My visit with the American Humanists Association

[mspmenge@comcast.net]

So, as suggested I went to an atheist meeting this afternoon.  I left after half an hour but it was because I brought my dad and he wanted to leave.

The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed.  There was definitely a lot of one-on-one discussion before the meeting started.  However, it struck me as being rather academic and much less personal than what I have seen at my Bible study.  However, this was just an impression, probably biased.

Matt

[GT]

If the atheists meeting were held in a park, and in that park was also a meeting of those who didn't believe in mermaids, how would you know which meeting was which, keeping in mind that atheists would not be talking about something they claimed not to believe in and a-mermaidists would not be talking about something they claimed not to believe in. I mean what would atheists talk about that would be different from what the a-mermaidists talked about, unless by chance they mentioned mermaids. The point being that atheists are not people who don't believe in the one particular thing at all, but are instead people who oppose the belief of a particular group of others. This is fine you might say, but we are obliged to present a counter argument, rather than just attempt to violate the rights of others. But the problem is that atheists are not naturalists, they have no argument of their own. So Its they that should shut up, let theists continue to exercise their rights.

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:49:41 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

If the atheists meeting were held in a park, and in that park was also a meeting of those who didn't believe in mermaids, how would you know which meeting was which

Different protest signs. Also a- mermaid -ists can  include both theist & atheist minded people. 

[GT]

But there can be no mention of theism, including on a sign at either meeting.   And sure an a-mermaidist might mention God, but MSPM would have been looking for the atheists meeting, so he would know he were in the right place only when he heard mermaids mentioned.

[mspmenge@comcast.net]

I think it is a valid point.  The issue is community and it is difficult to have community over a non-belief.  I suppose one could sort of have a community over 'protesting' theism.  However, most people don't protest necessary things.  So protesting theism suggests a belief that it is not needed for community.

Matt

[mspmenge@comcast.net]

Let me be more clear.  Protesting something can only take you so far.  You actually have to stand for something.  The Protestant movement, for example, is really about far more than protesting the Catholic church.  Protestant churches have their own belief systems, administrations, and so forth which they believe actually serve them better.  Or as another example, the United States is about far more than 'protesting' British imperialism.  We have our own system of government and political theories.

Matt

[GT]

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 1:07:04 PM UTC+11, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

Let me be more clear.  Protesting something can only take you so far.  You actually have to stand for something.  The Protestant movement, for example, is really about far more than protesting the Catholic church.  Protestant churches have their own belief systems, administrations, and so forth which they believe actually serve them better.  Or as another example, the United States is about far more than 'protesting' British imperialism.  We have our own system of government and political theories.

Matt

Good examples. Unfortunately an opposition can be represented as a force not needing to be right or wrong, not needing to have policy or belief, just possibly the chance of victory at the end.

But If there are to be protests, than these should be aimed at religions, and not be by 'atheists', as we know religion is something that's existence isn't dependent of whether or not there is a God.  

 

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 6:07:04 PM UTC-8, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

Let me be more clear.  Protesting something can only take you so far.  You actually have to stand for something.  

Protesting something is actually standing for something. And it's evident that non-believers organizing themselves into associations & support groups is taking things further than just protesting.
 

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 4:56:37 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

If the atheists meeting were held in a park, and in that park was also a meeting of those who didn't believe in mermaids, how would you know which meeting was which

Different protest signs. Also a- mermaid -ists can  include both theist & atheist minded people. 

But there can be no mention of theism

When you're in a hole,  it helps to stop digging,  but I'm not jumping into that hole with you. (Because you're a crazy man with a shovel & you don't know when to stop)  Your objections here are just stupid. A theist  & an atheist can agree to disbelieve in mermaids (if mermaids are a burning issue for some reason) & they're going to mention & discuss the reasons of the whys & wherefores of that agreement.

Matt is looking for community but community doesn't necessarily depend on people agreeing on every single thing in order to have that community. If he met a woman who was perfect in every way except that she is an atheist,  (but she tolerates his beliefs in spite of that),  is he going to turn down that relationship? If he does,  he's a fool.

[lawrey]

On Saturday, 8 November 2014 22:49:41 UTC, GT wrote:

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:05:00 AM UTC+11, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

So, as suggested I went to an atheist meeting this afternoon.  I left after half an hour but it was because I brought my dad and he wanted to leave.

The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed.  There was definitely a lot of one-on-one discussion before the meeting started.  However, it struck me as being rather academic and much less personal than what I have seen at my Bible study.  However, this was just an impression, probably biased.

Matt

                      > >    GT,

                                       As a frustrated ranter, of neither one thing or the other, It must be difficult for you to latch on to anything worth argument or discussion.
                                       You have been on this site for some time and still don't know the meaning of atheism which is as has been related time out of number
                                        "No-Belief-In-god/s" and nothing more. Individual atheists because they are not bound to a dogma, have minds of their own and speak
                                        for themselves. They don't go around wasting their time and energy opposing theists who are welcome to believe in mermaids if they so
                                       choose you seem to have an obsession with them. Individual atheists can also believe what ever they like.

[GT]

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 3:28:25 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 4:56:37 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

If the atheists meeting were held in a park, and in that park was also a meeting of those who didn't believe in mermaids, how would you know which meeting was which

Different protest signs. Also a- mermaid -ists can  include both theist & atheist minded people. 

But there can be no mention of theism

When you're in a hole,  it helps to stop digging,  but I'm not jumping into that hole with you. (Because you're a crazy man with a shovel & you don't know when to stop)  Your objections here are just stupid. A theist  & an atheist can agree to disbelieve in mermaids (if mermaids are a burning issue for some reason) & they're going to mention & discuss the reasons of the whys & wherefores of that agreement.

If theists disbelieve in mermaids, then all atheists believe in mermaids.  Which is of course not the case, as theism says nothing about mermaids. Why mermaids? Well I can't use Yetis as an example, as although the odds of them existing are near impossible, they are at least plausible as creatures that might exist. Why not use aliens then? Because they are possible. So what do you suggest I use as an example of something to non-believe in? You'll have a hard time with this, as it's only those who are opposed to theism that really make up the ranks of non-believers.  
 

