Send in the atheists

You've just described football, stamp collecting and sex.Your description has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is more like sexual preference. It isn't a cause, principle or activity, it's just the way you are. Gay people could care less about the sexual preference of others until discrimination occurs. In the same way, atheists could care less about the religious beliefs of others until they start bringing those beliefs into our schools and governments.--Percy

Yes, you did previously give a definition. The definition you gave was: Once again marvelously demonstrating your ability to either lay down red herrings or completely miss the point of a discussion, you can choose.That definition of "religion" really has nothing to do with the topic Modulous started. Your definition is what people have in mind when they talk about the American religion of baseball, for example. It is used in a somewhat metaphorical sense. As used this way, atheism certainly could be a religion for some people. So could ice hockey, cross stitching and collecting beanie babies. What do all of these things have in common? They have nothing to do with to OP.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Thanks brother, its good to be back.

quote:

---

There are those kinds of atheists who devote much of their time to the furtherance of atheism.

---

Then why even talk about your atheism. Atheism claims to be a lack of belief, but the mere fact that blogs, forums, websites, books, videos, manifesto's, etc, etc, are continually revised and honed should be sufficient evidence that atheism is not about unbelief, its about asserting a position that will in many respects be the antithesis to thesitic morality. The very criteria for being a humanist is to have atheistic beliefs. But lets put it this way... I don't believe in flying elephants. Because I don't believe in them, I have no want, desire, or need to talk about my unbelief of flying elephants. But not so with the common atheist. I mean, you decided to write a thread on it. Obviously, there is something coveted about being an atheist in the mind of an atheist, right?For many atheists, it is a sign that they are, what they refer to as,freethinkers. The unmistakable allusion is that freethinkers are intelligent and are prideful about it. The fact that a whole underclass of people specifically refer to themselves as atheists speaks more about its intent, rather than its non-belief, IMHO.Afterall, how many people put labels on things they don't believe in? Think about it. Chiro, there are many facets and faces among those who call themselves atheists, just like there are many facets and faces of Christians. I think you are unintentionally presenting a false dichotomy. I agree with you. In fact, the word "religion" kind of makes me shudder. But for the sake of clarity for the reader, I allow for such a definition. I agree. Which is why when someone says, "I'm Christian," I take it with a grain of salt. Its almost a meaningless term unless there is some evidence.But Jesus said it best... "By their fruits, you will recognize them."

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Thanks for the clarification. I would say that such a representation is not necessary, provided that a government, in practice and in principle, believes that a separation of church and state is best.Its not the governments job, as an institution, to side with personal beliefs. However, if atheists, at the behest of some radical cleric, were being rounded up and systematically torture for that atheism, then it is the duty of the government, I believe, to stop that from happening.But that said, them stepping in would not be an attack against Islam, or even a defense of atheism... It would be a defense of human life from tyranny.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

All those tenets you listed are tenets of Humanism, not atheism, because atheism isn't an organized structure that has tenets. But you aren't surrounded by people who do believe in flying elephants. The members of your government don't make decisions based on their belief in flying elephants - decisions that affect you. If you were and if they did, I'm sure your opinion on the matter would be quite different.

quote:

---

An online dictionary has, among other definitions, describes atheism as such:

​

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

---

Take it up with the writers of the Dictionary. Its just the way you are? Percy, all atheists and all theists make a conscious decision to believe or not to believe. You don't have a gene that tells you whether or not you believe in this or that. They only don't care unless it threatens them. I fully agree. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it it difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

For the most part, atheist are not organized and so do not per se have a lobby nor are able to exert much political influence as a group, but only as individuals. Yes, there are atheist organizations in this country (the US), but most atheists in this country are unaware that they exist. There really isn't any kind of atheist community, in contrast to a Jewish community or a Conservative Christian community.Rather, most atheists are individuals who pretty much think that they are the only ones who can no longer believe the doctrine and dogma of their former religion. They aren't even too sure that others like themselves exist nor do they have any idea how to find them or identify them. Besides which, the hostility that they encounter from their former brethern forces them to become closetted, to be very cautious about expressing their thoughts and so be less able to seek anyone of like mind -- a friend who's a former fundamentalist is even very shy about being in a group of conservative Christians because she has experiences too many hostile reactions to her loss of faith. One case was former fundamentalist minister Dan Barker in a presentation he gave at Los Angeles' Atheists United. He was minister at a church in Southern Calif when he started to think and subsequently lost his faith. When he failed to reconvert, he was shunned by everyone he knew and the church leaders forced his wife to divorce him. Lost and alone, he made his way back to Michigan (I think) where he connected with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He had no idea that there was an atheist organization practically right next-door to him who could have offered him support during his painful deconversion process. "Where the hell were you guys when I needed you?", he asked his Atheists United audience. The only reason I ever heard of Atheists United was because they used to have a 15-minute broadcast once a week and I just happened to stumble upon it one day while turning the dial on my car radio. Now, the internet has started to solve this problem, but judging from the first-time postings on ex-christians.net it is still a problem.Regarding the question of what common cause atheists would have, I'm reminded of a Unitarian joke. A newcomer to Hell is being shown around and it's explained to him that each group has its own hell based on their common views. But when they come around to the Unitarians, he sees them all standing around drinking coffee and discussing all kinds of topics. Satan answers the newcomer's puzzled look with, "Damned Unitarians! They can never agree on anything!"But, a common cause for atheists would be the preservation of religious liberty, part of which is that no religious group may use force of law to impose its beliefs and practices on others. And judging by the activities and expressed goals of the Religious Right over the past few decades, we have every reason to fear for the immenent demise of our liberties.And as for whether governments properly represent their atheist constituents, there is the question of Sweden. As I understand it, in order to hold public office in that country, you must be a member of the Lutheran Church. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I distinctly remember have been informed of this. I assume that it's an old law that dates back around the time that they and Catholic nations had a disagreement (eg, the Thirty Years Wars) and so was intended to keep Catholics out of office. But still, as I understand it, the law remains on the books despite your figures that 46% of the population are non-believers.

