We are all born Atheists

[Farmmaa]

Exactly. And that choice should be left to those directly involved.

This monkeying around with definitions is just so much wordplay. The term "atheist", to all but a very, very few, means and has always meant "one who does not believe in god or deities". There can be no credible argument against that. To start insisting that the label applies to those who have never given the issue a moment's thought is just plain wrong and smacks of private agenda.

A private agenda ? Good grief.

Does someone who has never given the issue of gods a second thought believe in god ?
Probably not...therefore, by your own definition of the term atheist....they do not believe in gods ( because there are thousands, not one ).
So why would that not make them an atheist ? By your definition ?

[Farmmaa]

I don't feel that my personal beliefs should "dictate" anything but we live in a democracy and if my position on various social and political issues is influenced by my faith, that's allowed, just like it is for you. Each of us uses his or her personal beliefs to try an affect others every time we vote in an election or make other important decisions.

And when it comes to keeping beliefs to myself, lets get real. People don't need to keep their beliefs to themselves, we're not living in a totalitarian regime where people do not have freedom of speech. People share their beliefs about everything from politics to religion to lifestyle etc. every day in a democratic society and that's as it should be.

Sharing your beliefs, talking about your beliefs...that's not what the issue is and you are well aware of that.

It is when religion meets political agenda that non-believers have a problem with the religious right trying to push their religion's moral issues on society.
Yes, the abortion issue is a big one, as mentioned.
But, there are many others as well....the right to assisted death, homosexual marriage, refusal of government workers and shop owners to serve people who do not share their religious values, terrorist attacks....the list goes on.

[fluffy]

Does someone who has never given the issue of gods a second thought believe in god ?
Probably not...therefore, by your own definition of the term atheist....they do not believe in gods ( because there are thousands, not one ).
So why would that not make them an atheist ? By your definition ?

Why should it? Is not the basic requirement for atheism to not believe in god? Can you not see the difference between not believing in god and not caring about the issue at all? Atheism is a choice, a reasoned position based on the belief that there is no god. It is not a default position for everyone who isn't a theist. People who do not have an active disbelief in god do not identify as atheists, and the decision to label them such is not for the atheist community (or the Oxford Dictionary for that matter) to make. By your reasoning the entire agnostic community would be atheists, and all the agnostics I know choose that label because it sets them apart from atheists. This dilution of the traditional definition of atheism just confuses the issue, and effectively denies the right of choice for individuals who do not identify as atheist. You can decide what you want to call yourself, but you don't get to decide what I call myself.

[OREZ]

Sharing your beliefs, talking about your beliefs...that's not what the issue is and you are well aware of that.

You said:

If your beliefs are kept to yourself and affect no one else, then no need to defend them.

Difficult to share or talk about beliefs if we are required to keep them to ourselves so as to not affect anyone else with them. For some well meaning people it is their very sincere hope to affect others by sharing their beliefs and I know that can be annoying but it's really not too much to bear when presented with the alternative, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited to add: Lol, it's strange that not long after I typed this my doorbell rang and two very sweet Mormon girls paid me a visit. I chatted with them for a minute, then told them we weren't interested and why and wished them a great afternoon. No pressure, no weirdness, very pleasant young women. I'd much rather talk to them than a vacuum cleaner salesman.

It is when religion meets political agenda that non-believers have a problem with the religious right trying to push their religion's moral issues on society.
Yes, the abortion issue is a big one, as mentioned.
But, there are many others as well....the right to assisted death, homosexual marriage, refusal of government workers and shop owners to serve people who do not share their religious values, terrorist attacks....the list goes on.

The fact is that in a democracy, if the majority of people have a certain religious perspective they will elect people who reflect that perspective whether you or I like it or not. I don't think that it's the case in Canada at this time (that religion has much influence) but what could we really do about it if it were? We've already seen countries which were officially atheist suppress the religious practices of people so it stands to reason that the influence can go either way. Not that I approve of that, it's just the way it is.

All we can do is try our best to respect each other and not encroach on one another's own personal values.

[Nomaster]

Check this out....http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/ ... flood.html

Wow, so significant that no news media or archeology journals report it.

Again, if there were thousands of feet of sediment....as per Ken Ham's claim on this website, then we would have 1000's of feet of sediment all over the earth and all dated to the same exact 2000 BCE time period.

Gee, we don't find that 'evidence' and no geologist or geophysicts report this 'evidence.'
Pseudoscience quacks like Ken Ham can fool some with this level of fraud...I mean, 'evidence.'

