I certainly don’t fit the atheist political stereotype. In fact, even I have a hard time finding a political label for myself. When talking to liberals, I often call myself conservative, when talking to conservatives I call myself liberal. Maybe what I really am is just plain contrary (sp? - it’s late).

I really hate the need to label people when it comes to politics. It’s just not that damn simple. My opinion on abortion is liberal. My opinion on gun control, conservative. Gay rights? Liberal. Death Penalty? Conservative.

Sometimes I peg myself as Libertarian, but even that takes a shoehorn to force me into it.

Maybe I’ll just call myself a Rationalist and be done with it.

Democrat + Racist + Atheist = AL Attorney General bid From my recollection of Southern history AL is both anti-democrat and anti-atheist enough to make it unlikely he’ll succeed.  Let’s just hope they’ve become anti-racist enough since the civil rights movement to shut him out completely.  I don’t think I’d ever step foot in the South again if that quack got elected.  I honestly hope you all don’t get stereotyped for this guy.  It’s not fun.  Trust me.  I know.  I’m a Christian.

Sorry to bring this up again for possible thread derailment (what fun would a thread be if it had boundaries? ), but I have a hard time understanding how someone can confront an issue, make some sort of intellectual pursuit to reach a conclusion and form an opinion that counts as a “lack of belief.” When it comes to God or any other dialectic for that matter, it seems the only way to have a true lack of belief is to be apathetic to the issue.  Of course, this would make many of you atheists believers of NO God then which might then take the “Is atheism a religion?” debate to a different level.

An atheist gnostic not only believes that there is no God but believes that he knows there is no God.  An atheist agnostic, which I think most of you are, believes there is no God and that we can’t know whether or not God exists.  A theist can be an agnostic as well and I think many of them are or at least far more of them are than are credited to us by the atheists.  A theist agnostic believes there is a God, but doesn’t think s/he can know for sure.  And, of course, the last category is the theist gnostic, my brand of theism.  They believe that God exists and His existence is knowable.  All of these have a belief about a God and no belief is lacking.

It seems to me that this shouldn’t be much different than political issues, I either (1) believe an action should be taken or (2) I believe another action should be taken or (3) I am apathetic to the issue and would thus properly lack a belief either way.  Of course there is always the possibility I should wait to take my logic course before trying to do analytic divisions.  Are there holes in my reasoning or did I burst some bubbles?

I think it’s safe to assume that if a person with some combination of political and religious views could exist, then they likely do.

I have a hard time understanding how someone can confront an issue, make some sort of intellectual pursuit to reach a conclusion and form an opinion that counts as a “lack of belief.�?

Theo, it’s ridiculously easy.

1.  Consider your position on the existence of Zeus.

2.  Now consider the situation where 90% of the people around you spend their time insisting he’s real, and insisting that your kids be taught to worship him in school as if he were real, and insisting that nobody who didn’t believe in Zeus could possibly be a moral person.

3.  Repeat for the rest of your whole fucking life.

Are you “apathetic” on the issue now?

I honestly hope you all don’t get stereotyped for this guy.  It’s not fun.  Trust me.  I know.  I’m a Christian.

Given the ascendancy of Christians in American politics, it’s likely, but perhaps not inevitable, that we atheists will get stereotyped for this guy, theo.  As far as it not being fun to be stereotyped as a Christian goes, all you have to do is avoid the 5% or so of us who are atheists- no big deal.  But thanks for the kind thoughts.

When it comes to God or any other dialectic for that matter, it seems the only way to have a true lack of belief is to be apathetic to the issue.  Of course, this would make many of you atheists believers of NO God then which might then take the “Is atheism a religion?�? debate to a different level.

If “atheism” is a religion, then “off” is a television channel.

An atheist gnostic not only believes that there is no God but believes that he knows there is no God.  An atheist agnostic, which I think most of you are, believes there is no God and that we can’t know whether or not God exists.[...]Are there holes in my reasoning or did I burst some bubbles?

This is the standard division, but I find it misleadingly oversimplified.  There are many possible degrees of certainty about knowledge, not just believing we can either know for sure or not know for sure.  Is anything really certain?  How can we be “sure” that we’re not in the Matrix, or that the whole Universe, including all our thoughts about God, is not just part of an unimaginably complex art work by a young butterfly being of Zod?

