Can Atheists and Theists ever acknowledge each other.

[ChristineES]

Oh, and evolution is NOT the only science. Why is that the one that always comes up in these discussions? Evolution neither proves nor disproves God.

 

[ChristineES]

Another thing: I've known a lot of atheists and I don't recall any of them just starting conversations about science. Not all the atheists I knew were even interested in science. So why does everyone keep throwing science into these discussions? (I did it because I was jumping on the bandwagon and responding to what others are saying). Not all atheists are scientists and some theists are scientists. Science does not equal atheism; it never has.

 

[Quintessence]

Another thing: I've known a lot of atheists and I don't recall any of them just starting conversations about science. Not all the atheists I knew were even interested in science. So why does everyone keep throwing science into these discussions? (I did it because I was jumping on the bandwagon and responding to what others are saying). Not all atheists are scientists and some theists are scientists. Science does not equal atheism; it never has.

In this country, I think atheism sometimes becomes Atheism, the proper case designating that it is a system of beliefs and/or practices (aka, a religion) that extends well beyond addressing the god(s) question. A bunch of other ideas get wrapped up with religious Atheism that are not, strictly speaking, part of atheism. These typically include a rejection of supernaturalism and a worldview that is materialistic, naturalistic, and grounded in the sciences. This is probably why the sciences get dragged into the discussion so often; for religious Atheism it's central. Sciences are the Atheistic substitute for theistic mythos, and unfortunately, it is sometimes seen as downright incompatible with accepting the lessons to be learned from theistic mythos. I blame the stupid, stupid, stupid trend of mythological literalism and the fact that mythological literalists have very loud and obnoxious voices.

As I've said, on their own, neither the term theist nor atheist holds much meaning in the absence of defining what god(s) are. And people need to remember that one's status as (a)theistic is only a statement about god(s) and nothing else. It's relation to other ideas, whether scientific, aesthetic, ethical, political, (ir)religious, spiritual, or whatever is something else. If I had a dollar for every time someone on this planet conflated theism and religion, I'd probably be rich.

 

[Bunyip]

In this country, I think atheism sometimes becomes Atheism, the proper case designating that it is a system of beliefs and/or practices (aka, a religion) that extends well beyond addressing the god(s) question. A bunch of other ideas get wrapped up with religious Atheism that are not, strictly speaking, part of atheism. These typically include a rejection of supernaturalism and a worldview that is materialistic, naturalistic, and grounded in the sciences. This is probably why the sciences get dragged into the discussion so often; for religious Atheism it's central. Sciences are the Atheistic substitute for theistic mythos, and unfortunately, it is sometimes seen as downright incompatible with accepting the lessons to be learned from theistic mythos. I blame the stupid, stupid, stupid trend of mythological literalism and the fact that mythological literalists have very loud and obnoxious voices.

As I've said, on their own, neither the term theist nor atheist holds much meaning in the absence of defining what god(s) are. And people need to remember that one's status as (a)theistic is only a statement about god(s) and nothing else. It's relation to other ideas, whether scientific, aesthetic, ethical, political, (ir)religious, spiritual, or whatever is something else. If I had a dollar for every time someone on this planet conflated theism and religion, I'd probably be rich.

Religious atheism is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as 'religious atheism'.

 

[Quintessence]

Religious atheism is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as 'religious atheism'.

'Tis not at all a contradiction, especially if you're using the word "religious" instead of "religion." One can be religious about anything. To be religious about something is to be dedicated to it with great strength of passion. Devoted Star Wars fans are religious about their fandom, as an example. One can even be religiously irreligious, as it were (which would probably better be described as anti-religious in spite of the irony). I've seen plenty of atheists who are religious about their atheism, like any of those who join social groups revolving around their status as atheists or those who proselytize their atheism... as well as atheists whose religion is pretty much their atheism wrapped up with a bunch of other ideas. I'll definitely grant there are likely better words for Atheism (as religion) than atheism, but there doesn't seem to be momentum around an alternative word to describe the movement. Other than, perhaps, New Atheism, which is a ruddy religion if I ever saw one. XD

 

[Revoltingest]

'Tis not at all a contradiction, especially if you're using the word "religious" instead of "religion." One can be religious about anything. To be religious about something is to be dedicated to it with great strength of passion. Devoted Star Wars fans are religious about their fandom, as an example. One can even be religiously irreligious, as it were (which would probably better be described as anti-religious in spite of the irony). I've seen plenty of atheists who are religious about their atheism, like any of those who join social groups revolving around their status as atheists or those who proselytize their atheism... as well as atheists whose religion is pretty much their atheism wrapped up with a bunch of other ideas. I'll definitely grant there are likely better words for Atheism (as religion) than atheism, but there doesn't seem to be momentum around an alternative word to describe the movement. Other than, perhaps, New Atheism, which is a ruddy religion if I ever saw one. XD

What is your definition of "religious"?

