Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

actually i am all of those, but its rather pointless to call myself those labels no?

i dont feel the need to prove or disprove one imaginary being over another. a lot of atheist speaker including Richard Dawkins argue we shouldn't use the label atheist, i partly agree with him but in a world full of theists, its a nice way to bring attention to the discussion.

I use it because its my point of origin from which everything else comes from, in relation to "life".

Someone might try to convince me there is a God. But, not likely they're gonna try to fine tune it into which God.

I also discovered when I stepped completely out of the "God Circle" - - I felt direct responsibility for myself and my actions. When before it was like I was doing everything for someone else and for a reward.

I'm proud of it. I do not bring it up on public, because there is no reason to. It's about me and how I live my life.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

Does that make sense really?

Yes, it makes absolute 100% sense. Because atheism means one thing and one thing only. Lack of belief in a god.

Any thing added to it is a personal belief.

Why does it mean that one thing? Who made that the definition?

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

well if someone asks whats your religion, i can go into a long discussion about the burden of proof and logic and morals, so i use a shortcut.

LOL, I just say: "I don't go there".

So, far its worked. The conversation gets changed and no one questions me further.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

Does that make sense really?

Yes, it makes absolute 100% sense. Because atheism means one thing and one thing only. Lack of belief in a god.

Any thing added to it is a personal belief.

Why does it mean that one thing? Who made that the definition?

Because that's what it means. Simple.

I've already posted my "long post" on what is an atheist. You can go back and read it if you like.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

Does that make sense really?

Yes, it makes absolute 100% sense. Because atheism means one thing and one thing only. Lack of belief in a god.

Any thing added to it is a personal belief.

Why does it mean that one thing? Who made that the definition?

Because that's what it means. Simple.

I've already posted my "long post" on what is an atheist. You can go back and read it if you like.

I did but I don't know why I should accept it any more than the definitions I gave you. Or ones other people use. Is it a because I said so arguement?

a reply to: Anneeatheism.about.com...
www.update.uu.se...
en.m.wikipedia.org...
www.strongatheism.net...

The first one is your source. From Mr. Cline.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

actually i am all of those, but its rather pointless to call myself those labels no?

i dont feel the need to prove or disprove one imaginary being over another. a lot of atheist speaker including Richard Dawkins argue we shouldn't use the label atheist, i partly agree with him but in a world full of theists, its a nice way to bring attention to the discussion.

I use it because its my point of origin from which everything else comes from, in relation to "life".

Someone might try to convince me there is a God. But, not likely they're gonna try to fine tune it into which God.

I also discovered when I stepped completely out of the "God Circle" - - I felt direct responsibility for myself and my actions. When before it was like I was doing everything for someone else and for a reward.

I'm proud of it. I do not bring it up on public, because there is no reason to. It's about me and how I live my life.

that's what i use to do too. do something good in hope for a reward, now i do something good because it makes me feel good and its the right thing to do. much more beautiful than trying to bribe a certain god. i support the superiority of secular morals over religious morals because of this.

its sad that some religious people rather hate and divide instead of promoting charity, and we get called the bad guys, we are the evil ones. that's why i use the label atheism, so promote debate. i LIVE for argument, its like potato chips.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Anneeatheism.about.com...
www.update.uu.se...
en.m.wikipedia.org...
www.strongatheism.net...

The first one is your source. From Mr. Cline.

I'm done with this.

I already told you I only use American Atheist for factual info in regards to Atheism. So, stop the comparing BS.

I do read other stuff for interest - - - but, it does not change my position.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Anneeatheism.about.com...
www.update.uu.se...
en.m.wikipedia.org...
www.strongatheism.net...

The first one is your source. From Mr. Cline.

I'm done with this.

I already told you I only use American Atheist for factual info in regards to Atheism. So, stop the comparing BS.

I do read other stuff for interest - - - but, it does not change my position.

It's bs anytime someone has a different opinion?

You can use whatever definition you want. Your belief is a personal decision. My problem is expecting yours is the only one.

Several times you said atheism is only one thing. You didn't say atheism is only one thing to me.

