Atheism & Theism: Menaces to Society

reply to post by Skyfloating

And because they are no dichotomies, I call it a "false dichotomy".

alright, i'll be more specific; they're not dichotomies, false dichotomies, delusional dichotomies or anything ever having to do with dichotomies. you can't have a false dichotomy without someone firstly assuming that there is a dichotomy involved. and i don't think i've ever heard a religious extremist or atheist ever proclaim that this is the case. so, who is it that is holding on to a false dichotomy? certainly not the militant types you refer to...

When taking part in a debate, first understand the position of the person you are talking to.

i've always been under the impression that this was 90% of the reason for debate in the first place. i have high hopes of understanding the other person (and hence, learning something) in every debate i enter

but, in any event, did you not imply that neither atheists nor theists have the upper hand? that both were, in effect, faulty bits of reason?

if so, then you've stated that these two opposites have no superior, no?

"ah, nathan, but there are no dichotomies. these two things are not opposite at all!"

alright, but you've also stated this:

The very term a-theism is based upon the word theism. This is blatant. Where no theism exists, no a-theism exists either.
Where no concept of hot exists, no cold exists either.

theism/atheism
hot/cold

you can understand how i got confused, can't you?

One extreme does not conquer another extreme but merely rocks the boat even stronger.

while this is just opinion on both our parts, i would have to say that i almost agree, but not quite.
funny thing that you use the 'rock the boat' analogy. i always refer to it as a pendulum. before the black panther movement the pendulum was stuck on one side and we had to give it a shove to the extreme opposite side in order to let it eventually settle to a balance.
before women's rights the pendulum was stuck so feminism, an often militant and extremest movement began.
before gay pride the pendulum was stuck. of course, this peace-loving group isn't as militant as the rest of us. they just hosted a campaign of stickers and rainbows with an annual parade in order to start the movement. but the effect was the same. we were overflowing with gay pride stickers and rainbow shirts and pendants to an extreme excess.

and, with all of these things, the pendulum, having been pushed out of it's rusty extreme position rapidly into another position rocked back and forth until it settled in the center.

Here's the thread of an atheist slandering Mother Theresa.



[edit on 7-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
That's why I'm saying theists and atheists aren't the problem, rather a (in reality) small percentage of these people are the problem. But a small percentage of conservatives and liberals are the problem as well...
But it would be absurd to say conservatism and liberalism are menaces to society because they aren't the problem. People are.

I think you understand this, it's just the title of the thread suggests otherwise.

Yes, admittedly its a small percentage of fanatics who cause trouble. But fanaticism originally arises out of certain systems of thought. These thoughts, when exaggerated, lead to misguided action.

And yes, I agree that the title could be more balanced...but then it would have to be many times as long

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
true, you never specifically stated that your views are the only views that are right, but you sure as hell pissed all over any other side of the argument.

Yes, Im being strong-worded and unfriendly about it. Atheism vs. Theism dominates large parts of our political, economical and societal discussion at current. I cant visit a single thread on this forum without one of the sides pushing their agenda. In that sense its become a menace.

I am wondering whatever happened to those who want to practice their religion to practice it, and those who oppose it to do so silently in their homes.

Live and let live.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin

before gay pride the pendulum was stuck. of course, this peace-loving group isn't as militant as the rest of us. they just hosted a campaign of stickers and rainbows with an annual parade in order to start the movement. but the effect was the same. we were overflowing with gay pride stickers and rainbow shirts and pendants to an extreme excess.

and, with all of these things, the pendulum, having been pushed out of it's rusty extreme position rapidly into another position rocked back and forth until it settled in the center.

