10 myths about Atheism

and what does that do?

Not a fan of knowing things, jammer?

After what you said in reply to me on the other comment....this one makes no sense.

Well, research shows that a majority of scientists and highly educated individuals tend to lean towards agnostic or atheist ideas.
source:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

It doesn't matter what it says. It matters what it means and how it's perceived.

Stating that means you think you have the right answer and that is very cocky...just as you would state a Christian would be if they spoke to you in a similar manner.

I know people who are 'smart' as you state these above people are and they believe in God. Does the fact that they know science and then believe in God make you think they are stupider?

Because that's what all this is showing.

You're generalizing, Jammer.
Don't make such a huge generalization when you'd most definitely protest a statement like "all Christians are bigots."

Duh. It's not liked.

Therefore do it so someone else points it out so people can notice.

When someone says " I believe in god", do you consider them arrogant as well?

It's a subject everybody wants to stick their brain-penis in, I guess.

MMM Ideology based brain penis Cluster F@$k.

Atheists are not one unified group of people. We have no rigid belief system, we simply do not readily accept faith based organizations. Thats the only requirement.

I was referring to "pure" atheism (at least, my impression of it) - the whole "There is nothing but space dust, and we are all animals that have gone insane" belief.

What's the ism for people who don't assume anything at all? Agnosticism...?
Because at the moment, I don't associate that with atheism. In the simplest sense of it, atheism assumes there is nothing greater than the "physical world."
Again, just my impression. I could very well have the wrong definition of the word stored in my brain.

note: I don't equate philosophies/ ways of seeing the world with "religion." I am perfectly aware that atheists are nowhere near as uniform in their worldview as those who prescribe to dogma.
I was talking about solid belief, not worldview.

"There is nothing but space dust, and we are all animals that have gone insane" belief." - Never heard anything like that come out of any Atheists I know. It's not that you have the wrong definition of Atheism, just one of several.

That's just how I'd describe my impression of strong atheism.

Ya'll seem to be talking about agnosticism/ atheistic agnosticism, not pure atheism.

They do tend to bleed over into one another, creating all sorts of ism-shmisms, but I think the basic distinction is pretty clear.

Agnosticism = I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
Atheism = I do not believe in any god.

But I don't believe in god. If someone asks me if I believe in god, I don't say "I don't know", I say, "no."

On a broad philosophical level I will always concede to "I don't know", and "how could we know" to anything, I understand that our ideas about reality are ever changing. But on a practical level, I do not believe in god. I guess this is still considered "agnostic atheistism", though I've been told from other people I WAS a "strong atheist" because I claim there is no god and rally for what can be described as "atheist rights"...

I think we get too lost in labels, it's especially hard for atheists to adhere to a label or doctrine, and you know what they say- "Organizing atheists is like herding cats"!

In that case, I guess I'm an "atheist." I definitely don't believe in a giant brain made of space dust, and certainly not in the context of cultural fairy tales.

But so much of the universe is unknown, and so much that we do know is unexplainable - not to mention our brains themselves.
"God" can be a word/ concept for soooo many different things. It doesn't have to be some omnipotent being - doesn't even have to be sentient, in our sense of the word. Universal consciousness, the equation of the universe, etc. I just like to keep my mind open to all possibilities (aside from the obvious falsehoods like dogma).

I guess agnosticism and atheism are twins from the same cooch. Perhaps even conjoined twins.
It does indeed seem silly and pointless to try and label things at that point. Like trying to label all the separate gallons of water in an infinite tank.

Or agnosticism is just an intellectual safe-haven :)

You don't.

exactly.

Dialectical materialism my friend.

Existentialists :)

And does anyone know how to make the built in mac webcam work?

Democracy is a lie people believe in. And if that statement offends you, I can prove to you that you have faith in democracy and that the beliefs you hold that support it might as well be religious.

Should we eliminate it because it's untrue?

Or, if that doesn't convince you, let me give you a another example.

Would you tell your friend they were ugly and fat (or plug in some similar social scenario) rather than lie and tell them they looked ok?

