The rise of atheism and the non-religious

I never said it was just you, I'm simply implying that it is a large minority or a small majority.

I think you rather underestimate the amount of 7-Atheists out there.

But without any solid facts, this is all speculation and opinions.

edited 19th Sep '12 6:21:42 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

All that I can bring here is anecdotal, so it doesn't mean much; but I've never met or even heard of a 7-atheist. I accept that someone like that probably does exist, but as Dawkins says, "no thinking atheist" would place themselves in category 7, as God can't be disproven. (On the same token, no thinking atheist would be a 7 about Santa or the toothfairy.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I hadn't heard of the scale in question until now, actually.

I'm mostly just pointing out that, in my biased, anecdotal opinion, people tend to associate, "atheism," with pure belief in the non-existance of God, whereas, "agnosticism," is more about not being sure. It's semantics, and most of the people who claim to be Atheist would likely admit to being more on the agnostic side when questioned, but if Atheism is not believing in God, what would you call believing there is no God? Strong Atheism? In which case, does that mean the other type of Atheism is less pure, more diluted? Semantics is tricky, and to be frank I don't know why I brought this up. Sorry.

Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.

You can find plenty of 7-atheists in the comment section of any Pat Condell video on youtube (him included). Or any video relating to science. Or any video at all, for that matter.

edited 19th Sep '12 9:33:18 PM by Boredman

cum

5-minutes ago I didn't know who Pat Condell was.

I now wish to be 5 minutes in the past...

edited 19th Sep '12 9:52:16 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

@Rem: "Strong atheism" is indeed one term that is used to differentiate it from the "weak atheism" that is technically also agnosticism.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

There are assholes on both sides. But saying that without context feeds into the false equivalence that one side's assholes are just as bad (or as numerous) as the other's.

edited 20th Sep '12 7:42:06 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

An ideology is also belief in something that cant be proven, although that's because ideologies tend to be about social policies and political issues, which are inherently subjective anyway. We can call someone an extremist if they appear to believe that there is only one true set of values and beliefs, and everyone who disagrees with that truth is simply wrong, and their beliefs are not deserving of being treated with respect.

Such an attitude is defensible if the topic being discussed is an issue of objective fact (i.e., there exists in the world a correct answer, and this answer is discernible to anyone in possession of all the facts). For that to be true, however, the topic must be objective in actual fact, it isn't enough (obviously) for one side in an argument to claim that it is.

Sometimes, thoughtful and intelligent Christians feel that this is what so-called "Hard Atheists" are doing, claiming that a set of beliefs concerns objective facts when it doesn't (I'm sure that it goes the other way too, as when fundies insist that evolution never happened). But two wrongs don't make a right. If an atheist or agnostic doesn't want to be lumped in with so-called "Level 7 Atheists", if in fact you expect people with whom you engage in debate to respond to the opinions and views you yourself express, and you do not want the other person to behave as if they were debating some straw atheist who isn't there, then obviously the same standard has to be applied the other way. Not calling out any names, because that isn't necessary, but it happens even here. You don't have to be an asshole to do this either (I'm sure that I've been guilty at least once or twice), you just have to forget for a moment who you are dealing with, and what they have said.

Best Of claimed earlier that one shouldn't be offended by a claim that one's belief system is "irrational or counter-efficient". Again, that would only be true in the case where either rationalism or efficiency (as commonly defined) were applicable to the belief system in question (Christianity, for example, is not specifically intended to be entirely either rational or efficient). Otherwise it would be at least frustrating to hear, if not outright offensive. Again, I'm certain it goes the other way as well.

The one thing we should all be in agreement with is the importance of pluralism. Certain systems of belief can allow the people who believe in them to treat other systems with respect, even when they disagree. "Soft-Christianity" and "Soft Atheism" are both pluralist systems of belief, and are not ideologies. So in theory, at least, common ground should exist.

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

@De Marquis: The idea that religious ideology isn't based in rationality and evidence is fine, and I'd be happy to leave it at that, were it not that religious ideologies are intent on convincing me to adopt their morality.

I don't want Christians, Muslims, et. al. to stop believing in God. I want them to stop trying to impose their religiously based morality on people who don't believe in it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Why is that? I don't see "pluralism" in itself as a desirable thing. There are plenty of beliefs and systems that I think the would would be better off without. Racism and sexism, for example. I would like to live in a world without those things, and I hope there are plenty of people who would like to as well.

Of course, its neither practical nor realistic to expect that everybody can and should believe the same things about everything.

I do.

edited 20th Sep '12 10:41:33 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Let's be realistic. We can hope for a time when religion is viewed as a superstition of the past, but not only can such a position easily be seen as condescending, it's not necessary. First, we need to get beyond the idea that religious morality has a right to impose itself on those who don't share it.

edited 20th Sep '12 10:59:04 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Wants don't have to be realistic. But consider that many, if not most members of any evangelical religion also want everybody else to share their beliefs, then it goes both ways.

And moving people to abandon old beliefs does take time, but it's not impossible. Remember when everybody knew that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Most people today don't believe in the old Egyptian, Roman or Norse gods either, just like most people don't believe in ogres or leprechauns.

Really, atheists and monotheists share more beliefs in common than they do differently. We all agree that the vast majority of gods that humans have worshipped don't exist. It's just that Christians believe in one, and atheists believe in none.