I don't see any way that this one would allow for a "religious atheist"...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious?s=t

 

[Bunyip]

'Tis not at all a contradiction, especially if you're using the word "religious" instead of "religion." One can be religious about anything. To be religious about something is to be dedicated to it with great strength of passion. Devoted Star Wars fans are religious about their fandom, as an example. One can even be religiously irreligious, as it were (which would probably better be described as anti-religious in spite of the irony). I've seen plenty of atheists who are religious about their atheism, like any of those who join social groups revolving around their status as atheists or those who proselytize their atheism... as well as atheists whose religion is pretty much their atheism wrapped up with a bunch of other ideas. I'll definitely grant there are likely better words for Atheism (as religion) than atheism, but there doesn't seem to be momentum around an alternative word to describe the movement. Other than, perhaps, New Atheism, which is a ruddy religion if I ever saw one. XD

No that doesn't work. Some brown haired people are liberals, but that does not mean that there is any connection between their hair colour and their political perspective.

Religion is a term with a meaning, it refers to belief in a higher power. How is it even possible to be 'religious about your atheism'?
Just as it is not possible to proselytize atheism, or for atheism to be religious.

'New atheism' by the way was just a label invented by the author of a magazine article, it is not a movement, a belief, a philosophy or a religion.

If you associate atheism with religiousness, you can only do so by reducing the term to meaninglessness.

Atheism is just the position of not being a theist, there is no higher power, no practices or traditions, none of the characteristics of a religion whatsoever.

If an atheist is religious about something, it is not a feature of theor atheism.

 

[Draka]

What is your definition of "religious"?

I don't see any way that this one would allow for a "religious atheist"...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious?s=t

Number 3 under the definition for religious itself could work. "Scrupulously faithful, conscientious."

 

[Revoltingest]

Number 3 under the definition for religious itself could work. "Scrupulously faithful, conscientious."

I saw that one, but the singular shared trait of atheists is disbelief in gods,
& this is not something to be scrupulously faithful or conscientious about.
I'm not faithful or conscientious about disbelief.....it's just a state of mind
that happens.

 

[Bunyip]

Quintessence

To be religious about something is to be dedicated to it with great strength of passion.

Ok, but with that definition atheism still can not qualify. A disbelief demands no dedication, I don't understand how you could think that one could be passionate about a belief that they do not have. I doubt that any atheists are 'dedicated' to disbelief.

 

[Quintessence]

Quintessence



Ok, but with that definition atheism still can not qualify. A disbelief demands no dedication, I don't understand how you could think that one could be passionate about a belief that they do not have. I doubt that any atheists are 'dedicated' to disbelief.

Dude, you've been on RF for how long and you seriously haven't seen this? I'm not sure I believe you. Dear gods, I see it around here on a routine basis, and I have to deal with their preachy crap in the ModZone. :areyoucra

At any rate, I'm not going to discuss this here at length. It's off topic.

 

[Bunyip]

Dude, you've been on RF for how long and you seriously haven't seen this? I'm not sure I believe you. Dear gods, I see it around here on a routine basis, and I have to deal with their preachy crap in the ModZone. :areyoucra

At any rate, I'm not going to discuss this here at length. It's off topic.

Seen what?

Atheists can of course be passionate about things they are interested in, but that is nothing to do with atheism.

The only trait atheists have in common is the absence of a specific belief.

If an atheist is religious about anything, that is nothing to do with atheism. One can not be passionate about, religious about or proselytize a belief that we do not possess.

In terms of being on topic though - what atheism is and is not is surely relevant to the OP -how can atheists and theists acknowledge each other without knowing what atheism actually is?

 

[Sonofason]

I discuss religion with my atheist friends all the time. I think we have enough respect for one another to not go into bashing or straw-man territory. If we limit our circle of friends to only theists, I think that would be just as narrow minded and putting-head-in-sand-like as atheists who are only friends with atheists.

Ah, what do I know. I don't really have friends. I have co-workers and family. My wife has friends, but I surely wouldn't discuss religion with any of them. My wife would kill me. I've had discussions with some atheist family members, but that usually doesn't go very well.

I've learned that most people are much happier when I keep my mouth shut. I bet many people on this site would be happier if I did more of that. But then I'd never get to discuss that which is most dear to me.

 

[Sonofason]

That "people" are not accepting? That causes problems? Evolution is an obvious one, but you know that. The pushing of teaching ID and Creation into schools and the restricting of teaching evolution as the science it is is all damaging. There are YECs that are adamantly pushing their nonsense all the time. Oh, and there's the ridiculous "Creation Museum" that actually teaches children that the world existed as was described in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I actually believe myth can divulge a lot of deeper understanding of the world. Allegory and metaphors speak to things unseen within all of us. The problem is when people take these things to be more literal and speak to physical real world actualities instead of the underlying human condition of being.

