All gods are homemade, and is is we who pull their strings, and so, give them them the power to pull ours.
-Aldous Huxley

Yeah, I have to say I've heard from a Jehovah's witness at my door maybe once every five years or so. Mormons a little more frequently, but even so tell them thank you but you already have a church and they'll go away. The neighbor's dog wakes me up a lot more often than any evangelist. Even televangelists (which usually gain the same reaction from me that fingernails down a chalkboard would) are easily avoided with the click of the remote.

Internet forums one the other hand... the barrage is almost constant. Even so I haven't seen many straight forward attempts to convert anyone. It seems more like TV advertisements. Each side is afraid of letting the other get too much air time. I find it interesting that people on both sides try to argue it through logically but there is an emotional basis for both. I suspect that theists will agree with me and athiests will not, but as one who engages more to see what the other side thinks than anything else, that has been my observation. Like it or not there is just more to the issue than logic and fact. There are two worldviews at odds with one another; both intent more on their own survival than the eradication of the other.

If we're doing battling quotes

"God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form...The perfect surrender and humiliation was undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man."

C.S. Lewis

A little different take on the occasional door to door evangelist:

"The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about."


or as another put it

"People are natural word of mouth advertisers. We like to tell people about a movie or restaurant we enjoyed, so we're likely to do the same about a church that truly meets our needs."

Larry Osborne

There are different kinds of athiests?? Hmmmm...uh...no...it is a defined term. It has a specific meaning. That being said, I assume you are jabbing at me with the " " comment. I use that because I actually believe athiests ARE people with a belief system. Most Christians/religious people think athiests have no belief system, which I think is far from true. They *do* have a "god" per se - it is themself, it is humanism, it is creation...er...the accidental universe, whatever. So I actually use "" marks not as an insult, but actually as a nod of the head towards them that I *do* understand they have a belief system and, in fact, it is often times quite more potent than the beliefs of many "religious" people, for whom "religion" is something they do on 2 or 3 major Holidays, and apart from that wouldn't know doctrine from a bleeding cat's ass.

haha, tv advertisements...
:)

" Like it or not there is just more to the issue than logic and fact."

I completely agree. We are merely sophisticated animals; everything we do is based off of emotion. Thankfully, we can usually massage our emotions to allow us to proceed rationally, but that isn't always the case. Of course, even then, we're getting an emotional response for acting rationally, so...

@Krellin

First, I'd like to point out that a lack of belief is very different from a belief in nothing spiritual.

Second, in regards to "They *do* have a "god" per se - it is themself, it is humanism, it is creation...er...the accidental universe, whatever." What exactly does this mean? Humanism, myself, or the Universe is in no way my God.

@ Krelling

Forgot my last point:

"There are different kinds of athiests?? "

I know a lot of people that call themselves Christians, but aren't strict followers of the Bible or a particular sect of religion. How is that any different? I call myself an atheist for convenience sake. It's the closest label to what I am, so I usually don't bother elaborating. If you read what I've wrote, though, you'd see I'm not actually a "strict" atheist.

:-)

Lord I'm aspiring toward humility.....


Ya' know I really am a sinner just like the rest humanity and I'm thankful that .....


HEY! that was a humble thought!


ARG! DANG! Okay gotta start over.

resp. to abgemacht's first post. Sounded familiar. :-)

@abge: Let me put it like this, in theory (rarely in practice) the religious person is supposed to act for the betterment of their particular God. This can be to the detriment of their own person (witness Mother Theresa, who arguably suffered physically in this world for her God...yeah, yeah, I know she did it for the emotional high, etc...i get it). On the other hand, an atheist, who is *not* driven to please some eternal, all-powerful being, will act for other motivations - the promotion of self, the promotion of humanity, the promotion of the Earth, etc. This thing, whatever it is that motivates them, in effect becomes their "god". Not that the Earth is giving them a directive, but I defy you to find a person, atheist or otherwise, who is not motivated to action by something they believe in and seek to improve. The wild-eyed atheist a capitalist pig works for his pocketbook, and will perhaps sacrifice certain pleasures others enjoy to to succeed in the pursuit he believes in. I trust you see my point. And, again, this in contrast to the religious person who (again, most often ONLY in theory and hardly ever in practice0 does all things with the motivation of pleasing his eternal, all-powerful God who will reward him in some way in the afterlife, the eternal bliss that lies beyond this world.