Yes, yes the pendulum. Im glad you mention the concept. There is no trouble to be expected from you, despite calling yourself a "radical" atheist.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Yes, yes the pendulum. Im glad you mention the concept. There is no trouble to be expected from you, despite calling yourself a "radical" atheist.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

i've really no clue if this is sarcasm or not. it can be difficult to tell in the midst of a text-based conversation.

but i'll sum up a reply that could be for either event, just in case;

i'm only radical when i esteem it to be necessary. i don't go door to door asking people if they've found darwin, for instance. but i do see a lot of harm in a wide-scale population adhering to a belief system which condones a suspension in logical faculties for the sake of faith. so i make it a point to speak out against such a thing with as much passion as needed, even if it verges on someting that could be considered militant behavior. i see it as being dangerous to humanity as a whole...especially when we have world leaders that seem to be rooting for their religion's version of the apocalypse and when we have, in our own country, some of the lowest levels of public education in the world. how can you teach a child to not question the most important spiritual questions of his/her life and then expect him/her to have a passion for information in the classroom?


but, just so that there's no confusion, i've no problem with your stance, or lack thereof, and am fully aware that i've only the vaguest conception of what your beliefs may be-if i even know that much.

i wasn't angry or upset in any way when i'd asked these questions of you. i was merely amused because i detected a bit of militant idealism in your posts and wondered if you could see the same for yourself. even that is not meant to belittle in any way. how could it, when i've admitted my own militant behaviour?

all in all, i've enjoyed the conversation and thank you for your replies.

thanks,
nathan

p.s.
i didn't reply directly to your previous response because i feel that i agreed with most of it and addressed the bit that i didn't agree with here.

reply to post by Nathan_Orin


No, it was not sarcasm.

Another example of Atheist Fanaticism and taking the very worst in Religion (Islamic Jihad) as being "representative of spiritual beliefs":

What Atheism wants

Ive entered the formal Debate with ATS-member Republican08:

Atheism vs. Theism

reply to post by Skyfloating


Love your mind. S&F.

Why can not their be more agreement between us peoples? Religion? I think not. Is it unification that we seek in order for us to say aaaahhhh yes, this is complete, this is agreement? Are we not capable of respecting another's own right to self, to each their own or not? There is this discrepancy amongst atheist and theist that I do not comprehend, amongst countless other things. How can it be that a theist which believes that what it calls a God can believe in something higher than itself saying it believes it to be true and another, an atheist simply believes that believing in something without factual evidence is nonsensical yet it pursues knowledge mercilessly studying a concept called the unknown? How can it be when to me they are both achieving the same things. Theist of all kinds seem to believe that the concept of God or deity that they believe in is what is called a supreme being and if they do not there will be horrible consequences. Now the atheist like to rely on facts, they are wore out with the horrible things that have occurred in our past that supposedly have been caused by belief in something called God, they do this to prevent more horrible pasts. To me the idea of God is a supreme being, whether or not this being exist in or outside our world worries me not. To me atheist tend to rely on extending the knowledge of science, which also I believe to be a wonderful thing, it helps us define things in utmost clarity. However science is the process by which we study the unknown. Religion is the way we worship an unknown. Why is there such hesitance between sides to intermingle their existences? Get over yourselves already, quit the prideful nonsense and find a way you can coalesce so that we may continue on this path. My personal beliefs are that both fields are correct and incorrect at the same time. Theist because they believe that a supreme creator would want us to go above and beyond itself, just as any loving parent would. Atheist because they believe strongly in the concept of responsibility, being held accountable for their actions no matter the consequences. Let us build a great bridge between our divides.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I think you find it very hard to understand that an atheist can stare at the universe and say 'wow... that's amazing', whereas a religious man would stare at the universe and say 'wow... that's amazing. God made it'.

Lets not distort definitions mr. lizard. Its more like this:

Theist: "Wow. Thats amazing. God made it"
Atheist. "Wow. Thats amazing. God didnt make it"
Agnostic: "Wow. Thats amazing".

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

I think it is quite uncommon to find an atheist that often tries to highlight and communicate their thoughts and stance in atheism to others on a daily basis, let alone every action, thought, event, etc., while it is not uncommon to find a theist who would do something similar with their faith, in every aspect of their lives.

Most atheists and agnostics, I think, would rather worry about something else, other than their "disbelief" in religions unless those religions have done something that might have left some damaging emotional scars on them, were theatened by it often or had some other agenda to achieve.

