The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[Milton Platt]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Well, if you want to redefine the word atheism to mean what you personally want it to mean, then you can call it whatever you wish, but you are just setting up a straw man.
how is not believing in something a religion?

 

[osgart]

the problem with religion is that it forces submission, or you are out of society. if I was not atheist, I am still against bad religion.
another problem with religion is that it ignores evidence to the contrary.

if you fix these two facets of religion, religion could be a subjective study of the human experience, of love, faith, and matters of heart, and matters of transcendence. all that being said , that would make religion acceptable.

I am an atheist and accept a lot of evolution, not all of it. The plight for me is the loss of freedom of mind and heart in the world.

even atheists desire too much conformity, but neither side gives any ground in trying to put the other out of the world altogether.

I think this war sucks personally. people should be above it.

and on top of it all , science is assuming a God authority in trampling on free will, and philosophy, and religion altogether.

we need reality based religion, good philosophy, and a science that sticks to its rightful place and doesn't trample every other area of human endeavour.

The overwhelming pattern on all sides is submit or get run over.
all sides have legitimate causes and defenses.

let's not destroy the best country in the world, and the world along with it. look at the positives of where we come from.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Consistency isn't evidence of anything, in a presented argument. //consistency of argument premise.

If consistency of argument meant the argument were true, ie you actually followed that logic, you would be part of a religious group that has extreme "consistency" of argument, since those are the most consistent arguments.

/ you're also getting religious/theistic argument mixed up with theistic argument in the context of a religion.

Geez, not consistency of argument, consistency of evidence! Consistency of reason!

 

[Desert Snake]

Geez, not consistency of argument, consistency of evidence! Consistency of reason!

Speak for yourself. Atheism is highly inconsistent with evidence, and reason.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Atheism is not a minority bub. Nonreligious people are the 3rd largest group and many of which are atheists and this is not counting the vast amount of closeted ones or ones identifying otherwise. We atheists are a massive and growing bunch who will wreck religion entirely.

The internet is where religion goes to die and for good reason.

 

[Desert Snake]

Over the last couple of weeks I have become very doubtful of my atheism and after weeks of dialogue with a close I finally shredded myself of the remaining remnants of my atheism. It still feels weird despite how organic my lack of belief was and my contempt for religion as a whole. To even admit my belief in a god at this very moment feels like an utter humiliation considering how secular minded I have always been and to some degree still am although with a very different interpretation.

^

When I was an atheist My pragmatic attitude only developed in me having to reassure myself that I am not only an atheist but an anti-theist. My opposition

^

Atheism is not a minority bub.

Actually it is.

Nonreligious people are the 3rd largest group and many of which are atheists and this is not counting the vast amount of closeted ones or ones identifying otherwise. We atheists are a massive and growing bunch who will wreck religion entirely.

Ok then.
Seems like you're still figuring out whether you are an atheist or not, actually.

 

[Sha'irullah]

^


^


Actually it is.

Ok then.
Seems like you're still figuring out whether you are an atheist or not, actually.

Quite the opposite. Read the statistics. Being 3rd in the population is not a minority. Buddhism is a minority, while atheism has at least half the population of Christianity.

I cannot fathom how you seem to reject facts. Its even on wikipedia for crying out loud.

 

[Sha'irullah]

^


^


Actually it is.

Ok then.
Seems like you're still figuring out whether you are an atheist or not, actually.

The Global Religious Landscape

It is incredibly easy to disprove you. You seriously need to grow up. Quoting me and purposefully lying about others will not help you if you want an honest conversation about atheism. I mock atheists and theists in equal amounts as I am not sympathetic toward either group.

Now you want to avoid the conversation that you so desperately want?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Indeed, why?



No. I do not even agree with that statement.

Quite on the contrary, I think religion is much too important a thing to be limited by theism.

Are you an atheist or just being contrary?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree with the statwment that no god exists but that doesn't mean that I think that religious adherents are decieved. To be decieved there must be a deciever. This means that either the religion is the deciever, or the adherents themselves are the deciever. While it is possible that some religions are decieving I don't think that is likely the intent. And while some religious adherents might be tricking themselves, I think most are genuine.

Thanks for reframing. Religious people are genuine in the lies they adhere to.

Sounds like an excuse for atheist "morality".