Why not? Is the truth really more important than the lie?

How do we know that our current scientific understanding of the earth isn't equally as mistaken?

These examples are somewhat trite, but the points I'm trying to get across to you are 1. that you do lie to yourself and to others because the truth isn't always a valuable thing and 2. that the "truth" is something that can't ever truly be achieved by human beings for a dozen different reasons.

ha, I am not sure you want to say any of us have "faith" in democracy, especially the way things are going in our country right now. In fact, I am not even sure I understand what that means- are you saying that democracy does not exist, or that it's just a concept, etc?

I'm certainly not offended by that statement, I've never even thought about my "faith" in democracy, so I'd love to hear all the reasons I should not trust it.

I do not think you have to tell your friend she is fat and ugly OR lie to her as if those were the only options. You can certainly tell a friend she does not look good in a particular outfit without offending her. I am not sure what that point was making.

Surely our current understanding of science will change as it has for so many years. That's because scienctists work tirelessly to realize the closest objective reality possible and provable.

Just because we have not achieved something yet does not mean we can not or will not. I have no reason to believe we can not or will not, so I would like to hear your reasons.

(sorry I am talking without contractions, my computer is screwing them up after submitting for some reason and they appear as code- if it is annoying and weird I apologize.)

I thoroughly respect all of your attempts to get to the truth. While I am a Christian, I think it would be best to describe me as a scientist with a hunch who is searching for the same truth as yourselves.

Saladin, wrong again. This video is not relevant. First of all, I'm not a creationist. Second of all, I know evolution exists - based upon the scientific evidence.
I embrace evolution and I believe in a creator.
You simply misinterpreted my initial comment - you are the one who equated ID with creationism. You brought up creationism.

Oh, my bad then. Makes me look stupid. >_<

You quoted ID, which while only literally meaning that the universe could have been created, is an idea that was created and is used as a wedge by creationists to get rid of evolution in schools.

Sorry for the confusion, I haven't run across anyone that uses that term differently.

what do you mean more than likely? Atheism is about not prescribing to these blind faith packages. We choose instead try to understand why, not simply trying force new information into an archaic and outdated philosophy. We are creating a more enlightened world, i am not forsaking the idea of "God" or declaring that my philosophy is correct but rather encouraging the asking of questions within the church and all aspects of life. How els will we progress in any aspect of life without asking questions. One crude example of why blind faith is wrong is the story of the Lottery by Shirley Jackson.

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html

Eat_Disco,

I hear you on the pursuit of the truth. You might be interested in this. I found it today - it follows a Fritjof Capra approach to the question in my opinion. It uses metaphysical concepts (in this case Hinduism, but it's really just a certain subset of terminology) to inform it's approach to physics/mathematics.
http://sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/Advaita_Math.pdf

Atheist does not mean that they are certain of non-theism, it means that the are an A-theist meaning that they posses a theory that deviates from the mainstream theism of faith.

Yeah but most atheists aren't and they don't claim that.

But your statement is kind of silly too.

You can't prove unicorns or dragons can't or never have existed.

In fact, NOTHING can EVER be given that empirical burden of truth. It is logically impossible without being omniscient and omnipresent.

So why are you making such a big deal out of this particular claim then?

Hahaha, you are still asserting a "correct" answer the same way you claim religion and atheists do.

Atheism is not a religion. Please look up "religion" and then "atheism" for reference.

Monotheism- one God
Polytheism- many Gods
Atheism- no God

Even Bill Mahr agrees with me here-- Atheists are idiots who are certain that there is no God, which is just as stupid as being certain that there IS a God.

The truth is, you don't know, you don't even know what God is or could be.

You might be able to disprove any sort of corporal God, or fairy tales from various holy books as being rubbish.

But if you don't even know what God is, how can you be certain it doesn't exist?

The same goes for gravitons or tachyons, or string theory. All we have is theory, no direct evidence.

Please see other posts in regard to what Atheist means. I think most people in general will find truth in "we do not know"- you can say that about anything, really. Philisophically, no, we do not know if any thing we think is true.

