line over and over. The belief system is religion, atheism is the rejection of faith-based beliefs and therefore a rejection of religion. That's like saying someone who rejects communism is a communist.

[Riverwind]

who presumes to have a monopoly on truth?

Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'. If you agree that athiests could be wrong then you cannot claim that it is not a faith based religion.

who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?

Read your own posts.

[Remiel]

That is not technically true, cybercoma. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in gods, not the rejection of faith based beliefs.

I am rather perplexed that no one picked up on my comment about atheism vs. nihilism. While slightly tangential to the atheism as a religion debate, I believe it is quite relevant.

[kuzadd]

who presumes to have a monopoly on truth?

Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'. If you agree that athiests could be wrong then you cannot claim that it is not a faith based religion.

who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?

Read your own posts.

"who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?"

actually I don't, very foolish insinuation.

I actually believe they serve some purpose, obviously for people who choose to adhere to them.

"Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'"

I don't argue that point, at all. Atheist are no more 'special' then anyone else.

Nor have I ever argued atheists have a monopoly on 'truth'

I have absolutely no issue, with anyone having their own religion, or not.

again you are presuming, and not reading.

[Riverwind]

The belief system is religion, atheism is the rejection of faith-based beliefs and therefore a rejection of religion.

Believing that there is no God _is_ a faith based belief system. I am calling any faith based belief system a religion which means atheism is a religion.

Look at it another way: if you choose to not decide you still have made a choice.

The entire point of the original article was that there is a common ground between theists and atheists.

[cybercoma]

The belief system is religion, atheism is the rejection of faith-based beliefs and therefore a rejection of religion.

Believing that there is no God _is_ a faith based belief system. I am calling any faith based belief system a religion which means atheism is a religion.

Look at it another way: if you choose to not decide you still have made a choice.

The entire point of the original article was that there is a common ground between theists and atheists.

Can you not wrap your mind around the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not dealing with the absolute that there is definitively NO God. They're talking about the extreme improbability of the existence of God and about not believing in something until there is extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that there is an all-powerful, omniscient and omnipotent being. Quoting Richard Dawkins may be old hat, but he defines atheism perfectly when he said, "There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

You cannot reasonably believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, nor can you reasonably believe that there is a God. It cannot be absolutely disproven, but there is absolutely no evidence for God and therefore no reason for religious faith-based belief.

Choosing not to believe does not put you into a defined group of dogmatists following the tenets of disbelief. We do not believe in anything until it has been proven, except for religion which demands its followers believe its tenets through faith. There is absolutely no faith in atheism, atheism is the total rejection of faith-based belief.

So, like I said, saying an atheist follows a belief system or is making a leap of faith in any way is like saying someone who rejects communism is a communist.

[cybercoma]

"who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?"

actually I don't, very foolish insinuation.

I actually believe they serve some purpose, obviously for people who choose to adhere to them.

"Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'"

I don't argue that point, at all. Atheist are no more 'special' then anyone else.

Nor have I ever argued atheists have a monopoly on 'truth'

I have absolutely no issue, with anyone having their own religion, or not.

again you are presuming, and not reading.

You're being lumped in with me, since you're not with them... you're against them. It's a black and white issue to those who support religion and faith-based beliefs. Either you have faith, or you don't.

I most certainly have an issue with people having their own religion. It promotes faith over reason and I think that's very dangerous for society and only serves to breed ignorance and intolerance. Where there's intolerance and ignorance there is hatred and eventually people are being oppressed, tortured and killed because they're not part of the "in-group." Religious moderates allow this environment to flourish because they demand special privileges and reverence for religious faith-based beliefs. The idea that religion poisons everything couldn't be any truer.

[Figleaf]

A person who did not have such a belief [in a higher power] would not sacrifice themselves for others.

What sort of perfidious bullshit is this now!

You think no atheist has ever gone to war and thrown himself on a grenade? No atheist has ever donated a kidney?

Wize up.

Altruism is a an important human trait and I believe it is connected to the tendency to believe in a higher power.

Your belief beggars belief.

The higher power for a secular humanist is the abstract concept of 'humanity'.

How is that 'higher'?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

This is an amazing topic. The level of sloppy language is only exceeded by the sloppy thinking.

[Riverwind]

Can you not wrap your mind around the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not dealing with the absolute that there is definitively NO God.

Such people are not atheists - they are agnostics because they accept the premise that a higher power could exist.

It cannot be absolutely disproven, but there is absolutely no evidence for God and therefore no reason for religious faith-based belief.

There are many phenomena that science cannot explain today. For example, many people have experienced sudden recovery from serious illnesses that baffle doctors. Scientists presume that there must be a physiological explaination even if they don't have one. Such presumptions are leaps of faith which are no different from the leaps of faith theists make.

So, like I said, saying an atheist follows a belief system or is making a leap of faith in any way is like saying someone who rejects communism is a communist.

You presume that all observed phenomea must have a purely scientific explaination. That is a leap of faith.

