• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Big "A" Atheism versus little "a" atheism

Nope. The overwhelming evidence from history and the personal experiences with the Holy Spirit gives me great confidence that Christ is real.

But you still don't know. But of course this means that history and experiences with the lack of divine means atheists can have great confidence that mythology is just wishful thinking.
 
I'm an atheist (very small a) who is no great fan of this kind of action but I don't consider them any worse than the "big-C Christians" who slip religious messages in charity care packages. This kind of thing is generally a conflict of "freedoms", the freedom to be religions and the freedom not to be forced to support or promote religion via public institutions. This case was probably technically right though not, IMO, the right way to go about it.

I think we (and I mean we, because Europe is little better) need to recognise the contradiction in our high words about freedom and equality but our unspoken attitude that Christianity is somehow more free and equal.

I also think it's quite dishonest to call this a specific attack on Christianity. The only reason it's almost always Christians on the receiving ends of such challenges is because it's almost always Christians pushing at the boundary of church and state - any other religion doing the same kind of thing gets stamped out much earlier and with much less outcry.
 
Nope. The overwhelming evidence from history and the personal experiences with the Holy Spirit gives me great confidence that Christ is real.

I have to assume that you are a christian by being born into it. If you were born into a muslim or jain or zoroastrian, etc religion, you would think that allah or whatever was real. We are synapses and chemicals, we percieve and have feelings based on our chemistry (which has evolved us into the self conscious sentient beings that run this planet). You believe in the holy spirit, you don't know.

I don't know either, but I can't accept organized religion and dogma as having the answers.
 
Well I'm lost on this one.

Why did they end it - just because of a lawsuit? What did the lawsuit allege?

When people roll over and just give in so easily it makes me wonder if they really had the cohones to begin with. . . looks like they didn't in this case.

I would have said "fine - take it to court. It's not required, sue me for my involvement with a charity."

I'm not religious - but I remember that being a lesson in church. If you're religious and devote, don't let anyone mow you over and have THEIR way.
I think it was more because of the threat of a lawsuit - and the associated costs of having to defend themselves against it that was behind their decision. I think too a couple parents took umbrage at it when their kids told them about what they were doing. They were on local news and explained no one was forced or otherwise made to take part; it was just something they'd been doing as a class. What I found disturbing was the threat, and an intimidating one at that.

What they were doing was making gift boxes that would be delivered by the Billy Graham charity to kids in Africa, something they've been doing for years. One of the kids who'd received one was interviewed in the U.S. - his parents had been murdered (like so many others) and the gift boxes gave him hope that they weren't alone in an otherwise hopeless situation. The whole thing is just sad, imho.
 
OMG!!!!!! A.group of people has a nonzero percentage of their population who are jerks!!!!!! Alert the presses! Has anyone told Obama? Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?

Hahaha. Theists have their jerks too and their jerks actually run around killing each other over gods. So perhaps you should watch over your own house before lording over mine.

Also this topic has nothing to do with philosophy. It's theist garbage.
Friend, I think I've acknowledged that theists have their jerks too. This isn't about "lording it over" you or anyone. It's about people with an axe to grind intimidating others with threats of legal action if they don't comply with their interpretation of the Constitution - which isn't remotely "theist garbage" as you contend.
 
I have to assume that you are a christian by being born into it.

Nope.

If you were born into a muslim or jain or zoroastrian, etc religion, you would think that allah or whatever was real. We are synapses and chemicals, we percieve and have feelings based on our chemistry (which has evolved us into the self conscious sentient beings that run this planet). You believe in the holy spirit, you don't know.

I don't know either, but I can't accept organized religion and dogma as having the answers.

Too bad you don't know the Holy Spirit. You wouldn't be an atheist / agnostic.
 
Oh yes I do know. And you will too one day.

Actually you don't have knowledge as knowledge takes measurements and gods are defined to be immeasurable. So either everyone is an agnostic or atheists are just as capable as theists to "know" their position is correct. Logically speaking of course.
 
I think we need to divide this down just a little bit further, and then I can talk about it.

Not all atheists advocacy is like this. There are legitimate codified and societal discriminations against atheists. There are some states that forbid them from serving in office, which is blatantly unconstitutional. There are atheist families who have been run out of their towns.