Practically, it is a different story. If someone asks me "do you believe in god?" I do not say "I dunno." I say "no." This does not make me arrogant or an idiot or anything else. If you do not believe in the bible or all the other fairy tales, why believe at all- where is the reference point for believing in god?

To assert that agnostic is the only way to be and all this strikes me as hilarious, it is the same type of mentality you are trying to rally against.

In regard to the usage of the word "theory", please keep in mind that scientists generally use it very differently than the everyman. Also, when science has a theory, it works to prove it, not tout it as truth with no evidence.

You have a very Judeo-Christian-centric viewpoint, even though you are supposedly an atheist.

You think that the only possibility for the existance of divinity is a Judeo-Christian god, and you ignore the fact that there are other religious traditions out there which do not have corporal gods, such as Taoism-- which believes not in a God or any dogma, but in a "source of creation" which is very abstract and nondescript.

Buddhism, a branch off of Hinduism, also beleives in divinity, but not any corporal God.

Hinduism, at least those who I know who practice hinduism, does not beleive in literal readings of their scripts, but that they are metaphors for the metaphysical.

You can rail against Christianity all you want, you are probably right that God does not exist in the way that mainstream Christianity interprets it.

But that doesn't address what I'm talking about in the slightest.

"You think that the only possibility for the existance of divinity is a Judeo-Christian god, and you ignore the fact that there are other religious traditions out there which do not have corporal gods, such as Taoism-- which believes not in a God or any dogma, but in a "source of creation" which is very abstract and nondescript."

This is not true at all. I was simply ASKING you what reference point you were using, what gods were talking about, etc. The bible is not the only thing I was talking about, sorry if I limited my response and it was misleading. I certainly acknowledge the diversity of religions and the fact they believe in many different gods. If you read some of my other posts you will see that.

I'm not religious, but I don't agree.

How many atheist groups went down and helped people after Hurricane Katrina? I can assure you, there were far more Christian groups who gave up their time and put their blood and sweat into helping people for absolutely nothing in return.

And for that matter, how do you answer for the U.S.S.R.? How about the P.R.C.?

Neither atheism nor religion are an impediment to corruption, violence or evil.

And you're definitely not going to argue religious people out of their faith with a message like that.

Instead, argue that people shouldn't be dogmatic in their faith and that they should change their faith to do what's right.

Maybe you should do some more reading.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

Intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing Einstein.

You're quoting the discovery institute? LOL.

Please tell me what practical difference there is between creationism and intelligent design? What is different about their claims?

For christ's sake, even the TEXTBOOK they use is the same!

I'm guessing now, because you quoted the discovery institute, that you're just a lying creationist.

The only reason you say ID and "Atheism," which aren't related, are on the same level is because your religious idea being paraded as "science" has been so utterly defeated by every single part of society that you have no options left but to appeal to the fallacy of the means.

People even saw through the "teach the controversy" lie. So is this the next desperate attempt?

Delia,

I am a Christian, however I thoroughly enjoy studying comparative religion. I'm curious, can you find one culture in the history of this planet that has been atheist?
I cannot.
However, even if you could, I think that atheists simply choose not to answer the question of "is there a creator?", while religious individuals do.
I also don't think that comparing God to dragons or unicorns is fair, as a majority of cultures in the history of the world do not believe in dragons or unicorns.
Dragons may be an exception, but I believe that has to do with the kundalini in all of us.

Actually, many cultures have stories and art depicting dragons. They may have dropped those beliefs a long time ago, just like cultures dropped the beliefs in all the other gods that came before the christian one, and now some of us have dropped that belief as well.

As far as Atheist cultures, as I said before, Buddhism does not have a godhead.

There is also nothing in the teachings of the Buddha that suggest how to find God or worship the god's of India, although the Buddha himself was a theist (believed in gods), his teachings are non-theistic.

The Buddha was more concerned with the human condition: Birth, Sickness, Old age, and Death. The Buddhist path is about coming to a place of acceptance with these painful aspects of life, and not suffering through them.

