California Proposition 8

[Daystar]

A religion is a primitive gestalt delusion held in common by people who are literally insane. Go smear shit on your face and dance around the campfire already.

And you wonder why I would suggest it.

---

When something reaches a point it can't (currently) be tested then, yes, there is plenty of faith & interpretation going on.

Then it evolves into another workable theory to keep it alive - for 200 years if need be.

In which case the "theory" is no more than an idea of how something *might* work. If more evidence is discovered that gives the theory more (or less) credence then there is less room for interpretation (and therefore less "faith" required).

All the while being held and preached as fact and all possible alternatives being dismissed.

My skeptical view of religion (and indeed any supernatural thing) is simply that the person is a bit deluded and mis-interpreting something (and I'm sure they think the same of me!).

And yet you don't see the irony.

Oh, and religion isn't a supernatural thing.

[chatpilot]

When it comes to proposition 8 I am 100 percent for it.

Reading the rest of your text, I suppose this is a mistake, and you are against it?

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Atheism is nothing more than not believing in God.

2. Theism is nothing more than believing in God.

Theism is not deism. Theism has to do with believing in CERTAIN Gods or Goddesses or whatever. Or ONE certain God or Goddess or whatever. And belief in this/these certain God/Gods or Goddess/Goddesses - Or whatever the God(s) or Goddess(es) in particular is/are - is connected to lots of other beliefs. Christianity is connected to not only 'God' but of course CHRIST and also the holy spirit. 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. But being a theist DOES connect to whatever religion the theist's religion is. Or at least the holy book and/or scripture that is connected to belief in this particular God or Gods or whatever.
So to conclude: Atheism by definition is nothing more than not believing in God. Theism is believing in God but also believing in a particular God that carry certain beliefs. Whether this is belief in the beliefs of the religion connected to that theism. Or connected to the scripture connected to that speciific theism. Or both. Or whatever.
Deism is nothing more than belief in God but the God still has to be supernatural so it at least also implies the belief that God had some part in the creation of the universe, created the laws of physics or whatever. But God is not a personal God in the deist's case.
If Deism and Theism didn't carry ANYTHING other than the belief in 'a God or gods of some kind' meaning that it didn't have to be supernatural but could also be metaphorical then fine. But it doesn't mean this. Deism means a God that created the universe but isn't a personal God. Theism means a God that not only created the universe but IS indeed also a personal God. I think pantheism perhaps covers the so called 'Einsteinian' or metaphorical God. That is not supernatural whatsoever.
The belief in the supernatural God of the theist, that is also a personal God, implies lots of other stuff. Its not simply 'believing in God'. Because there are many different interpretations of God. Even deism isn't 'nothing more than just believing in God' because it still implies the supernatural.
Theism and even deism both imply a supernatural God and more than just 'believing in God'.

[allan175]

When something reaches a point it can't (currently) be tested then, yes, there is plenty of faith & interpretation going on.

Then it evolves into another workable theory to keep it alive - for 200 years if need be.

I don't really get your point with that statement. Unless you are pointing at evolution in which case I still don't really see what you are implying with it.

In which case the "theory" is no more than an idea of how something *might* work. If more evidence is discovered that gives the theory more (or less) credence then there is less room for interpretation (and therefore less "faith" required).

All the while being held and preached as fact and all possible alternatives being dismissed.

I'm guessing you are hinting towards ID being dismissed by "evolutionists". If so then again, I'm not 100% sure what you are implying.

My skeptical view of religion (and indeed any supernatural thing) is simply that the person is a bit deluded and mis-interpreting something (and I'm sure they think the same of me!).

And yet you don't see the irony.

Haha.....As I said, I'm sure they think the same as I do (but the opposite views obviously).

Oh, and religion isn't a supernatural thing.

I didn't mean to imply it was. I just meant my view of religions is the same as my view of supernatural things.

[Daystar]

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?

[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!!

[Jason Jarred]

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.

