Huh? Which beliefs am I demeaning: that atheists have no values? That’s a character attack and I am completely justified in demeaning that, except I didn’t demean it. I challenged it.
You have yet to explain the paragraph I quoted and the evidence you cited of this alleged atheist culture. I asked you point-blank what any of what you cited has to do with the belief (or lack thereof) of God. You don’t have a factual answer for that because there is no link and a tenuous argument for an atheist culture at best.
Well aren’t you a master of deduction? Do you know me? Oh wait. You don’t. Way to do your research, slick.
Well other than that I never said it, there’s nothing wrong with you misrepresenting my position to suit your prejudice. ;p
You refused to accept the terms as I defined them in my explanation. I answered your question, you just didn’t listen. BTW, did you know I am not a devout Christian? I mean I know many others said it in the thread, but as you don’t really pay attention to what you’re reading I wouldn’t be surprised if you missed it.
Nope I didn’t miss it. Why are you so concerned about the “attack on Christian values” then?
This I must have missed. I saw no explanation for that statement unless it was the part where you said essentially, “I don’t really mean that, it’s *their *perception.” I also didn’t catch who ‘they’ was.
Sorry, I didn’t realize this was Debate Club. Actually, I wasn’t looking for debate, I was looking for an explanation for your asinine statements. It seems I’ve found one though, however circular it seems to be.
checks forum
I guess that means I can assume you are a fucktard.
I hope BEG and mswas will forgive the slight hijack, but I would point out this from CMC’s own cite:
“After the 1960s, a time characterized by widespread use of cannabis as a recreational drug…”
The numbers I was “throwing around” were, as I’m sure you’re aware, illustratory, and the above quote from CMC’s own cite supports them…at least in regard to marijuana.
The reason you can’t find ultimately definitive cites is because the information doesn’t exist in statistical form. Given that my claims are perfectly obvious to anyone who lived throught the era (and who is intellectually honest enough to admit it), I would suggest to you, CMC or anyone else who doesn’t believe it, that you talk to just about anyone you know (or hell, just encounter for that matter) who’s around 60 years old or more and ask them if they didn’t observe drug use explode beginning in the mid-sixties.
Then why are you presuming to speak for me and refusing to acknowledge it when I tell you your interpretation is wrong?
Because it’s an interesting topic. I like understanding what is going on at this point in history.
The explanation was that I was making two separate points about ‘atheist culture’ as in the culture of atheists, by atheists and for atheists, and the atheist culture as in the culture that abandons a relationship with God. The former is an active participation, the other is passive. Atheist meaning, lack in the belief in God.
:rolleyes: This is probably the most irritating thing you’ve said so far. ‘After I’ve spent two days debating, I wasn’t actually interested in debating.’ :rolleyes:
Nzinga, I understand now why you were a bit nonplussed by the responses you read in this thread. After all, the Establishment Clause violations we’ve been talking about here have been going on now for quite a while, so why is it now that nonbelievers are making such a fuss over them? The reason, is of course, that until fairly recently non-Christians were pretty much invisible in American society. I doubt many of them ever liked this so-called ‘ceremonial deism’ (which is really more a thinly-disguised generic Protestantism); but they really weren’t in a position to do anything about it. But over the past two or three decades both the number of atheists and non-Christian believers has risen, and so has awareness of them in the larger American culture. This has triggered a reactionary backlash in some segments of the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian community, but it has also lead to an increased willingness on the part of other Christians to finally listen to complaints about ‘harmless’ practices such as adding religious wording to our money or allowing religious speakers to participate in what should be secular government activities. As more people have come to see the diversity of American religious belief, more of them are willing to agree that ‘ceremonial deism’ really is a violation of the Establishment Clause and ought to be ended. It just makes sense for atheists to make noise now, while it didn’t before.
Not to get in between you two love-birds, but I’m still not tracking with this.
