16
   

Religious and Atheist.

 
 
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 10:17 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Athiest- one who denies or does not believe in a religious entity.
Perhaps I should include the term agnostic so more people would be covered.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 03:07 pm
@rosborne979,
That's a very interesting question, and i don't know that they do anything to follow it up--at least no Ipsos-Reid. I-R is doing telephone polling, which means they call between 1400 and 1500 people already identified for demographic sampling, and then ask a series of questions and record the answers. Pew Research, however, does do a more "in-depth" type of sampling, and about every ten years, back-up their polling data with long form, written questionnaires. There is provision for people to write comments, and as i understand it, Pew uses those to refine the questions they ask in their normal telephone polling. I don't know, i'm just speculating, but that may explain how these polls came to ask people who report a religious affiliation whether or not they believe in god. You can click here to visit Pew's page on Religion and Public Life.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 05:37 am
@rosborne979,
Dara O'Briain sums up being a Catholic Atheist quite well.

0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 09:11 pm
I haven't kept track, but there are certainly some folks with strong opinions, both ways. No problem with that, their choice. I like the threads where there is honest, thought provoking discussion. And there have been a few. If you want open discussion, why wouldn't you want a 50/50 split?
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 09:40 pm
@IRFRANK,
I guess that makes sense... if you like arguing for its own sake.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Aug, 2013 07:48 pm
@Logicus,
You must have missed the part about honest, thought provoking discussion. Are you looking for a consensus or revelation?
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Aug, 2013 08:52 pm
@IRFRANK,
A bit of both, though revelation I hold more value in.
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 06:15 am
@Logicus,
That is where we are different. My observation is that revelation is not necessarily accurate. It is more of an emotional acceptance and loss of doubt. I see the revelation in a revival and a political convention as much the same mechanism. Humans are pack animals and naturally drawn to groups. But, I can see revelation as a deeply personal thing also. As long as it doesn't suspend sound reasoning. Some people believe the earth is three thousand years old. The truth has been revealed to them. I don't see that kind of revelation as honest or valuable. So, critical thinking cannot be tossed aside.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 06:51 am
@Logicus,
My answer to the question is almost the same as the one Thomas gave...except where he wrote:

Quote:
My non-scientific guess, based on 10 years of discussions on A2K, is that it's about 50:50 between atheists and theists. And I know a lot of theists who refrain from arguing the theist side of a disagreement because they perceive the controversy as hostile. (Which it often, but not always, is.)...

...I would have written:

Quote:
...My non-scientific guess, based on 10 years of discussions on A2K, is that it's about 50:50 between theists and non-theists. And I know a lot of theists who refrain from arguing the theist side of a disagreement because they perceive the controversy as hostile. (Which it often, but not always, is.)


That would better take into consideration the people who are not theists, but who do not consider themselves to be atheists.





igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 07:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
There's no such thing...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 09:43 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

There's no such thing...


Are you talking about my thing or your thing?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 10:08 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

There's no such thing... (as something other than a theist or an atheist).


Are you talking about my thing or your thing?


There are those that believe there is a god/s.

There are those that don't agree with those theists.

There is no other alternative because one either agrees of disagrees with theists because one cannot do both.

Conclusion: there are either theists or atheists... and no other alternative.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 10:27 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

There's no such thing... (as something other than a theist or an atheist).


Are you talking about my thing or your thing?


There are those that believe there is a god/s.

There are those that don't agree with those theists.

There is no other alternative because one either agrees of disagrees with theists because one cannot do both.

Conclusion: there are either theists or atheists... and no other alternative.


Really?

Thank you, igm, I really needed a good laugh today. You provided it.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 10:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

There's no such thing... (as something other than a theist or an atheist).


Are you talking about my thing or your thing?


There are those that believe there is a god/s.

There are those that don't agree with those theists.

There is no other alternative because one either agrees of disagrees with theists because one cannot do both.

Conclusion: there are either theists or atheists... and no other alternative.


Really?

Thank you, igm, I really needed a good laugh today. You provided it.


Frank... not even giving a reason... you just make a comment and that's good enough.... what's illogical about what I've said?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 10:51 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

There's no such thing... (as something other than a theist or an atheist).


