Summations Only

Not true. There are many religions that have no deity. Scientology is one relevant example. Various Native American tribal religions involved animism or ancestor worship rather than deities. Buddhism does not technically have a deity, either. True. False.Atheism takes several forms. At it's core, it's a lack of belief in any deities. This means that technically Scientologists, Buddhists, and the Native Americans I mentioned are atheists despite having religions.I'm an atheist who was formerly a Christian. I have no religion. There are no beliefs that I hold regarding a supernatural anything in the world. I don;t worship anything. I do not state that no god exists; I simply state that I have been shown no reason to believe that any god does exist. Atheism, for me, is characterized by a lack of belief.

quote:

---

religion

​

—noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

---

I simply don't believe in a god. My atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral code; there are no rituals or devotions to observe; I don't have any belief in other supernatural agents other than deities (though some atheists do, see above); my lack of belief in a deity is independent of my concept of the origins of the Universe or the "purpose" of life (on Universal origins, I have to say "I don't know, but science has a pretty good idea of what the Universe looked like in the first moments," and I believe that each person determines their own purpose since no objective purpose to life exists).Atheists do not have a specific set of beliefs that tie us together beyond a lack of belief in gods, and we don;t even all agree completely on that - some actively deny the existence of deities, holding an active belief that deities cannot (or at least do not) exist, which is different from being simply unconvinced as I am. Some believe int he supernatural, simply not deities. We span the entire range of moral standards and ethics.There is nothing taken from atheism to "follow" or "believe in." The best way to describe atheism is Santa Claus: my lack of belief in god(s) is identical in every way to my lack of belief in Santa Claus. With no objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, I have no rational reason to have confidence that a deity exists. End of story.Clearly, atheism does not meet the definitions of the word "religion." Also false. Jews, for example, don't actively attempt to convert. They accept converts, but they don;t try to convert others at all. Many other religions are the same.And of course atheism isn't even a religion. Some atheists do try to make religious people see reason, but in many cases I think that what many people identify as "conversion attempts" are in actuality attempts to explain ourselves and gain acceptance and understanding from a majority that fears and reviles us (recent studies have shown atheists to be the absolute least trusted minority in the US). Christians in particular are quite fond of interpreting "I don't agree with you, and here's why" as a personal attack on the Christian's faith. Granted, some of us are quite abrasive - I assume that my comparison of god to Santa Claus is likely offensive to many, but I really see no better way to describe it. I'm open to suggestions.I also tend to be far more abrasive and direct online than I am in normal life. I don;t go door-to-door with pamphlets telling people of the wonders of atheism. I don't even typically bring up the subject. I debate religion only when someone else brings up the subject (ie, when a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness comes to my door), or on websites like this on that are specifically set up for the purpose. Do I think that religious people are stupid? Some of them; but in no greater or lesser proportion than any other group you could name, stupid people are everywhere. Do I think that religious people are irrational? Definitely, at least so far as their religion is concerned. Faith, by its very definition as a belief that is not based on any evidence, is synonymous with irrationality. So long as that irrational belief doesn't intrude on my own rights (ie, nobody threatens me with imprisonment or job loss or makes me sit at the back of the bus for not believing in god, and nobody forces me to say that I believe something when I don't, etc), then I generally don't have a problem with religious people. I fail to see how attempting to show someone the logic of simply not believing in things without evidence is "dangerous." Particularly compared with religious conversions that in some cases carry moral imperatives to kill unbelievers, or shoot abortion activists. Perhaps you could explain? I agree. Also very true. Statistically most people who understand and accept that evolution is an accurate model of the origins of new species and the origin of the diversity of life on Earth are in fact religious. Even the Catholic Church officially endorses evolution. I respect only a person's right to believe whatever they'd like to believe - I don't necessarily respect the beliefs themselves. If a person believes in talking snakes or shrubberies, or that day and night existed before the sun, or that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, or that spitting in some mud and rubbing it on your eyes can cure blindness, I will openly mock those beliefs in appropriate forums like this one. I see it as absolutely no different than mocking a person who believes in trolls, goblins and fairies - the beliefs are fanciful and based on no evidence, showing that the believer is irrational. But I will never take any action to oppress those who believe they can speak to an invisible man in the sky or hinder their ability to practice their faith so long as they do not intrude on the rights or others.We all have the right to believe whatever our conscience and intellect direct us to believe, without coercion from others, and we also have the right to speak our minds. Christians tell me I;m going to Hell all the time; it's only fair that I be allowed to tell them they're irrational and believe in fairy tales.