Matt is looking for community but community doesn't necessarily depend on people agreeing on every single thing in order to have that community. If he met a woman who was perfect in every way except that she is an atheist,  (but she tolerates his beliefs in spite of that),  is he going to turn down that relationship? If he does,  he's a fool.

He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.  In other words an atheist's meeting makes no sense. Unless of course it represents an opposition to theism. I mean, I don't believe in mermaids, but at the same time I don't walk around with a T-shirt stating this.

Loopy, looks like you're the one that's dug yourself in over your head, so don't now try and use a theist as a ladder.

[GT]

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 4:32:42 PM UTC+11, lawrey wrote:

On Saturday, 8 November 2014 22:49:41 UTC, GT wrote:

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:05:00 AM UTC+11, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

So, as suggested I went to an atheist meeting this afternoon.  I left after half an hour but it was because I brought my dad and he wanted to leave.

The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed.  There was definitely a lot of one-on-one discussion before the meeting started.  However, it struck me as being rather academic and much less personal than what I have seen at my Bible study.  However, this was just an impression, probably biased.

Matt

                      > >    GT,

                                       As a frustrated ranter, of neither one thing or the other, It must be difficult for you to latch on to anything worth argument or discussion.
                                       You have been on this site for some time and still don't know the meaning of atheism which is as has been related time out of number

It doesn't matter how many time you try and brow-beat me into accepting your definition of what is atheism. But what you could do to help convince me is to point to the forums etc. where you post opinions about the non-existence of mermaids etc. That is unless you believe they do exist. What I mean is if an atheist is a person who simply non-believes in a God, yet still posts his non-belief, then presumable there will be other forums where he posts his opinion on other things he doesn't believe in, an atheists being, as you claim, simply a non-believer.


Post links here:
 

                                        "No-Belief-In-god/s" and nothing more. Individual atheists because they are not bound to a dogma, have minds of their own and speak
                                        for themselves.

It's in fact theists who can have an open mind, even if the majority of them don't, as it is they who have a belief. Something that doesn't exist as an opposition to anything. But atheism is an opposition, so by default can't be open-minded about that which they are opposed to. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on. Now, can a theists agree with an atheist? No, but that because atheism is a non-belief, it believes in nothing, for example atheism tells us nothing about the Big Bang if atheism is only a non-belief. Therefor there can be no agreement.

 

They don't go around wasting their time and energy opposing theists who are welcome to believe in mermaids if they so
                                       choose you seem to have an obsession with them. Individual atheists can also believe what ever they like.

Theists don't believe in mermaids. Why? Because if they did then mermaids would need to be depicted as gods. They're not.  And the Mermaid is an impossibility that we are all familiar with, that's why I use them.
 

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:33:00 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

When you're in a hole,  it helps to stop digging,  but I'm not jumping into that hole with you. (Because you're a crazy man with a shovel & you don't know when to stop)  Your objections here are just stupid. A theist  & an atheist can agree to disbelieve in mermaids (if mermaids are a burning issue for some reason) & they're going to mention & discuss the reasons of the whys & wherefores of that agreement.

If theists disbelieve in mermaids, then all atheists believe in mermaids

Atheism is not contrarism. It's specifically disbelieve in god or gods.

But mermaids are not necessarily supernatural beings. So, some theists & some atheists may believe they exist or not. The matter is,  people who disagree on one thing, can agree on another. What you're insisting upon here is an absolute line of antagonism between atheists & theists. That's not what necessarily happens  in the real world. A common enemy, for instance,  often brings antagonists together.

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

[Loopflanger]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:06:11 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on.

Any non-theistic  topic they may happen to share a common opinion about.  


 

Now, can a theists agree with an atheist? No, but that because atheism is a non-belief

A non-belief in X is a belief about the truth status of X.  You can't separate belief from  non-belief. If one upholds the former,  then that implies upholding the negation of the negation of the former, that is disbelieve the  later. . 

[lawrey]

                 

                    > >      GT,

                                     Why on earth we atheists should have to tolerate such diabolical stupidity, when your educational capacity is so obviously incapable of comprehension is beyond me,
                                     But if you insist on being humoured so be it.

                                     As has already been made quite clear, ATHEISM means one thing and one thing only, and that is that atheists do not believe in god/s. It means no more than that.
                                     In spite of your obvious beliefs or deliberate antagonistic goading for effect,  atheists do not oppose theists, and are quite capable of having perfectly good normal
                                     relationships with them, they even intermarry with one another occasionally.. Otherwise atheists have a wide range of intellectual capabilities as do some theists.
                                     Theists are ordinary people who happen to believe possibly through early inculcation that religious dogmas are for them the norm and that if the dogma says there
                                     is a god, they choose to believe it.

                                     Where atheism comes into it; as here on this forum where theists give voice to their beliefs: (since the forum is designed for the purpose of atheist-theist discussion).
                                     When some of those theistic views are put forward if they oppose the integrity of known truths as belief in god/s do, the atheists seek to correct them and reiterate the
                                     true facts of a given case.....If in this you say atheism is an opposer ot theism, you are completely and utterly mistaken and incorrect. All atheists do if they oppose at
                                     all is to argue a case in favour of the integrity of truth, and in that action are opposers of the deliberate defamation of truth and integrity, not of theists but their beliefs if
                                     and only if they are wrong!...... Do you think it is possible for you to assimilate that with a measure of common sense and understanding?

 

[lawrey]

                      > > Matt',

                                     Please correct me if I am wrong, but your use of the term community here is synonymous with having  the same characteristics. In that sense the concept appears
                                     somewhat open-ended because probably the only thing that would be the same is:...".No belief in god/s." In their individual thinking they may be entirely different
                                     and as for having a sense of community, in that they have a need to congregate together, I would think that highly improbable since they are usually very independent.
                                     It is not surprising that they appear more academic than you are used to seeing in religious congregations, or communities, because unlike religion they do not have
                                     a common mundane, belief in a false god dogma to endlessly discuss or which ties them to the dogma. They hold a far wider brief academically and are open to a
                                     vast array of intellectual subjects; there would be no apparent cohesion to such a community accept and or unless there was a specific subject requiring their resolution.