It's obvious atheism isn't only one thing. Nor does one source account for the complete meaning. Accept to you and the others that read that source. The general consensus seems to be there are at least two main branches of atheism. For good logic based reasons not because theists hate Atheists.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

actually i am all of those, but its rather pointless to call myself those labels no?

i dont feel the need to prove or disprove one imaginary being over another. a lot of atheist speaker including Richard Dawkins argue we shouldn't use the label atheist, i partly agree with him but in a world full of theists, its a nice way to bring attention to the discussion.

I use it because its my point of origin from which everything else comes from, in relation to "life".

Someone might try to convince me there is a God. But, not likely they're gonna try to fine tune it into which God.

I also discovered when I stepped completely out of the "God Circle" - - I felt direct responsibility for myself and my actions. When before it was like I was doing everything for someone else and for a reward.

I'm proud of it. I do not bring it up on public, because there is no reason to. It's about me and how I live my life.

that's what i use to do too. do something good in hope for a reward, now i do something good because it makes me feel good and its the right thing to do. much more beautiful than trying to bribe a certain god. i support the superiority of secular morals over religious morals because of this.

its sad that some religious people rather hate and divide instead of promoting charity, and we get called the bad guys, we are the evil ones. that's why i use the label atheism, so promote debate. i LIVE for argument, its like potato chips.

I know, its so, so, so much better.

Dare I use the word "enlightening"?

a reply to: luthier

Not to chime in, but I've been following your discussion ... I wonder if you might answer a couple of questions.

Are you insisting that Annee (or myself, or any other person) accept your own "philosophically derivied derived" definition of atheism?

And if so, why?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

Not to chime in, but I've been following your discussion ... I wonder if you might answer a couple of questions.

Are you insisting that Annee (or myself, or any other person) accept your own "philosophically derivied" definition of atheism?

And if so, why?

Not at all. I am saying there is more than one definition.

On the logical side I am argueing the strong and weak positions have different positions.

But no you can accept whatever definition you want. I am just saying atheism doesn't just mean one thing and one thing only.

I would also not be so forcefully if the tone of the debate were less spiteful towards my position. I think it's perfectly fair to say atheism means different things to different people. There are some general consensus you can find amongst the Athesit community. But not one single definition that fits everybodies position.

a reply to: vjr1113

well if someone asks whats your religion, i can go into a long discussion about the burden of proof and logic and morals, so i use a shortcut.

infidel does fit me, if someone wants to call me x or call me a negative term that's on them. i do call myself a satanist though just because it bothers christians and scares them, so that they will leave me alone.

Answer “none”, like they do on the census.

Atheist has always been a negative term as well, for thousands of years. But apparently you’ve taken it upon yourself to wear it, and even defend it for whatever reason. It’s your chosen label, apparently short hand for “I reject your claim to gods”, which is not only historically or grammatically incoherent, but confusing.

a reply to: luthier

I see.

I cannot speak for Annee, and wouldn't if I could, but I will say, from my own position, that after a while in these types of threads, attempting to have reasonable/rational discussions with others and sharing one's own experiences ... one is often confronted with absolutes presented by others that are simply implacable in their positions/beliefs.

One of the shortest, purest and most descriptive definitions of "being an atheist" or "atheism" is simply "a lack of belief in gods."

Gods and religions are cultural phenomenons. One is taught to BELIEVE in a particular supernatural being or beings. There is nothing implicit or natural in this.

I'm wondering if you aren't caught up in a need "to be right" here. I think almost all of us would cop to an unspoken "in my opinion" or "based on my understanding" in front of any statements we make.

And if we don't, we've entered the realm of the spurious ... no one can speak for someone else, not a philosopher, priest or peasant.

We are subjective creatures that stumble, at best, through an objective universe.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: vjr1113

well if someone asks whats your religion, i can go into a long discussion about the burden of proof and logic and morals, so i use a shortcut.

infidel does fit me, if someone wants to call me x or call me a negative term that's on them. i do call myself a satanist though just because it bothers christians and scares them, so that they will leave me alone.

Answer “none”, like they do on the census.

Atheist has always been a negative term as well, for thousands of years. But apparently you’ve taken it upon yourself to wear it, and even defend it for whatever reason. It’s your chosen label, apparently short hand for “I reject your claim to gods”, which is not only historically or grammatically incoherent, but confusing.

that's fine too. this isnt a problem. you seem to have a problem with the word atheist, which is exactly why i use it. to clear up the misunderstanding of what atheism is. seems like you just proved my point.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

I see.