Oppressive regimes can exist regardless of religious backing. The difference is that religions contain moral imperatives that can specifically cause the commission fo atrocities - abortion doctors are murdered specifically due to the religious beliefs of their murderers. Oppressive atheist regimes, on the other hand, are not following any moral imperative from atheism - the cannot, because atheism carries no moral imperatives, no instructions, nothing at all other than a lack of belief in deities.Stalin and Mao didn't commit mass murder because of atheism; the committed mass murder for power, which they gained by wiping out dissenters and eliminating one of the major competitors for guiding the will of the people.I can point to multiple cases in the Bible where murder is specifically instructed. The Bible plainly states that all homosexuals are to be killed; that all "witches" are to be killed, etc. The Koran contains similar moral imperatives, as do many other religions. Atheism says absolutely nothing about morality, or who should kill who. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god, nothing else. I mostly agree, though I still think open mockery of irrational beliefs (religious or otherwise) is acceptable. Again, this is incorrect. Atheism in many cases is defined specifically by a lack of belief in god, not a positive belief that no god exists. The latter requires faith and is just as irrational as theism; the former is as rational as not believing in Thor, Zeus, fairies, and the monster under your bed.

Thanks. I'm not an agnostic - an agnostic says "I don't know, and can likely never know." The atheist says "in the absence of evidence, it's not likely."My confidence in the existence or nonexistence of god is directly analogous to my confidence in the existence or nonexistence of fairies. I'm dismissive of them, I lack any belief in them, but I acknowledge that there is a chance that they do exist and are using supernatural means to avoid detection. But the lack of evidence makes the likelihood of their existence approach zero.The differences between various different kinds of atheists and even agnostics are subtle and prone to issues of semantics, but the differences are there.

I'm content to let organized sets of beliefs be defined as religions or not religions by those who hold the beliefs. If someone claims their set of beliefs is a religion and it somewhat meets the dictionary definition (and Scientology does), then that's that. Scientology may be more obviously false and ridiculous than other religions, but that doesn't make it not a religion.After all, is the evil space emperor Xenu and his DC47 starships of volcanic DOOM really more ridiculous than an invisible man in the sky who watches you masturbate? I'm perfectly happy with puting them on the same level - the major difference is that Scientology is more direct about scamming money, has cultish practices that most versions (but not all - see Jehovah's Witnesses) of the major religions don't engage in (shunning family members who aren't in the cult or former members, etc), and the major religions have been around longer.I'd also point out that, at their heart, I think all religions and cults are essentially scams. The difference is that religions get tax exemption Philosophies regarding human behavior that incorporate beliefs in the existence of supernatural entities (including dead ancestors, or the animal spirits, or the Great Spirit, etc), as well as supernatural origins of the Earth sound like the very definition of religion to me, Taz. Not all of them. Buddhism is a very diverse religion, even more so that Christianity. Some Buddhists worship gods. Others do not. Most believe in the supernatural - an afterlife, nirvana, reincarnation, etc. Buddha himself was supposed to be a very wise man who attained enlightenment, not a deity. Buddhism is almost as difficult to characterize with broad statements as atheism.

...which means that atheism does not meet the definition of a religion. You're trying to force your own definition of the word religion ("any belief surround god(s), including their nonexistence") instead of the dictionary definition. You don't get to redefine words, greentwiga.