[mspmenge@comcast.net]

Yes, Lawrey that kind of makes sense.  They did have a community of sorts.

Matt

[Timbo]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 8:47:00 PM UTC-5, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

I think it is a valid point.  The issue is community and it is difficult to have community over a non-belief.  I suppose one could sort of have a community over 'protesting' theism.  However, most people don't protest necessary things.  So protesting theism suggests a belief that it is not needed for community.

I would think it would be quite inline with anti-communist meetings of not so long ago. GT's ignorant rational for using mermaid myth does not well represent the hypothetical problem. 

Protesting theism would be the same as protesting communism or democracy in America. You have to disregard thinking about laws, traditions and such and focus only on the subject at hand. (Is communism or religion right for America's future) Religion and democracy are great existing social powers. I would like to protest the power of unregulated markets. Markets without regulation are in fact oppressive markets.

[GT]

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:46:09 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 10:33:00 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

When you're in a hole,  it helps to stop digging,  but I'm not jumping into that hole with you. (Because you're a crazy man with a shovel & you don't know when to stop)  Your objections here are just stupid. A theist  & an atheist can agree to disbelieve in mermaids (if mermaids are a burning issue for some reason) & they're going to mention & discuss the reasons of the whys & wherefores of that agreement.

If theists disbelieve in mermaids, then all atheists believe in mermaids

Atheism is not contrarism. It's specifically disbelieve in god or gods.

But mermaids are not necessarily supernatural beings. So, some theists & some atheists may believe they exist or not. The matter is,  people who disagree on one thing, can agree on another. What you're insisting upon here is an absolute line of antagonism between atheists & theists. That's not what necessarily happens  in the real world. A common enemy, for instance,  often brings antagonists together.

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids. If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic. If you don't believe in something, then you don't believe that it exists. Don't believe that it exists, then you don't believe a community could exist.

And while on the subject of Star Trek, I'd said something critical of it a few years back, only to realize I might have had it confused with Star Wars instead. My apologies to 'Trekies'. (I'd actually preferred to watch Lost in Space, so maybe I should be apologizing to Star Wars fans too). 

[GT]

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 8:03:42 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:06:11 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on.

Any non-theistic  topic they may happen to share a common opinion about.  

Then it couldn't be a theist and an atheist that were agreeing. 

 

 

Now, can a theists agree with an atheist? No, but that because atheism is a non-belief

A non-belief in X is a belief about the truth status of X.  You can't separate belief from  non-belief. If one upholds the former,  then that implies upholding the negation of the negation of the former, that is disbelieve the  later.

The trouble is that we can't not believe in X, without believing in Y.  X does not equal Y.  

. 

 

[GT]

On Monday, November 10, 2014 3:13:52 AM UTC+11, Timbo wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 8:47:00 PM UTC-5, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

I think it is a valid point.  The issue is community and it is difficult to have community over a non-belief.  I suppose one could sort of have a community over 'protesting' theism.  However, most people don't protest necessary things.  So protesting theism suggests a belief that it is not needed for community.

I would think it would be quite inline with anti-communist meetings of not so long ago. GT's ignorant rational for using mermaid myth does not well represent the hypothetical problem. 

That's right it doesn't.  And it's just that point I've been trying to make all along. Atheism is an opposition to the belief in a God. It's not just a non-belief in something, as a non-belief in mermaids would be. . So it looks like you Timbo have inadvertently conceded what other atheists here have tried to avoid doing. But why should they be avoiding doing this? It's simple, as an opposition to theism, the potential to lose exists, whereas as a non-belief they can neither lose or even ever be proven wrong.

Lawrey: 

"As has already been made quite clear, atheists do not believe ATHEISM means one thing and one thing only, and that is that in god/s. It means no more than that.

                                     In spite of your obvious beliefs or deliberate antagonistic goading for effect, atheists do not oppose theists,

  

Me: 

"The point being that atheists are not people who don't believe in the one particular thing at all, but are instead people who oppose the belief of a particular group of others"

Protesting theism would be the same as protesting communism or democracy in America. You have to disregard thinking about laws, traditions and such and focus only on the subject at hand. (Is communism or religion right for America's future) Religion and democracy are great existing social powers. I would like to protest the power of unregulated markets. Markets without regulation are in fact oppressive markets.

That's right. The only difference is that legitimate oppositions have their own soapbox to stand on, whereas atheism doesn't. It simply opposes the rights of others to practice what they believe. Kind of like a heckler at a debate, there violating the free-speech of others. 

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49:27 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 8:03:42 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:06:11 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on.

Any non-theistic  topic they may happen to share a common opinion about.  

Then it couldn't be a theist and an atheist that were agreeing. 

 

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

Now, can a theists agree with an atheist? No, but that because atheism is a non-belief

A non-belief in X is a belief about the truth status of X.  You can't separate belief from  non-belief. If one upholds the former,  then that implies upholding the negation of the negation of the former, that is disbelieve the  later.

The trouble is that we can't not believe in X, without believing in Y.  X does not equal Y.  

I don't know about that. If you ask a couple of savages what shape they believe the earth to be, they might not have thought about it and therefore might have no opinion on the subject. If you insist on their guessing the shape of the surface they're standing on, they might start thinking about it and one might draw a square and the other might draw a circle. At this point, do they believe in the respective shapes they guessed? Are they likely to have a fight over which shape is correct: circle or square? 

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:28:09 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids.

But a theist can still hold a belief about mermaids independent of a belief about god. It's just another belief a person may hold.



 

If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

There's nothing paradoxical about that because there's no contradiction here between holding simultaneous contrary beliefs about god or gods.


 

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic.

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:49:27 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on.

Any non-theistic  topic they may happen to share a common opinion about.  

Then it couldn't be a theist and an atheist that were agreeing. 