Please be clear on this point... The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president.

He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana. Because of his Nirvana, the Buddha was perfectly moral, perfectly ethical, and ended his suffering forever.

Does that mean that every Buddhist in the world is an atheist?

No!!! I have met a lot of Buddhists who believe in God. I have met a lot of Buddhists who don’t believe in God... And a lot of Buddhists just don’t know.

All three points of view are OK if you’re Buddhist because suffering is more important than God in Buddhism.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html

Absolutely, some Buddhist believe in god. Buddhism simply does not require the belief or faith in a god/gods/goddess as other religions do.

LOL so funny, I love it!

To whoever came up with those reasons, I think I speak for most people here when I think aloud: You are a sentimental fool; just because you "feel" something, doesn't make it in any way true.

That cuts both ways.

That's why scientists, and scientific minded Atheists, rarely trust just their "feelings" to make a decision.

Not a monkey, a pre-historic primate.

I think we are a long way from ever conclusively supporting either side. By using rational we can construct philosophies that may either help remedy the fundamental flaws of organized religion, or help show new truths. However Regardless of their stance some people will not change their mind no matter how much evidence either side posses.

I'm sorry, but I have to examine some of your "points":

"I don't lose anything by believing in my god"
I don't lose anything by not believing.

"Without my god we would have no sense of right and wrong" -- Wrong.

"My religion makes more sense then all others" -- How many other religions can you say you know everything about?

"I.D. Proves my god is real" -- No, ID proves that some humans will do whatever it takes to stake claim in the unexplainable for their personal agenda.

"Religion is beautiful" -- I guess the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were like glorified promenades by that definition.

"Very smart people believe in my god" -- Very smart people don't believe in any gods, like Albert Einstein.

"No one has ever disproved the existence of my god" -- No one has ever proved it either.

"People have gone to heaven and returned" -- Did they bring anything back?

"Religion Bring[s] people together" -- Two words: Jihad. Israel.

"My god inspires people" -- Folks in Jonestown and Branch Dravidian were inspired by God, too.

"Science can't explain every thing" -- Religion speculates about everything.

"My religion is so old, it must be true" -- Christianity is one of the youngest major religions in recorded history. And Hinduism, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are older--does that make them truer?

"Someone i trust told me that my god was real" -- Do you ever think for yourself?

"Believing in a god doesn't hurt anyone" -- No, but some believers hurt people.

"Believing is natural" -- Belief in ideology comes from persuasion, internal and external alike.

-----

Those weren't his points dude, he was citing typical excuses that religious people make for their faith.

Thank you Saladin.

No many scientists are in fact religious. Although there seems to be a gravitation of intellectuals away from faith. %of religious intellectuals < %regular religious population. Not to say that being an atheist makes you an intellectual.

Atheism is a rational and philosophy not a faith. And we are using the Marxist technique of dialectical materialism in an effort to eliminate untruths.

No offense, but your answer is a total fallacy of the means and it shows a profound lack of intellect on your part.

First off, ID and Atheism are not at an impasse. ID, or creationism, is a specific Right-wing Christian doctrine which states that everything in the bible must be literally true.

Atheism has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with creationism. Only creationists argue that science is an "atheistic" philosophy to forward their sick agenda.

Religion and evolution work perfectly well together. Evolution does not disprove god, there are more Christians that believe in evolution than don't.

Only a fool seriously thinks that atheists attempt to use evolution to disprove god. Do you really think that? At what point do atheists ever use that argument? And even if they did, at what point is it relevant to god?

And atheists don't have faith because they just don't think there are any gods. They claim that there is a lack of evidence, not that they KNOW gods don't exist. There's no reason TO believe in them so they don't. Simple as that.

There are "gnostic" atheists who assert that they KNOW god doesn't exist, but they tend to be assholes or teenagers that are atheists for all the wrong reasons.