No, we can't. Atheism is typically an absence of belief. Is a shadow a color of light, greentwiga? This obviously doesn't fit atheism. A lack of belief in god(s) is independent of any belief in the cause, nature, or purpose of the Universe. It doesn't even necessarily exclude supernatural explanations, so long as they do not involve deities. Atheism says absolutely nothing about ethics or anything else; it's not a set of beliefs at all. It's a label applied to any person who lacks a belief in any god(s). There's nothing to follow. Clearly not. What you are willing to do is irrelevant. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. "Not-a-lawyer" is not a profession. "Absence-of-light" is not a color. "Lack-of-belief-in-Santa-Claus" is not a belief system.And neither is atheism.

This seems to be an overly simplistic view of the supernatural. What defines "fantasy" vs "not fantasy" in your model? It sounds like "anything described or implied by the Bible is not fantasy, and everything else is fantasy." How exactly does your lack of belief in Santa Claus qualify as a religious belief? If you were not a Christian, would you believe in Santa Claus? Without the Bible's words on non-YHWH supernatural entities, would you believe in fairies? Goblins? Trolls?A more rational approach is to determine what is "real" and what is "fantasy" based on objective evidence. That which is supported by objective evidence is likely to be real, and that which is not supported by objective evidence is likely to be fantasy. The degree of certitude should be determined by the quality and quantity of the evidence.By this standard, I can evaluate fairies, goblins and trolls as "almost certainly fantasy." The lack of evidence supporting their existence is so complete that I can confidently laugh at anyone who suggests that they actually exist - the probability of their existence is not zero, but it's so close as makes little difference.I evaluate deities in the same way. There is just as much evidence supporting fairies and goblins as there is supporting a deity, or Lord Voldemort, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - none at all.You may be able to have faith in the existence of your particular unsupported deity - this requires special pleading, as you have confidence in one entity without evidence of its existence yet classify other unsupported entities as fantasy with no objective reason to differentiate between them - and that's your business, but your method of classification as posted above is essentially useless. It appears that you're using a "gut feeling" method of evaluating "fantasy" vs "non-fantasy."Why, for example, couldn't Lord Voldemort be a demon that inspired an author to write books intended to draw children away from Christ? Wouldn't that qualify him as a "real" supernatural entity in your view? By what method of determination are you classifying Voldemort as "just fun" and "fantasy" as opposed to the demons that you also profess belief in?

Atheism does not require a belief in the Big Bang, or even Naturalism. I've already pointed out several technically-atheist belief systems that do not accept naturalism or the Big Bang.There are religions that can be atheist, but not all atheists are religious. Thus atheism itself cannot be a religion. It's really quite simple - you're overcomplicating atheism becasue of your previous understanding of the term.Atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). That's all. Nothing more. It's a lack of belief. There are belief systems and even religions that incorporate atheism - but there are belief systems that incorporate gecentrism, too, and geocentrism is not a religion (simply an inaccurate model of the solar system).If you don't believe in any god, you are an atheist, whether you are also a religious Scientologist/Taoist/Buddhist/Animist/New-Ager/what-have-you, or if you are like me and simply lack a belief in any deity along with all other unsupported supernatural hoobajoo. Some atheists do claim knowledge that there is no deity as opposed to simply lacking a belief, but this is still not a religious belief. It's irrational, sure, and you could even classify it as "faith" and a "belief," but since this does not apply to all atheists it's improper to qualify all of atheism as a belief or a religion.Some atheists have beliefs regarding the supernatural, or regarding the certainty of the absence of deities. But you can't use some atheists to define all atheists. That would be like me claiming that all Christians believe in the Book of Mormon, since one Christian sect does.