You're just begging the question of something you failed to prove. There's more than one kind of belief a person can hold so it's not impossible for people with opposing views on one thing can agree on another. You're hung up on identity.  

 

 

The trouble is that we can't not believe in X, without believing in Y.  X does not equal Y.

What I'm saying is that to believe in X means to disbelieve in its opposite,  not-X.  Disbelieving in that opposite is the  non-belief in the non-belief of X.  Non-belief poses a problem for you & yet every belief involves the non-belief in its opposite. 



 

 

. 

 

[lawrey]

On Thursday, 13 November 2014 06:45:06 UTC, GT wrote:

On Monday, November 10, 2014 3:13:52 AM UTC+11, Timbo wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 8:47:00 PM UTC-5, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

I think it is a valid point.  The issue is community and it is difficult to have community over a non-belief.  I suppose one could sort of have a community over 'protesting' theism.  However, most people don't protest necessary things.  So protesting theism suggests a belief that it is not needed for community.

I would think it would be quite inline with anti-communist meetings of not so long ago. GT's ignorant rational for using mermaid myth does not well represent the hypothetical problem. 

That's right it doesn't.  And it's just that point I've been trying to make all along. Atheism is an opposition to the belief in a God. It's not just a non-belief in something, as a non-belief in mermaids would be. . So it looks like you Timbo have inadvertently conceded what other atheists here have tried to avoid doing. But why should they be avoiding doing this? It's simple, as an opposition to theism, the potential to lose exists, whereas as a non-belief they can neither lose or even ever be proven wrong.

Lawrey: 

"As has already been made quite clear, atheists do not believe ATHEISM means one thing and one thing only, and that is that in god/s. It means no more than that.

                                     In spite of your obvious beliefs or deliberate antagonistic goading for effect, atheists do not oppose theists,

  

Me: 

"The point being that atheists are not people who don't believe in the one particular thing at all, but are instead people who oppose the belief of a particular group of others"

                  > > GT,
                 
                                   Your asinine and somewhat juvenile protestations and insistence  that atheism means anything other than as explained:...(.Non-Belief in god/s.)  is demonstrative
                                   of a compulsive obsession disorder.....You might wish to take advise from a psychiatrist to help you get over it. You are not; impressing anyone here. But if you like
                                   making a laughing stock of your self, so be it.

[Timbo]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:45:06 AM UTC-5, GT wrote:

On Monday, November 10, 2014 3:13:52 AM UTC+11, Timbo wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 8:47:00 PM UTC-5, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:

I think it is a valid point.  The issue is community and it is difficult to have community over a non-belief.  I suppose one could sort of have a community over 'protesting' theism.  However, most people don't protest necessary things.  So protesting theism suggests a belief that it is not needed for community.

I would think it would be quite inline with anti-communist meetings of not so long ago. GT's ignorant rational for using mermaid myth does not well represent the hypothetical problem. 

That's right it doesn't.  And it's just that point I've been trying to make all along. Atheism is an opposition to the belief in a God. It's not just a non-belief in something, as a non-belief in mermaids would be. . So it looks like you Timbo have inadvertently conceded what other atheists here have tried to avoid doing. But why should they be avoiding doing this? It's simple, as an opposition to theism, the potential to lose exists, whereas as a non-belief they can neither lose or even ever be proven wrong.

There is truth in what you say. Except that not all atheist are against theism as their first cause. Rather they are against any posers of any truth without evidence. Theism only stands as the greatest poser causing the greatest harm to society.

[GT]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:53:52 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49:27 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 8:03:42 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:06:11 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

. For example, point to something an atheist agrees with a theist on.

Any non-theistic  topic they may happen to share a common opinion about.  

Then it couldn't be a theist and an atheist that were agreeing. 

 

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

 

No they couldn't! Theists are people who believe that a God exists, if they agree with atheists on anything else, then that belief in relation to the existence of a God is invalidated. So If they agree on something, they could agree on everything, including agreeing that a God does not exist. But if theism is defined as being belief in a God, and atheism relates to theism (it need not) then they can't agree on anything.

Ranjit, a theist is not a person, it's person that holds a paricular position, one that can be defined logically. It does not relate to roses in anyway.  

 

Now, can a theists agree with an atheist? No, but that because atheism is a non-belief

A non-belief in X is a belief about the truth status of X.  You can't separate belief from  non-belief. If one upholds the former,  then that implies upholding the negation of the negation of the former, that is disbelieve the  later.

The trouble is that we can't not believe in X, without believing in Y.  X does not equal Y.  

I don't know about that. If you ask a couple of savages what shape they believe the earth to be, they might not have thought about it and therefore might have no opinion on the subject. If you insist on their guessing the shape of the surface they're standing on, they might start thinking about it and one might draw a square and the other might draw a circle. At this point, do they believe in the respective shapes they guessed? Are they likely to have a fight over which shape is correct: circle or square? 

 

 

Our existence requires us to believe in one explanation or the other, God or Nature. So, non-belief is invalid as a position, as it's not a belief in anything, including belief that a God does not exist ( a non-belief is not a belief).

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 3:33:44 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

 

No they couldn't!

You mean you rather they did not because that lessens the social antagonism between them. We can't have any fraternization, or any intermingling going on,  can we?
 

> Our existence requires us to believe ...
Nothing there's no discernible explanation for.

[GT]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:15:37 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:28:09 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids.

But a theist can still hold a belief about mermaids independent of a belief about god. It's just another belief a person may hold. 

 

Theists are people who hold a particular position, in that they believe that a God exists. If they were to be allowed to believe in anything else they might for example believe a God does not exist. Which would (obviously) violate the logical definition of what it is that they represent.

 

 

If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

There's nothing paradoxical about that because there's no contradiction here between holding simultaneous contrary beliefs about god or gods. 

 

Theism relates to belief in God/s, nothing else. We are not talking about the religious, who for example may be made up of theists and atheists. Religion being something that is real and not dependent on whether or not there actually is a God.

 

 

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic.

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

 

 

Atheists gather in opposition.  They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. Atheism is a manifestation of the rejection by our soft (X) side, of what it percieves as a hard (Y) position, a conservative set of values.
  

