My current favourite chapter of TGD is: Roots of Religion.
Before it was: Why there almost certainly is no God.
I am currently really interested in how Faith evolved. And how there are theists who actually believe that 'God created Evolution.'
God didn't create evolution. Faith evolved.

Richard Dawkins is a religious thinkers embarassment, The God Delusion is a great book

(October 17, 2008 at 7:28 am)Bungy Wrote: Richard Dawkins is a religious thinkers embarassment, The God Delusion is a great book

I agree.

PS: I like your sig...one of the things a lot of people don't understand ...and I didn't really use to understand is that realist doesn't always mean negative. Realistic doesn't always=negative. Realism can be very positive!

(October 10, 2008 at 9:43 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: there are theists who actually believe that 'God created Evolution.'
God didn't create evolution. Faith evolved.

and if there is a god then he/she/it would have to be a pretty lazy one for doing nothing for 4 billion years all so. Even then scientists have created a virus and are now working on making a bacteria which would suggest that life can create itself. The earliest belief in an after life known to us is from neanderthal burial grounds 25,000 years plus, that suggests they made preparations for their dead for an after life.

The reason I prefer to be called a realist is because the word atheist was invented by theists which has a negative connotation, that's like a negative "A" and then another negative "theist". I'd rather a positive description. Let's not give then their way all the time.

Although I'd say that positive doesn't mean true, so the fact that a lot of us atheists are willing to go with a supposed 'negative' word to describe ourselves...atleast it goes with the belief that truth is more important than positive delusion...and like I said....some people find realism 'negative'. But by definition just like atheism...realism is more about truth than positive delusion...

I'd say the main difference (that I can think of) is that atheism is more controversal than realism...and I like that...

But thats just my view..correct me if I'm wrong.

The main reason behind the term Realism in my case is

1. A positive discription which can lead a-realists to open their minds and think outside their tiny mind set which is controlled for them like children. (some people go to church just because they think it's the right thing to do).

2. to suggest the embarrassment religious people should have about their belief by calling them a-realists and to degrade faith (not the person) because many a-realists say "oh you're an atheist" as if it's a horrible thing. It's an unwelcome mind condition on their behalf.

3. because not all atheists have the same beliefs (Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Non Theists, Anti-theist) etc...

Personally I am Anti-Theism, and an Agnostic to the unknown, Atheist,
I also believe no one should be gnostic towards Atheism

I also dont believe in ghosts, angels, superstitions (black cats, walking under the ladder, no.13, black friday etc..) lucky pokies, karma, yin and yang, witches, warlocks, fortune tellers, ESP, women's intuition, satanic rituals, satan himself or any other human invented set backs.

To me that means Realism

(October 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'd say the main difference (that I can think of) is that atheism is more controversal than realism...and I like that...

Could you elabratate more on your liking to controversal ways?

(October 18, 2008 at 9:56 pm)Bungy Wrote: The main reason behind the term Realism in my case is

1. A positive discription which can lead a-realists to open their minds and think outside their tiny mind set which is controlled for them like children. (some people go to church just because they think it's the right thing to do).

2. to suggest the embarrassment religious people should have about their belief by calling them a-realists and to degrade faith (not the person) because many a-realists say "oh you're an atheist" as if it's a horrible thing. It's an unwelcome mind condition on their behalf.

3. because not all atheists have the same beliefs (Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Non Theists, Anti-theist) etc...

Personally I am Anti-Theism, and an Agnostic to the unknown, Atheist,
I also believe no one should be gnostic towards Atheism

I also dont believe in ghosts, angels, superstitions (black cats, walking under the ladder, no.13, black friday etc..) lucky pokies, karma, yin and yang, witches, warlocks, fortune tellers, ESP, women's intuition, satanic rituals, satan himself or any other human invented set backs.

To me that means Realism

(October 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'd say the main difference (that I can think of) is that atheism is more controversal than realism...and I like that...

Could you elabratate more on your liking to controversal ways?

Well I'd say If I called myself a realist....rather than an atheist (I'm both but I generally describe myself as atheist) - the religious would be more likely to ignore me because they would think 'well my belief In God IS realistic...it IS true"...so they wouldn't bother with me...

But because atheism has a more negative and/or atleast controversial label...religious people tend to pay more attention so have more of a chance of getting into a debate/argument and therefore have more of a chance of atleast slightly understanding in some cases even partially agreeing with the Atheist view...and in some rare occasions even being (voluntary) de-converted.

I know to atleast some it may seem absurd so as always - correct me if I'm wrong.

This notion I'm not entirely sure on...but this is what I currently think so as I said - correct me if I'm wrong...

P.S: Obviously when I'm talking about controversy I'm not talking about controversy to the extent that it would do more damage than good...even in the short term....I mean attracting non-aggressive, non-violent, and potentially educational - and sometimes even positively uplifting - debates that do no real harm...but by the religious may be considered controversial. And the thing is its often because its almost always only superficial and merely slightly controversial.

It would be more like "are you a christian" and then I'd say "Oh no I'm a realist" They wouldn't egnore you if you said it that way.

However I still call myself an agnostic Atheist or just simply an atheist depending on who it is and various situtations just to avoid confusion or to avoid conversion to the ignorant

Hmm interesting point...I guess if you put it like that they probably wouldn't ignore you.

But I bet the reaction, - better or worse, in either a negative-positive or resourceful-unresourceful way - would very probably be a DIFFERENT one...since Atheism to some of the Religious is actually some sort of taboo - or a bit of a taboo - even today.

try it out yourself with an a-realist and you'll see what I mean