When I was a Christian, the idea of not having a religion was literally unfathomable. The concept never occurred to me - a person was Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever, but there was no such thing to me as no religion.I wonder if a similar mental handicap affects other theists and results in the insistence that atheists must have some sort of religion.Clearly, my horizons have broadened. I would imagine that any theist who is willing to listen to what atheists say regarding atheism rather than their own preconceived notions could do the same.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I see where you're comign from (you don't need science to arrive at atheism), but "proof" is too strong a word around here. Proof is for mathematics.I think that basic atheism is the default position (even knowing absolutely nothing, there is no reason to assume the existence of something like a deity), and teh degree of certitude that no deities exist increases as additional methods of inquiry find no evidence of their existence.I tend to see it as an asymptote (as I do with basically everything else, like evolution). As we continue to look and find nothing, the probability of the existence of a deity gets closer and closer to zero (just as with evolution, where as we get more and more evidence supporting its accuracy, the likelihood that we've modeled reality with perfect accuracy approaches 1) but never actually reaches it.I see the likelihood of any deity existing as the same as any other unfalsifiable mythical or fictional entity - so close to zero as making little difference. I acknowledge that there is a chance that I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy that lottery ticket. That's not proof, but it's as close to proof as is possible.

Tribalism is unfortunately a natural instinct in human beings. We continuously find new ways to subdivide ourselves into "us" and "them," and those ways are usually pretty silly.In this case, it would seem that the Atheist+ movement's culture of exclusion and defamation is counterproductive to what they should (and purport to) actually want - that is, convincing others through well-supported argument that their views should be adopted.The drive to identify, vilify, and dehumanize an "other" is the cause of many human evils. Atheists aren't magically immune to millenia of social evolution any more than theists...and sometimes, I think, Atheists can become so caught up in thoughts of superior rationality that they imagine themselves immune to the cognitive defects present in all of us. Just like Christians get caught up in feeling superior by being "saved," or political parties get caught up in feeling superior to...well, okay, I still say American politics is more akin to soccer hooligans than any reasonable enterprise. But that illustrates the point rather well.

I imagine that a large part of the problem is that nobody likes to think of themselves as sexist, or racist, or other words that are bad, and so their minds will immediately rationalize any excuse to make themselves feel better."I'm not sexist, I can't possibly be a misogynist, look at the horrible misogyny over there, I'm nothing like them! Clearly you're just overreacting; you don't have it bad unless you're getting acid thrown in your face or getting stoned for being a rape victim."It's not all that different from the typical immediate reaction of a racist upon being confronted: "I'm not racist, I have a (insert race) friend!"This says nothing at all, of course, about those who chose to attack Watson by suggesting that she deserved to be assaulted. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that, as it goes far beyond simple defensiveness.

Curiously, no one here has tried to attack the views of mainstream feminists at all.Is it fair to say that, if someone were to hold the view that all PIV sex is rape or that all men are rapists, that such a person would be wrong, and that the wrongness of such a view is completely independent from the view that women should in all ways be equal to men?I mean, it seems possible for me to oppose the view of (as an example) black supremacists at the same time that I oppose white supremacists and support equal rights across all races. Whether a specific person actually espouses one of those views seems less relevant to me than which positions are actually supported and denounced. The message is more important than the messenger, in other words.

So you assert, despite the fact that evidence has been presented that invalidates this claim. By multiple people, from multiple sources, none of which you have as of yet addressed. Really? Where? While it has been claimed (and supported) that radical feminists exist, not once have I seen it claimed that Ms. Watson is one of them. Where has it been asserted that Ms. Watson believes that all PIV intercourse is rape, or that all men are rapists, or anything along those lines? Again, where has this been said? I don't see any people here claiming anything was Ms. Watson's fault at all. I have seen it reported that [i]others/i have made some pretty nasty verbal assaults on Ms. Watson, but none here, and none here defending them. I doubt you'll find anyone here on EvC who thinks it was okay to say that Ms. Watson should be raped, for example, and I'm sure that most of us feel that Dawkins was overly dismissive in his initial comments, agreeing more with the later statement as reported by PZ Meyers that (paraphrasing) pointing out a greater wrong elsewhere is no cause to dismiss a lesser, even minor wrong. Perhaps the reason that her statements have gone unrebutted is that most of us find no fault with her statements, and don't intend to dismiss her? I'll ask you to retract that, as nobody here at EvC has put forth such an opinion, and it is extremely offensive to falsely accuse us of doing so.There are radical feminists with extreme anti-male views.Rebecca Watson is not one of them, and her views do not significantly overlap with theirs in any relevant way.Ms. Watson is in no way a "slut" or any other derogatory word. So far as I can tell, you're the only one using such language.Ms. Watson felt understandably uncomfortable in what she acknowledges was an innocent situation, her point that even innocent activities can sometimes make some women feel uncomfortable and that such feelings are normal and okay was well made, and the reaction to her words rather than her actual words has included everything from rude dismissal to verbal assault, none of which was remotely okay. I don't believe that I have.You carry an awful lot of snark and hostility towards people with whom you largely agree - I think you and I dispute only the existence of a tiny minority of radical feminists, and nothing else in this thread.Why is that, do you think?