Atheist and agnostics, have the luxury of having one less problem to deal with or consider religion in everything and everyway of their daily lives until they are confronted by it directly/indirectly... or are simply bored.

It is like the disbelief in a child's fabricated imagination, it only becomes a problem in certain instances, adults usually do not have this "disbelief" occupy their minds all the time unless they perceive it to be a serious problem of some kind.

Would Atheists still exist if there were no more Theists left in the world?
Would Theists still exist if there were no more Atheists left in the world?

If both Atheists and Theists were to be seperated, placed on different planets and instructed to remain seperate, which group is more likely to have a greater need/desire to interfere with the other?

While I agree that extremes of all kinds tend to be harmful, one group tends to propagate more extremists than the other.

IAM not a atheist... agnostic atheist maybe. my 2 cents.

(and for those ignorant people out there, Atheism isn't Communism, just like Theism isn't represented by Christanity.)

reply to post by Answerityourself


Many in this reality find themselves making choices, always differentiating between things of opposition, is it socially acceptable, is it what I really want or not? One of the large dualities people fine themselves with internal struggle over is spirituality. Do I believe in God/deity, or do I believe more in my ability to differentiate the world with my ways of deduction. These two examples are only that, examples, there are countless other ways in which we view our spirituality. To me we are spiritually free beings, I believe in both God and our blessings bestowed upon us by such a malevolent creator, however one of the greatest things I believe it gave us is the power of freewill, when it passed on that wonderful ability to judge for ourselves it gave us a wonderful gift. Independence, freedom, choice. It gave us the ability to decide in what we wish to serve it, even to not serve it. How can this be? Simple my family, very simple. It is the nature of ourselves in a way of many to be able to be flexible. Some already agree who study science to discern the truth in that we like all things around us are constantly in a state of perpetual subjective objectiveness or a reality of both infinites and finites. So which is correct, to accept a being of awesomeness that will dictate our existence or to stand as equals amongst some deity in that we may surpass its teachings to become better. Neither are correct for if you think real hard you can see clearly that both are necessary for our existence and progression as a whole, it takes both the concept of unknowing to know to begin with, like a Yin-Yang perpetually balanced constantly spinning while completely still. Our existence is a wonderful one, we have always known this, both beautifully embellished and simple. My friends and enemies, the sooner you are able to accept this truth of our place we may continue on in this epic path. Learn of the bridges that connect us so that we may find more canyons to cross. Worshiping a God or not, we should all be accepting of each others differences, for with our differences we may have beautiful colors to cover our canvas and with our love, understanding, compassion, cooperation, superior tools with which to spread our inks.

I am not an atheist, but can't help seeing the point of outspoken atheists like Dawkins if it comes to situations where the creation myth is being taught in schools as fact. Then again, there are probably many, if not most Christians who would agree? It can be hard to separate fact from advertising, I wonder if 40% of American adults do believe in the literal truth of the creation story, as he claims?

I think that atheism might understandably be a backlash to a long history of religious dominance in certain areas. Not just from those who have looked and found no God, but as a moralistic and philosophical type of freedom, also as a byproduct of trying to bring science to the fore (as situations like Dawkins seem to highlight). As always, some have also probably just jumped on the bandwagon. Controversy sells.

I often wonder also about the self honesty of the absolutist point of view. It leaves little room to maneuver. Absolutely atheist, or absolute faith in a religious dogma. I see the popular religious beliefs such as those based on Judeo/Christianity as being plainly mythical and veering towards superstition, though in no way does this preclude a divine nature or intelligence (IMO).

I don't see such a problem with countering blunt religious proclamations very firmly either. The problem seems to be at which point things become personal, instead of relevant. It isn't only a religion v atheism problem. Humans have a tendency to become fanatical in their views when discussing their favorite sporting team. Things can get personal very quickly.

