Atheism

[Eudaimonist]

mental blight said >>I'm in a club at my school my principal demanded we call it the Association for Atheist Students. I live in a small town with a very close minded population. Me and my friends get harassed, beat up and accused of things we didn't do. All of these things are done by so called "loving Chistians"

and that doesn't make you not believe in God?

It has no influence whatsoever. I was never beat up or harassed for being an atheist.

Even if I had been, that would have no influence whatsoever. I would simply conclude the obvious -- that believing Christians can be hateful people. That would not say anything in particular about whether or not God exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TScott]

That's a creepy avatar...

I used to have a buddy Jesus avatar but the mods made me get rid of it. I want something to convey my perception of Jesus which is different I guess than most Xians.

Are you agreeing with that?

(If you are going to get all esoteric on me, please don't bother responding.)

I didn't realize I was being esoteric, (in fact I must confess I had to look it up for context...), but if I have been it wasn't intentional.

Yeah, if your referring to the not learning part, I do agree with that. ( I definitley do not agree with St. Pauls rules on Xianity, that is for sure.)

 

[TScott]

You are right that corporeality isn't the point here. A referent can be anything. Even the concept "concept" refers to concepts (including itself). However, the distinction between a concept and the set of things that it refers to should be retained, just as one should retain the distinction between a road sign in California that says "California" and California. The point here is not that concepts can't be self-referential, but that if you understand the function of a sign, you'll make the distinction based on that context.

Let's set up a more precise language to consider your example of the anti-theist who is allegedly an atheist.

Let's consider the following entities (or alleged entities):

T for a theist
g for a god-concept
G for God, whatever that might be
H for an anti-theist

And the following relationships:

refers to
does not refer to
believes (in the existence or truth of)
does not believe (in the existence or truth of)
is angry at
has a (written as X(y), X has a y)
is (actually)
is also (equivalent to)
is not also (not equivalent to)

You had written: If she considered God to be a concept that others believed in even though she did not, then I think she could be angry at God.

This is confusingly worded, but I take you to mean:

T has a g
T(g) refers to G
T believes G
T does not believe g is also G

(Translation: A theist has a god-concept of God and believes that God exists, though not simply as a god-concept.)

Also:

H has a g
H(g) refers to G (just like T(g))
H believes (in the existence of, not the truth of) T(g)
H does not believe G
H is angry at T(g)

(Translation: An anti-theist, using the same god-concept as theists do, does not believe in the existence of their God. However, the anti-theist hates those theistic god-concepts.)

Is H an atheist? Yes. Does H hate God? No.

H hates the god-concepts. Hating a concept isn't the same thing as hating the referent to a concept. That's why it is so important to make that distinction.

Perhaps instead of "H is angry at T(g)" you meant "H is angry at G", but that makes little sense, since H does not believe in the existence of G. H would in reality be angry at g.

You could have meant that "H believes G", but then this wouldn't be an atheist any longer, and would in fact be a theist.

But perhaps you meant something else. What did you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah, think we're on the same page.

 

[TScott]

I'm in a club at my school my principal demanded we call it the Association for Atheist Students. I live in a small town with a very close minded population. Me and my friends get harassed, beat up and accused of things we didn't do. All of these things are done by so called "loving Chistians".

That's because most (in my experience) Christians don't follow the words ascribed to Jesus, instead they follow the dogma ascribed to Paul and the Early Church Fathers, none of whom ever knew Jesus.

If you ask most Christians what is the most important facits of Christianity they will tell you about the Holy Trinity and the Apostle's Creed, and all the magic stuff-going to heaven is big-but the actual teachings of Jesus, the helping the poor, the treating others with empathy, the loving your enemy and turning the cheek-all that stuff is low priority.

It's sad, but true, and sadly it's been that way since the beginning.

Don't think that there aren't good, giving Christians, because there are, but it seems that most are just trying to get that ticket to heaven punched.

 

[Non sequitur]

I used to have a buddy Jesus avatar but the mods made me get rid of it. I want something to convey my perception of Jesus which is different I guess than most Xians.

Well that's just not fun.

I have to constantly wonder if my avatars will be "unsuitable".

I didn't realize I was being esoteric, (in fact I must confess I had to look it up for context...), but if I have been it wasn't intentional.

Yeah, if your referring to the not learning part, I do agree with that. ( I definitley do not agree with St. Pauls rules on Xianity, that is for sure.)

No worries.