 

[GT]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:47:47 AM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, November 24, 2014 3:33:44 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

 

No they couldn't!

You mean you rather they did not because that lessens the social antagonism between them. We can't have any fraternization, or any intermingling going on,  can we? 

 

The problem is that Atheism isn't just made up of those who don't believe there is a God. For example suppose a poll were conducted asking all of the people on earth do they believe or not. Then those saying no would technically speaking be atheists. But the reality is that it's not statistics that define atheism, instead it's 'effect'. That is those effective atheists are only a minority, but it's that minority that truly defines atheism. The majority of non-believers may for example not even regard themselves as atheists. And this would be because the perception of atheism is that it's opposed to, rather than simply disagreeing with theism.  So why shouldn't I do what's necessary to maintain a barrier between theism and it's enemy? Would you invite an enemy into your home? You're not happy Loopy because you see an escape route closing. Instead you should look at it this way, that by not allowing atheists through the barrier, the little bit of integrity they possess remains intact. A bit like not letting the captain off the sinking ship, kind of thing.

 

 

> Our existence requires us to believe ...
Nothing there's no discernible explanation for.

 

 

Intellgence is real. Through it we exercise (increasing) degrees of control. So why not intellgence as a God? Nothing is after all real, Everything is generated by our minds, only "information" being present.

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:00:49 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids.

But a theist can still hold a belief about mermaids independent of a belief about god. It's just another belief a person may hold. 

 

Theists are people who hold a particular position, in that they believe that a God exists. If they were to be allowed to believe in anything else they might for example believe a God does not exist ...

What's so special about that? You likely don't believe in Zeus, for example, & that's a purported god. & yet you're still a theist in no contradiction to whatever theism you may uphold.  There are actually people who do believe in Zeus out there. "About 13,000 people are members of the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes, the foremost organisation of Hellenismos, the restoration of the traditional ethnic religion of the Greeks.^[9][10] Over 100,000 people are "sympathisers".^[11] ". What you may allow them to believe or not to fit your own theology, worldview & logic is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece


 


 

If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

There's nothing paradoxical about that because there's no contradiction here between holding simultaneous contrary beliefs about god or gods. 

 

Theism relates to belief in God/s, nothing else.

But in your example you pose that a theist believes in mermaids, & yet mermaids are not necessarily supernatural entities. You didn't say all theists believed in fish ladies. You didn't redefine theism as being belief in fish ladies. So, belief in fish ladies is just some incidental belief a *particular* theist happens to hold besides theistic belief.

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic.

You posed there can be no real community gathered around something that is believed not to exist. That's just not factually true & the examples above demonstrate that. Not only that you admit that atheists *gather* in opposition. That's a real community regardless of what you may think as the low quality of. 

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

 

 

Atheists gather in opposition.  

See above. That contradicts your own notion that atheists don't have a real community.



 

They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. 

That's just a projection because any explanation that claims god did it w/o any *objective* evidence is not a real explanation.

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 5:03:42 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

 

No they couldn't!

You mean you rather they did not because that lessens the social antagonism between them. We can't have any fraternization, or any intermingling going on,  can we? 

 

The problem is that Atheism isn't just made up of those who don't believe there is a God. For example suppose a poll were conducted asking all of the people on earth do they believe or not. Then those saying no would technically speaking be atheists. But the reality is that it's not statistics that define atheism, instead it's 'effect'. That is those effective atheists are only a minority, but it's that minority that truly defines atheism. The majority of non-believers may for example not even regard themselves as atheists. And this would be because the perception of atheism is that it's opposed to, rather than simply disagreeing with, theism.  So why shouldn't I do what's necessary to maintain a barrier between theism and it's enemy? Would you invite an enemy into your home? You're not happy Loopy because you see an escape route closing.

I see a lunatic ranting. Atheism is entirely made up of those who don't believe in god regardless of how lackadaisical they may be in comparison to your own fanaticism.
  

[LL]

And compared to theism! The majority of believers may for example not even regard themselves as theists. And this would be because the perception of theism is that it's opposed to, rather than simply disagreeing with, atheism.  But they go a step further and disagree with each other to the point of killing and maiming other theists. 

And theists can't agree with each other on a god, how many there are, what his/their powers are, how that should "honor" their god(s), whether and how they should kill and torture their fellow man over their beliefs, how to go about forcing their beliefs on those who believe differently or don't believe at all, what's going to happen to them after they're dead, what to do about infidels and apostates (should they be burned at the stake or tortured?), whether their god(s) take on human form, what sin is, how their god(s) comunicates with them, etc., etc.  Yessiree, theists are much better than atheists, much more moral, much more consistent. 

I hear billions of lunatics ranting.

LL

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[GT]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:12:42 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:00:49 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids.

But a theist can still hold a belief about mermaids independent of a belief about god. It's just another belief a person may hold. 

 

Theists are people who hold a particular position, in that they believe that a God exists. If they were to be allowed to believe in anything else they might for example believe a God does not exist ...

What's so special about that? You likely don't believe in Zeus, for example, & that's a purported god. & yet you're still a theist in no contradiction to whatever theism you may uphold.  There are actually people who do believe in Zeus out there. "About 13,000 people are members of the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes, the foremost organisation of Hellenismos, the restoration of the traditional ethnic religion of the Greeks.^[9][10] Over 100,000 people are "sympathisers".^[11] ". What you may allow them to believe or not to fit your own theology, worldview & logic is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece

 

Theism is not about disbelieving. And It's atheists that can't believe in one less God, as they don't believe in any gods (one less God, from an atheists perspective, would be create a negative value).   


 

If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

There's nothing paradoxical about that because there's no contradiction here between holding simultaneous contrary beliefs about god or gods. 

 

Theism relates to belief in God/s, nothing else.

But in your example you pose that a theist believes in mermaids, & yet mermaids are not necessarily supernatural entities. You didn't say all theists believed in fish ladies. You didn't redefine theism as being belief in fish ladies. So, belief in fish ladies is just some incidental belief a *particular* theist happens to hold besides theistic belief.