Hey smarty pants:
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

ID is not based on science. They simply say "a creator must have created this because it is complicated", or, "intelligence must exist to have created this design"

The reason creationism and ID get lumped together is because people ask, "What creator?" "What intelligence?" The answer for many is "God!" Then the question becomes "Which God?"

I understand that ID people are trying to assertain if there is some kind of "design", but even a design noted does not equal proof of a "designer."

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

However:
"Intelligent design primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity."

"The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

"Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God."

You're quoting the discovery institute? LOL.

Please tell me what practical difference there is between creationism and intelligent design? What is different about their claims?

For christ's sake, even the TEXTBOOK they use is the same!

I'm guessing now, because you quoted the discovery institute, that you're just a lying creationist.

The only reason you say ID and "Atheism," which aren't related, are on the same level is because your religious idea being paraded as "science" has been so utterly defeated by every single part of society that you have no options left but to appeal to the fallacy of the means.

People even saw through the "teach the controversy" lie. So is this the next desperate attempt?

You are simply attempting to discredit the motives of ID advocates. I myself and studying the following subject at the moment:
http://sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/Advaita_Math.pdf
This will be settled. By science.

Seriously Saladin, you are now engaging in lawyering yourself.
Not all ID advocates believe that the Bible is to be taken literally.

wales- I am not sure if you were posting to me, but I am not trying to "discredit" anyone, I was just stating some info from Wikipedia regarding ID "scientists" and how the scientific community as a whole regards ID.

You haven't proved any of your claims nor have have you even addressed anything regarding "evolution."

If your concept of ID is that a god could have possibly designed the universe, that idea is fine.

But if that's the case, why are you trying to remove the teaching of evolution in schools? How does your idea relate to science?

No, you're either a tool or a fool.

Your motives shine through clear as day, you're not tricking me with this garbage.

If you want to convince me otherwise, why don't you ANSWER my questions instead of dodging them?

Delia, I was directing the discredit comment at Saladin.
Saladin, I never said I don't believe in evolution. What are you talking about?

Oh, my bad then. Makes me look stupid. >_<

You quoted ID, which while only literally meaning that the universe could have been created, is an idea that was created and is used as a wedge by creationists to get rid of evolution in schools.

Sorry for the confusion, I haven't run across anyone that uses that term differently.

No worries, it's all good. I didn't mean to be a troll on this post.
Be careful not to brush ID aside too quickly though. It does abide by the scientific method, albeit with a hunch that God exists. That shouldn't be mistaken for bias though - they have to honor the data they receive.

I've always wondered how particle physics (quantum physics, right?) could help us figure out whether there was a god or not.

Isn't quantum physics so small that it doesn't really affect reality? Like wouldn't things still be...determined?

"better safe than sorry", LOL!

My god is obvious- clarify??
Almost everybody on earth is religious-just not all of them believe in a god.
Faith is a good thing- morality is a good thing
Evidence proves my god real-what evidence?
Only my god can make me feel significant-Prozac might cure that condition.
Atheism is just another religion-religion is just another atheism with a dogma, and an executive.
Evolution is bad-but still proven.
Our world is too beautiful to be an accident-like a planned pregnancy. ABORT!!!
My god created the universe-mine too?
Believing in my god makes me happy-Valium will make you happier.
Better safe then sorry-always use safer sex practices.
A sacred book proves my god real-Harry Potter proves wizards are real.
Divine justice proves my god real-now we have penance...GO WILD!
my god answers prayers-Google answers mine.
i would rather worship god then Satan-they're both fine choices, whatever floats your boat.
My god heals sick people-so does my pediatrician.
Anything is better then being an atheist-what about being a NAZI with AIDs?
my god made the human body-my parents made mine, where's their church?
my god sacrificed his only son for me-my neighbor sacrificed his son, he's facing life.
Atheists are jerks- Personal results may vary.

I think EatDisco proves the last line, current89.
he says, "results may vary" On what, you wonder? the very flippant attitude he uses to address you current89, especially, since there is no original doctrine to atheist morality that offers anything significantly new than more peurile constant denial for what they simply do not seriously entertain. Yes results may certainly vary, and "VARY" badly at that...