I see your point. To be fair, Nemesis, pride exists in all sides of this debate. Christians are often accused of having a form of exclusivity since we believe (or know) that we have met God while others have not. Whats so different about some atheists who boast amongst themselves that they have a rational path to truth based on solid evidence and experience and free of bias? I agree with you, Timothy...but how do we know the mind of those whom we elect? They obviously don't share everything they have encountered in life. Would anyone who claimed to see a U.F.O and/or have alien visitation be automatically disbarred from consideration as a president?What about a candidate that had been willfully brainwashed by the political machine that raised them up? How can this be any better than a belief in God...or Flying Elephants, if you prefer?

We ask, we examine their behavior and what they have said and written. That would depend on what was claimed. If the person said they saw something they could not identify, that's fine. If though they claimed to see an alien craft or had an alien visitation, then absolutely. They should not be considered for holding any position of power.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

so by he same token, would you exclude a man who claimed to have fireside chats with God?

Personally, I would have really great followup questions.How do he know it is God?Have I mentioned that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, good, so you know something about Humanism. In fact, you probably know more about humanism than I do. But we aren't talking about Humanism. We are talking about atheism. This would be like my trying to tell you about Christianity by quoting the Book of Mormon.- Actually, it was the theists who invented the label atheism. The reason that atheist even exists as a concept is because it has historically been Christians who have persecuted those outside their beliefs. Think about it.- You might feel differently if you were surrounded by people who believed in flying elephants, believed that flying elephants were the only path to salvation, and that flying elephants allow Islamic terrorists fly jet planes into tall buildings.At any rate, I don't have a need to talk about atheism. I rarely mention that I am an atheist to the people I know unless I'm asked or unless it is relevant to a conversation that we are already having. Even on this board, I have mostly discussed atheism mostly because so many people here show a great deal of ignorance about atheism. I don't think it's a big deal what color the sky is, either, but I will correct someone who thinks the sky is green.- Maybe I am, but no one has yet made a good case for this.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I may be ignorant of specific secular humanist groups, but I have a contention with what you just said.I would tend to think of myself as both not an atheist and a advocate of secular humanism.I am not trying to throw bones for no reason here. I am fully aware that the VAST majority of secular humanists are atheists or at the very least agnostic but I do not think your analogy of total inclusion is apt at all.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Hi Mod,I believe the only one's that are fairly represented when it comes to government, are the big lobbies. They are the one's who put up the money to get the officials elected.In America we no longer have a government of the people by the people for the people. We have a government of the people by the people put in Washington by the special interests.So the Atheist, and Religious, are probably represented in the special interest groups, those have representation. The rest of us just pay the bills they create.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Fair enough... I like your analogy. Even still, I'd be surprised if you were in disagreement with even one the tenets. Does it matter who coined the phrase as long as the ideology is still present? For instance, it was Sir Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase, the Big Bang. Yet, he wasn't a proponent of the belief. Its just a name to the description. ..... Uh, what? The only reason atheism exists is because Christianity has historically persecuted those outside of their beliefs? Surely you misspoke.How can you persecute something that only exists because of its persecution? That's placing the cart before the horse.Secondly, it would be silly to think it only exists because of persecution. That's like saying Christianity only exists because of Caesar Nero, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung. Hindu's believe that we go through unending cycles of reincarnation to pay for our bad karma until we finally get and achieve Nirvana. Their beliefs don't bother me, insomuch that I think they are ultimately incorrect in their assessment, and I care about their eternal disposition.But even if what you say is true, then it nullifies what you've been positing, that atheism is just a lack of belief. It is decidedly more than that. Well, then you may not be one of the more frenetic atheists. The question that's begging then, is there more fringe atheists or indifferent atheists? Obviously, the fringe atheists make the loudest noise, so they are noticed more than the indifferent one's.

quote:

---

I think you are unintentionally presenting a false dichotomy.

---

Wait, I can't remember why I made that statement. What was I responding to when I made that statement?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte