Send in the atheists

A pushback of what? Describe the action of the "pushing" in the first place. All actions have an opposite and equal reaction. What was the action that precipitated the counter-action? I've met lazy, indifferent atheists. And by lazy, I don't mean their physical inactivity. I mean that some atheists are only atheists because seeking after the heart of God not only means a little investigation, but it also opens them to a possibility that they aren't willing to face, simply because knowing the way of God entails following the precepts. And following the precepts interferes with their baser desires.There is another kind of atheist who has sought after God, at least with a measure that seems fitting to them. But when troubles comes, they fall away and try to reason that God must not exist. (Of course, I'm being very terse. There is obviously more to it than just that alone, but I'm trying to sum it up quickly because I have to leave in a few minutes.)Anyway, they then become angry at the thought of a loving God abandoning them in their time of need. They become dejected, bitter, and angry. And so whenever anyone merely mentions the name of Jesus and His tranforming love, it brings back those repressed feelings. What ends up happening is they then find some measure of intellectual satisfaction with "debunking Christian myths." It just escalates from there I don't even know who that is, so I really can't comment on it just yet. Those two people seem to me exactly the kind of people I described above. Those that get a real thrill out of intellectually dismantling the opposition. Now, they are articulate and intelligent. I would never say otherwise. However, they are so to a fault. Almost in a bombastic and arrogant way. And entertaining these thoughts continually will lead them in only two directions. They will either, at some point, convert, when they are finally bereft of answers from the post-modern world, or they will end up like Nietzsche in some capacity. I'm inclined to agree with Harris on many points, that religiosity and legalism has the potential to be a very dangerous thing. When I hear people say, "All you need is a little religion," I cringe. I think "religion" is part of the problem. I think religion is just another worldly system, only veiled in a spiritual guise.Anyhow, I gotta get out of here. I won't be able to reply again until Monday or Tuesday. But I'd like to pick up the convo then. Its a good topic.

---

"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

Well, for instance, theists slaughtering thousands in the middle of our greatest cities. Theists suborning justice to sectarian ends. Theists ensuring that nobody who doesn't buy into their brand of woo is forever barred from the reigns of civil power. And I'm perfectly sure you were able to discern that by either mental powers of telepathy or your decades of research into psychology.If you believe that I have a God to sell you. So they enjoy what they do! More power to them. I don't see how that's a mark against them. All they've ever done is write books and give speeches, but you call that "militant atheism" as though writing books is the same as what militant theists did this week in Iraq; setting off bombs that resulted in the deaths of hundreds.Pardon me if I find that just a little fucking ridiculous. The only reason you find these figures "militant" is because they have the naked temerity to stand up and disagree with you. But your religion, it's different from all that!Absolutely unbelievable.

Really? Have to? Did you? At that point? Has someone suggested that you should? Have I? Are you having a conversation with yourself? I don't "play word games", but I do understand our language. I would be an ateaptist before your proposition, and an ateapotist after it. If I had a particular dislike of the proposed teapot, or thought that you "teapotists" were harmful to society, then I would be very likely to become an antiteapotist as well as an ateapotist. Something doesn't make sense. If you mean the Abrahamic God, in nearly all of the world, that's true, even most people in areas where he's definitely not part of tradition. Christianity and Islam are the biggest, noisiest religions. If you look at the stats in the links in Mod's O.P., you'll agree that that's much more of a serious problem in your neck of the woods than mine.Antitheist is a good word, and useful, because not all atheists are anti religious at all. There are even some who think religions are positive things, even though they don't believe in them. It's neater than "militant atheist".You're probably just atheistic about the God Pan, but you're both atheistic and antitheistic about the Christian God.

I don't mean the Abrahamic God, actually; as theists are fond of pointing out, however, it's fairly hard to find any society that doesn't include the worship of something described as a "god" in the local language. I doubt it. Even the kids on your island have heard of Christianity's God, and Islam's God as well. Look, I've been there, even.It's like the legend of Fiddler's Green. You know it? It was said that the way to get to Fiddler's Green - the sailor's paradise - was to put an oar on your shoulder and start walking inland until someone asked you "hey, what's that big stick?"It's a legend because everybody knows what an oar is. Everybody knows what God is supposed to be - the interested power in the universe who watches over you. The degree to which he's more interested in watching you do bad things, or making good things happen to you, is endlessly debated; but everybody's heard the word "God" (adjusting for local linguistics.) That seems like something we could debate rationally, with evidence, without resorting to name-calling or telling someone they're an "antitheist" when they prefer "atheist." People who stand up against racism aren't called "anti-whites" by serious people, after all. I'd just as soon theists had as little reason to suspect I was after them personally as possible, since I'm not, and your word games don't really help with that.(Quick question, though. If religion is so positive when people believe it, why isn't it good enough for you? Seems like if it's such a great thing you'd hold your nose and believe it anyway. Or is it just that it's good for all those other brain-dead slobs, but beneath your substantial intellect?) No, I think Pan-worship is just as stupid. It's just that none of those guys show up here to argue. Or, you know, murder thousands in the middle of New York City. At least not these days.

From Wiki:

quote:

---

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. Furthermore, an antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

​

The concept allows a useful distinction to be made between the simple rejection of theism, atheism, and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. All antitheists are atheists but not all atheists are antitheists.

---

People who stand up against racism are called anti-racists (by "serious people") because they are against racism. People who stand up against theism are called anti-theists because they are against theism. Antitheists are not after them personally. Look at the dictionary definition again. "Opposed to belief" not people.My word games, or wiki's, or the O.E.D.'s? Using a correct and well recognised term is not "resorting to name-calling". Did I say that I was one of the atheists who think it's positive? I said:

quote:

---

There are even some [atheists] who think religions are positive things, even though they don't believe in them.
  —bluegenes

---

This antitheist certainly did not say that religion is a great thing.I'm trying to be polite, and I haven't particularly noticed it in your posts before, but you seem to be having serious English comprehension problems tonight.