[Nomaster]

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/flo ... k-and-why/

Mythbusted

[Omnitheo]

Since we're mostly arguing semantics, I posit that all gods are real. Thor, Prometheus, Kali, every combination of the holy trinity depending on which branch of Christianity you follow. Every latest abrahamic prophet's version of Yaweh/Allah etc.

They all deserve equal consideration because they are all equal in their status as gods.

Of course my definition of a God is a man made personification of natural forces that are not understood.

Omnitheism all the way. Embrace the mythology, learn the cool stories, and invent your own!

[fluffy]

Embrace the mythology, learn the cool stories, and invent your own!

Every religion that I know of starts from a place of good, some sort of plan to be a better person and to help make things better for everyone else. I agree with you Omnitheo, there's certainly nothing wrong with taking what you see as the best of all the offereings and cobbling togther a god of your own making. To me that is vastly superior to blind acceptance of someone else's version of something that is totally beyond anyone's understanding. And you are pretty much guaranteed to have a god in your pocket that you are comfortable with, something that doesn't stretch the bounds of your own beliefs. But that's just me, we all have to do what is best for ourselves.

People that get hung up on the "my religion is better than your religion" game are really missing a very basic point somewhere, trying to force their version of morality on others who should be given the right to make those decisions for themselves. You want to call me an atheist? Not your choice to make. You want to call yourself an atheist? Fill yer boots.

[youjustcomplain]

Why should it? Is not the basic requirement for atheism to not believe in god? Can you not see the difference between not believing in god and not caring about the issue at all? Atheism is a choice, a reasoned position based on the belief that there is no god. It is not a default position for everyone who isn't a theist. People who do not have an active disbelief in god do not identify as atheists, and the decision to label them such is not for the atheist community (or the Oxford Dictionary for that matter) to make. By your reasoning the entire agnostic community would be atheists, and all the agnostics I know choose that label because it sets them apart from atheists. This dilution of the traditional definition of atheism just confuses the issue, and effectively denies the right of choice for individuals who do not identify as atheist. You can decide what you want to call yourself, but you don't get to decide what I call myself.

First point.
Not believing in something and caring about it at all are very different things. yes.
Do you not believe in flying teapots or do you just not care. Whether you care or not, do you believe that flying teapots exist? If you don't believe they exist, but just don't care about the issue at all, you're still in the same boat as those of us who see no evidence that they exist. You're playing games with words and definitions here. Not only that, but Atheist, Theist and agnostic are all words used by people to self identify. Not everyone who believes in god beliefs in the same things, nor does every atheist.

Second point.
There is no atheist community. We are all fragmented, scattered around with nothing holding us together. We don't meet weekly to discuss atheist issues, whatever those would be. As such, no atheist speaks on behalf of atheists so, I'm unclear how some Atheist community would be trying to label people.

Third point.
What Agnostic community? Is there such a thing? Do they have some agnostic book they can reference? Do they meet up frequently? I'm confused why you suggest community in either group. If an Agnostic person wants to self identify that way, who cares but them? My understanding of agnosticism is that they just don't know if there is a god or not. Seems like a logical place to be. Why do some of them not want to self identify as an Atheist? I suspect they've met or heard enough really idiotic Atheists? Beats me.

[OREZ]

There is no atheist community. We are all fragmented, scattered around with nothing holding us together. We don't meet weekly to discuss atheist issues, whatever those would be. As such, no atheist speaks on behalf of atheists so, I'm unclear how some Atheist community would be trying to label people.

Sure seems like there is a number of online atheist communities. Does that not count in your opinion?

I’ve met and talked to atheists in person who seem to truly have a simple “lack of belief” (as most modern atheist claim to have) and for the most part they seem quite indifferent to discussions about God or religion or being a part of an atheist community whatsoever, however the internet warrior atheists are not among them. Those ones all seem to be followers of guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. They haul out all the same old arguments and the same questions (almost verbatim) and they often quote the same websites to support their positions. Seems pretty much like any other online community to me with members who never stray very far from the accepted narrative.

It’s not a coincidence that the same arguments and the same insults are made time and time again right here on this forum and other sites in the comments section or forums on the internet. They’re all reading from the same script and it’s glaringly obvious. They're not people whom I would call free thinkers at any rate and they don't seem "fragmented" with "nothing holding (them) together." I consider the online meetings on forums and message boards no different from meetings in person and it is abundantly clear that this is happening every day, not just once or twice a week.