I am not trying to disparage either way of living (except to say most religious people are flat out hypocrites...but then most religious people are largely silent on their religion, too.) I'm just trying to examine these "opposites" rationally. (Opposites in quotes because they are both believers, but it is just more difficult to determine exactly what motivates and drives an atheist, and it is [supposed to be] easy to determine the driving motivation of the religious.)

Regarding "lack of belief' to being different from belief in nothing spiritual...I think you better check on the definition of atheist. If everyone on here is going to use their own person version of "atheist" then the entire discussion is pointless. I take atheist to be a person who believes in NO God, no unseen spiritual world, no life after death, no ghosts and angels...just existence as we see it and experience it, that our consciousness is a strange product of our physical brain, and involved nothing beyond the living tissue that we are made up of. As such, in my understanding of atheist, there is no possibility for "spirituality", karma or any of the crap. If you believe there is room for such things, then I would politely suggest you are agnostic - you think there is "something more", but you will not define it, and certainly will not define it as a conscious, interactive God.

As to different kinds of atheists.. everyone is an individual and any label is only a ballpark estimate of their values and beliefs.

There are different groups (Secular Humanists, Marxists, Ju-Che, etc.) becasue people tend to form themselves (or others place them) into groups even when the groups are not strictly organized.

@abge - I understand your use of the term "atheist" because you say it closely approximates your belief system....but again, I would politely suggest "agnostic" is the term you are looking for, which implies (at least to me) no need for religion or suggests in anyway that you have some secret longing to love God. You will also note in my previous post (which I was writing as you were posting) that I **fully** acknowledge that most religious people are rather pathetic examples of whatever belief system to claim. But to my points from earlier, the interesting thing is that - if you are an atheist - you hve to acknowledge that a vast majority of humanity clings to the need to say they believe in a God, or Gods. They are largely non-participatory, but to suggest to them that they don't really believe in God is highly offensive. Thus, my conclusion that, if we have evolved into our current state, then part of that evolution of the brain has been to create a consciousness that truly does desire to have this belief system of a God.

Crazy - "atheist" has a specific meaning. If you want to discuss people of various and sundry belief systems ( as most seem to want to do...) then why not create the "Agnostic" thread for all that. Damn...

@ Krellin

The term atheist does have a specific meaning, that's true. So there is a basic thing for different groups to agree on as they all believe that there is no God or gods. But sharing that one characteristics doesn't mean that they agree on other things. Think of it like Baptists, Roman Catholics, and Methodists. They share the same basic belief in that they all, at least ostensibly, embrace the creed "I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth..." but there are other issues upon which they disagree.

Being an atheists does not make you a secular humanist or a Marxist, but you must be an atheist to truly fit into either category.

OK....and the thread is called "athiest"....not "other belief systems that occur only if you are an athiest". within the first couple posts, the original poster suggested that by his reading Dawkins, he is now convinced that he *must* be more vocal about his atheism. If you have read the few posts I have mad today, I am trying to address his new-found conviction, which is based on his belief of "atheism" alone, not his belief in Marxism or secular humanism or anything else.

Based upon the beliefs that come with atheism and atheism only - the atheists core beliefs - I have made certain arguments that his conviction to speak out - so that he doesn't have to listen to talk about religion all the time - are in fact self-defeating and antithetical to his belief in atheism, by which he must understand that religion is part of the evolved human brain and is therefore an unstoppable force.

This has absolutely *nothing* to do with sub-sets of athiests and their particular beliefs. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. Stick to the core subject of "atheism" and the original poster's need to speak out about his atheis, and examine whether it is a logical or illogical desire based upon core atheist beliefs. Ironically, this discussion thread in an of itself is proof against his own conviction and supports my argument.

Work tomorrow - loging out. Have a good night, guys. (Even angry Jack! lol)

I can see your point. I think though that people will easily get confused if you don't clearly define which type you are addressing. It's more that I see more secular humanism here than "atheism". As to the point about religion being an evolutionary response, Dawkins seems to lament this himself. I think though that they would see themselves as the next evolutionary step trying to bring us along with them.

good night

@Krellin

The issue with the def. of Atheist is that the disbelief of God has an odd social construct created around it because the vast majority of people do believe and have believed for so long. For instance, there is no term for anti-Santa Clause. There is no proof that Santa exists (Sorry if I've just destroyed someone's childhood) and the norm is to assume he doesn't. If someone *did* truly believe in Santa, they'd be referred to as something, not everyone who doesn't.