The problem I have with organized corporate type religions is the way beliefs often get foisted on young minds as a type of early age recruitment/ indoctrination. Though it seems quite acceptable to most of society. I made a point of excusing my children from any form of religious instruction at school (public education), thinking them capable of making up their own mind when mature enough, at which point they can seek it if they wish. A decision that wasn't always well received. I wonder if it would be as acceptable if it was the story of Xenu and the Gallactic Federation being taught? Well, I don't wonder really. It is interesting (and ironic in some ways) that much of the anti-cult movement are Christian based. They also do some great work IMO, despite whatever agenda or belief they hold and seem less likely to shout “follow Jesus or burn”. Though I can't help but wonder at times whether they have really applied this same level of critical scrutiny to their own beliefs and institutions.

To the Divides Amongst Us

Be yourself in the way that you know the correct way to come and go. If only our communication was more communicable would our reality be more available. This knowledge is found in all of our teachings, this is our moment to revisit and discuss our ideas. Spread this perspective to all reaches of our world for it is to be known.
To the peoples who believe that believe God/deity/divinity exists or not exists: Is it possible for a person to be without or with a divinity? Yes and no. The purpose of our divinity is its own, just as the purpose of yourself is your own. You maybe the one of many also, the many of one. Being one who believes in a superior being or not means nothing to I, both are necessary to us.
To the peoples who believe that males and females deserve discernment: Is it possible for a man or woman to accomplish something the other cannot? Yes and no. There is only the difference of propagation, males develop seed in which to sow in the garden of a woman which she tends to. Do not think this divide means anything else than what is already known everywhere amongst anyone. Those that require to see a more complex difference amongst males and females means nothing to I, both are necessary to us.
To the peoples who believe that there is a superiority in the color, class, creed of a person or group of peoples: Is it possible for all differences amongst us to exist in this world? Yes and No. Peace has its purpose just as war does. In this moment all of us exist together whether with peace or war, there are moments for war and there are moments for peace, only you can decide when is necessary. If one must find refuge in creating cracks in our reality means nothing to I, both cracks and wholeness is necessary to us. For wholeness is for putting cracks in and cracks are for building bridges across.
Thus is your equilibrium, allow thy homeostasis, realize the balance, be the fulcrum, a center is a movable concept as one side or neutrality is favored none. One side or the other or their middle makes no difference, for all are necessary, even the unnecessary.

reply to post by Skyfloating


My rebuttal

*Theism, agreed, is not always destructive.

*Freethought is the rejection of authority and dogma, especially in religion.
Atheists are acceptant of those religious authorities and dogmas? I think not.

*Non-accountability does not exist with self-influenced accountability?
I find myself, a spec of existence, to be accountable for a lot in life.
Hath a microorganism need a belief in god to give it accountability?
It does not matter to go on a killing spree just as much as it does matter.
In what ways does meaningful existence not amplify but always dilute in response to a limited existence?
This argument solely blames "spiritual" things for not being evidently real so that everything would suit itself to the will of the supernatural.

*In what way have I made a conclusive statement about reality if I have only said that I, alone, am without belief that a god exists as much as Santa Claus. (I do not accept god's existence, I doubt it, because there is no evidence)

Atheism, without belief in god, individuals become self-accountable for moral convictions.
You can blame atheism for an action as much as you would the color of one's skin.
Black people make up most of the prison population, is there a significant relation to being black and criminal?

Moral convictions, belief god exists or without belief god exists, destruction and peace take place here:
"I believe harming others is wrong"
"I believe harming others is wrong because god said so"
"I believe harming others is good"
"I believe harming others is good because god said so"

Both atheism and theism take no blame for beliefs that murder is "ok", it is always an individual's moral conviction or belief in a god's command that is to blame.

Religion, essentially, is influential on a person's moral convictions, not atheism:
Religion cannot be diverged from, often resulting in chaos.
Religion enables unsafe beliefs (faith healing, suicide, self-harm)
Other factors influence identity that atheism cannot take account for.

I'm pro-theism though:
Maniacs would turn loose, promising to be more destructive without theism, and I believe that is bad.