[fluffy]

First point.
Not believing in something and caring about it at all are very different things. yes.
Do you not believe in flying teapots or do you just not care. Whether you care or not, do you believe that flying teapots exist? If you don't believe they exist, but just don't care about the issue at all, you're still in the same boat as those of us who see no evidence that they exist. You're playing games with words and definitions here. Not only that, but Atheist, Theist and agnostic are all words used by people to self identify. Not everyone who believes in god beliefs in the same things, nor does every atheist.

Second point.
There is no atheist community. We are all fragmented, scattered around with nothing holding us together. We don't meet weekly to discuss atheist issues, whatever those would be. As such, no atheist speaks on behalf of atheists so, I'm unclear how some Atheist community would be trying to label people.

Third point.
What Agnostic community? Is there such a thing? Do they have some agnostic book they can reference? Do they meet up frequently? I'm confused why you suggest community in either group. If an Agnostic person wants to self identify that way, who cares but them? My understanding of agnosticism is that they just don't know if there is a god or not. Seems like a logical place to be. Why do some of them not want to self identify as an Atheist? I suspect they've met or heard enough really idiotic Atheists? Beats me.

Now who's playing with words? Go ahead and pull up a dictionary definition of "Atheist" and post it here. Just for fun, let's use any definition but the Oxford Dictionary definition as the ambiguity built into that one is part and parcel of this discussion. And substitute any word you like for "community", I am talking about groups of people with similar beliefs or disbeliefs.

PS: Having never thought about flying teapots makes me non-committal one way or the other, doesn't it?

[Farmmaa]

Sure seems like there is a number of online atheist communities. Does that not count in your opinion?

I’ve met and talked to atheists in person who seem to truly have a simple “lack of belief” (as most modern atheist claim to have) and for the most part they seem quite indifferent to discussions about God or religion or being a part of an atheist community whatsoever, however the internet warrior atheists are not among them. Those ones all seem to be followers of guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. They haul out all the same old arguments and the same questions (almost verbatim) and they often quote the same websites to support their positions. Seems pretty much like any other online community to me with members who never stray very far from the accepted narrative.

It’s not a coincidence that the same arguments and the same insults are made time and time again right here on this forum and other sites in the comments section or forums on the internet. They’re all reading from the same script and it’s glaringly obvious. They're not people whom I would call free thinkers at any rate and they don't seem "fragmented" with "nothing holding (them) together." I consider the online meetings on forums and message boards no different from meetings in person and it is abundantly clear that this is happening every day, not just once or twice a week.

I've seen these same accusations many times here and I can tell you with 100% accuracy that I don't know a single atheist who is a 'follower' of any of these 'internet warriors'.
I've been accused of the exact same thing and I've never read any of their books, watched more than a snippet of any internet videos or listened to any of their talks. I don't belong to any of their internet communities and nor does anyone else I know.

So, why then would there be a similar 'narrative' ?
More than likely for the very same reasons that you will hear the exact same arguments, narratives and explanations about Christianity from most Christians....information is gathered from the same basic source about the same general subject - therefore the narratives will be very similar.

I've never read from any atheist script. Never had anyone tell me what I should think or believe.
But, just like these so called atheist warriors, my opinions are based on the religious ideologies we have all been raised around.
Some people believe what they read, believe what they are taught and think that gods and religions are positive, helpful influences.
Others read the same book, hear the same tales, learn about the same religions and see nothing but man made myths that are anything but healthy for society. Many of us are not neutral - in that we not only do not believe, but we see it all as being harmful.
Personal opinion based on observation and a lifetime of learning and education.....but the study material is pretty much the same for all of us, therefore our views tend to be similar.
That doesn't mean that we listen to what others say, nor do we mimic their opinions on the subject.
We just all so happened to come to the same general conclusions with all of the information we have gathered over the years.

[Nomaster]

"I have never read from an atheist script. Never had anyone tell me what I should think or believe."

Well said!

If I'm told to believe some claim I'll look to reason to figure it out for myself.

[OREZ]

"I have never read from an atheist script. Never had anyone tell me what I should think or believe."

Well said!

If I'm told to believe some claim I'll look to reason to figure it out for myself.

Really? So you have physics and biology and philosophy degrees and you can just figure it all out for yourself?

[Nomaster]

Comparative Religions should be taught.

Then believers could truly see where religions come from.


Man's Vivid Imagination!