Ask the Atheist.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

Being raised in a multiethnic/multireligious family usually

means you are raised with no ethnic identity and no religion.

But when one of the major ones is Buddhism, another one is

Jehovah’s Witness, and another is Roman Catholic…

My father’s mother was Jehovah’s Witness; she married a Soto

Zen Buddhist. My mother’s mother was Shingon Buddhist; she

married a Roman Catholic.

Now Christians are funny, in that they are not particularly

tolerant of other religions. My mother’s mother wasn’t

allowed to practice her religion although my grandfather was

a lapsed Catholic. My father’s mother wouldn’t allow pagan

things in her house, not that it mattered. This grandfather

just did his thing at the local mission.

On the other hand, Buddhists tend to live and let live. They

believe in the multiplicity of God. The Christian God/Christ

is but another manifestation of what the Buddha is.

Thus, my father is a most irreligious man and my mother

doesn’t consider herself to be Catholic.

Now, we kids, like our parents, have attended to church

services over the years, but belong to no church.

Do I believe in God, yes, but my views are so

non-denominational that most Christians would consider me

athiest. I don’t believe that there exist things that are

sacred or holy. Priests are just weird smelly men. But I do revere the beliefs and practices of others out of respect but not personal belief.

82

I’m a deist (lower case d intentional). Can we still hang out?

83

My wife and I are both atheists and we’re pretty “out” about it. We’re raising our children as atheists as well. Our approach is to tell them as much about different religious experiences as possible, but put them all on the same footing. Greek & Egyptian gods, Judaism and Christianity all get lumped into the same category of “Some people believed/believe these things. They’re not really true, but aren’t they good stories!”

84

Lobsang,

Evolution used to sound good to me too. I learned evolution in college and still most of it was based on theory. It was actually my first religion. I was not raised in any faith. I never actually gave it much thought either. I figured it really did not matter how I got here and when your dead your dead. But still I never said I was an atheist or that I did not believe in God. I always stayed open to the possibility. So I was just wondering what sort of answers would you give yourself when wondering how the earth was formed. Or, back even farther to the universe itself?

85

Evolution IS a theory. This sounds like another one of those cases where the term ‘theory’ isn’t being understood right. A theory isn’t a guess, it’s ‘the best explanation for the events we’ve observed.’ Evolution is that, and has been for a long time. There isn’t even a competing theory as far as I know.

I’m trying to figure out how that’s possible.

Evolution has nothing to do with any of those things.
I don’t think it’s any great mystery how the Earth was formed, not that I’m the best person to explain how solar systems coalesce and planets form. The universe… well, I think some people are working on it. :wink: I fail to see how this would make you think evolution doesn’t add up.

86

Well, it is wonderful to meet you too. You are just full of sunshine this morning!

To some evolution is a religion. It’s their answer to the great unknown. Some people will try to explain their views on Christianity and/or their particular beliefs only to get shot down with some sort of theoryor explantion from a scince book.

As a young college student finally coming out of a “hazy” high school experience, I believed evolution to be a form(religion) of some sort of answer to the questions I had always wondered. (Where did we come from?)

87

Well, if their particular beliefs involve a claim that is addressable by science, like that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, or that the human race was created in a single event, etc., then one could shoot them down with scientific evidence.

But if you’re talking about a belief in God or a belief about the meaning of life, well, arguing about these things is not a valid application of science.

Can you be more specific about the sort of beliefs you’re talking about?

Science can answer some of the questions about where we came from, but obviously not all of them.

As an atheist (and, incidentally, an astronomer) I’m more comfortable saying we don’t know yet to important questions about how life began on Earth and what came “before” the Big Bang or what “caused” the Big Bang than having a pat answer (Goddidit) that isn’t based on any evidence. No matter how many details we work out about abiogenisis and cosmology, there will always be lingering questions. That’s just a fact of life for us imperfect, finite humans. But I have seen how science operates, and I believe it is the best method we have to address these questions. Of course, there are other questions, like what is the meaning of human life, and how should I treat my neighbors, which simply cannot be addressed by science because their answers do not have to be falsifiable.