I was referring to the "positive claims are true until proven negative".

 

[quatona]

did you read mental blights comment, they get beat up by christians for being athiest.

Yes.

That doesn't make you reject the God of Christianity?

No - what´s got one to do with the other?

If so you would be guilty of a universal negative.

No, I wouldn´t - since, as you said, I would only reject a certain Christian god concept.
But why are you even telling me what I would do, if I held different beliefs, positions and views than I do?
What kind of discussion strategy is that? Where did you learn it? Do you expect me to do the same with you?

You would be saying a good God doesn't exist in the universe. And therefore you have searched every asteroid and every planet in teh universe and stated it confidently.

No, even if this were my argument (which it isn´t!) I wouldn´t have to do that search. It would be sufficient to demonstrate substantial contradictions between a concept and reality in order to falsify the claim.

But again: I understand that you have only a limited amount of arguments in store, that´s ok. You, however, would be well adviced to hold those arguments only against those to whom they apply, and not against everyone, regardless what their positions actually are. Telling me what you would tell me if I would tell you something that I don´t tell you makes me feel ignored and disregarded.

 

[createdtoworship]

You, however, would be well adviced to hold those arguments only against those to whom they apply, and not against everyone, regardless what their positions actually are. Telling me what you would tell me if I would tell you something that I don´t tell you makes me feel ignored and disregarded.

how would I if I have never chatted with you?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's because most (in my experience) Christians don't follow the words ascribed to Jesus, instead they follow the dogma ascribed to Paul and the Early Church Fathers, none of whom ever knew Jesus.

If you ask most Christians what is the most important facits of Christianity they will tell you about the Holy Trinity and the Apostle's Creed, and all the magic stuff-going to heaven is big-but the actual teachings of Jesus, the helping the poor, the treating others with empathy, the loving your enemy and turning the cheek-all that stuff is low priority.

It's sad, but true, and sadly it's been that way since the beginning.

Don't think that there aren't good, giving Christians, because there are, but it seems that most are just trying to get that ticket to heaven punched.

not in the circles I run with, Jesus is the main thing over the Holy Spirit, or trinity. Sounds like an RC church or an orthodox or something that you've described. Not mainstream evangelicalism.

 

[createdtoworship]

It has no influence whatsoever. I was never beat up or harassed for being an atheist.

Even if I had been, that would have no influence whatsoever. I would simply conclude the obvious -- that believing Christians can be hateful people. That would not say anything in particular about whether or not God exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

so according to your signature you are a militant athiest because of religion huh?

 

[createdtoworship]

I would make a similar observation for someone who is so obviously drawn towards a Christian forum. There must be some reason for it. But I think we ought to try and show such a person patience and love. There is a line in Shakespeare that says, "Thou dost protest too much," which is to suggest that there is something going on under the surface of things.

here is another quote for you

"Wit is a fighting thing and a working thing. A man may enjoy humour all by himself; he may see a joke when no one else sees it; he may see the point and avoid it. But wit is a sword; it is meant to make people feel the point as well as see it. All honest people saw the point of Mark Twain’s wit. Not a few dishonest people felt it."

G.K Chesterton

 

[quatona]

how would I if I have never chatted with you?

uh?

 

[createdtoworship]

uh?

you said

You, however, would be well adviced to hold those arguments only against those to whom they apply

I said , how would I if I never chatted with you. Meaning, how would I know if it applied to you if I never talked to you before just now?

 

[Eudaimonist]

so according to your signature you are a militant athiest because of religion huh?

Let's discuss this. This is the quote:

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. (Source)

Daniel Radcliffe (the actor who plays Harry Potter in the Harry Potter movies) says in this quote that he's both an atheist and a militant atheist. And note that he's a militant atheist only under certain circumstances. Pay careful attention to what he says those circumstances are.

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation.

By militant atheist, I take him to mean a politically-motivated atheist. He's political because Christians are political. I don't know his precise political views regarding religion, but he mentions a desire to see more sex education in the schools.

I'm a politically-motivated atheist as well in that I support a strict separation of church and state. I want a legal system that is neutral with respect to the beliefs of the citizenry in the sense that no citizen should have legal privileges based on their views on religion, regardless of whether they personally are theists or atheists.