It is important when talking about this issue to separate the wheat from the chaff. With that said, the chaff is mostly coming from certain organizations, and you're right that a lot of it is almost unbelievably stupid.

Personally, I think these organizations are borrowing a page from the way every other minority advocacy is going about things right now. There is a large segment of all of these groups today -- gender groups, sexuality groups, racial groups -- who have an us versus them mentality, and need to "win." They don't necessarily want a peaceful coexistence.

However, there is another segment in all of these groups who does.

I think this is an outgrowth of our overall political climate right now, which is very divided and uninterested in working together.

And it's important we don't throw all of them into the same box, lest we fall pray to that same us versus them mentality.
Good post, thanks.

I agree, there has been discrimination of atheists - which I don't condone, nor do my beliefs condone it. The concept of wielding our legislatures to mandate our morals or beliefs on others is a rather reprehensible one, imo. And both theists and atheists and others in between have done it. That's not the purpose of law in general and I'm as much dismayed when theists do it as I am when anyone else does.

I also agree that we're in a particularly divisive and adversarial political climate right now - perhaps as divisive as we've ever experienced, which is constructive to no good end at all. Given that and your other comments, I want to reiterate that my issue in all this is NOT atheists. It's how a particular faction (frankly could've been anyone) is intimidating innocent people with the threat of lawsuit if they don't comply with their particular interpretation of the Constitution. That's my issue in all this - not atheists, not atheism, but what just happens to be an activist faction of atheists in general who would use the threat of legal action to get their way.
 
One very simple, and yet completely accurate definition of atheism is; lack of a belief in god.
Nothing more, nothing less. No certainty is declared, none is implied.
* i might add that in this definition the word "god" is understood to mean the traditional, singular ,paternal, omnipotent creator God of Abraham and Isaac.*

We all need to defend the constitution at all times including the freedom of religion for others( as an atheist myself). An asshole is an asshole. it doesn't matter if a militant atheist duchebag belittles the intellect of people of faith,or a bible-thumping fundamentalist condemns an atheist to hell, both suffer from the same personality defect. right? They are assholes, and likely quite insecure in their own stated beliefs, to be honest.
QFT. So true.

Hello everyone, btw. first post on the site. In time you will come to know me as a brilliant, insightful beacon of un-deniable truth and philosophical clarity, the likes of which you have never seen. I'm also funny, handsome, and, err, humble. LOL.

Jayar
LOL Welcome to DP!
 
I'm an atheist (very small a) who is no great fan of this kind of action but I don't consider them any worse than the "big-C Christians" who slip religious messages in charity care packages. This kind of thing is generally a conflict of "freedoms", the freedom to be religions and the freedom not to be forced to support or promote religion via public institutions. This case was probably technically right though not, IMO, the right way to go about it.

I think we (and I mean we, because Europe is little better) need to recognise the contradiction in our high words about freedom and equality but our unspoken attitude that Christianity is somehow more free and equal.
QFT.

I also think it's quite dishonest to call this a specific attack on Christianity. The only reason it's almost always Christians on the receiving ends of such challenges is because it's almost always Christians pushing at the boundary of church and state - any other religion doing the same kind of thing gets stamped out much earlier and with much less outcry.
Well, I can only say what I've said earlier, that the schools were threatened with legal action if they continued their participation in Billy Graham's charity. Had they been making gift boxes for some other charity, I suspect they wouldn't have incurred the ire of this particular atheist group at all. Do you?
 
Good post, thanks.

I agree, there has been discrimination of atheists - which I don't condone, nor do my beliefs condone it. The concept of wielding our legislatures to mandate our morals or beliefs on others is a rather reprehensible one, imo. And both theists and atheists and others in between have done it. That's not the purpose of law in general and I'm as much dismayed when theists do it as I am when anyone else does.

I also agree that we're in a particularly divisive and adversarial political climate right now - perhaps as divisive as we've ever experienced, which is constructive to no good end at all. Given that and your other comments, I want to reiterate that my issue in all this is NOT atheists. It's how a particular faction (frankly could've been anyone) is intimidating innocent people with the threat of lawsuit if they don't comply with their particular interpretation of the Constitution. That's my issue in all this - not atheists, not atheism, but what just happens to be an activist faction of atheists in general who would use the threat of legal action to get their way.

