Atheism

Any survey has its design issues.

Sure, and that says nothing about the prospect of "proving" that atheists are left of center. It's also what i've been saying in my last few posts.

Good to know we can agree on something.

This doesn't surprise me, even a bit.

They can't fight the fight because they have no ground to stand upon except that of calling their opponents schmucks and trolls and that only has traction with the completely stupid who, by definition, don't matter.

And thinking they are fighting the fight when they are not is consistent with the audience they are addressing.

I read you became an atheist? Since when???

Since I could get a hard on.

I'm surprised, Olivier, that you thought you was in agreement with Setanta. Your respective remarks were not the same. He meant any specific atheist could not be proved to be a leftie. You meant the tendency in the general case.

In my experience you are both right but not in the same way. His words were a verbal trick.

I was kidding. Set and I have a way to always find ourselves on the opposite sides of A2K debates.

You're a legend in your own mind.

ros, I just wonder how they arrived at those conclusions? Any research available?

That dovetails with my experience.

Olive Tree gave the source when he posted that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html

The biggest fallacy on this thread is that Atheists are not religious. It is easy enough to disprove, many atheists, including myself, self-identify as religious.

It is funny to me that the mere mention of the connection between Atheism and religion sends some people into a frenzy.... however if this were not the case, this thread would be a hell of a lot shorter.

It only this weren't such a dogmatic issue...

Anybody has the option to identify as religious. Its a personal, not obligatory, position. I tried to fit into that mold a few times, in a younger day. Finally accepted that its not a necessary part of life.

And... anyone has the option to identify as non-religious. What's the point?

I know fundamentalists Christians who believe that Jesus' return is imminent and base their life on that fact who identify as non-religious.

After all, if you are living according to reality then you aren't religious, are you?


http://philippians1v21.wordpress.com/why-believe-in-jesus/why-christianity-is-not-a-religion/

Can you clarify? In what sense are you religious, if you don't believe in god(s)?

I call myself a Christian atheist because I remain attached to the values I read in the Gospels, even though I don't buy the mythology in there, the miracles, etc.

Bering a religious atheist is like f*cking for chastity.

Number definition of religion in a google search:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

From Dictionary-dot-com:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This is the number one definition of dogma:

1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

***********************************************

Atheists are people who don't believe something, not members of a group who holds a specific set of beliefs. To speak of dogmatic atheists is an absurdity. Max can babble about people going into a frenzy, but that's bullsh*t, too, because she cannot see or hear us when we post. The only emotional response she evokes in me is contempt, especially contempt for her piss-poor language skills.

Your posts read like double talk to my uneducated mind.

The amount that this upsets you, Setanta, is interesting. If this were simply something you disagreed with then you would just let it go (and I wouldn't have anything to do here). But your objection to the mere idea that Atheism is connected to religious belief is so fervent and so fanatic that you can't let it go even after thousands of words on the subject.

If you can consider this rationally, let me explain.

Do you have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe? Many Atheists do... I certainly do. My belief in the sacredness of human life, or my wonder when I see my children or look up at the stars and realize the miracles that fill life.

You clearly have a system of beliefs that you hold with ardor and it is clear that you have a set of principles that you hold to be incontrovertibly true.

Even you, although you don't believe in God, meet at least some of the characteristics of religion.

Your contempt is a much of a sign of religiosity as anything else. Anyone who challenges your set of dogmatic beliefs feels the scorn one would expect from the most fundamentalist monotheist cleric.

It doesn't upset me, that's just a paltry and pathetic tactic on your part to cast what i write in a pejorative light, and to pretend that i'm emotional and irrational, while you are the calm voice of sweet reason. Nothing cold be further from the truth. I've just been pointing out how you butcher language, apparently in a pathetic attempt to claim some kind of authority on this subject. I see no reason to consider you an authority on any subject.

You continue that puerile tactic by using terms such as fervent and fanatic--when in fact, you have no idea about my beliefs at all. Once again, since it doesn't seem to sink in with you, i'm an atheist because of what i don't believe, not because of any belief i hold.

I frankly don't believe that you are in fact an atheist. You speak of miracles and what is sacred. There is nothing sacred and there are no miracles--anyone proposing that anything is sacred or that there is such a thing as a miracle has assumed a burden of proof. I don't see you even attempting to meet that burden.

This:



. . . is pure bullsh*t. You have no idea what i believe, nor whether i believe anything with ardor. You have no basis to make such a crackpot statement. About the only thing i hold to be incontrovertibly true is that language only functions when people use the same definitions for words. You butcher that just about every time you post.