The shifting membership of RF

[Apex]

My point is NOBODY agrees with that definition apart from exceptionally thick theists, and it's plain wrong, and anyone who has spent YEARS talking to atheists should have clocked that a long time ago.

Sure.

But, if it's no big deal to you, I'll stop thinking of Mormons as Christians, since their beliefs are based on the teachings of some 19th century American charlatan and not on the teachings of Jesus Christ, as required by the dictionary.

Yup.

 

[Ozzie]

I've been a member of RF for four and a half years now, and have seem to have noticed a pretty big shift in the forum's demographics during that time. I'm just curious as to whether or not I'm right. Do you see yourself as a theist (any religion at all or no religion) as an agnostic or as an atheist?

Looks like the effect of your question is polarising. I've been a member for a while. The proportions look pretty similar to my impressions at the start. Only, radical elements have been expunged from RF during that time.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm theist...

For years now I've expected a shift from theist to non-theist to be inevitible. Some will say it's because the growing brains of non-theist have managed to expose the lies and falsehoods of religion. Others will point to the fact that there really isn't many theist that really understand what they were a part of and were simply exposed by the eloquence of our dear non-theist. Whatever it is...

Let the party continue.

: hamster :

 

[Katzpur]

But, if it's no big deal to you, I'll stop thinking of Mormons as Christians, since their beliefs are based on the teachings of some 19th century American charlatan and not on the teachings of Jesus Christ, as required by the dictionary.

Alceste, I never thought I'd hear this coming from you. I'm really kind of surprised that my comment would have struck such a raw nerve. I'm also incredulous that you don't think my beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's not the topic of this thread, though, so I guess I'll just let it go. I don't want this thread to end up getting nasty towards anybody.

 

[Katzpur]

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I don't see how that is all that different from what my dictionary said. What's the big difference that you see?

 

[Sahar]

Sometimes I think that atheists invaded RF :run:

LOL

 

[JMorris]

Sometimes I think that atheists invaded RF :run:

LOL

its what we do best, invasions...............

-_-

 

[Commoner]

its what we do best, invasions...............

-_-

And pillaging! :tribal:

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, I never thought I'd hear this coming from you. I'm really kind of surprised that my comment would have struck such a raw nerve. I'm also incredulous that you don't think my beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's not the topic of this thread, though, so I guess I'll just let it go. I don't want this thread to end up getting nasty towards anybody.

It's not a raw nerve, exactly. It's simply tedious explaining over and over again that for the vast majority of atheists, it would be just as irrational to claim "there is no god" as it is to claim "there is a god". For most of us on this forum and the world at large, "a-the-ism" simply indicates the literal fact that we are "without-god-belief". And yes, that definition is in most English dictionaries, if not yours. Even if it isn't in yours it's one quick click to wikipedia to discover what atheism is in a deeper sense than the "ten words or less" you can find in a dictionary definition.

BTW, I would call you a Christian if left to my own devices, dictionary be damned. I might not have thought so before due to the general impressions I got from other sects of Christianity, but, see, I've been listening to Mormons. I may have been surprised at first to discover Mormons consider themselves Christians instead of Joseph Smithians, but I'm not now.

 

[monta]

I don't see how that is all that different from what my dictionary said. What's the big difference that you see?

The fact that the word has 2 meanings and most atheists go by this one

a disbelief in the existence of deity

The fact that some theists don't get the difference between not believing in the existence of a god and some kind of resentment against a particular god is probably the reason some atheists get frustrated and can be rude, (although some atheists here are just plain ignorant and I do get what you mean) I think if I told you what you believed and corrected you on it when you told me I was wrong, you might get a bit annoyed also.

 

[blackout]

Yes, I feel the same way. I can't expect to feel as though my stance is valid if I haven't subjected it to the gauntlet of opposition that's out there. I recently thought that maybe our collective atheistic participation may be turning off theists from the forum, but I think some people misinterepreted my post and thought that I beleieved we were "scaring away" theists, or "defeating them into submission". It's not at all what I was implying. The reason I posted the thought is because I wondered whether theists might be thinking "why bother anymore, I don't gain insight from my fellow theists, all I get is atheistic rebuttle". I'm not so conceited as to think we're driving theists out, but rather suspect that they might choose not to bother as it's not of interest to them.

Intelligent on topic rebuttle... with substance... is thought provoking.
It helps me also to refine my own way of thinking.

I dislike overgeneralizations, from both theists and non-theists.
I dislike superiority and salvation complexes alike.

I dislike it when posters assume everyone's idea of gOd is the Abrhamic one.
(theist and non-theist alike)

I dislike the athiest post which say nothing but
"you're wrong because there is no god".
(as if that contributes at all to the topic at hand)

I dislike theist posts which are nothing more than
thinly veiled prostylizations.
(as if they are contributing to the topic at hand)

I dislike it when groups OR individuals
seem to believe that everyone needs to
see/experience/approach/think about life the way THEY DO.

I have no problem with athiests in general.
I have no problem with theists in general.

I sometimes do have problems with individuals though.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Atheist. Cuz we rule.

 

[sonofskeptish]

I'm best described as a non-thiest. I picked athiest in the poll (as opposed to agnostic) because if I picked athiest, a thiest would count me among those they thought they could potential enlighten. I've seen the light already and it's not religious.

 

[MountainHumanist]

I've been a member of RF for four and a half years now, and have seem to have noticed a pretty big shift in the forum's demographics during that time. I'm just curious as to whether or not I'm right. Do you see yourself as a theist (any religion at all or no religion) as an agnostic or as an atheist?