Believing blindly in science and attempting to apply science to non-scientific questions does pervert science into a quasi-religion. Luckily, I think most people know that science is about doubting and questioning, not a way to get easy answers to hard questions.

88

Another confirmed athiest weighing in:

I see religion as a weird and implausible belief system that appeared over time to comfort people and provide some sort of answers.

But it’s easier for me to imagine that there is an elephant hiding behind my back than that there is a God who controls the universe and has a plan for me. After all, there have been elephants behind me before, whenever I visited the elephant pen at a zoo and then walked away. There’s no absolute limit to how quiet and stealthy an elephant could be, et cetera.

I believe in the natural world, the physical world. Not the supernatural (above nature or not part of nature). I don’t see any evidence of any gods, and I don’t see any reason to expect them.

The physical world is loaded with mysteries, some of which will gradually yield to human understanding. But I have studied relativity and quantum mechanics enough to realize that parts of them are barely within my grasp and other parts just need a higher power brain than I have. And I suppose that the truths about the real physical world include more and more difficult to understand details, in a sort of seamless carpet of abstraction and complexity, which no humans will ever understand. While I have differential calculus down pretty well, I know our cats will never get it - and why should the underlying structure of the world stop getting harder to understand just in time for it all to be within human grasp? There must be things that are like calculus to cats, and things beyond them, and so forth.

So much of this stuff might just as well be called magic, for all I can grasp. That doesn’t mean I believe in magic. I think of religion as a sort of humanization of something that is beyond our knowledge or beyond our ability to grasp. There are descriptions of “God” as the order that drives the universe, or similarly vague things. I might not be an athiest, if somebody else gets to define what “God” means.

But what I mean by God is the sort of omnipotent power that entails otherwise human or animal components like will and opinion and intention. I think that covers Charleton Heston as well as some of the more vague versions.

One last thought. I think religion is ethically wrong, because it provides an incorrect answer to something that should be very important, and therefore compromises the decision making of all its adherents. For example, some religions hold that their followers should try to impose their beliefs on me, and limit what I can do, so that their followers get a reward in an afterlife. Naturally, I think the followers would do that in error, and hurt us all in the process. Of course there may be some things that religion teaches that may be helpful, but I think generally the less accurate one’s beliefs are, the poorer one’s decisions will be.

89

1." Religion is the opiate of the masses":
B. True with regards to organized religions, False with regard to individual beliefs
More accurately, it often functions as a comfort, and maybe that’s its main reason for being.

  1. Abortion is:
    A. A medical procedure. I disagree with any type of regulation put upon it.
    But practically I see it’s difficult to draw a single line between complete choice for the mother, and murder, at any single time. This is an issue that needs alot of work. There’s nothing sacred about life, though, and nothing magical about conception or birth. Even abstinence dooms human eggs and sperm to death.

  2. Capital Punishment for 1st Degree Murderers is:
    B. Sometimes necessary
    I like what it does to reduce recidivism, but don’t like how hard it is to undo in the event of new evidence.

  3. As a general rule, athiests tend to be:
    A. More intelligent than theists
    Sorry - no offense meant. And one of my smartest friends is devout.

  4. As a general rule, theists tend to be:
    A. Less independent thinkers than atheists.

  5. If I were to come across an elderly nun standing at an intersection:
    C. I’d be more likely to help her. Even though I don’t share her faith, I do note the good she tries to do for others.

  6. If a huge scientific discovery was made that literally shook the faith of the world’s theists, I forsee:
    B. Very little conversion or change in theist’s faith.
    The question is worded almost equivalently to “if the thiest’s faith were shaken, their faith would be shaken”. It’s more interesting to answer the question of what would happen if some discovery that should shake their faith occurred. I think this has happened again and again, and religions typically adjust to keep the faithful.