[Riverwind]

You think no atheist has ever gone to war and thrown himself on a grenade?

Why would they unless they believed that their sacrifice served some greater good? Believing that there is a 'greater good' is an act of faith. Justifying actions in the name of the 'greater good' is also why many crimes are committed. If atheists are willing to do things in the name of the 'greater good' then they are also capable of committing crimes in the name of that same 'greater good'. That is why it is silly to make an artificial distinction between a theist and atheist.

[kuzadd]

[

You're being lumped in with me, since you're not with them... you're against them. It's a black and white issue to those who support religion and faith-based beliefs. Either you have faith, or you don't.

I most certainly have an issue with people having their own religion. It promotes faith over reason and I think that's very dangerous for society and only serves to breed ignorance and intolerance. Where there's intolerance and ignorance there is hatred and eventually people are being oppressed, tortured and killed because they're not part of the "in-group." Religious moderates allow this environment to flourish because they demand special privileges and reverence for religious faith-based beliefs. The idea that religion poisons everything couldn't be any truer.

well if I have to be lumped in with anyone?

Better you , then many other's that come to mind.

But, don't you wonder, why do posters insist on this lumping together, to keep everything neat and tidy for themselves, why can't the just accept the messy beauty of us all as individuals???

[Figleaf]

this whole article is BS.

...Ok, i've wasted enough times, basically what the author does is set up some of the most nonsensical arguements possible, like betrayal of a girlfriend, and relates it to an "injustice" when it's about trust.

Attempts to give everything a religious spin, so he can make a link between atheists and religion.

Did anyone actually read the whole thing?

Not yet, I'm posting my reactions to each chapter as I go. It sure is crap.

Regarding Chapter 3 ...

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different

... Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true. ...

When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!" No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently. ... You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey.

The example does nothing whatsoever to support the assertion it is attached to. There is no 'invisible ideal'. There are specific, expressed ideals, communicated through language and socialization. Wanting justice in no way requires a magical lawgiver to make you want it. Grasping that someone has taken advantage of someone else has nothing to do with anything mystical. It's pragmatic ... we have promulgated rules for the collective benefit, and someone else has broken those rules to your detriment. Thinking that is wrong is simply reasonable -- No magic required.

the moment you find out that while you were on vacation, your girl got drunk and slept with the entire Chicago Bears... Suddenly sex is something to get upset about.

The writer is committing a fallacy. He is attempting to use unlike comparisons as though they were the same. The relevant reason to object that your girlfriend is having sex with the Chicago Bears is not that sex itself is a problem, but rather that sex with someone else outside of a committed relationship is a violation of that interpersonal expectation of exclusivity.

When I read the things that religious proponents say about ethics, I really begin to think that maybe they are right about THEY THEMSELVES needing religion to keep from being immoral, since they do seem to lack an intellectual appreciation for the exercise of ethics

Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question.

At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far.

Well, first off, Christianity doesn't merely take the 'moral impulse' and put a name God on it. It claims (without foundation) that the named entity predates and causes the moral impulse. And it claims that the entity's (alleged) views supercede whatever the natural impulse tells us. And they use claims about the entity to impose the (alleged) entity's morality. Christianity (and other religions) don't simply take it 'one step too far'. They take it several steps off to the side and then kick dirt on the original path.

[cybercoma]

This is an amazing topic. The level of sloppy language is only exceeded by the sloppy thinking.

Let me be the first to apologize for my educational shortcomings.

Sometimes life deals you lemons.

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of sloppy thinking, which bonehead said there was proof that God doesn't exist?

[Drea]

Gee and I'm wondering which bonehead said there was proof that God does exist...

That would be me sweetheart! One point for M. Dancer!

I said that when *6 million jews* were slaughtered your invisible god guy was nowhere to be seen, he (it!) did not even help his/it's chosen people -- proof he/it does not exist IMO.

LOL

[M.Dancer]

Gee and I'm wondering which bonehead said there was proof that God does exist...

That would be me sweetheart! One point for M. Dancer!

I said that when *6 million jews* were slaughtered your invisible god guy was nowhere to be seen, he (it!) did not even help his/it's chosen people -- proof he/it does not exist IMO.

LOL

In that case, there are two boneheads......I didn't read that priceless gem........

Beyond your ineffable infinite all seeing eye....what proof exactly do you have that.....

A) God was nowhere to be seen?

God actively interferes with humanity?

C) God didn't/ins't helping his chosen people?

[cybercoma]

Can you not wrap your mind around the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not dealing with the absolute that there is definitively NO God.

Such people are not atheists - they are agnostics because they accept the premise that a higher power could exist.

It cannot be absolutely disproven, but there is absolutely no evidence for God and therefore no reason for religious faith-based belief.

There are many phenomena that science cannot explain today. For example, many people have experienced sudden recovery from serious illnesses that baffle doctors. Scientists presume that there must be a physiological explaination even if they don't have one. Such presumptions are leaps of faith which are no different from the leaps of faith theists make.