Yeah, I guess my point is just that there are some very necessary atheist activists too. However, in what I've seen, this is usually happening outside of the actual atheist organizations -- through avenues like the ACLU, for example.

And I think perhaps there's a relatively straightforward explanation for that.

Atheism is mostly invisible. Being a woman, or black, or gender queer, is readily obvious. Even being gay can be visible, if you are having relationships with people of the same sex.

Therefore, atheism is something that doesn't have to define your life much, if at all. There is no "practice" of atheism, and it is largely invisible.

So, for people who don't let atheism define their life, they only go into advocacy when something specific happens -- when they run into one of these codified or socially aggressive forms of discrimination. They don't belong to any atheist organization, and they don't think to create one or join one when this happens. They go through some other avenue in order to address the issue, because they think of it as a discrimination issue, not an atheist issue per se.

Someone who belongs to an atheist organization is revolving their life around atheism a lot more than they have to. And, usually, they aren't JUST an atheist. They have some other belief system attached to their atheism -- often anti-theism. The exception to this might be secular humanist organizations, which are inherently atheist, but don't define themselves as an atheist organization. It's a social issues organization more broadly. Most of their work has nothing to do with atheism.

So you really have two kinds of atheist activists. You have people who are defined by atheism, and you have people who want to end discrimination.

This is why I have little time for atheist organizations. For the most part, they aren't working on serious or relevant atheist advocacy. They're bickering and knit-picking and indulging in the us versus them mentality.

I remember a case a year or two ago where one of these organizations was fighting over a street sign in New York called "Angel's Way" or something like that. The street was near the WTC site, and renamed in honor of those who died. While I don't believe in angels, I do have an appreciation for metaphor. Hell, I've used metaphors that borrow from the Abrahamic religions in my writing. If I had simply seen this street sign at random, it wouldn't have occurred to me to even think about it.

But for some reason, this was a big friggin' deal to some atheist organization. And all I could think was, "Really? There's several states in the union that won't even let atheists serve in office, and THIS is what you want to fight about? A street sign?"

And then there's just the fact that I rarely think about the fact that I'm an atheist, and it doesn't affect my life very much. Nothing about my personal ethics system is directly tied to being an atheist. I have no reason to sit in a circle with a bunch of atheists and talk about how I don't believe in deities.
 
Last edited:
Nope.



Too bad you don't know the Holy Spirit. You wouldn't be an atheist / agnostic.

Too bad you don't know reason and rationality, you wouldn't be christian/religious.
 
Some Atheist I find so annoying that I argue for religion just to make them quiet down . One female makes it a point to tell you she's a atheist and say she finds in her own belief religion a cult but on the opposite side of the atheist spectrum is my own father who I find difficult to find out what he believes in . ( I think he's a atheist but am not sure its hard to tell ) Their is a big difference in types of atheist but not much more when compare it to other's belief system some are up front loud and obnoxious then you have the people who talk about it but not regularly and then the people who make no comment . Their is more of course but I need not to go on .
 
So the main point I seem to be getting from a lot of you is that atheists are OK so long as they sit down and shut up. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Who is angry?

Respectfully, here is what you said to me:
That is faulty logic, you cant just project your philosophy onto other people like that. You claim that there isnt any evidence that there is no gods, but a god is a construct of the human mind. There isnt anything other than people making a claim that gods exist. if you research the concept of gods and try to find its origins all roads lead to people telling stories. In other words folklore. For the concept of a god to go anywhere beyond folklore you would need evidence that gods exist outside of folklore. But the concept of gods is entirely based in story telling and nowhere else.

So the logical conclusion is that the concepts of gods must be rejected as just human imagination. If we must accept the stories of gods being possible then we must accept all of them and all things similar. The thing is that agnostics do not apply their logic evenly. They leave room for a mysterious god but reject specific gods. There is no way to disprove the existence of Zeus. But no one doesnt reject that Zeus was just stories that men made up. The concept of gods is the same logic just generalized.

I am a strong atheist not because of lack any evidence but because the concept of gods is silly and childish primitive crap.

The bolded portions seem like anger. Maybe I misjudged them.