  7. I consider my politics:
    B. Close to the US Democrat Party

  8. As a general rule, athiests tend to respect other living things more theists:
    A. True. Because athiets don’t believe in an afterlife and cherish it more on Earth.
    More specifically, athiests never kill people because of religious beliefs. The world’s religions share alot of blood on their hands, after all.

  9. I see my atheism as:
    A. A system of beliefs and tenets that I share with fellow atheists.
    B. An individual belief that I rarely discuss with others
    Well, I’m sharing my beliefs now - but it’s not like I go the Athiests Central down at the mall on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.

90

In this part of town, we call them Starbucks. :stuck_out_tongue:

91

This link might help you understand what is meant by the “theory of evolution” - Talk origins FAQ.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, evolution is not a religion.

92

well, according to most religious documents, <Invisible Person In The Sky> gave Humanity “Free Will” and the permission to use it

assuming someone doesn’t do something inherently wrong (like murder) and simply chooses not to believe in <IPITS>, and it turns out (S)He does exist, why should the nonbeliever be punished for simply excersising their free will

besides if <IPITS> is truly loving, all seeing, and forgiving, they should know a certain percentage of the population would choose not to believe.

93

Honestly? Because I fucking hate the fucking Baby Jesus being fucking shoved down my fucking throat every fucking day by people who don’t even fucking know me. So fuck 'em.

I’m not “playing the role” of angry young man, I really am angry. (Also I’m not that young any more.) I’m a member of a minority group which suffers prejudice and discrimination. Fortunately to me, it’s one of the few of those that doesn’t really affect my earning power, and it’s easy to “pass,” but it’s still a never-ending buzz that surrounds me and which says that I’m not normal and that I have to defend my weird and outrageous beliefs. But my beliefs aren’t outrageous, they’re right.

I will remove my fish when I stop seeing the ichthus on people’s cars. But for now, enough people have used it to shove their self-righteousness in my face that I don’t feel bad about shoving mine back in theirs. Of all the atheists I have met, every one of us knows that we’re the minority. Of all the Christians I’ve met, the majority never even consider that there are non-Christians among them. Maybe you can’t figure out why someone needs to be pro or con, but there are so many people out there who feel the need to broadcast that they’re pro, we have to show that they aren’t the only ones around.

I really don’t get why the symbolism of the ichthus makes it off limits – this is specifically a symbol that people put on their cars. Seems to make it fair game to me.

Sounds good, but I’ve only got the one car.

–Cliffy

94

Wow! You’d think I went and asked where the Susquahana Hat Company was!

As I’d prefaced before asking, I’m not a religious person. Cliffy was the 1st person I’ve ever asked about exhibiting a Darwin Fish (walking Ichthus). Having heard the response, I guess I’m lucky I never asked someone face to face.

But babies are so cuuuute. Seriously, if you try to accept a ‘live and let live philosophy’ - and consider it a non-religous credo - your days might be filled with less angst and anxiety.

We can all lay claim to being a member of at least one minority group. Try taking a step back & looking at things from another perspective. Treat people as individuals - not as members of a group.

Such strongly held convictions are usually reserved for the most devout theists - or radical ideologues.

The fact you interpret an Ichthus (or Baby Jesus for that matter) as people shoving their ‘self-righteousness in your face’ might give others the impression you have a persecution complex. Does this ‘in my face rule’ apply to other religious symbols; steeple tops, necklaces, et al.? As I stated when first asking about your ‘Walking Darwin Fish’, it can very easily be construed as mocking other’s beliefs (as opposed to symbolizing your own) because of the fact it’s taking someone else’s original icon - twists it, mocks it and bastardes it.

95

I love this line of argument from the anti-Darwinfish people.

When a Christian puts a fish on his car, why, he don’ mean nothin’ by it! He’s not tryin’ be all in-your-face about his religion! Far from it. Why, it’s nothin’ but a harmless little fishie! Why on earth do y’all get all worked up over it? Pish, tosh!

[Deep breath. Begin paragraph two.]