 

A theist could only believe in mermaids if these had been depicted as being gods & goddesses.

 

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic.

You posed there can be no real community gathered around something that is believed not to exist. That's just not factually true & the examples above demonstrate that. Not only that you admit that atheists *gather* in opposition. That's a real community regardless of what you may think as the low quality of. 

 

Opposition 'to', is not community gathered 'around' a non-belief.

 

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

 

 

Atheists gather in opposition.  

See above. That contradicts your own notion that atheists don't have a real community.



 

They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. 

That's just a projection because any explanation that claims god did it w/o any *objective* evidence is not a real explanation.

 

The objective evidence that appears to show that Nature is responsible for life on earth, is more than matched by existence of those things, for example, fire,laptop computers etc, not needed for life to exist yet still considered essential. What I mean is, evidence for Nature does not stand out when weighing up all evidence.  

 

[GT]

They are all non-believers. But they're also (paradoxically) opposed to what they claim not to believe in. And all atheists being non-believers, does not make all non-believers atheists. For example, Einstein (most probably) didn't belive in a God, but was not himself an atheist.

 

  

[GT]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:30:45 PM UTC+11, LL wrote:

On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Loopflanger <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, November 24, 2014 5:03:42 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Why not? A theist and an atheist can agree that roses are fragrant. 

 

No they couldn't!

You mean you rather they did not because that lessens the social antagonism between them. We can't have any fraternization, or any intermingling going on,  can we? 

 

The problem is that Atheism isn't just made up of those who don't believe there is a God. For example suppose a poll were conducted asking all of the people on earth do they believe or not. Then those saying no would technically speaking be atheists. But the reality is that it's not statistics that define atheism, instead it's 'effect'. That is those effective atheists are only a minority, but it's that minority that truly defines atheism. The majority of non-believers may for example not even regard themselves as atheists. And this would be because the perception of atheism is that it's opposed to, rather than simply disagreeing with, theism.  So why shouldn't I do what's necessary to maintain a barrier between theism and it's enemy? Would you invite an enemy into your home? You're not happy Loopy because you see an escape route closing.

I see a lunatic ranting. Atheism is entirely made up of those who don't believe in god regardless of how lackadaisical they may be in comparison to your own fanaticism.

And compared to theism! The majority of believers may for example not even regard themselves as theists. And this would be because the perception of theism is that it's opposed to, rather than simply disagreeing with, atheism.  But they go a step further and disagree with each other to the point of killing and maiming other theists. 

 

 

Believers are theists regardless of what may be claimed by anyone. And theism does not exist as an opposition to atheism.  The terms suggest the opposite is true.

 

And theists can't agree with each other on a god, how many there are, what his/their powers are, how that should "honor" their god(s), whether and how they should kill and torture their fellow man over their beliefs, how to go about forcing their beliefs on those who believe differently or don't believe at all, what's going to happen to them after they're dead, what to do about infidels and apostates (should they be burned at the stake or tortured?), whether their god(s) take on human form, what sin is, how their god(s) comunicates with them, etc., etc.  Yessiree, theists are much better than atheists, much more moral, much more consistent. 

I hear billions of lunatics ranting.

LL

 

 

Where are the religious wars being fought? Which religious people are killing or torturing anyone? Don't say ISIS as these people are part of a politcal movement using religion as tool of control. Besides nothing blamed on religion through the ages can be compared to the the death toll brought about by those leaders that rejected belief, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

 

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[e_space]

from what i know about atheists, they are not "(paradoxically) opposed" to GOD, but to the "words" and "actions" attributed to HIM ... one cannot be opposed to something that isn't believed because that would give it life and credibility ... what you consider "opposed" is just an atheists reaction to the bunkum being promoted in GOD's name created, of course, by men ... 

 

 

  

[Loopflanger]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:06:42 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

 

Theism is not about disbelieving.

If you believe in god,  you also don't believe that there isn't a god. You can't separate belief from non-belief. Believing in anything is also disbelieving in the opposite of that thing.





 

A theist could only believe in mermaids if these had been depicted as being gods & goddesses.

Not necessarily. If mermaids were defined as goddesses & a theist upholds Christianity then that person is not going to believe in mermaids. OTOH, if, for example,  mermaids were speculated to be some possible existing species, a theist could believe in that possibility without contradicting a held theist belief.

 
> You posed there can be no real community gathered around something that is believed not to exist. That's just not factually true & the examples above
> demonstrate that. Not only that you admit that atheists *gather* in opposition. That's a real community regardless of what you may think as the low quality
> of. 

Opposition 'to', is not community gathered 'around' a non-belief.

All communities are gathered around in opposition to  non-belief of the held belief of the community.

 

They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. 

That's just a projection because any explanation that claims god did it w/o any *objective* evidence is not a real explanation.

 

The objective evidence that appears to show that Nature is responsible for life on earth, is more than matched by existence of those things, for example, fire,laptop computers etc, not needed for life to exist yet still considered essential.

The organic is made up of the inorganic & is dependent on such.  Tools are fashioned from what already exists in nature. You can explain the existence of tools but not the existence of matter the tools are made of without further investigation.

 

[Loopflanger]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:35 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

They are all non-believers.

So are you. You disbelieve in the non-existence of a god. 



 

And all atheists being non-believers, does not make all non-believers atheists.

Non-believers of what? God? If so, all non-believers in god are atheists.



 

For example, Einstein (most probably) didn't belive in a God, but was not himself an atheist.

Vacillaters are called agnostics.

 

 

  

[Dingbat]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:00:49 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:

 

Atheists gather in opposition.  They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. Atheism is a manifestation of the rejection by our soft (X) side, of what it percieves as a hard (Y) position, a conservative set of values.
  

 

There are atheists whose story seems to indicate that they might have given up belief in God upon perceiving him as a monster and whose story gives no indication that their disbelief had anything to do with conservative values. If their self-portrayal is accurate, then they must have believed, at least for a short time, in a God whose values they found abhorrent/ abominable. There is more than one way, though, to reject such a hypothetical God. For example, he can be rejected in the same way that the Christians reject Satan; they reject Satan by bad-mouthing him (even more stridently than Dawkins bad-mouths God by saying he is not good) but without denying Satan's existence.