You have adopted what appears to be a photo of my cat as your avatar. Did you sneak into my house and snap a photo of him or did he send you one (he does that)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not a raw nerve, exactly. It's simply tedious explaining over and over again that for the vast majority of atheists, it would be just as irrational to claim "there is no god" as it is to claim "there is a god". For most of us on this forum and the world at large, "a-the-ism" simply indicates the literal fact that we are "without-god-belief".

I disagree that the claim "there is no god" is necessarily irrational, though my definition of the word "god" may not be universally shared.

However, I do agree that it's not a necessary part of atheism to believe or claim that gods do not exist. The only necessary part of atheism, IMO, is either the absence of belief in gods or the rejection of god-claims (which is not the same thing as positively declaring them false).

I include the second option to allow for some people's position that atheism should be something actively adopted. The first option would imply that things like newborn babies, dogs and rocks are all "atheists", and I do agree with others that it's a bit silly to "claim" these sorts of things for atheism.

 

[MountainHumanist]

Here's my addled input. This will sound muddled because I know it sounds that way to me.

OK.

If I look at the god(s) question from a purely objective, outsider perspective (which may almost be impossible given my brain chemistry and social conditioning), I see no real evidence for the existence of gods. Some may use the cosmological or anthropomorphic arguments and I would say, Yes, they both allow for the possibility of gods. But possibility is not exactly probability. The bottom line is this: I believe that if gods are beings that are infinite and all-powerful, etc., the probability that an entity like me, with limited perceptual abilities, will ever be able to determine the existence of said god is practically zero.

Having said that, I also realize that each human is equipped with a different brain chemistry and that many brains seem to experience a god-concept on a very conceptual level (i.e. mystical experience or "I Just feel god"). Does this mean that these people are perhaps in tune with gods and thus can perceive this while other cannot? Or does it simply mean they have a propensity for abstract, mystical concepts? Do they simply have a brain chemistry that seeks patterns where none exist? Either possibility could exist but which is more probable?

Now, getting down to brass tacks, I have no problem with envisioning a god concept in a metaphorical or allegorical sense (I'm a mythicist of the Joseph Campbell school). In fact, I look at the universe with a sense of wonder and awe that could be termed worshipful. Also, I can experience the vast diversity of human religious experience and find many beneficial, affirming concepts and even feelings of something akin to transcendence while at the same time recognizing that these religious experiences must be perceived in a mythical rather than literal sense. When we get literal about our religions, we tend to increase the amount of suffering in the world (terrorism, crusades, bigotry, intolerance, etc.).


So I guess my experience in the realm of religiosity can't really be pigeon-holed into a survey although I am technically an atheist.

 

[gnomon]

It's not a raw nerve, exactly. It's simply tedious explaining over and over again that for the vast majority of atheists, it would be just as irrational to claim "there is no god" as it is to claim "there is a god". For most of us on this forum and the world at large, "a-the-ism" simply indicates the literal fact that we are "without-god-belief". And yes, that definition is in most English dictionaries, if not yours. Even if it isn't in yours it's one quick click to wikipedia to discover what atheism is in a deeper sense than the "ten words or less" you can find in a dictionary definition.

BTW, I would call you a Christian if left to my own devices, dictionary be damned. I might not have thought so before due to the general impressions I got from other sects of Christianity, but, see, I've been listening to Mormons. I may have been surprised at first to discover Mormons consider themselves Christians instead of Joseph Smithians, but I'm not now.

Good post.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree that the claim "there is no god" is necessarily irrational, though my definition of the word "god" may not be universally shared.

That's the problem I see with it. On another thread I compared the task of defining a god-concept to reject, for an atheist, to picking a name out of a hat. If you sincerely don't believe in any gods, which god concept in particular are you supposed to reject? There are so many of them!

But I'm starting to suspect that there may be a difference between atheists who were raised in a particular religion, or are surrounded by adherents to a particular religion, and those who were raised in a family with a non-supernatural world view, or are not exposed to many adherents in their day-to-day life.

I'm the latter. Our family bookshelves were filled with Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, and discussions around the dinner table were often about the latest insights into the nature of the universe. Also, nobody brings up religion in my day-to-day life. It's kind of taboo. I don't know who is or isn't religious. So, to me, no single god-concept jumps out as the one to reject.

I include the second option to allow for some people's position that atheism should be something actively adopted. The first option would imply that things like newborn babies, dogs and rocks are all "atheists", and I do agree with others that it's a bit silly to "claim" these sorts of things for atheism.

Yeh, I'd say so too. I think it's silly to even have a word for atheism, personally, but since the word exists, I'm stuck perpetually clarifying for others what it actually means (to me) to be one.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

I voted Theist even though I do not believe in a personal God. I am a Taoist and Taoism, for the purposes of this poll, would probably fall under Theism.

 

[Alceste]

Now, getting down to brass tacks, I have no problem with envisioning a god concept in a metaphorical or allegorical sense (I'm a mythicist of the Joseph Campbell school). In fact, I look at the universe with a sense of wonder and awe that could be termed worshipful. Also, I can experience the vast diversity of human religious experience and find many beneficial, affirming concepts and even feelings of something akin to transcendence while at the same time recognizing that these religious experiences must be perceived in a mythical rather than literal sense. When we get literal about our religions, we tend to increase the amount of suffering in the world (terrorism, crusades, bigotry, intolerance, etc.).

I totally agree with all of this.