So, to label anyone for something they *don't* believe in, really doesn't make much sense from the onset. Which is why we run into these problems.

I purposefully don't use they term agnostic for a couple reasons. First, the def. seems to imply that we can *never* know if there is a God. I don't buy that for a second. We just don't know *now*. The second reason is that it has a very wishy-washy connotation to it. If I were to be agnostic about God, then I feel like I'd have to be agnostic about Santa, Aliens building the pyramids, etc. While I do admit that all of those things are certainly *possible*, I find them so unlikely that I might as well lump myself with the people who just don't believe it. With, of course, the understanding that should evidence appear for any of those things, I'd reconsider.

@krellin
Sorry, I didn't see your message. The only thing I can say is
¡What an interesting theory you have! if you publish a book called "The Atheism Religion" maybe it won't be such a lose of time, cos you might make money if you write well and abundant.
But, sadly (very sadly), credibility you won't won so easily (and this forum will be your first frustation, I fear)

@ krellin: "What is the purpose of an atheist wanting to cause a person to believe in a "negative"."

The reason atheists might want to 'convert' religious people to atheism is that currently, religion holds a lot of political power.

Religion is currently the greatest influence in people not questioning things, and turning off their thought process.

Without religion, 9/11 would have been nearly impossible to pull off (if not outright impossible).

That event changed my personal perception of religion as a harmless vestigial part of humanity into something a little more dangerous. And insane extremism isn't just for Muslims. There are extremist Jews and Christians (I think there are some extremist Hindus, but I haven't heard of any extremist Buddhists... but I could be wrong).

At the very least, the idea that "This is by belief, therefore once I say that, I'm supposed to completely respect your belief no matter what" has to go away. Beliefs need to be examined with the same rigor that one would apply to any other hypothesis about the world. Because people need to think about their beliefs... once you stop thinking and become the proverbial True Believer, 9/11 is possible again.

Insane Extremism is also for the non-religious, like hardcore athiests. Don't blame religion for insanity and extremism. It can be found in all aspects of life (the guy who vandalizes a car because it has the opposing football team's logo on it for instance).

let's not kid ourselves; even if there was no religion, there would still have been 9/11. It would have come in a different vessel.

Yeah, blaming religion for doing horrible things seems unfair - humans use lots of excuses to justify doing horrible things. Nazism and Communism being to examples of following an ideology to it's extreme (As happened in Russia and Germany)

How and Ever I believe the point Dawkins is trying to make is:

a)people who unthinkingly follow any idea end up doing horrible thing
b) ALL religions teach people to believe, or have faith in, a dogma without thinking.

(i'm not trying to support this point, just make it clear what arguement is being made.

ps: i haven't read the God Delusion, so if i am mistaken please feel free to correct me.)

Point "b" though is false and anyone who believes that all religions teach blind faith (holding a belief without thinking) is seriously deluded. Even in the Christian faith, some denominations encourage independent study and thought, and not just of the Bible, but of the times in which it was written and independent research into other histories from the same time period that independently verify various events. That is why you have believers who also accept the old testament as a series of tales and parables meant to enlighten early man while not being the complete truth (i.e. Noah's flood was a localized/regional deal, the creation story and Adam and Eve and the Garden are just intended to provide some kind of explanation to minds that would never be able to grasp the truth of billions of years of creation and evolution, etc.)

Oh, don't get me wrong. True Believers don't have to be religious. True Believers in Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism, or whatnot are just as dangerous.

The point I was making is that those ideologies are effectively dead. Even in China, where officially they're Maoist, they're not anymore. But if they were, they would be included in that particular area of insanity.

Daugnar: The problem with choosing to interpret stories as parables, and (more or less) being able to cherry pick the good parts of the Bible, and ignoring the bad parts (or explaining them away) means that you yourself are basically saying that the Bible isn't the word of God. Which I would guess is going to destroy your own religion from inside, because if you can pick the bits you want, it comes down to what you want your holy book to say is true, instead of the holy book telling you what is true.

Its relativism, which is the enemy of all Absolute Truths.

But that's just my idea, and something I'm considering doing a thesis if I ever go back for grad school in history. :P