And you, you with your spiteful Darwinfish, you turn around and denegrate and mock their deeply meaningful symbol! How dare you? Have you no concern for their feelings?!? You heartless beast!

Well, which is it? Either:

A) Christians places a fish symbol on their cars to make a powerful statement to the world. Non-Christians might be provoked by this into making a contradictory statement which may be offensive to the fish-bearers.

B) A Christian placing a fish symbol on their car is not trying to say anything to anybody. A parody of that fish is therefore similarly trivial and unimportant.

Obviously it’s not exactly black-and-white, but my point is, the anti-Darwinfish camp seems to want it both ways: You have no reason to have a negative emotional reaction to my symbol, but I am deeply offended by yours and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

FTR, I had a parody fish on a past vehicle, mostly 'cause I thought it looked cool. It wasn’t there because I’m angry, but because I thought if certain Christians want to wave their religion around, I am entitled to respond to it in what I thought was an amusing way. I’ve had a Christian or two compliment me on it, and one asked me where I got it because they might get one, so I’m glad to report that not everybody (Christian or atheist) is running around seething with rage over the issue.

96

Ah, another theist telling me how to live my life. That’s just what I need. :rolleyes:

It is impossible to “live and let live” when I can’t even buy a Coke without running into “In God We Trust.”

I don’t say “I’m right” out of faith. I’m right because I’ve spent years thinking about these issues and am convinced that my view is the correct one. True, I don’t have “absolute” knowledge that there’s no intelligence from which we are derived, but it’s indisputable that there’s no god worth worshipping out there, because even if he were to exist, he’d be an object of contempt.

Again, :rolleyes:. I don’t suggest that most Christians shove their beliefs in my face out of spite. Many of them do it out of self-righteousness, and many of the rest do it out of ignorance that anyone thinks differently. I’m not particularly interested in salving the feelings of either of these types of individual. (As for looking at people as individuals, not as groups, I don’t really see how that’s relevant.)

Let’s be clear – it’s meant to mock others’ symbols. So what? It seems pretty obvious to me that if you hold a symbol so sacred that you’ll quail to see it spindled, you shouldn’t use it an a frikkin’ advertisement for your philosophy. Duh!

John, you’re like a million others I’ve talked to who say “What’s the big deal?” The big deal is this – it’s every day. Every day there’s something. And occasionally, I don’t feel like sitting and taking it.

–Cliffy

97

I’ve hung around for years on alt.atheism and talk.origins, and I’ve never met anyone who considered evolution a religion. I’ve met plenty of theists who claim it is, but that is just an attempt to equate creationism with science.

If someone says that their belief is that Jesus is the only way to salvation, they won’t get shot down by science. If they say the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, they will. If they say the sky is purple they will also. Facts is facts.

Yes, it does tell us that, but not why we are here. The Bible and science both give answers to the origin of man, but the scientific answer is backed up by fossils, and the Biblical answer, considered as literal truth and not as a story, is not… Do you have some problem with that? Is science not supposed to provide answers when there are answers if they contradict religion?

Rainbows are explained by the Bible too - but now we know why they are formed. Is optics a religion also?

98

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled the posting of Snell’s Law in courthouses to be unconstitutional.

(Okay, not really. I just get a kick out of saying “Snell” on even the slimmest of pretenses.)

99

Accepting evolution != atheism

Evolution in itself could be the product of intelligent design. But atheism involves far more than a rejection of Noah and the ark. And I get really really really angry when people equate atheism with religions, or with the generic term ‘religion’. It’s fundamentally different. It doesn’t provide answers. In many cases, it simply refuses to provide answers, and says that the questions only exist because we do.

(And evolution doesn’t give an explanation of where we come from. It’s more-or-less OK from single-cell organisms onwards, but doesn’t account for the actual beginning of life. That’s still a puzzle to scientists - and is one of the reasons for the continued fascination with Mars and the desire to explore Jupiter’s moons.)

100

I suppose it could be a “religion” in the same way cargo planes could be “gods” to isolated pacific islanders…