If we can claim certainty that these are not the case, what about the existence of leprechauns, or Santa, or God?  Or Nessie?  Or a living mammoth?  Or a python forty feet long?  Or someone with our name living in Minsk?  Or Philadelphia?

Lots of misunderstandings, especially ones concerning politics and religion, come from making neat logical divisions and applying them to the messy world.  Of course, we need the neat logical divisions, because we can’t know everything, and we often need to choose A or B.  But to confuse our human limitations for truths about the unknowably complex world is a mistake.

“It’s time to stop pushing down the white man. We’ve been discriminated against too long,” Darby said in the interview. Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Wow. What a ... ah, fuck it, fuckwit will do, only coz I disagree with most of what he espouses and I can’t fit him into any of my OTHER boxes.
I mean, how many dope-smoking, white-supremist, atheists are there?

Theo: Are there holes in my reasoning or did I burst some bubbles?

Yes and No.
I may have missed it but, you didn’t have a file marked ‘spiritual atheism’ – a sort of cosmic consciousness that I almost slot myself into. http://www.spiritualatheism.com/
I think theists have hijacked the term GOD to mean something they can conceptualise or directionalise (that’s not a word, is it..) their understanding towards because they remember that bit about us being made in his image, AND egotistically, they desire for there to be point to their existence.
They think he meant physically – I think IT meant consciousness.
KISS – energy, ethereal ‘dust to dust’ stuff.
I don’t think whatever IT is, is anything personal at all, at all.
I think the day I figure it out is the day I die.

Gee, that beer was nice – I think I’ll have another.
I have In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida playing rather loudly.
By the way - happy birthday Theo.

I mean, how many dope-smoking, white-supremist, atheists are there?

Well, John, I’m a dope-smoking white atheist- is that close?
Happy Belated Birthday from me too, theo!  My daughter Rozzle has the same birthday.

Well, John, I’m a dope-smoking white atheist- is that close?

Ditto and NO.
As you know, the supremists bit, based on skin colour only, is the bit that throws us from HIS reality.
My mate and I provide 50 hours (well about 10 but the contract specifies 50) care/attention/supervision to a mental retard (28 going on 12 ... too much information - classifications are often incomplete pictures) per week.
Due to programming he’s a racist.
Programming? It’s really a desire to feel superior to someone coz they’re small-minded in themselves in all ways.
Jim and I always try to re-programme him by saying something along the lines of: Arse’oles come in all shapes and sizes AND colours.
I know we’re having an impact coz he often says it to stir me up, knowing my response. He’s not a total retard.

Geise: “I think it’s safe to assume that if a person with some combination of political and religious views could exist, then they likely do.”

Good one.  You can find an anecdote to ‘support’ any stereotype, no matter how off-base. Heck, Bill O’Reilly does it every day.

The question is: “How many people agree with ‘x’ and how much political pull do they have?” Thus the problem with evangelical Christianity.  The answer is “A whole lot, and a whole lot.”

LuckyJohnny: I have In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida playing rather loudly.

Ah, yes. Oh, won’t you come with me, indeed. John does the opening guitar riffs pretty well. Wish I could play the guitar…

For what it’s worth, I’m a white, Pagan/Wiccan agnostic pot-smoker. Just like Bob Dylan said, everybody must get stoned.

GM:
Are you “apathetic�? on the issue now?

No, but this demonstrates my point.  I would not lack a belief in Zeus, I would NOT believe in Zeus.  I would be aZeusian (as opposed to Zeusian believing in Zeus), not apathetic (i.e. lacking in a belief of Zeus).

zilch:
If “atheism�? is a religion, then “off�? is a television channel.

I’m not sure that that is a proper analogy and my counterargument may be an equally poor rebuttal, but I’ll try anyways.  I think when discussing TV channels one assumes the TV is “on”.  Now one may make the counterpoint that the same goes with religion that part of the definition of religion assumes the existence of the divine.  Is this a proper definition of religion then?  Maybe we should compromise and let the traditional definition of religion stick and call atheism a theological view.  How does that sound?

zilch:
There are many possible degrees of certainty about knowledge, not just believing we can either know for sure or not know for sure.