When someone says that "ALL PIV intercourse is harmful towomen," that's an extreme view. Women carry the greatest potential burden from intercourse through the risk of pregnancy and increased STD transmission, but men are not harming women every time they have sex.There are these things called condoms that men can use to prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs. Men can also get vasectomies to eliminate the change of pregnancy, and the process is reversible as a bonus. Women can use IUDs, "the pill," and other options to limit pregnancy...and they can insist on condom use with partners to protect themselves from their potential added burdens. There are vaccines now for various forms of hepatitis. As a bit of good news, the FDA has also just recently approved the first human trials for an HIV vaccine, which would be amazing.Further, sometimes neither sexual partner has an STD. SOmetimes one partner is infertile anyway...and sometimes pregnancy is a desired outcome.The claim that PIV intercourse is harmful takes an extremely limited view of intercourse and essentially likens every single time you put your dick into a vagina to assault on a woman, and that is absolutely not the case.The fact that the author of that blog made some reasonable observations does not excuse the fact that her conclusion does not flow from them. PIV intercourse is not a "harmful cultural practice!" It's a biological necessity for the continuation of the species, for one thing...and as I demonstrated above, showing that an act carries potentially greater consequences for one party does not mean that that act is harmful by nature.My girlfriend rather enjoys PIV intercourse; she doesn't believe that I'm harming her, and she doesn't have sex with me out of some cultural pressure - she has the biological urge just as strongly as I do. I'm sure many women (and men, men are stereotyped just as strongly as women) have PIV intercourse just to keep their partner happy and don't particularly enjoy the act...but the experience of some does not then support the conclusion that the act is harmful in itself.Not to mention the fact that you outright ignored most of what I presented. Saying things like "necrophilia supports male power" is rather an extreme view, wouldn't you agree?What about this:

quote:

---

All of this female suffering, every bit of it, is due to the reproductive consequences to women of mandatory PIV and rape. And where almost all instances of rape include PIV, normalizing PIV also serves to normalize rape:

---

Normalizing PIV intercourse normalizes rape?! Are you shitting me here? This is absolutely equating PIV intercourse with rape, with the male taking the role of the aggressor - in other words, it calls all heterosexual sexually active males rapists.Or this:

quote:

---

To call intercourse sex or conflate it with women’s or even men’s sexual pleasure is not merely misguided, but rather, a deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering and increasing men’s individual and collective power.

---

PIV intercourse should not be conflated with male or female pleasure; instead, it's a "deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering."PIV intercourse does not simply "normalize female submission and suffering." Plenty of women take a more dominant role in sexuality, and many men enjoy bedroom submission. Our culture has been steadily promoting more and more freedom outside of "traditional gender roles," from the media on down. The author's view is compeltely detached from reality; she seems to view the act of PIV intercourse as akin to dogs vying for pack dominance - while this does typically involve a sexualized display, humans are not dogs and inserting a penis into a vagina does not in itself convey any sort of dominance or submission!The author is treating all female sex partners as victims, "submitting" their vaginas to the "assault" of a man's harmful raping penis.Seriously crash, it's like you read a single phrase of what I quoted and just ignored all of the rest. You noted a single reasonable set of observations and then disregarded all of the outlandish dialogue that was the entire reason for the post. It's like you're a poster child for confirmation bias here.