So, why don't those who conclude that God is monstrous continue believing in his existence while rejecting worship of him? Good question. Try answering it yourself in this hypothetical scenario: Would you be able to maintain/ sustain a belief system in which you agree with Dawkins that God is not good and also agree with the Pope that God exists?

To evaluate the merit of your suggestion that atheism is necessarily a rejection of conservative values, consider the original atheists of recorded history, the ones who rejected the Greek pantheon and the ones who rejected the Hindu pantheon. What conservative values did they reject? I don't know about the Greeks, but the Buddhists and the Jains, both of whom rejected the Hindu pantheon, were/are just as conservative in their normative morality as Hindus are.

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 5:38:58 AM UTC-8, Dingbat wrote:

On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:00:49 PM UTC-5, GT wrote:

 

Atheists gather in opposition.  They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. Atheism is a manifestation of the rejection by our soft (X) side, of what it percieves as a hard (Y) position, a conservative set of values.
  

 

There are atheists whose story seems to indicate that they might have given up belief in God upon perceiving him as a monster and whose story gives no indication that their disbelief had anything to do with conservative values.

Conservatives tend to put a value on belief in a nasty god to insure that people *internalize* conservative values. That's apparently why GT is upset with atheists. Never mind the fact that some neo-cons are actually atheists who cynically promote religion just for that very reason. This is recognized by some conservatives themselves! Quoting Ron Paul: "Many of you are familiar with the ideas of Strauss, probably the founder of the neocon philosophy. He was an atheist but believed it was critical for religion to be used in society and by government to maintain order and a sense of purpose. Having been involved in neocon circles I assure you the idea is true. Rove is not religious and many think he is an atheist. Religion is merely a tool, most of the true philosophical neocons have no personal faith at all. They will point to the greek philosophers as evidence of the truth of this position. I had a neocon professor and his whole idea was that Socrates allowed himself to be executed rather than expose the religious myths of the state as lies, because he believed these myths were critical to keeping society together. This by the way is not an accurate interpretation of the Greeks.

"I am directing this to people of faith. Neocons USE religious people, just as tyrants have done all throughout history. I personally find this idea of using religion for political purposes as one of the most repugnant things possible. Even though I disagree with them, at least the athiest left was honest and straightforward about what they were. My faith is something important to me I try to live on a daily basis, not a political tool. I am sorry but we were used. I hope we can educate all Christians on what the neocons are all about, and we will relegate this morally bankrupt philosophy to the dustbin of history. Their horrible and anti-human foreign policy is a good place to start."



 

[LL]

On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:03 AM, Loopflanger <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:35 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

They are all non-believers.

So are you. You disbelieve in the non-existence of a god. 



 

And all atheists being non-believers, does not make all non-believers atheists.

Non-believers of what? God? If so, all non-believers in god are atheists.

Loopflanger also disbelieves in all other gods. He is as much an atheist when it comes to other gods as we are to his god. He should understand atheism perfectly, though he completely misses the point. 

LL

 

For example, Einstein (most probably) didn't belive in a God, but was not himself an atheist.

Vacillaters are called agnostics.

 

 

  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

It's nothing new that rulers use religion to manipulate the masses. It's been going on for millennia. All believers are manipulated whether they believe it or not. Their religion is used against them every day. They are clay in the hands of rulers. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Circa 65 AD

[GT]

That was the paradox, silly. To claim to not believe in something, but to be 'opposed' to it just the same doesn't make any sense. And no need for the bs that it is religion that 'you're' really opposed to, as the record shows that atheists are opposed in 'every way' to the existence of a God, at the same time generally ignoring religion itself (which should be where real objection is). In fact you get so much of an endorphin fix out of 'your' opposition to a God, that you're not even prepared to consider a God hypothesis. Which all, of course, points to the fact that atheism is 'not' scientific, as to be so requires an 'open mind' on the subject. And, no, theists aren't (generally) scientific either, but that's because they have a belief, and don't exist as an opposition to anyone anyhow. And, yes, men have done plenty of the interpreting, but done on behalf of mankind (humankind), not something done selfishly. That is men suffer from the punishments handed out by God as much, if not more than women do.

 

 

 

  

[GT]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:46:27 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:06:42 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

 

Theism is not about disbelieving.

If you believe in god,  you also don't believe that there isn't a god. You can't separate belief from non-belief. Believing in anything is also disbelieving in the opposite of that thing. 

 

You can seperate the two. For example a rhinoceros is a 'non-elephant', but that's not saying there is a direct physical relationship that exists between rhinos and elephants.

Belief and non-belief have simlarities as literal terms, but not as logical meanings. Non-belief is like an empty box, it can't be filled with anything in particular.

 

The relationship that exits between atheists and theists is one where one side is in opposition to the other. A non-symetrical arrangment. Theists acting in defence of what they believe. 

 

 

A theist could only believe in mermaids if these had been depicted as being gods & goddesses.

Not necessarily. If mermaids were defined as goddesses & a theist upholds Christianity then that person is not going to believe in mermaids. OTOH, if, for example,  mermaids were speculated to be some possible existing species, a theist could believe in that possibility without contradicting a held theist belief. 

 

 

All theists need not be religious, as all of the religious 'can not' be theists. For example there are atheists who claim to be Christians.

 

And if you're wondering, a friend of mine actually believes in mermaids and has warned me of the threat they pose to us as individuals, especially the male mermaids. And what do I think? I go along with it as it gives satisfaction to someone who isn't quite with it in the mental sense. I've suggested to him he setup a site 'mermaidsarereal.com'. I'm sure there'd be plenty of interest.

 

 
> You posed there can be no real community gathered around something that is believed not to exist. That's just not factually true & the examples above
> demonstrate that. Not only that you admit that atheists *gather* in opposition. That's a real community regardless of what you may think as the low quality
> of. 