 

[LuisDantas]

@shmogie

Facts are what they are.

Dawkins & others may be in evidence, but except perhaps for Sam Harris to some extent they are simply not very inovative. There is very little that they say that has not been said for decades, centuries even, if we allow for the improvement on scientific knowledge along time.

And that should surprise no one. Criticism of theism and blind faith is hardly a new or very creative necessity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you an atheist or just being contrary?

I don't think they come much more atheist than me, pal.

I would not even know of the concept of deity if it were left to me.

You are aware that religion is hardly the province of theists, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for reframing. Religious people are genuine in the lies they adhere to.

Sounds like an excuse for atheist "morality".

Not an excuse, and no quotation marks. Atheist morality is both a real thing and superior to the theistic alternatives.

Have you read any Sam Harris? Peter Singer?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure mate...very persuasive. Plus, you appear to know what you're talking about. Who else could speak about 'self smugness' with as much authority as you??

Thanks, and I can say that without a trace of self-smugness, since I know how smug atheists are on forums. I've had much experience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

PLEASE don't confuse the fundamental beliefs with the actions or words of those who say they keep them if they speak or act in a judgemental, superior, smug or hurtful manner

No confusion. The unbeliever is interested in what Christianity is and does, not its theology. The believer points to the book, the unbeliever to Christiandom and its effects on the world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That might be because we define Christianity by what it does, not what it says about itself.

Your definition is wrong. Christianity is defined by Christ and the Apostles, nothing else.

That may be true for you, but not for me. Christ and the apostles have no authority or meaning in my life, and do not define anything for me. I define Christianity and what constitutes a Christian for myself. My principal definition of a Christian is the same one anybody who claims that Christianity is the largest religion in the world - over two billion strong - is using, and the one that the surveyors who compile such data use: If you call yourself a Christian, you are one. I reject the No True Christian idea - that only those that don't embarrass the religion are real Christians. Some Christians are fine people, but many are not. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples is also a Christian. Josh Duggar, who molested his sisters and was exposed as an adulterer in the Ashley Madison hacking scandal is a Christian. Ted Haggard is a Christian. Jim Bakker is a Christian.

Is a career criminal who say he follows the US Constitution identified by you as a good citizen ?

Are you making my point for me? I define such a person by what he does, not what he says about himself. Is my definition wrong again?

Actions in relation to the fundamental beliefs defines Christians, not words, memberships, or anything else.

I don't care about the ideas in the Bible, at least not in the way that you do. I care about how the religion is rendered. I don't care that the book contains the Golden Rule. I care about how it is rendered in the form of Christian homophobia and Christian atheophobia, two forms of bigotry in gross violation of that principle, one which I might add is rendered more faithfully in secular humanists. You don't see us trying to marginalize and demonize law abiding citizens going about their lives trying to support their families and communities simply because they have different sexual preferences. I doubt that that is how Christians would like to be treated.

Your whole critical, somewhat self righteous house of cards and criticism falls down when simple common sense is applied. You cannot paint with this huge broad brush, your picture is terrible.

Where did this come from? What self-righteous house of cards? What huge, broad brush. I merely told you that I'm not interested in what Christians say about themselves, just what they do. You seemed to agree that that was appropriate when discussing the career criminal.

I see "we" in your post. Are you speaking for others, or are you simply using the "imperial, royal we" ?

I'm speaking for myself and the many others that agree with such an opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Speak for yourself. Atheism is highly inconsistent with evidence, and reason.

Uh, how so?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The ¨new atheists¨ of which dawkins is a perfect example, seem to be angry, very hostile to religion

Have you ever heard of the ad iram fallacy, "Appealing to the opponent's supposed or real anger as evidence against their position" ? That anger is justified and does not negate the message.