This is true and a very good point, but it must be remembered that even amongst the degrees one can’t leave the particular dialectic of a/gnostic.  We often discuss it in terms of 100% agnostic or 100% gnostic, but does my whole argument go to pieces just because someone may be 30-60 or 50-50?  I am not so sure that it would.  An atheist agnostic(50-50) may still believe there is no God, but be open to the possibility of God demonstrating his existence through some amount of “proof.” The opposite would be true for the theist agnostic(50-50).  S/he would believe God exists but that there is an amount of proof that can be shown for God’s nonexistence that if reached would make them cease to believe.  Is that a fair analysis?

LuckyJohn19:
Yes and No.
I may have missed it but, you didn’t have a file marked ‘spiritual atheism’ – a sort of cosmic consciousness that I almost slot myself into. http://www.spiritualatheism.com/

It’s interesting, as I was reading it I kept wondering how spiritual atheism is any different from philosophical taoism and then I see taoism categorized under spiritual atheism. I don’t think spiritual atheism has much bearance on this particular tangent and it would require an extensive reworking of the analytic division to figure out how they would even fit in.  Spiritual atheism seems to be more about spiritualism than about atheism anyways.  The tangent came up because of the unique divide in traditional atheist ideals and traditional theist ideals between me and most of the atheists I have met on this board which I have never seen as spiritual atheists.  Thanks for bringing it up though.  It encourages me to put more effort in thinking about its relationship to traditional theism.

LuckyJohn19:
I think theists have hijacked the term GOD to mean something they can conceptualise or directionalise (that’s not a word, is it..) their understanding towards because they remember that bit about us being made in his image, AND egotistically, they desire for there to be point to their existence.

Theists are not only ones who have hijacked the term.  I would not have brought this tangent about if the atheists would not have participated in the “hijacking.” Spiritual atheism in a nontraditional sense could be categorized as a form of theism because it still deals with a view of “God.” It redefines it in a way that the traditional theist would not accept.  The debate between the theist and spiritual atheist begins with a discussion over what God is, s/he/its caharacteristics and s/he/its nature.  the debate between the theist(traditional or nontraditional) and traditional atheist simply stems from the existence or nonexistence of any notion of God however one wants to define it.

LuckyJohn19:
By the way - happy birthday Theo.

Thank you.

zilch:
Happy Belated Birthday from me too, theo!  My daughter Rozzle has the same birthday.

Thanks and Rozzle a belated happy birthday from me as well.

DOF:
The question is: “How many people agree with ‘x’ and how much political pull do they have?�? Thus the problem with evangelical Christianity.  The answer is “A whole lot, and a whole lot.�?

I’m working on making the second “whole lot” much smaller (and in some ways the first too amongst those who categorize themselves as such in America ).

Theo: I would be aZeusian (as opposed to Zeusian believing in Zeus), not apathetic (i.e. lacking in a belief of Zeus).

I think the point Geekmom was trying to make (and spank me if I’m wrong, GM ) is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be completely apathetic about religion in a society that wears it on its sleeve. Were our society not so heavily Christian, most atheists would regard Christianity (like all religion) and “god” with total apathy.

Theo: I would not have brought this tangent about if the atheists would not have participated in the “hijacking�?.

Chicken and Egg stuff really.
Drift: The other day, for kicks, I asked Jason (our semi-retard) which came first. Without seeming to process the question, he said: Chicken.
We’re wondering if he’s got a bit of Savant in him somewhere. One day we’re gonna have him look at the racing guide to see if he can pick the winners.
The xians spent about a year on him, but he was too stupid (?) to be sucked in.

Sadie: Were our society not so heavily Christian, most atheists would regard Christianity (like all religion) and “god�? with total apathy.

I reckon you nut-shelled it, girl.

Sexy Sadie:
I think the point Geekmom was trying to make (and spank me if I’m wrong, GM wink ) is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be completely apathetic about religion in a society that wears it on its sleeve. Were our society not so heavily Christian, most atheists would regard Christianity (like all religion) and “god�? with total apathy.

I think it must also be remembered that those who would suggest that are likely coming from a background of being educated and middle-upper class.  Societal status has compelled most of us in these situations to care about such things.  I would be willing to be a significant percentage of the United States population is apathetic to religion as much if not moreso than politics.