Also remember that there are atheists who don't declare themselves as such for fear of political repercussions.(I'm heavily involved in local politics however I don't go around telling people I'm an atheist because I've had very bad responses from stating as such).

true, you shouldn't have to hide it, but when (a)theology is not relevant it is better not to bring it into focus.

Your right Disco, I shouldn't have to hide it, but like you said "it is better not to bring it into focus."

clearly the general platform of atheism, no matter how you personally practice it, is to replace religion. It is anathema to most religion. And that's why so many particularly anti-Christian people embrace it exclusively.

Don't deny the obvious.

You have to be religious to get elected (to get the votes) creating a sort of glass ceiling for non-theists thus far.

LOL

( this one too )

some of these points are a far cry from universal but #3 might be the closest thing to it.

I like this list :-)

Agreed, like I said I can hardly speak for everyone but I figured I'd have a go at it. Like you said, Disco, #3 is sort of the basics- Atheism is explaining what we don't believe in, not what we DO believe in, as that is determined by the individual.

add the term {it is a myth that} at the beginning of all of these points. I think are really no points that all atheists can agree on.

Yes, there are.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "western intellectual"...

Yeah, exactly what is a Western "intellectual"? How does the litmus test work for something like that?

By the way, malathion, when did 'being someone who likes to think and apply themselves' become a detriment?

What are you? The Khmer Rouge?

lol... wtf.

Absurdism.

Well, I looked it up on wiki, and this is what it said:
"Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to humanity. The word "absurd" in this context does not mean "logically impossible" but rather "humanly impossible".

I understand this, but I'm not entirely sure that all of our efforts will fail or that there "is no meaning"- I guess that is too subjective for me. For example, I think that science is looking to find the "meaning" of the universe, as in, how did it start, what makes it function, etc.
I can't assert that we'll never figure it out, indeed I see no reason why we can't.
I'm not fully familiar with absurdism though, maybe I'm missing the larger picture?

I interpreted absurdism as the belief that its very well possible that there is a god but the chances of us ever discovering its will are so remote and uncertain that there is no possible way to find or definitively prove any theological purpose.

That sounds more like agnosticism. Absurdism is more like existentialism in the sense of a philosophical interpretation of human interactions with the mundane (and its' subsequent detachment from it). Agnosticism takes more of the same approach from a theological standpoint. They are definitely related, though.

i think existentialism is more of a philosophical alternative for those who are not theistic. I don't really understand the connection to absurdism, because they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

No, they don't exactly go hand in hand, but there are similarities between 'atheistic' existentialism and absurdism. Both technically do believe meaning exists to life, and that we creating the meaning for ourselves. Both assert that the pursuit of that meaning is futile, though they do differ on whether the pursuit itself has any meaning (absurdists, maybe(?), atheistic existentialists, nope).

By the way, thanks for the great discourse.

I got kind of confused after a college world religion series of classes that were in my opinion, done poorly. My faith was not as it had always been before... it took a few years to hammer out what to make of it all. That alone was odd for me.

I always just "knew" innately how some things in my life are.. But everything did return to better than how it was before, and to reach my own "truth" I had to learn to sift through a lot of trash that the world likes to dish.

Great point and one I support.

Though I'd argue that it's not always a movement from theism to the tangible - that implies that theism is inherent, or the default. Clearly you can come to any conclusion on god from any background.

true. i was thinking of it in terms of A-theistic, but your right it is not always a tangible deviation from traditional (i.e. theistic) thought.

there are radicals on both sides...

exactly

at the core of any form of Zen is the total abandonment of terms like "spirituality" , etc. - including the term "zen" itself . things just are , and you simply are , and you're happy with whatever pops up in the moment . for me , being an unapologetic , insufferable asshole when it comes to "atheism" is pretty much how i feel in the moment the subject is brought up .

Interesting spin, but I don't think Zen was intended to justify hotheadedness or being an asshole to people. What is it about atheism that you have a problem with? Like I said, from what I understand there is no godhead in Buddhism.