So, like I said, saying an atheist follows a belief system or is making a leap of faith in any way is like saying someone who rejects communism is a communist.

You presume that all observed phenomea must have a purely scientific explaination. That is a leap of faith.

Science IS finding the answers to things we don't yet know the answers to. If humankind had the answer to everything there would be no need for science at all.

And once again, you're getting into splitting hairs about agnosticism and atheism. Once again I'll refer you to the quote about fairies and you can continue to ignore it, "There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

The answer is, of course we're not agnostic with respect to fairies. Most reasonable, rational people do not believe in fairies, since there is absolutely no proof for their existence. This is why an atheist can believe that it is extremely improbable that there is a God, yet still be open to conceding otherwise should there be evidence for God's existence. Until now that has yet to happen and as long as books like "End of Faith" by Sam Harris, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens continue to go unanswered, the less likely it is that there is going to be an answer.

[cybercoma]

Gee and I'm wondering which bonehead said there was proof that God does exist...

That would be me sweetheart! One point for M. Dancer!

I said that when *6 million jews* were slaughtered your invisible god guy was nowhere to be seen, he (it!) did not even help his/it's chosen people -- proof he/it does not exist IMO.

LOL

All swans were thought to have been white until black ones were discovered in Australia. You cannot absolutely disprove anything. It's impossible, yet that is not evidence of that particular anything's existence and therein lies the problem with theists supposed evidence.

[M.Dancer]

It's impossible, yet that is not evidence of that particular anything's existence and therein lies the problem with theists supposed evidence.

I have never claimed evidence nor am I intersted in looking for any. For that matter I am not interested in atheists trying to justify their non belief.

The claim that theists have evidence is spurious at best.

Yet for some strange reason they feel that attacks on faith are in order and demand that anon atheist cough up evidence.

[Remiel]

This is, essentially, what some of your arguments can be reduced to.

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

That is also, coincidentally, what Riverwind is arguing you are not.

So, either you are fools who are completely blinded to the fact that you are not arguing for atheism, or Riverwind is right and atheism does in fact entail that one has beliefs, merely nontheistic ones.

[Figleaf]

You think no atheist has ever gone to war and thrown himself on a grenade?

Why would they unless they believed that their sacrifice served some greater good?

Do you make up your private language in response to peoples comments, or have you already got it fully formed when you start your posts?

Here you now seem to be using the term 'greater good' instead of 'God'. Atheists often have a very highly developed view of the greater good. Totally without theistic content.

Believing that there is a 'greater good' is an act of faith.

What possible rationale would lead you to utter that whopper?

[Riverwind]

Here you now seem to be using the term 'greater good' instead of 'God'. Atheists often have a very highly developed view of the greater good. Totally without theistic content.

Believing in the greater good is no different than believing in a specific deity. In both cases people place faith in a higher power that has more meaning than the individual. You use this concept of 'greater good' to provide your moral compass. The 'greater good' is your deity even if you refuse to admit it.

You are fixated on the Judeo-Christian concept of God and you think that all religions have the same image. That is not true. Many other religions do not really have a god figure at all. Buddism more a way a living than a belief in a deity. The same is true of Daoism. If you call Buddism a religion then you must call Atheism a religion.

Believing that there is a 'greater good' is an act of faith.

What possible rationale would lead you to utter that whopper?

You cannot prove that this 'greater good' exists yet it is something that you believe in. IOW. acting in the name of a 'greater good' is an act of faith.

[Figleaf]

Believing in the greater good is no different than believing in a specific deity.

Again with your private language! It really does make a discussion difficult to pursue.

Look here -- words are symbolic constructs used to represent things, concepts, people, etc. collectively called memes. For this system to be useful, the word/symbols used to represent different memes must distinguishable from eachother, and used predicably to allow hearers to decypher the intent of speakers.

Or in short -- Words have meanings.

Now, the words 'greater good' are, if you look closely, DIFFERENT words than 'believing in a specific deity'.

Why do you suppose that may be? Well, in fact, it's because they represent DIFFERENT things. Yes. And so, when you burble up and say they are the SAME thing, it really isn't very comprehensible or useful.

There is nothing necessarily theistic about perceiving and acting on a 'greater good'. To take an example, a person who feels he has had a full life with little more joy to come, might quite LOGICALLY decide if forced into a situation to sacrifice his life to ensure the prospect of life for younger people. There is no need to drag any notion of a 'higher power', let alone a specific 'God' into explaining that.

The 'greater good' is your deity even if you refuse to admit it.

??? Here we go again. What is your private definition of 'deity' now?

If you call Buddism a religion then you must call Atheism a religion.

Bunk.*

*Silly unsupported assertions are adequately met with denial. They don't deserve the dignity of refutation.

[cybercoma]

Riverwind, why will you not concede to Figleaf? You're being bludgeoned with logic.