Oh Daystar, can you possibly think of any other answers to your own question?
Why state a disbelief in God (ie Vishnu) any more than a disbelief in the FSM?

---

It's the difference between legislating yonto others and not legislating.
It's the difference between imposing your beliefs and not imposing your beliefs.
It's the difference between a belief system which deludes people, and one that is a parody.
It's the difference between sexism against women, support of slavery, homophobia, genocide, infanticide (ad nauseum), versus pirates who like drinking beer and watching strippers while playing Oprah on the TV in the background.
It's the difference between the serious and the silly.

---

It's the difference between... hey ... what's that? Ooooh, pretty little birdie....*pets birdie*

[Daystar]

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.

Oh Daystar, can you possibly think of any other answers to your own question?
Why state a disbelief in God (ie Vishnu) any more than a disbelief in the FSM?

---

It's the difference between legislating yonto others and not legislating. (Political)
It's the difference between imposing your beliefs and not imposing your beliefs. (Teaching Evolution in schools)
It's the difference between a belief system which deludes people, and one that is a parody. (Rebel without a clause)
It's the difference between sexism against women, support of slavery, homophobia, genocide, infanticide (ad nauseum), versus pirates who like drinking beer and watching strippers while playing Oprah on the TV in the background. (My point Exactly)
It's the difference between the serious and the silly. (It gets so hard to tell)

---

It's the difference between... hey ... what's that? Ooooh, pretty little birdie....*pets birdie*

[allan175]

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?

I base my opinion on what I have observed (obviously very limited) and what others have tested and shown (still limited but the limits are being continually pushed back). That opinion is that there is nothing supernatural at all (and belief in a god(s) is belief in a supernatural being).
A word other than "atheist" would be preferable since the "theist" part is explicitly "belief in a god", but that is the one we seem to have. It is not surprising really since disbelief in the "big" supernatural element in one's life (or other's lives) is usually the first major step towards non-belief in all supernatural things.

As I've said before, I am taking what others say on "faith" (with no religious overtones intended, I just accept what they say) since I have not personally done most of the experiments to show various things that are not immediately obvious (eg: the fact the Earth is spherical-ish, as far as I can tell it is flat, it always looks flat to me (with a few bumps)).

However, I more easily accept new "theories" that fit in with my current world view (as does everyone), *but* different ideas are accepted and taken as "true" if they can provide evidence that the new idea is a better description of what is observed (not necessarily observed by me I should point out).

[infidel666]

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?

I base my opinion on what I have observed (obviously very limited) and what others have tested and shown (still limited but the limits are being continually pushed back). That opinion is that there is nothing supernatural at all (and belief in a god(s) is belief in a supernatural being).
A word other than "atheist" would be preferable since the "theist" part is explicitly "belief in a god", but that is the one we seem to have. It is not surprising really since disbelief in the "big" supernatural element in one's life (or other's lives) is usually the first major step towards non-belief in all supernatural things.

As I've said before, I am taking what others say on "faith" (with no religious overtones intended, I just accept what they say) since I have not personally done most of the experiments to show various things that are not immediately obvious (eg: the fact the Earth is spherical-ish, as far as I can tell it is flat, it always looks flat to me (with a few bumps)).

However, I more easily accept new "theories" that fit in with my current world view (as does everyone), *but* different ideas are accepted and taken as "true" if they can provide evidence that the new idea is a better description of what is observed (not necessarily observed by me I should point out).

I don't know why this is hard for Daystar, who claims to be a former atheist. He should know we view belief in God the same as belief in "step on a crack, break your mother's back." He should know we view those who believe in God the same as we view those who believe in "step on a crack, break your mother's back." He should know we view organized religion and the laws it gets passed against abortion, gay marriage, sale of alcohol on Sunday, etc. the same as we view a group of superstitious folks getting a law passed making it illegal to step on a crack, and proecuting the only child of someone whose back breaks under a "res ipsa loquitur" argument that they must have stepped on a crack. I think he's being disingenuous.