What is this atheist culture that’s by us and for us? About the only thing I think you could attribute that way is the various media (books, films, whatever) that are produced by atheists, about atheism, for atheists. But that’s hardly a culture. I mean, there’s no set rule for what to like, how to live, who to listen to, etc., for Atheists[sup]TM[/sup]
And as far as atheists “who abandon a relationship with God”, I submit that they aren’t atheists at all, but deists who choose not to subscribe to a religion - agnostic at best.
But still … what is the culture? A few common agreed upon things?
I think it’s enough to constitute a culture. It’s really a semantic difference, if you understand what I am saying and disagree that’s fine. But I mean it like there is a film culture, or a rpgamer culture, or a gay culture.
Well that depends on the relevance of God in their lives. For some people it’s just irrelevant. Atheistic in this sense is, ‘without God’.
A great exchange from one of my favorite shows, Brotherhood between Michael Caffey and Freddie Cork:
Freddie: ‘I’m Catholic’
Michael: ‘Do you go to church?’
Freddie: Yeah
Michael: So you believe in God
Freddie: No
Michael: So why do you go to church?
Freddie: Because I’m Catholic (said with a ‘well duh’ kind of expression)
No, that’s just commonality. A culture is something arranged around the common agreed upon things. Atheist culture is nascent, but I still think it’s fair to say there is a culture. PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins posting on each other’s blogs all the time is a culture. They interact with others of like mind, and there are even Atheist bus advertisements. I think it’s fair to say that when you are placing ads on a bus, there is a culture of some kind.
I don’t think culture is a derogatory term. I participate in a few cultures. I am a Massage Therapist, I used to be really into the New York Underground Electronic Music scene. I’m involved in the Burning Man Culture. It’s not a derogatory term.
I quote you verbatim and I ask for clarification. You try to play off your statements as someone else’s perception. I suggest, based on your statements, you may be misunderstanding things but you reply that you’re not and I’m the one who is dense. Then you keep making statements that suggest you do misunderstand things. If I’m wrong, you’ll have to explain what I’m wrong about with more clarity. Explain who/what I’m prejudiced against.
Great. Perhaps you should start with understanding that secular society =/= atheist society; secularism =/= atheism. Godless =/= immoral. Why do I think you don’t understand this? Let me count the ways:
Do tell. What is the moral climate of this atheist culture? What commonalities, other than the lack of belief in God, do atheists share that they don’t share with any other “culture”? How does one separate atheist culture from secular culture…that is specific culture identities that are strictly missing from the secular activities of religious folk?
Again, what is this, in detail: “the culture of atheists, by atheists and for atheists”?
Active participation in what? Abandoning a relationship with God? Wait, no, no that’s the *passive *atheist culture. The active atheist culture is ___________. Fill in the blank. You’ve lost me again.
You know I was irritated with what you were saying, too, until it dawned on me that you, a non-Christian, are defending Christian values to me, an agnostic, defending atheists as a group of people who’s sole distinction is a lack of belief in God, not lack of values.
It’s not been my intention to debate, although I allowed myself to get sucked in. As I noted previously, I now simply want you to own your statements and, well, recognize the disservice your conclusions about ‘atheist culture’ does for your pursuit of understanding.
ETA: Or you could ignore me and just answer what Jack Batty asked.
Group IA: People who call themselves Christians and who don’t snort coke off of hookers’ twats.
Group IB: People who call themselves Christians, but who also do do stuff like snort coke off of hookers’ twats.
Group IIA: People who call themselves atheists, but who do not do stuff like snort coke off of hookers’ twats.
(Presumably there’s also a group IIB, atheists who snort coke off of hookers’s twats, but I doubt most of them care too much when “atheism” and “moral degeneracy” are casually equated.)
The things is, people in Group IA are referring to the behavior of their fellow Group I members as “Oh, that’s so Group II”. This offends the people in Group II, sub-group A, who respond, basically, “Hey, why are you dragging us into this? This is something between you guys over in Group I, nothing to do with us Group IIers. And we’re somewhere between bupkis and maybe 16% of the total population–if you Group I’ers have some kind of moral problem, y’all need to talk amongst yourselves, without dragging us into it.”
See, it’s real easy for people in Group IA (or for mswas, on their behalf) to say “Oh, no true member of Group I would ever do this–those guys are just a bunch of Group II’ers”. But the thing is, Group I is and always has been all over the place. There are and have been Christians preaching theocracy, Christians preaching love and tolerance, Christian preaching the divine right of kings and Christians preaching radical egalitarian revolution, Christians preaching converting the heathen with fire and sword and Christians giving their lives to save the heathens from the rapacity of their fellow Christians.
I don’t know of anyone preaching the gospel of hookers and blow, but there are definitely flashy preachers selling the “prosperity gospel” line. You can say the prosperity gospel is a perversion of the teachings of Christ–hell, I’d agree with you–but don’t put that on me and mine; those of us in Group IIA (self-aware, self-professed atheists) have nothing to do with that, and find those guys almost as sleazy and hypocritical as the Group IA Christians do.
Christians in Group IA need to come up with some other word for the Group IB Christians–I don’t know what, but not “atheistic”–but they need to stop blaming us over here in Group II for the failings of their weaker brethren.
I’d like to thank Gyrate and crowmanyclouds for filling in for me. I have a bad habit of posting before bed. My comments sink into the murk often enough that it hasn’t really bit me before, but this time it did. They were right on the button about my meaning. Wikipedia seems to suggest that opium use was pretty common among people who had access to them. They certainly demonstrate people’s willingness to use drugs without hippie influence. How much influence did hippies really have? They didn’t appear to shorten the Vietnam war any, and free love and anti consumerism didn’t seem to stick very well.
Except that since, by your own admission, you’d made them up, they didn’t illustrate anything except your own subjective view of the world.
Some of it does, although much of that is pieced together after the fact. I wasn’t expecting to find a comprehensive survey of drug use; given that many of the drugs were legal or quasi-legal (in patent medicine form) for many years, the usual sources (police reports and medical records) wouldn’t have been much help.
Now, see, this is an ongoing problem with your arguments - you base them entirely on “This is the world as I see/saw it, and anyone who differs from that view is either lying to themselves or everyone else”. And everyone keeps pointing out that your anecdotal experience, even if entirely accurately recalled, is hardly comprehensive, common to all or a strong basis for an objective argument.
Yes, drug use exploded in the 1960s. But drug use was also widespread in the 1920s. And where drugs weren’t readily available, alcohol abuse was (and has always been) rife. If drug use tends to proliferate during periods of economic prosperity (as in the 20s and in the post-war years), maybe it’s because people have more leisure time and money? You need to sort out your causation and correlation.
And finally, given that a number of my cites actually supported your arguments, I’m not sure why you’re having a go at me, Mister “I don’t need cites - I was there, man!”.
The defining characteristic of an atheist is the lack of any belief in any god. Not knowledge of any kind. It’s important to get these things right.
For example SA’s dumbass statement becomes all the more obviously dumbass when you realise that atheists didn’t sign up for anything. They made no positive decision. They don’t have any particular knowledge. They are simply people who don’t believe something.
It is important. I ,as an Atheist, can’t argue for the existence of a particular god, IPU, or what have you. I can’t prove the non-existence of any type of imaginary being that someone dreams up. What I do have knowledge of is that there hasn’t been a believer in the history of the world who has proven that their particular religion is the one true one, or that their specific god(s) are anything more than their imaginings. The reason I say this is that if someone were capable of reliably proving that their religion and god were the correct god and path then we wouldn’t be having any discussions about atheists or about other gods and religions. Well, except in the context of these people’s mental health for denying reality.
Sorry but since when has a proper definition been “not quite” right because it is universally correct, and since when has it been an “improvement” to add a gloss that doesn’t fit every case, as you yourself say? Yes, some maybe most atheists had a belief in god. That is not a defining characteristic.
An atheist is a person who has a lack of any belief in any god.
