It belongs right in the face of the defender of the faith. it is worse when a priest buggers a alterboy because your faith makes you trust them more. I expect more from the clergy. They are not judged just like other people.
Because you do not see a majority does not mean one exists. I think it is overwhelming.
My beef is that we athiests can’t get te plural form of “beef” correct. It should be “beeves”.
It is at the heart of several different ongoing disputes.
[ol][li]There are people who insist that atheism is simply a “different” form of religion, because “Atheists believe in no god.”[/li]
[li]People who posit that atheists have a religion often go one step further and insist that atheists, in promoting their “religion,” attempt to impose their “beliefs” on society.[/li]
[li]There are people who insist that atheism cannot be a belief or a belief system because it is merely the denial of one tenet of other systems and has no underlying systemic belief of its own.[/li]
[li]There are a tiny number of people who insist on proclaiming the third point while engaging in behavior that looks very much like the accusation made in the second point.[/ol][/li]
Beyond that, there is a linguistic squabble: the word agnostic is less than two hundred years old, but it has already picked up a popular meaning that differs from the formal meaning with which it was coined. The word agnostic is often used in casual conversation to convey the meaning noted as “soft atheist” in most of these discussions when it actually (originally and formally) had a separate meaning. So there is a group (of unknown size) comprising soft atheists and language purists who are offended by the misuse of the word agnostic and the only way for them to convey the error that offends them is to make sure that others are aware of the distinction between agnosticism and soft atheism, (which, of course, requires and understanding of hard and soft atheism).
In discussions around this Forum and the Pit, there are frequent assertions that the “religious” nature of atheists is every bit as much an agenda-driven desire for proselytization as any effort carried out by a devout Christian missionary,
Such assertions necessarily raise objections among those atheists who do not hold strong beliefs about a god in which they do not believe and among atheists who feel (with certain justification) that they are being falsely labeled.
Unfortunatley, there are a few atheists who behave as though they did, indeed, have a belief system that they needed to share with the world–made more confusing when they insist (in contradiction of their behavior), that the system which they preach is not a system.
I just don’t get the fact that hard atheism is controversial and yet hard “dragonism” or hard :fairyism" is not. Why should the absence of any evidence be a controversial basis for a belief in the non-existence of something? It’s not as if the hard atheist asserts knowledge that no god exists. Until evidence comes to light, that should be the default belief, shouldn’t it?
This is off topic and irrelevant to a discussion of atheism. If you have to rant on, open up a new thread and stop hijacking this one.
Religion is very controversial, even amongst practictioners who consider themselves all of the same group.
I don’t get why folks claim people of faith “get a free pass”, because when it comes to debating social issues, those of faith are indeed asked to justify their position on the issue at hand. (And I have no problem with asking someone to explain why they feel “x” should be illegal/legal, and to explore that logic.)
It’s slightly flawed logic, I think.
I have never seen evidence of life on other planets. By that same logic, I would be concluding then that life on other planets does not exist.
No, the default conclusion should be “unproven”, logically.
Actually, you have seen evidence for life on other planets: life on this planet. If it could happen here, then in theory, it could happen somewhere else.
“If I can make it there
I’ll make it anywhere
. . .”
It’s belief we’re talking about here, not conclusions. At the end of the day, the believer in the existence of life in another planet would have to put up or shut up with the evidence. The believer in the non-existence of life in other planets can still legitimately point to the non-existence of evidence for his beliefs. When evidence points to its presence, the believer in the non-existence of life can change his mind without contradiction and without shame.
As far as the burden of proof goes, I don’t see any significant difference between a non-believer in the existence of life in another planet and a believer in non-existence.
Hmmp. My analogy’s always suck. I was gonna say “I have never seen evidence of UFO’s…”, but I didnt want to seem kookish.
Actually, aren’t there mathmeticians who trot out formulas for the possibility of life, based on the number of stars, the presumed number of planets, and so on, and state that because of the sheer size of the Universe, life elswhere is a statisical certainty?
I didn’t say “burden of proof”. I was speaking about the “burden of logic”.
I have never seen proof of “x”, so “x” does not exist. Not a true logical argument, I think. It should be: “I have never seen “x”, so “x” is unproven.” Subtle difference. Maybe too subtle for practicle purposes, like holding down a job…
IMHO, besides what tomndebb said, I believe that one purpose is to “divide and conquer”. It’s a discussion/propaganda/political technique designed to divide and weaken a group that’s aready small.
Which doesn’t really mean anything. Something is not false just because it hasn’t been proved true.
I think the board would have to take a census. Many do not contribute at all ,just read. But. as for contributors ,I think the majority are godists.
Your opinion, however, is directly contradicted by the two threads (with admittedly unscientific polling) that have already been linked in this discussion.
I just clicked on the response count, grabbed the names of respondents to this thread, and did a very hasty (so, probably, error laden) assignment into the categories “believer,” “non-believer,” and “I can’t remember.” I suspect that the majority of the “I can’t remember” folks are not believers, but I did not want to skew the numbers, so I di not arbitrarily give them “n” codes.
Note that the number of “b” and “?” posters combined is fewer than the number of non-believers. (And “belief” is pretty fluid, here. Several of the believers would not walk into a church if not dragged in as weding guests.) Even if my sorting is pretty bad, the idea that “godists” are overwhelming anyone else has no basis in reality.
(Apologies to anyone I sorted into the wrong group.)
32 non-believers
13 believers
13 unknown
b - tomndebb 10
n - Kimstu 6
n - Diogenes the Cynic 5
n - Miller 5
b - Liberal 5
n - gonzomax 4
n - Uzi 4
? - Jackmannii 3
n - Der Trihs 3
n - Pushkin 3
b - mswas 3
n - dennis gallagher 3
b - Martin Hyde 3
b - AHunter3 2
? - Priceguy 2
n - Revenant Threshold 2
b - IntelSoldier 2
n - GLWasteful 2
n - John Mace 2
n - Apos 2
b - Thudlow Boink 2
b - cosmosdan 2
n - Princhester 2
b - Omegaman 1
n - tagos 1
n - Pochacco 1
n - Vinyl Turnip 1
n - Qadgop the Mercotan 1
n - Yllaria 1
n - Carbon-neutral Lifeform 1
n - Anaamika 1
? - bluethree 1
n - Mosier 1
? - MrDibble 1
? - amelioration 1
n - I Love Me, Vol. I 1
n - hotflungwok 1
n - Beaucarnea 1
b - Zoe 1
? - panache45 1
n - eleanorigby 1
n - Least Original User Name Ever 1
? - LOUIS CYPHERE 1
? - Larry Borgia 1
n - madmonk28 1
b - Mangetout 1
n - truthpizza 1
? - kaylasdad99 1
? - SoCalled 1
n - Cervaise 1
b - JThunder 1
? - mlees 3
n - Anduril 2
b - LilShieste 2
n - Sunrazor 1
? - the PC apeman 1
? - Captain Amazing 1
n - jsgoddess 1
You can put me down as agnostic/believer.
I will speak for myself, but I think some, if not all, of the beeves (snerk) listed in the OP come from atheists that conflate their own personal experience with the Christianity they grew up with to the Christian community as a whole. Whether or not liberal Christian Dopers think that Christians of a certain ilk, be they Creationists, Literalists, Flat Earthers, Snake Handlers, or whatever, are a small minority they are still the Christians that provided the theism that the atheist ultimately rejected.
That’s a really excellent point, FordPerfect. I’ve tried to explain it to people before, but not very successfully. The God I rejected before was nothing like the God I worship today. And He’s nothing like the way He was described to me (except for trivial coincidences, like being omnipotent and such).
I’ve tried to explain that to many Christians before, and they often get angry and accuse you of believing that because you are 1) stupid or 2) wicked, apparently being totally oblivious to how they just fulfilled the stereotype you are trying to make them aware of.