Do people have a right to impose their religious morality on those that don't share it? Well, what is imposing? And which moral doctrines? If both atheists and certain religious people believe that you shouldn't eat babies, is it an imposition on the cult of baby-eaters to outlaw infant cannibalism? Personally, I would have no problem with imposing that restriction on others.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:22:42 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

As has been said countless times on this forum, there is a world of difference between religious/political beliefs, and beliefs based on bigotry.

That's a ridiculous oversimplification. You're not even close to understanding what the hell you're talking about. First of all, you're assuming that the gods of different religions are all separate entities, when, really, they're various different ways of trying to understand the same thing.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:45:11 AM by Boredman

cum

That's one opinion. Some people think that the "old gods" did exist (or still do,) together with all the gods that are worshipped now. Whether they're different manifestations of the same deity is another question where there are differing opinions.

Usually if you ask a Christian whether they believe that Zeus and Hades exist, they won't answer with "they're different ways to view the God that I worship." They'll say something to the effect of "they don't exist."

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

There is indeed a part of me that wants the entire world to be Buddhist. In particular my brand of Theravada. There's also a part of me that wants all antitheists completely gone in particular. Neither of these options are realistic. One is very petty and based on biases. The other is based on well intentioned beliefs based on foundations that I have yet to prove as fact. Both these wants are stupid and I view them as such. They are childish and I set them aside.

As such my conversion efforts remain rather small and only aimed at those who show interest in the religion and in converting. Before that point I merely talk about the religion and share information because sharing information is fun and happy and yay information! Once interest in conversion is shown I jump on you like a shark and begin trying to help you find a temple and talk to you about your many options in terms of branches, schools, and nondenominational Buddhism.

This seems to work best in terms of me being considered sane and friendly while still gaining me occasional converts. It's also realistic. I can't convert the entire world. I'm not the Maitreya!

I will instead keep with that and strive for a pluralistic society within reason. Though reason will involve a great deal of change in what exactly that means, with things like murder and rape remaining constant nos while taking into account that there are things like the sexual consent grey line (this is a strange thing to be involved with and I don't recommend ever learning what it's like). My attempts to get that being done through voting, talking with other individuals, and my activity in my society particularly through my work with my temple. We will be a happy temple who works with Cal Baptist and the local UU church at times, as well as the other Buddhist temples. So that we can do our charities and help people in prison and all sorts of shit.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:51:28 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That's off-topic, though. This thread is about non-religion, not personal anecdotes about conversion to a religion.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I didn't feel it was off topic in the sense of what we were currently talking about. It was meant to be an affirmation of what, Lawyerdude stated. As well as a defense of De Marquise's pluralism idea. Which is what I feel is the best idea that there is for us in terms of realistic things we can achieve. I still don't feel it is off topic if viewed in that light.

However if you'd like I could talk about the asshole 7 atheists I know. Really I know more horrible atheists than I do religious people...Most atheists I know personally tend to be absolutely retarded. Either in a truly moronic sense of a fake intellectual sense. Which is much worse.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:59:34 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

It's hard to avoid the flip-side of the coin, though, Best Of. Losing and gaining faith? Can have the same mechanics at their core.

I'll admit to thinking that everyone needs to be a progressive empirical rationalist to some degree, but I'm not that big on thinking that everyone needs to become atheist, because I see atheism as a side effect of more evidence-based reasoning entering the public forum.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

They can have the same mechanics, yes. Doesn't mean that they're the same topic, strictly speaking.

For instance, if we had a thread about the recession in Europe, you could post about how it resembles the US recession or how they're connceted - or indeed what shared causes they have. But I would not let you post about the US recession alone, especially if it seemed likely that it would encourage other people to post about it, too.

edited 20th Sep '12 12:00:01 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And that's not why I posted it. I already explained why I did and refuse to change my view on the post in particular. Not that I care if it gets thumped.

edited 20th Sep '12 12:01:32 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I'm not going to thump it now that I've already warned the thread not to go off-topic.

(Though we're sort of having a derail about derails now.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Keikaku doori?

and then Aondeug was banned from OTC.

But yes. Back to shit.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Honestly, I think that most of the arguments about the validity of religion are completely off track. Arguing "Does God exist?" Requires "God" and "exist" to be adequately defined, which is something that is effectively impossible. Asking people about the nature of God could produce countless wildly varying views. Even the question of existence itself is misleading, partly because there isn't even a reliable definition for what you'd be looking for, or whether it transcends existence itself. Some say the universe IS God. Some say that humanity is God. Some say that God is a misleading term because it can't be understood in human terms.

Lawyerdude's post just irked me because it's a simplistic and dismissive view of something he doesn't even comprehend.

(apologies for my poor organization. I'm in a rush IRL.)

cum

True.

Hmmmm... I could wish that all sides would quit trying to impose on either... and, just be civil. However, people as a whole and in groups don't work that way, however much I might wish for it. The best that can be done is to try to work with what is, and gently try to steer as much as possible to a goal of "just getting along".

I also accept that groups don't always act rationally... however rational the individuals who make them up might consider themselves to be, and whatever their general educational background might be. <shrugs>

Wanting to get rid of religion? No: don't see the need for that. Any more than I see a pressing need to advocate a concerted effort to rid the world of religion. Extremism of any stripe? Now that I'd like to try bashing with a spanner and attacking with sandpaper... Even though I'm well aware that it does have its cultural uses.

edited 20th Sep '12 12:06:52 PM by Euodiachloris