I can’t imagine most white trash or minorities raised in ghettoes care too much about anything other than making it through the week.  The only way they would care about religion or politics is if some gutsy bourgeois intellectual elite(in the case of politics) or gutsy burdened holy roller(in the case of religion) brings it to their attention in an attempt get them to conform to themselves.

As middle class intellectuals we have sought out the same thing (i.e. to impact the world according to our preference) and have run into each other in the process.  I really don’t believe that if Christians removed themselves from offices of power that you would still properly “lack belief” because you care too much about how you think things are and how they ought to be to not be opinionated when it comes to the existence of “god” (which if I read the existence of the quotations right I believe was aimed at biting spiritual atheists just as much as traditional theists LuckyJohn forgive me if it’s not tho).  I think one can only lack belief if you are distracted by more pressing issues like the issues faced by the impoverished.

if I read the existence of the quotations right I believe was aimed at biting spiritual atheists just as much as traditional theists LuckyJohn forgive me if it’s not tho

I’m not that smart. I fell in my own hole. I wish I was comfortable with lies.

I think when discussing TV channels one assumes the TV is “on�?.  Now one may make the counterpoint that the same goes with religion that part of the definition of religion assumes the existence of the divine.  Is this a proper definition of religion then?  Maybe we should compromise and let the traditional definition of religion stick and call atheism a theological view.  How does that sound?

That’s fine with me, theo, as long as we call the beliefs in the nonexistence of Zeus, Santa, and the Easter Bunny “theological views” as well.

We often discuss it in terms of 100% agnostic or 100% gnostic, but does my whole argument go to pieces just because someone may be 30-60 or 50-50?

I wouldn’t say it goes to pieces, but I wonder about that missing 10%…

An atheist agnostic(50-50) may still believe there is no God, but be open to the possibility of God demonstrating his existence through some amount of “proof.�?

I would again say, this is all too cut and dried.  How can I predict what I would say if I woke up in a liquid filled nest like Neo?  Or if Thor appeared on a cloud?  Probably I would think all kinds of things: elaborate practical joke, fabulous technology, gods, dreams, madness… I don’t think it’s realistic to plot belief along a linear scale and assign a percentage value to it.

I think the point Geekmom was trying to make (and spank me if I’m wrong, GM ) is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to be completely apathetic about religion in a society that wears it on its sleeve. Were our society not so heavily Christian, most atheists would regard Christianity (like all religion) and “god�? with total apathy.

Maybe not “total apathy”, Sadie- I find Zeus, and Jesus, interesting social phenomena.  But I will add my “bingo”.  You can spank me too, GM, if we’re presuming.

zilch:
That’s fine with me, theo, as long as we call the beliefs in the nonexistence of Zeus, Santa, and the Easter Bunny “theological views�? as well.

I didn’t realize leprechauns, unicorns, Santa nad the Easter bunny and reached deity status.

zilch:
I wouldn’t say it goes to pieces, but I wonder about that missing 10%…

I was always most prone to the simple stupid math miskates.  Oh well.

zilch:
I would again say, this is all too cut and dried.  How can I predict what I would say if I woke up in a liquid filled nest like Neo?  Or if Thor appeared on a cloud?  Probably I would think all kinds of things: elaborate practical joke, fabulous technology, gods, dreams, madness… I don’t think it’s realistic to plot belief along a linear scale and assign a percentage value to it.

I don’t see how any of those would move you beyond any kind of linear scale.  You would do the same thing for each one, try to find the cause or explanation to the best of your satisfaction and adapt your beliefs accordingly.  Percentage only seems to be a measure of willingness to change from one view to another based on an expectation for a perceived subjective amount of evidence.  You’re not making this more complex by keeping your evidences of complexity within the range dialectic.

I didn’t realize leprechauns, unicorns, Santa nad the Easter bunny and reached deity status.

Gods, demigods, divinely sent or inspired beasts and beings- you may be able to draw neat lines with your fundamentalist ruler, but from my vantage point they all blend together…

Percentage only seems to be a measure of willingness to change from one view to another based on an expectation for a perceived subjective amount of evidence.

You may be willing to put a number on your future willingness to change from one view to another, theo, but I’m not.  As I said, I can’t predict what I would do in such situations in any meaningful way, so to assign a percentage likelihood to a particular reaction is unmotivated.  I guess I’m agnostic about my future atheism, with no numbers attached.