You did, and I had said that the bible doesn't really bother me. Now, when taken literally, just about any mythology can be troublesome though. Same goes with Christian myth. When taken on face value, it is a very violent, unscientific, gruesome, vengeful mythology. Especially the OT. The NT is not quite so bad in those departments, but still a part of the mythos to be taken as a whole. Now, many myths have those qualities to them, but when analyzed for what they are and searched for the messages contained rather than taken literally then lessons are still to be garnered. The issue is taking such a myth literally in the first place. It simply cannot and was never meant to work. It will always cause problems and conflicts with reality in those whom attempt to do so.

I sort of disagree. You see the Old Testament is describing a people who lived under a Covenant that God had made with them. They agreed to it.
If you wanted to be a part of that culture, you had to live in it. That Covenant was God showing man what Man must do to find grace in God, and Mercy from God. The way one found Grace was by obeying God's Law. Those who didn't were required to pay the penalty for breaking that Law.

Today we live under a New Covenant. It is a Covenant that must remind us of the Old, for it to be of any value. A person who commits adultery, or a person who murders another person deserves to die. That is the law. That is the punishment required of those sins. It is the punishment required for all sins against God. That is why Jesus had said that not one jot nor tittle would be removed from the law until all was fulfilled.

But we live under a New Covenant. Jesus has shown us, and taught us that we no longer must give people what they deserve. We can love them, and we can show mercy and compassion towards them. We can forgive them.

The penalty of death is still in effect. However that price was paid for all of us when Christ suffered and died on the Cross. He died to pay the penalty that we all deserve to pay ourselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, what do I know. I don't really have friends. I have co-workers and family. My wife has friends, but I surely wouldn't discuss religion with any of them. My wife would kill me. I've had discussions with some atheist family members, but that usually doesn't go very well.

I've learned that most people are much happier when I keep my mouth shut. I bet many people on this site would be happier if I did more of that. But then I'd never get to discuss that which is most dear to me.

Keep yer trap shut? No, no...that won't do.
But family members generally have problematic emotional baggage.
I recommend finding friends for discussion. If not IRL, then perhaps
we (some of us) could suffice, eh?

 

[Quintessence]

Seen what?

Atheists being passionate about atheism. Which ranges from intense interest in discussing the subject of atheism to preaching at theists that they're stupid morons who should convert to "the truth." Seriously, man, it's so routine on RF that I'm pretty sure there's some poor communication going on here or something. Because I cannot believe that you've never seen this. It happens here all the freaking time. XD

Atheists can of course be passionate about things they are interested in, but that is nothing to do with atheism.

That's... that's like saying the a Star Wars fan being passionate about Star Wars has nothing to do with the fact that they like Star Wars. XD XD

In terms of being on topic though - what atheism is and is not is surely relevant to the OP -how can atheists and theists acknowledge each other without knowing what atheism actually is?

Pretty easily. I have no idea what corporate executives really are, but I can sure acknowledge them as human beings and get along with them regardless. And honestly, treating people as individuals should be part of the focus, especially where categorical distinctions are as meaningless as the supposed distinction between atheism and theism.

 

[Willamena]

The only trait atheists have in common is the absence of a specific belief.

That doesn't preclude atheists having in common a particular belief about an absence.

One can not be passionate about, religious about or proselytize a belief that we do not possess.

It's not the belief we don't possess, but the one that we do that we can get passionate about.

 

[Bunyip]

Atheists being passionate about atheism. Which ranges from intense interest in discussing the subject of atheism to preaching at theists that they're stupid morons who should convert to "the truth." Seriously, man, it's so routine on RF that I'm pretty sure there's some poor communication going on here or something. Because I cannot believe that you've never seen this. It happens here all the freaking time. XD

No, I have never experienced anything like religi8us atheism. Sorry, but atheism is just a response to a single specific claim.

That's... that's like saying the a Star Wars fan being passionate about Star Wars has nothing to do with the fact that they like Star Wars. XD XD

Well no. It is like saying that somebody can be passionately not interested in Star Wars. Can you be a pasionate not-a-star-wars-fan? I think not.

Pretty easily. I have no idea what corporate executives really are, but I can sure acknowledge them as human beings and get along with them regardless. And honestly, treating people as individuals should be part of the focus, especially where categorical distinctions are as meaningless as the supposed distinction between atheism and theism.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not the belief we don't possess, but the one that we do that we can get passionate about.

Thanks. Exactly my point.

 

[Quintessence]

Well no. It is like saying that somebody can be passionately not interested in Star Wars. Can you be a pasionate not-a-star-wars-fan? I think not.

Yes. They're called haters.

I think you're confusing atheism with apatheism, sir. But whatever. Agree to disagree.