California Proposition 8

[Edwardo Piet]

Lmao too early in the damn morning! Thanks for catching that leo and the answer is yes I am against proposition 8 100 percent.Gays are people too and they too should be able to partake of the same rights and priviledges that any other ordinary citizen is entitled to.I say if they are allowed to get married they should also be able to reap the benefits of a so called normal heterosexual couple.

A legal union rather than a religious one, correct?

---

Atheism however is just lack of any belief in theism whatsoever. What beliefs pretty much automatically connect to being an atheist? Not any really. Just like being a non-astrologer doesn't connect to other beliefs particularly! Its just a disbelief in the nonsense of astrology.

Interesting point. Go and find a non-astrologer webring and compare that to the availability of Atheists webrings. There is something more to it or there would be no point in having this discussion.

If Atheism was the non-belief in gods and goddesses in general it wouldn't be such a nonsensical expression of non-belief that is belief. To say that there is no such thing as gods and goddesses is terribly uninformed. To use the supernatural to define that disbelief is shortsighted. To spcify a certain God and Lord with such conviction requires a great deal more thought than is usually demonstrated, and indicitive of a deeper and more profound issue. Social and political.

Why state a disbelief in God any more than a disbelief in the FSM? Because it is intellectually stimulating? Politically motivated? Socially repressive?

Just cool? I think Kyu summed it up and I will ellaborate upon that. Rebels without a clause.

---

Allen,

The theory of evolution is no more specific or certain than creation. Evidence of evolution is so transitory, bias and subject to interpretation that it shouldn't be expressed as 'fact' and the possible alternative of creation shouldn't be dismissed primarily upon the unknown (supernatural) based upon that premise.

Defending either point is moot. The discussion is really about something else.

How, though, is your view of religions the same as your view of supernatural? They are both bullshit? If so I could go halfway with you on that. Religion can easily be seen as that, but how can you base an opinion on something you don't know (supernatural) unless it is based upon ignorance and some undisclosed political and or social agenda?

Faith is a threat to both the moral and scientific world. And it is a thread to truth. And most 'people of faith' that do harm in the world have faith in a supernatural 'God'. So this is why people identify themselves and atheists - because theism is all over the place.
But indeed, you have a point. A very good one here. In the sense that I agree with Sam Harris that perhaps, to paraphrase: 'us atheists'shouldn't call ourselves atheists. That we shouldn't call ourselves anything. Just as non-astrologers don't refer to themselves as "non astrologers" and people who aren't racist don't refer to themselves as "non-racist". Thats not how there's LESS racism now: a bunch of people referring to themselves as "non racists". That's not how. That didn't happen.'
So the only problem is, that I have and I am wondering, is that: since theism is all over the place and goes against science and often can go against good morals - basically because its so delusional - how do athiests get together? Sam Harris says we should simply use words like reason and evidence. Rather than labeling ourselves as 'atheists' 'rationalists' or even 'secularists' or 'humanists' OR any label.
So I think it sounds to me that scientific, or any sort of rational forums, or blogs, or whatever gatherings online or offline, should talk more about the supernatural. Because indeed science DOES have stuff to say on the matter. And God IS a hypothesis. If we indeed DO agree with Sam Harris and think that we should just use words like 'reason' and 'science' and not refer to ourselves as 'atheists' or any other label that means we lack belief in God, or are separate from him.
Its interesting.
But basically Daystar I take your point and think that perhaps atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists since we don't have to call ourselves non-astrologers, non-racists or non-dowsers or whatever. And it causes misunderstandings because people often have preconceptions of atheists as soon as they refer to themselves as 'atheist'.
So the question is simply: what is the alternative? I think Sam's alternative is a good one but I do think it would be very difficult and take a lot to pull off. I do agree that we certainly don't need to call ourselves atheists. Its just the alternative seems rather confusing and/or difficult.
I mean even though I think the word 'atheist' shouldn't be required and its a good idea to just use words like reason and evidence...
....what do I do when someone asks me if I believe in God and I say: "No". And they say "So you're an atheist" and I say "No." and they say "So you're an agnostic?" and I say "Well lets just say I'm almost certain there is no God" and they say "So what on earth are you then?!"
Rather confusing and difficult. But I think Sam certainly has a point and you are indeed right, Daystar, that us atheists certainly at least shouldn't need to call ourselves atheists just as astrologers shouldn't and don't need to call themselves "non-astrologers". Thats certainly true as far as I'm concerned.
A-theist is basically to theist what a-astrologer is to astrologer. And if the word 'atheist' indeed can be dropped just like we don't need the word 'a-astrologer', I think that certainly would be the right thing. But CAN it be reasonably dropped. Realistically? What do you do when you're asked what you believe in the matter of belief or non-belief in God?
And how do 'people who don't believe in God' get together to have conversations without labeling themselves? Because faith is an enemy that certainly must be fought through conversation and somehow the oppositions of 'faith' need to organize themselves. So how can this be done without using labels?
Should us atheists simply stop referring to ourselves as such and talk on science forums instead? The problem is science doesn't talk about the supernatural as much as it should IMO. Faith is very antiscience and an important issue. And God is a hypothesis and faith can be tested scientifically.

Ok I'm done!!