Now, as to the argument that Agnostic believe in a "mysterious" god, that is not the actual definition of agnosticism. If you could say that a self-proclaimed agnostic "has a position" - that position can be clearly summed up as "I Don't Know". Not knowing in no way resembles either the presence or absence of deities.

Nor do I disagree with your analysis that gods emanate from folklore. Of course they do and that is why gods tend to resemble humans or in some cases, are humans that are related to the god. When belief is specific gods leads people toward a life of righteousness, then they serve a valuable function and if they are humanized, it is to assist people in identifying with them more closely.

Now 2 short anecdotes and I'll STFU:)

1) On a business trip to Kathmandu Nepal in the 1980s, I asked my Western educated local connection why there were so many gods of all shapes and sizes, often with little shrines in peoples homes. What he said was "we know these multi-armed gods are not real, but we like to have an individualized channel to the forces that created the universe".

2) The Universe is quite amazing and it had to come from somewhere. Scientists tend to agree there was "a big bang", an explosion of force that threw solid matter by the centillions (10303 all over an incomprehensible area. It would not be unreasonable to think of that original force as god. Now, is that force a god that is aware of our evolving species in a minor galaxy located in a remote part of this giant universe? Personally, I doubt it. Are our prayers "heard" by this god? Are a fleas prayers heard by the dog? Probably not. Does this absolutely, positively mean that there is a) no god or b) there is a godlike force that doesn't know about us? I don't know and neither does anybody else. That's the AG part of Agnostic.

No matter how strong anyones beliefs are, whether it is one version of god or another or the absence thereof - nobody KNOWS. Whatever beliefs you have can be used for good or evil. Most of us (except sociopaths) know the difference, with or without beliefs.
 
Actually you don't have knowledge as knowledge takes measurements and gods are defined to be immeasurable. So either everyone is an agnostic or atheists are just as capable as theists to "know" their position is correct. Logically speaking of course.

Listen, I have the Holy Spirit living within me, as do all Spirit-filled Christians. It's an amazing experience. You have no clue about all that. You think it's subjective folly, but it isn't.
 
Horse manure.

I was just repeating the horse manure you were putting out.

Reason and rationality...use your evolved brain.
 
I know a number of atheists, some acquaintances, some being good friends - they are not believers and I respect their lack of belief, and they all respect my belief. We get along. We can do things together; we can talk, I can be who I am and they can be who they are. NP

Strictly to make a point here, one might call them "little a" atheists - no different than anyone else save for their lack of belief.

Then, in stark contrast there are those "big A" Atheists whose lack of belief has taken on a different dimension entirely. Not content to merely be non-believers, they have taken it upon themselves to actively seek to take away the freedoms of those who are believers.

Case in point: SkyView Academy cuts ties with Christmas donation program after lawsuit threat - The Denver Post

I might cite a host of other actions - removal of anything "Christian" from public view (prayers, the 10 commandments, crosses, nativity scenes, references to God..., ostensibly excused on the basis of the separation of church and state (another topic) ---- the point being these "big A" Atheists are actively seeking the total abolition of anything Christian - and that at the expense of fundamental Constitutional freedoms they've misapplied and warped to advance their own intolerant biases.

In effect, "big A" Atheism has little to do with their lack of belief, and everything to do with their abject hatred of anything Christian. Beyond being atheists, they have - in effect - assumed the sinister role of being actively anti-God... actively anti-Christian... actively anti-Christ... Atheists.

...and frankly, it needs to stop. More is at stake than the removal of things "Christian" from public view; our very Constitutional freedoms are being threatened because of a few radical haters whose intolerance has gone amuck.

Then, in stark contrast there are those "big C" Christians whose lack of disbelief has taken on a different dimension entirely. Not content to merely be believers, they have taken it upon themselves to actively seek to take away the freedoms of those who are non-believers.
Need I elaborate?
 
Listen, I have the Holy Spirit living within me, as do all Spirit-filled Christians. It's an amazing experience. You have no clue about all that. You think it's subjective folly, but it isn't.

Might be a little off topic here, but Logicman... do you perhaps go by the handle of "Easyrider" on a certain other forum?
 
How did the religious get the idea that they have a right to government funding of their religious activities?
 
How did the religious get the idea that they have a right to government funding of their religious activities?
Dunno - the same way every other group got the idea that they have a right for the government to fund theirs?
 
Back
Top Bottom