I cannot speak for Annee, and wouldn't if I could, but I will say, from my own position, that after a while in these types of threads, attempting to have reasonable/rational discussions with others and sharing one's own experiences ... one is often confronted with absolutes presented by others that are simply implacable in their positions/beliefs.

One of the shortest, purest and most descriptive definitions of "being an atheist" or "atheism" is simply "a lack of belief in gods."

Gods and religions are cultural phenomenons. One is taught to BELIEVE in a particular supernatural being or beings. There is nothing implicit or natural in this.

I'm wondering if you aren't caught up in a need "to be right" here. I think almost all of us would cop to an unspoken "in my opinion" or "based on my understanding" in front of any statements we make.

And if we don't, we've entered the realm of the spurious ... no one can speak for someone else, not a philosopher, priest or peasant.

We are subjective creatures that stumble, at best, through an objective universe.

www.patheos.com...

Or is it possible as the link shows it may be wired into our brains? Is it possible it is natural since it appears in nearly every culture. And that there are reasonable (through reason) arguements for a first cause for instance.

I can't say I agree with you. Of course part of being in arguement is providing ones point. I could say the same for either of your arguements.

What I am having a problem with is that you don't see the difference in the active and passive beliefs. The hard and soft the weak and strong. They to me and many others including Atheists are different positions.


Is a westborogh babtisist church person the same as a Diest? Are those gods even the same?

I am argueing Harris's point here.

How would you like it if a "strong " atheist said his definition is the only one? The position you are describing would be considered inaccurate to them.

Just like I can't speak for everybody nor can a philosopher neither can you speak of what is a"most honest definition". You are implying those who disagree are not honest.

I am argueing this because I was told my opinion is not correct. All I did was prove its not so easily argued. In fact I would say its the two of you who are needing to be right. I mean you can't admit atheism has more than one definition? Come on.


Tell you one thing I may have changed my opinion on the importance of this lecture. Maybe it was more important than I realized.

a reply to: luthier

Who said I didn't "see the difference in the active and passive beliefs"? We haven't discussed that.

Perhaps, you might ask yourself why you jumped to that conclusion, eh?

~~~~~

Your Patheos article refers to the subjective sense of "the numinous" or the endorphin rushes of religious ecstasy.

There is no statement in that article that our brains are "wired" with Southern Baptist Christianity or Second Temple Judaism or Wicca I Learned While Hiding Behind the Bleachers During PE, for example.

From your article:

The common thread among mystical and spiritual practices is that while people are engaged in them, the lobes of their brain can be seen working together to create a powerful emotional experience.

So, you're referring to brain anatomy, chemistry and mechanics/function ... not religion per se. Religion/gods is merely the cultural artifact that gets equated with that organic/biological experience.

~~~~
No, the God of a Westborough Baptist is not the same as the God of a Deist as I understand those terms, though it is something akin to comparing the relative merits of Superman and Captain Marvel.

Why would I care if a "strong" atheist said anything? You seem to be overly concerned with what other people believe/perceive.

I certainly can speak of "a most honest definition" ... as I did above. Nothing requires you to accept it, certainly not me ... I don't care! LOL.

*PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS DELETED, BEG PARDON (old habits)*

a reply to: vjr1113

that's fine too. this isnt a problem. you seem to have a problem with the word atheist, which is exactly why i use it. to clear up the misunderstanding of what atheism is. seems like you just proved my point.

I do have a problem with it, specifically with its politicization, the historic use of it to commit religious atrocity, and for the condemnation of torture and death of individuals on superstitious grounds. For instance state atheism in the Soviet Union, and the burning of heretics at the stake. I find that by taking that name, you are giving the theist exactly what he wants, and are breathing life into what once was a church-born superstitious pejorative, which is now, apparently, a term of pride or short-hand. In the sense that "theos" is the root of your chosen word, and given your desire to use church-born terms to describe yourself, I don't think you are without God in the slightest.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Quibble: Which "church" was the a-theos "born in"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not so sure. It's Greek origins would suggest a religion of Ancient Greece.