Are you talking about my thing or your thing?


There are those that believe there is a god/s.

There are those that don't agree with those theists.

There is no other alternative because one either agrees of disagrees with theists because one cannot do both.

Conclusion: there are either theists or atheists... and no other alternative.


Really?

Thank you, igm, I really needed a good laugh today. You provided it.


Frank... not even giving a reason... you just make a comment and that's good enough.... what's illogical about what I've said?




You are asserting something. I am asserting the opposite.

You prove your assertion is logical if you want...don't put the onus on me.

And if you are going to use that "theist means x"...and "a-theist" means the opposite...you ought really to consider the dozens upon dozens of times that ridiculous argument has been used in this forum and reduced to pulp.

But...you may have something else. So...fire your best volley.

I return fire after I see you defend your original assertion.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 12:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Blah... blha... blha...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 12:20 am
When I first saw the topic, the first thing I thought of was are there 'religions' that are atheistic. Not counting Madeline O' Hare, the only group I can think of is Ethical Culture. They do not specify atheism as a doctrine; rather they have developed am ethical rationale without connection to any deity. I find them interesting.

I have long wondered why I don't see info about them in these fora. You can get info by Googling Ethical Culture.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 01:31 am
@neologist,
I think you don't see it because this forum has few so-called strong atheists, and none of them are the proselytizing type of atheist. In my experience of this place, people who don't believe in god don't go around touting their lack of belief, and urging it on others. Most atheists here making statements are being reactive, such as in response to those theists who claim that atheists are amoral or immoral.

I found this summation from Religious-Tolerance-dot-org very interesting:

Quote:
"Atheism" has many meanings, all of which are related to an absence of belief in the existence of a god, a goddess, gods, goddesses, or combinations of supernatural entities. The term "Atheism" is ambiguous by itself; it really requires a modifier -- as in "strong Atheist," "weak Atheist," "apathetic Atheist." etc. in order to accurately refer to a specific belief.

Among the general population, the most common meaning of the word "Atheist" describes what many would call "a strong Atheist:" a person who definitely asserts that all the thousands or tens of thousands of god(s), goddess(es), ghosts, demons, Satans, angels, etc. do not exist. The concept of such deities and semi-deities are all created by humans.

The most common meaning among Atheists themselves refers to a weak, negative, soft, or skeptical Atheist: one who simply lacks a belief in and knowledge of any supernatural entities whatsoever.

A common belief among conservative Christians is that a person chooses to be an Atheist for only one reason: if they were to believe in a God they would need to follow that God's moral code as he/she has revealed to humanity. That may be a true assessment for some Atheists, but I have never met any who would fit that description. Most are offended by the suggestion. All the Atheists that I have communicated with, including my spouse, assert that they have been forced to become Atheists on purely logical grounds. They see no evidence for such being(s) and they see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to themselves, they cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and other goddesses and gods of antiquity.


The beginning of the last paragraph suggests both that there can be no "moral" or ethical conduct without a god, and that atheists are atheists because they would avoid the restraint of a moral code. I also found interesting the assertion that the majority of atheists are the so-called "weak" atheists--those who do not assert that there is no god, but who just don't believe it.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 06:31 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I also found interesting the assertion that the majority of atheists are the so-called "weak" atheists--those who do not assert that there is no god, but who just don't believe it.


Would that not be an agnostic?

Atheist - Believes (asserts) there is no god or God.

Agnostic - Does not believe one way or the other.

Theist - Does believe.

Haven't we kicked this around a few times before?

igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 06:40 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
I also found interesting the assertion that the majority of atheists are the so-called "weak" atheists--those who do not assert that there is no god, but who just don't believe it.


Would that not be an agnostic?

Atheist - Believes (asserts) there is no god or God.

Agnostic - Does not believe one way or the other.

Theist - Does believe.

Haven't we kicked this around a few times before?



You don't need the word 'agnostic' because that is just a 'weak' form of atheist - as explained in the quote. You are either a theist or you're not and if you're not you're an atheist. Simply abandoning the belief in god/s is all that is required to be an atheist it makes the term agnostic redundant.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:02:56