I've never heard any civil rights leader called an "anti-racist." Maybe that's an idiosyncratic British usage, or something. Then the word should be "antitheismist", shouldn't it? If it's theism that is being opposed, not theists? None whatsoever. But you might make a greater effort towards clarity on your own part.

I have never heard the term "anti-racist" used to describe an individual here or in the U.S
However I have heard the term anti racism as applied to laws etc.Whatever word games can be played or differing definitions can be referenced I do have some agreement with Blues point.There needs to be a distinction between someone who has consciously decided that they do not believe in God or gods and someone who has never really considered the question or frankly doesn't care.By your definition of the term atheist it would seem to suggest that a new born baby is an atheist!! This surely is absurd?

No it is not absurd. It suggests that we all start as atheists by default and only change our perception when or if culture decides so. Some people don't change their mind, they never get religious. Wiki notes:

quote:

---

There are multiple demarcations concerning the degree to which theism is not accepted. Minimally, atheism may be seen as the absence of belief in one or more gods. It has been contended that this broad definition includes newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God". George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

​

The view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism”the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial. It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis”that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Atheists dispute this claim by citing examples of "atheists in foxholes";also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response.

---

There are others that would restrict the term atheist to those that claim to KNOW that there is no God and many people describe themselves (erroneously in my view) as agnostics on the basis that they cannot KNOW for sure.
I think we would both agree that this is a silly definition.
The point is that we can quote definitions at each other but there seems little point in that.Evidently there are those who would define new born babies as atheists. However that does seem a disingenuous to me.There is a huge and fundamental difference between considering the question of God and consciously deciding that the evidence is against it and not even knowing that the question exists.To lump them all in as atheists seems like a convenient way for the sort of considered atheists that are likely to be found here at EvC to make their considered conclusion sound like the natural and all but unanimous default.If anything, does not the fact that all(?I cannot think of any that have not) human cultures have been known to subscribe to some sort of supernatural entities suggest that the default for human culture is in fact deism/theism of some sort?Atheism, by the definition I would use, is a considered opinion not an unknowing defualt.Edited by Straggler, : Insert quote properly

Sure - there is a difference between those who are ignorant of the concept of theism, and those who do not accept the concept upon being exposed to it. However, they are both without theism, so are atheists.The difference between the two is expressed by Smith as implicit and explicit. A lamp post and a newborn is implicitly atheist. Richard Dawkins is explicitly atheist. I think it is fairly self evident that the norm of human culture is some variation of theism. As I said - we start with no concept of theism until our culture introduces us. Is Mount Everest theist or atheist? Are bacteria atheist or theist? Explicit atheism is a considered opinion. Implicit atheism is the default position which requires culture and intelligence to change.

Try Googling "anti-racist" and about 1,000,000 pages will come up.! That may be true, but it wasn't really what I meant. I originally suggested "antitheist" to nemesis, because it is a word for anti-religious atheists, as opposed to atheists who don't give a damn whether or not others are religious. If that's what Crashfrog thinks, I agree with him. Babies certainly do not believe in God. Further up in the thread I said to nemesis: What I meant was that he was born not believing in God, and that when he became a theist, it would've been through indoctrination with the idea of God.Although inventing religions is certainly a trait of our species, religions do not necessarily involve Gods (anamism, ancestor worship, Buddhism etc.). Neither Monotheism or polytheism are inate.Being an atheist is the default position! The norm. Without religious indoctrination, that is how most children would remain.

I disagree. That would imply an electron is an atheist too, which has to be absurd. I would argue that an atheist is an entity who could (potentially) have a belief in God, but doesn't. I doubt it. They would probably become pantheists or something. Religiosity is more of a neurological thing, whereas religion is a cultural (just like communication is neurological, but language is cultural).

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I will agree that religion and belief is largely culturally influenced, but in my personal experience, there was also a major transformation which in my opinion occurred apart from cultural indoctrination.While I would agree that some people don't change their mind, I would argue that they may well change (or have a change) of heart regarding tolerance and love and sense of purpose in life. Perhaps an atheist may never attribute the change as being caused by God, but we can agree that inner awareness is often a process that may have had a defineable spark.

If you'll recall, I said that my definition of atheist was "someone who believes that the intellectual case for God is objectively insufficient."It's hard to understand how you believe that could be applied to an infant. Why? If someone has decided to become part of the debate by staking out a term to describe their position, it can hardly be said that they "frankly don't care" any more. The people who don't care don't need to be named.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

If atheists were singled out as a group for systematic discrimination I might agree with you. However, I see a lot of bad policy decisions (and attempt to enact poor policies), but these policies tend to be against the interests of people of faith as much as atheists, and there are purely secular, not specifically atheist organizations, comprising people of faith as well as atheists and agnostics, to fight against them. Outright religious discrimination rarely targets atheists in particular, but affects a wide range of personal beliefs.On the other hand, there does appear to be widespread public misunderstanding of who atheists are and what atheism is. In that case, I can see your point that people who do have this one thing in common might feel the need to act in an organized fashion to combat these misrepresentations.- Well that would be a different thing. Humanists do share a core set of common beliefs that can conceivably direct their opinions in various political and social issues in a common direction. In that case, it makes perfect sense for people whose opinions are influenced by their humanist ideals to organize together to try to implement those ideals.

---

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