 

Opposition 'to', is not community gathered 'around' a non-belief.

All communities are gathered around in opposition to  non-belief of the held belief of the community. 

 

It's hardly what mspm had in mind regarding 'community' (in fact the atheists at the meeting were themselves questioning whether or not what they had was community).

 

And what is the "belief" of the atheists 'community'. I mean it now looks like an atheist is claiming to have some sort of a belief. Problem is that you can't non-believe and believe at the same time. I mean you can believe in Nature, believe that a God does not exist, but not 'non-believe' in God or Nature.

 

 

They're not people interested in any kind of explanation as to how our existence came into being. 

That's just a projection because any explanation that claims god did it w/o any *objective* evidence is not a real explanation.

 

The objective evidence that appears to show that Nature is responsible for life on earth, is more than matched by existence of those things, for example, fire,laptop computers etc, not needed for life to exist yet still considered essential.

The organic is made up of the inorganic & is dependent on such.  Tools are fashioned from what already exists in nature. You can explain the existence of tools but not the existence of matter the tools are made of without further investigation.

 

Fire is such a useful tool, examples: To light the cave, heat the cave, protect the cave. To cook the food, tenderize the food, sterilize the food, preserve the food. To fire pottery, to smelt metals, and to force chemical reactions. To run vehicles, power rockets, & generators for electricity etc. etc. Yet fire wasn't needed for us to have come into existence. Fire, like computers, is a 'gift'. 

 

And we can't accurately explain what it is that 'everything' is made up from. Matter is not something that's even considered as being truly 'material'.

 

[GT]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:15:37 PM UTC+11, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:28:09 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

Theism is the belief in a God. It's not saying anything about mermaids.

But a theist can still hold a belief about mermaids independent of a belief about god. It's just another belief a person may hold. 

 

The person, yes, but the theist, no. Theism, strictly speaking, is about believing in a God/s nothing else.

 

 

 

If for example a theist believed in mermaids, and so did an atheist, then we would end up with paradoxical situation of theists and atheists believing in the same thing.  

There's nothing paradoxical about that because there's no contradiction here between holding simultaneous contrary beliefs about god or gods. 

 

Atheism contradicts theism. A theist, a person who believes in a God, can't accept the atheist's position. If a theist accepts what an atheist's says, then the immediate relationship that exists between the two is no longer valid, allowing theists to agree with an atheist that there is no God for example.   

 

 

> He's not looking for community at all, his point was there can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist.

That's just his opinion that belies the facts. Trekies don't believe that Star Trek is real & yet it's a community. Most Star Wars fans probably don't believe that the Force exists but that's a community.

So now what?

It's not opinion, it's logic.

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

 

Yet the atheists gathered at the group had doubts themselves. From mspm's OP:  "The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed."

 

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:38:16 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

.

Belief and non-belief have simlarities as literal terms, but not as logical meanings.

Belief in X  & non-belief in not-X are the same thing.

 A theist could only believe in mermaids if these had been depicted as being gods & goddesses.

Not necessarily. If mermaids were defined as goddesses & a theist upholds Christianity then that person is not going to believe in mermaids. OTOH, if, for example,  mermaids were speculated to be some possible existing species, a theist could believe in that possibility without contradicting a held theist belief. 

 

 

> All theists need not be religious

That's irrelevant. If a theist upholds a non-religious belief in a higher being,  & mermaids are defined as goddesses that demand worship, then that theist is not going to believe in mermaids.

 
> You posed there can be no real community gathered around something that is believed not to exist. That's just not factually true & the examples above
> demonstrate that. Not only that you admit that atheists *gather* in opposition. That's a real community regardless of what you may think as the low quality
> of. 

 

Opposition 'to', is not community gathered 'around' a non-belief.

All communities are gathered around in opposition to  non-belief of the held belief of the community. 

 

> It's hardly what mspm had in mind regarding 'community'

There are plenty of secular communities. He samples one & then draws conclusions about all of them. (& if he's looking for a religion,  there's Jainism for example.) Since he's committed to a notion of a higher being,  then it's not likely that any secular community or any religion not committed to a omnipotent personal being is anything he has in mind.  But it's a fact that all communities are gathered around in opposition to non-belief of the held belief of that community if upholding a common belief is the agenda of the group. Non-belief is just as much part of your own theistic belief as belief is in regards to atheistic non-belief in god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 9:37:09 PM UTC-8, GT wrote:

The facts prove your logic is wrong. The examples above demonstrate that. .   The proposition:  "[T]here can be no real community gathering around something that is believed not to exist."  is not necessarily true.

 

Yet the atheists gathered at the group had doubts themselves. From mspm's OP:  "The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed."

 

 

Atheists in *one* group having doubts about community doesn't settle the matter,  does it? Evidently,  they're in a community while contemplating it. (Duh.)  Fan clubs around fictional worlds is an example of communities gathered around things the group knows doesn't exist.

 

 

[LL]

In addition, if doubts destroy communities, all religions would collapse. Everyone has doubts about his position, whether they admit them or not. It's human nature. It's the people who claim no doubts at all who should be looked at with suspicion. They are covering something up. 

LL

[Loopflanger]

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, LL wrote:

 

Yet the atheists gathered at the group had doubts themselves. From mspm's OP:  "The question of the day was whether atheists have community.  The results were a little mixed."

 

 

Atheists in *one* group having doubts about community doesn't settle the matter,  does it? Evidently,  they're in a community while contemplating it. (Duh.)  Fan clubs around fictional worlds is an example of communities gathered around things the group knows doesn't exist.

In addition, if doubts destroy communities, all religions would collapse. Everyone has doubts about his position, whether they admit them or not. It's human nature. It's the people who claim no doubts at all who should be looked at with suspicion. They are covering something up. 

But that's not what GT is talking about. GT is signifying about atheists doubting that they are a community,  or that they feel their community is lacking. He thinks that proves something against atheism. But it's just ad hominem. GT throws the word "atheists" around like Ann Coulter throws around the term "liberals".  They both are trying to turn these respective terms into pejoratives.

[LL]

Yes, you're right.