You called yourself a “gnostic theist”, and said that means you believe 100% that God exists and that you can “know” that He exists.  What if you wake up in a vat tomorrow- what does your 100% certainty mean then?  You were 100% wrong.  I prefer not to put numbers on stuff like this.  The situation is different for repeatable outcomes, such as, say, the likelihood of heads or tails, or of rain tomorrow.  There I’m perfectly willing to grant the utility of predicting likelihoods.  But for me to say that I believe 100% in God, or no God, is like saying I believe 100% that I will like, or dislike, an exotic dish I’ve never eaten.  Sure, I can make that pronouncement.  But it’s meaningless.

And that is the problem with trying to cram everything into dialectics.

Zilch writes…

You can spank me too, GM, if we’re presuming.

Suddenly I feel like SEB has turned in S&B. All this spanking and such going on. Damn. You’re a horny bunch.

Theo: “I think one can only lack belief if you are distracted by more pressing issues like the issues faced by the impoverished.”

Theo, you’d be amazed.  If it isn’t being shoved down my throat, I can lack belief by being distracted by more pressing issues like breakfast.  Like Zilch said, all the myths look pretty much the same.

There’s a particular rock in the middle of a dry creekbed in Utah.  It’s a nondescript rock, about 50cm in diameter, weighing about 9kg, and tan in color.  There are thousands of similar rocks nearby. 

How often do you think about that rock?  What distracts you from thinking about it?  Shouldn’t you be thinking about the rock?  Think about the rock!  It’s a divine rock!  You’ll go to hell if you don’t think about that rock!!!

Oh, wait… House is on tonight.  Nevermind.

Damn. You’re a horny bunch.

Not our fault, Les.  It’s our Designer Genes…

Oh, wait… House is on tonight.  Nevermind.

Damn.  We’re Houseless in Austria, DoF…

Damn it, now I’m thinking about the rock.  While riding to work I realized the diameter I made up for the divine rock would give a density somewhere near styrofoam.  The correct diameter for the rock (if it were sandstone) would be about 18cm.

Oh well, rock works in mysterious ways.

Bumblesnoz, anybody? (I have no idea who to credit for it)

Only one slight problem.  In any other relationship, the other person is already known to exist.  This is not the case here.

As an analogy, suppose I tell you about Bumblesnoz, a small furry invisible creature from the planet Koozbain who lives on my shoulder. Understandably, you are skeptical that there is actually a Koozbainian living on my shoulder, and ask to see him.

“But he’s invisible”, I say. You ask to hold him.

“You can’t, he’s extradimensional and therefore can’t be physically touched by normal humans.”

You ask him to give you the complete factorization of the number 2^(2^20)+1, thinking this would be easy for the advanced Koozbainian race.

“Sorry, that’s not really his speciality, and in any event Koozbainians don’t like jumping through hoops just to satisfy human curiousity.”

You ask him to say the words “Galleo Hoop Hoop”.

“He doesn’t have a voice-- he uses telepathy.”

You ask him to send you a telepathic message.

“Sorry-- Koozbainian telepathy is neutralized by skepticism.”

After debating with yourself for a few minutes over whether or not to slug me in the jaw, you decide against it and instead ask how I know there’s a Koozbainian on my shoulder if he can’t be seen, felt, heard or otherwise detected.

I answer, “The best way to learn about Bumblesnoz is to start a relationship with him.  Try talking to Bumblesnoz sometime.  Ask him for advice when you’re confused.  Ask him for comfort when you’re hurting.  Share your joys and sorrows with him.  The reason I came to believe in Bumblesnoz was not a rational argument, but through my relation-ship with him.”

Would this convince you that Bumblesnoz did indeed exist?  Or would it convince you that you should have slugged me in the jaw when you had the chance?

While riding to work I realized the diameter I made up for the divine rock would give a density somewhere near styrofoam.

What I thought is that it must be one damn flat thin rock, DoF, probably a downed flying saucer from Koozbain…

Zilch, do you know why Christian apologists have such a hard time with the semantic difference between “I do not believe X to be true” and “I believe X to be false”? I sure don’t and it almost looks like they are deliberately obtuse.

For that matter, do you know of a good reason why one can’t be dismissive of and indifferent to Christian theology, and at the same time be anything but apathetic towards True Believers?