Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

[Elok]

That whooshing sound you hear is my point flying over your head, PH...or did you think I actually believed Agathon was a pinata-sexual or something?

EDIT: Though, looking back, Agathon was not who that post should have been addressed to, which may have confused things considerably.

[Provost Harrison]

I didn't believe you believed anything, I just thought you were being particularly rude...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


1. Gardner is much more intelligent than most people, including you, so he can analyse his situation. Most people has no ability of doing the same thing.

I'm not sure that he is. And given that I can analyze a situation and you can't, you probably shouldn't try insulting my intelligence as it reflects poorly on yours.

2. At least my argument is based on one datum point, while yours is based on none. Thus, mine is better supported than yours, which was simply hot air.

Mine is based on a single person's belief. You are then using that one person's feelings to claim that all theists feel the same way.

Show me a religion (dead or alive) like that.

I did, in my next post (the one you later quoted ). I specifically did it because I predicted this response from you. Those who don't present evidence are often the most adament to request it.

While yours is just idiotic gibberish.

Just because you disagree and can't make a logical conclusion to save your life.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No, you cannot disconnect the belief in a god from the religion and myths surrounding said god.

I'm not. I'm saying that not all religions have gods, thus don't fall under atheism. As someone who wastes time on semantics, you should appreciate that. Buddhism is a perfect example. Also, not all religions that have a god need to have an afterlife. There are sects of Judaism that don't believe in an afterlife, but still believe in God. I've explained this how many times in this thread? What annoys me off is having to explain simple concepts to someone over and over again.

Therefore, your argument that fear of an empty death causes people to hate atheists is weak.

No. This was not the point. The point was atheism makes believers feel bad by making them stare into the black void of non-existence.

Your point is poorly argued. I'm not even addressing your point in this post. So I don't see how you can respond this way, since I'm not talking about anything related to that or to you. You've failed to properly analyze the situation. Perhaps Martin Gardner will take pity on you and take you under his wing. Frankly, I don't have the patience for it.

Now, again, your point about people fearing death might be true for some, but not for everyone. And just because you can quote one person who believes this doesn't mean everyone believes it. This is the main flaw in your argument. The next is that it clearly can't be the primary cause, because the existence of godless religions with an afterlife (still atheists) and godly religions without one (theists who still face the black void of death). Everything else you've posted has just been feeble insults to try to protect your ego or a sad misunderstanding of what you read. Simple concepts.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Elok


I could also contend that religion makes atheists feel bad by suggesting that they are not completely free to do whatever they want. Only that's not an argument. Nor is what you just said. Both are merely snarky insinuations.

As a master of snarky insinuations.

[Cort Haus]

I don't see what is scary about the 'black void of non-existance'. The scariest thing about death, other than the physical pain that might be involved in dying, is the impact is has on the living. Of course if I believed in an afterlife, or judgement, then it might look different.

Historically religion seems to have fullfilled two functions. First, an explaination of sorts of the mysteries of the universe, and second, a social-moral framework for societies to function.

The materialist believes that human progress can resolve both of these points without the need for a hypothetical external agent which requires faith rather than verification.

I've no problems with theists unless they externalise their beliefs into politics, where people from Bush & Blair to bin Laden try to use 'God' to justify their actions, actions which usually involve killing people.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I didn't believe you believed anything, I just thought you were being particularly rude...

Whereas UR was just accusing everyone who ever believed in anything of being a neurotic in denial, and Agathon, er....

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC the works of Buddha refer to 'god' repeatedly. It's obvious that Siddharta intended to add an additional dimension to the religion already practised by his people.


Communists have done some horrific things in the name of 'scientific socialism'. It's not necessarily the externalization of a person's own beliefs that is the problem, but instead the transposition of one's own ego to the larger world. Thus people who disagreed with Stalin were considered to be enemies of scientific socialism, people who disagree with Osama bin Laden are considered enemies of Allah and etc., etc.

[Elok]

I agree with your point about socialism, etc., but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the Buddha. At least, I've been reading a whole slew of Buddhist texts for class, and the system appears to be decidedly nontheistic. They don't even believe in an individual soul as such, let alone a God. "Salvation" basically consists of one's realizing the illusory nature of one's own conception of selfhood. The Buddha's attitude towards metaphysical questions like deities seems to have been "If it's possible to know such things, okay. If it isn't, does it really matter?" In other words, affable agnosticism, which is a pretty healthy attitude.

'Course, we should probably consult an actual buddhist for the final say. There are a couple of 'em on Poly.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even more distrusted than commies?

Well, what did commie haters use to stir up hatred/distrust for communism? They reminded everybody that the commies were "godless." Uh-huh. Yeah, baby.

-Arrian, agnostic/atheist (don't believe in the Pink Unicorn, but concede that it's possible that a higher power could exist)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Elok
I agree with your point about socialism, etc., but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the Buddha. At least, I've been reading a whole slew of Buddhist texts for class, and the system appears to be decidedly nontheistic. They don't even believe in an individual soul as such, let alone a God. "Salvation" basically consists of one's realizing the illusory nature of one's own conception of selfhood. The Buddha's attitude towards metaphysical questions like deities seems to have been "If it's possible to know such things, okay. If it isn't, does it really matter?" In other words, affable agnosticism, which is a pretty healthy attitude.

'Course, we should probably consult an actual buddhist for the final say. There are a couple of 'em on Poly.

There are a number of different types of buddhism.

Zen is agnostic, most buddhisms (in terms of number of followers) are theistic though.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
I agree with your point about socialism, etc., but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the Buddha. At least, I've been reading a whole slew of Buddhist texts for class, and the system appears to be decidedly nontheistic. They don't even believe in an individual soul as such, let alone a God. "Salvation" basically consists of one's realizing the illusory nature of one's own conception of selfhood. The Buddha's attitude towards metaphysical questions like deities seems to have been "If it's possible to know such things, okay. If it isn't, does it really matter?" In other words, affable agnosticism, which is a pretty healthy attitude.

'Course, we should probably consult an actual buddhist for the final say. There are a couple of 'em on Poly.

I might be completely off, but Buddhism holds that there are good and evil forces in the world, where as before there was only light and dark. To me that's the same as saying there is a God.

[Elok]

Huh. All I know is, everything Buddhist I've read ("Buddhist Texts through the Ages," "The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha," etc.) has been decidedly agnostic, as in the famous parable of the poisoned arrow. My prof for the course is a buddhist too (Mahayana), and he gives the impression of veneration for the intricate beauty of our existence, certainly not for anything approaching a personal God. Though he doesn't exactly rule it out either.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


There are a number of different types of buddhism.

Zen is agnostic, most buddhisms (in terms of number of followers) are theistic though.

Jon Miller

Most of the gods of Buddhism were introduced in China in order to make it better fit Chinese customs and beliefs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
My prof for the course is a buddhist too (Mahayana), and he gives the impression of veneration for the intricate beauty of our existence, certainly not for anything approaching a personal God. Though he doesn't exactly rule it out either.

I think you're looking at it through a Western frame of reference. Personal God certainly isn't part of Buddhism like it is part of Christianity. But if there is not Godish being or 'good' force then how does the whole thing work? How do you get to Nirvana. How is the world saved and all that?