You absolutely right Delia, there is no godhead in mainstream Buddhism.

There's nothing Zen about calling people "clueless, intellectually clusterf***ed weak willed consumers" and "stupidly aspiring towards a freedom, but can't let go of their precious little egos."

So what really happened is through your supposed declaration of Zen, your ego fostered your desire to illicit judgmental comments towards atheists. I thought that Zen aspired to the death of the ego, of the "I".

By the way, I know several REAL adherents of Zen Buddhism and they would never issue insults like that. Such judgment is beyond their sphere of influence.

Judging by your post, you can't understand zen either.

I don't pretend to understand Zen fully, though much more than some. And I don't pretend to aspire to the precepts of Zen Buddhism, although I can see clear analogical links between it and agnosticism--that being my standpoint.

I was addressing the malathion, not you, khromadjo. Sorry for the confusion. I was agreeing with you.

I tried Buddhism... alot, and it didn't really work out with me. I lost my sense of being a conscious thinker. Basic meditation is cool.. just focusing on your breath, but "mindfulness" can be total chaos. Mindful of every breath, sensation, and thought is misleading and confusing to me. You can be mindfully aware of every thought, but your thinking power and life might pass you by :)

Yes i do, and I will when i get a chance.

Cool.

well you may not get that impression but it's unmistakable to others....even Antony Flew, by far Dawkins' unmistakable superior. I'm nobody, but I'm sure by Flew's gentelmanly account, Dawkins IS an asshole, especially to the religious. He's are real laugh, even to better atheists.

And not just by Flew's account...Many scientist even cozy to evolution discredit his bullshit. Distinguished people like Antony Flew of course, Gerald Schroeder, Francis Collins, Timothy Keller and David Aikman (who honestly, no shit, particularly eviscerates the mfer along with his cohorts), and there are many others who comment on the stark illegitimacy of Dawkin's anti-religious atheism.

His stupidity is already well known.

Well atheism without ideology or philosophy is no better then blind faith.

But you still have the laws of physics and reality to deal with.

I am a Taoist. There is no such thing as morality. There is no such thing as amorality.

Any moral structure that man can put into words is insufficient to cope with the true nature of reality.

A lack of moral structure is also insufficient to cope with the true nature of reality.

Actions have concequences, and this is where the stem of morality flourishes.

I've seen those guys act both ways.

Dawkins was on BILL O'REILLY of all places, and he acted quite politely, Bill was the bigger dick of both of them and failed to answer any questions legitimately.

you got it CCashman...TOO often atheism as in Dawkins case, certainly, is a charade for "anti-religious" bigotry...or really, just looking for a most plausible case of someone to blame. Atheism is the only religion i know where most half-ass proponents secretly pride prides themselves on HATING Christianity explicitly, for reasons real or imagined, cultivated and nurtured nonetheless. I know we hesitate to say for those atheists who are more tolerant and just want to live life freely without suborning anyone, but this more common kind of atheism frankly sucks ass.

Intelligent Design took that spot already.

I would say that there is a much larger percentage of arrogant religious people than atheist.

"Intelligent Design took that spot already."- ID is NOT SCIENCE!!!

Science is what it is, no need to start a religion around it, plus the word religion implies there would be some kind of deity and dogma, which would alienate atheists.

science is the the same thing as philosophy
some people think the point of science is to discredit god but that isn't true at all

scientists don't want to find god because if they did then a bunch of religious nut jobs would distort that data

ID is pseudoscience through and through. I was being sarcastic.

I disagree that science and philosophy are the same.
Science: "is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research."

Philosophy: "Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."

While they overlap in some of their study areas, science uses experimentation and repeatable evidence to assert a truth, while both philosophy and religion don't rely on that.

Khromadjo, my bad, sometimes it's hard to tell- especially on current :)

It's all good, Delia. Thanks for the post.

Delia, your right they aren't the same thing ...

they used to be the same thing but that was a couple hundred years ago