Now do keep one thing in mind. I'm not an atheist because Christians are political. (Neither is Daniel Radcliffe if you read his quote carefully.) I'm a politically-motivated atheist because Christians are political. I'm an atheist because I see no convincing reason to conclude that a God (or gods or goddesses or anything divine) exists. If Christians had been good citizens and had not attempted to force non-Christians to live by their values, I would simply be an atheist, because I would have no reason to be political about religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

you said



I said , how would I if I never chatted with you. Meaning, how would I know if it applied to you if I never talked to you before just now?

You could have asked beforehand, or you could have stopped doing it after the first, second or third time I had told you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's discuss this. This is the quote:

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. (Source)

Daniel Radcliffe (the actor who plays Harry Potter in the Harry Potter movies) says in this quote that he's both an atheist and a militant atheist. And note that he's a militant atheist only under certain circumstances. Pay careful attention to what he says those circumstances are.

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation.

By militant atheist, I take him to mean a politically-motivated atheist. He's political because Christians are political. I don't know his precise political views regarding religion, but he mentions a desire to see more sex education in the schools.

I'm a politically-motivated atheist as well in that I support a strict separation of church and state. I want a legal system that is neutral with respect to the beliefs of the citizenry in the sense that no citizen should have legal privileges based on their views on religion, regardless of whether they personally are theists or atheists.

Now do keep one thing in mind. I'm not an atheist because Christians are political. (Neither is Daniel Radcliffe if you read his quote carefully.) I'm a politically-motivated atheist because Christians are political. I'm an atheist because I see no convincing reason to conclude that a God (or gods or goddesses or anything divine) exists. If Christians had been good citizens and had not attempted to force non-Christians to live by their values, I would simply be an atheist, because I would have no reason to be political about religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

A succinct and well-written post. Too bad it'll fall on deaf ears.

 

[createdtoworship]

You could have asked beforehand, or you could have stopped doing it after the first, second or third time I had told you.

how do you ask before hand, if we never spoke before? (I don't remember chatting with you.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's discuss this. This is the quote:

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. (Source)

Daniel Radcliffe (the actor who plays Harry Potter in the Harry Potter movies) says in this quote that he's both an atheist and a militant atheist. And note that he's a militant atheist only under certain circumstances. Pay careful attention to what he says those circumstances are.

I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation.

By militant atheist, I take him to mean a politically-motivated atheist. He's political because Christians are political. I don't know his precise political views regarding religion, but he mentions a desire to see more sex education in the schools.

I'm a politically-motivated atheist as well in that I support a strict separation of church and state. I want a legal system that is neutral with respect to the beliefs of the citizenry in the sense that no citizen should have legal privileges based on their views on religion, regardless of whether they personally are theists or atheists.

Now do keep one thing in mind. I'm not an atheist because Christians are political. (Neither is Daniel Radcliffe if you read his quote carefully.) I'm a politically-motivated atheist because Christians are political. I'm an atheist because I see no convincing reason to conclude that a God (or gods or goddesses or anything divine) exists. If Christians had been good citizens and had not attempted to force non-Christians to live by their values, I would simply be an atheist, because I would have no reason to be political about religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

so it's only christians that bug you, not buddhists or hindus or any other politically motivated religion? why is that? Because of hate for Jesus or something?

 

[Eudaimonist]

so it's only christians that bug you

Christians as such don't bug me. Some of my dearest friends and relatives have been Christians.

What bugs me is anti-libertarian legislation.

not buddhists or hindus or any other politically motivated religion?

I don't recall Buddhists or Hindus being any kind of threat to individual liberty or secular societies, or at least they haven't been in any place where I have lived. The moment that they attempt to pass legislation that tries to force me to live as a Buddhist or a Hindu, I will oppose such legislation.

why is that? Because of hate for Jesus or something?

I hate coercion, legal privilege, and theocracy. The source doesn't matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Christians as such don't bug me. Some of my dearest friends and relatives have been Christians.

What bugs me is anti-libertarian legislation.



I don't recall Buddhists or Hindus being any kind of threat to individual liberty or secular societies, or at least they haven't been in any place where I have lived. The moment that they attempt to pass legislation that tries to force me to live as a Buddhist or a Hindu, I will oppose such legislation.



I hate coercion, legal privilege, and theocracy. The source doesn't matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

what about athiests who differ from you in that they want to start an atheist religion legally. Will you oppose them too, because they are "coercing" or just the christians?

 

[Eudaimonist]

what about athiests who differ from you in that they want to start an atheist religion legally. Will you oppose them too, because they are "coercing"

With extreme vigor.


eudaimonia,

Mark