• "But I also have to quarrel with the very notion that a person's arguments can be dismissed because of anger. Smugly accusing someone of anger doesn't do anything to discount the content of the argument. I'd argue that people who see vile behavior in the name of religion and don't get angry are the ones who have something wrong with them." - Amanda Marcotte

• "Atheists aren't angry because we're selfish, or bitter, or joyless. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. Atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it. Atheists aren't angry because there's something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there's something right with us."- Greta Christina

• "I've wondered, for awhile, why Christians think that accusing me of being angry at their religion is actually an argument against my objections. I mean, even if I were abnormally angry ... I have absolutely no rational reason I can come up with that makes that a good enough reason to think I'm wrong ... the reasoning often seems to be that, because I'm angry, my argument is flawed and I can be dismissed." - Peter Mosley

• "Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling

Fundamentalism simply means believing in all the fundamental, foundations of ¨X¨. As applied to religion, it means a person who accepts and believes the fundamental doctrines of a faith structure. It has nothing to do with fear, or a closed mind,

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young earth creationist and fundamentalist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist and fundamentalist Henry Morris

These people are telling you that their minds are closed to evidence that conflicts with the idols of their faith.

I don't know if this guy is a fundamentalist or not, but he sounds like a Bible literalist, and his mind is also closed for business:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

This one is definitely not a fundamentalist, but he is just as closed-minded as the others:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

They're all telling us the same thing. Evidence doesn't matter, the very definition of closed-mindedness, where open-mindedness is the willingness to evaluate an argument and its supporting evidence impartially and to be convinced by a compelling argument that appears sound.

Notice that there is no duty for an open-minded person to believe what is being considered, a mistake made by those who accuse the skeptic of being closed-minded for rejecting arguments predicated on supernaturalism and other unsupported assumptions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no fundamental Christian belief that varies from " do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The most fundamental Christian belief is that you must submit to the will of the Christian god or suffer the consequences.

Another fundamental belief derived from the first is that good and evil are determined by what God does or commands. If God says to dash infants against the rocks, it becomes good to do it and sin to refuse.

Another fundamental belief is that man is inherently spiritually sick from birth and needs a cure.

Another is that the world is inherently evil, and that the Christian should remain detached from it.

I don't where any of those fundamental beliefs relate to the Golden Rule.

 

[shmogie]

That may be true for you, but not for me. Christ and the apostles have no authority or meaning in my life, and do not define anything for me. I define Christianity and what constitutes a Christian for myself. My principal definition of a Christian is the same one anybody who claims that Christianity is the largest religion in the world - over two billion strong - is using, and the one that the surveyors who compile such data use: If you call yourself a Christian, you are one. I reject the No True Christian idea - that only those that don't embarrass the religion are real Christians. Some Christians are fine people, but many are not. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples is also a Christian. Josh Duggar, who molested his sisters and was exposed as an adulterer in the Ashley Madison hacking scandal is a Christian. Ted Haggard is a Christian. Jim Bakker is a Christian.



Are you making my point for me? I define such a person by what he does, not what he says about himself. Is my definition wrong again?



I don't care about the ideas in the Bible, at least not in the way that you do. I care about how the religion is rendered. I don't care that the book contains the Golden Rule. I care about how it is rendered in the form of Christian homophobia and Christian atheophobia, two forms of bigotry in gross violation of that principle, one which I might add is rendered more faithfully in secular humanists. You don't see us trying to marginalize and demonize law abiding citizens going about their lives trying to support their families and communities simply because they have different sexual preferences. I doubt that that is how Christians would like to be treated.



Where did this come from? What self-righteous house of cards? What huge, broad brush. I merely told you that I'm not interested in what Christians say about themselves, just what they do. You seemed to agree that that was appropriate when discussing the career criminal.



I'm speaking for myself and the many others that agree with such an opinion.

Ah, but you are most concerned about what they say about themselves ! If they SAY they are a Christian, you immediately accept them as one. This makes your evaluation TOTALLY based upon their word. Of course, this is nonsense. Would you begin giving information to someone who SAYS he is an FBI agent ? Would you accept him as one because he says he is one ? So why the totally bizarre judgement based solely on what someone says ? The ONLY way to identify a Christian is by their deeds, but conversely, a non Christian can also be identified by their deeds. Their self labeling is totally irrelevant, You trot out the tired canard of ¨ Christian homophobia¨. First, a phobia is an irrational fear. I know no Christian that is afraid of a homosexual. Second, the Biblical standard for relating to homosexuals is very simple, outside the Church they are to be treated with respect and graciousness like any other person. They may attend services, but cannot be members. A person practicing homosexuality inside the Church is counseled to remain celibate, or surrender membership, thatś it ! You may consider that terrible discrimination, but then you will have to take that up with God. I am not about to compromise my faith for your sense of social justice. A person can only judge actions, motives and reasons are left for God to judge.