Quote:
Drew_2013 wrote
I do suffer from that but USA is a large country and its what I'm familiar with. I have had several atheists quote surveys about people saying their not religious but I wouldn't conflate that with being an atheist. If I responded to such a survey I'd say non-religious also. Some people think God is an old fucking bastard...but they wouldn't be atheists either.
|
Yeah, and that's a valid point - one which I was expecting when I wrote it, if I'm to be honest.
The problem with the 'no religion' tag is its general vagueness, in that it can have a spectrum ranging from atheism to vaguely spiritual to outright deism. Both you and I - absent further information, like other choices in the census question - would likely both select "no religion" as an option.
There are, of course, further extenuating circumstances - such as the other options on the census, and the additional write-in option. All information I am currently trying to find to add context.
At the end of the day, though, all that was to try to give a concrete description in numbers of a more general feeling in society towards atheism in this country. The fact is in this country (Australia) there is an ambivalence towards religion (and non-religion), and atheists are generally accepted as a societal norm, as opposed to the "armpits of humanity"as you tried to say they were.
Really that is the ultimate point I want to make here - internationally, experiences will be vastly different to what they are in America and you need to look at that and take it into account.
Quote:
Let me take a moment to pull this discussion from the trees view to the forest view. One problem with any of these discussions is we end up trying to convince each other of our respective points of view. I'd rather have an opportunity to debate this case before impartial folks and let them decide and let it go at that. Then I'm not spinning my wheels trying to convince an opponent who is not an impartial person but an adversary. This forum maybe more impartial, certainly more impartial than Raving Atheist forum.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/forum.php
|
I'm happy to debate anywhere, but - as I've said before and will likely say again - I'm not interested in "winning" debates, or changing people's minds. I am seeking to have a worldview that accurately represents reality (the fact that such a worldview can win arguments and change people's minds is a bonus).
I debate and talk to people because it gives me an opportunity to expose myself to other opinions and world views, allows me to organise my own thoughts in a cohesive manner, and allows others to find any potential holes in my worldview - that if I find legitimate (and that does happen) i will take into consideration.
I don't need an "impartial" audience for that, though I suppose it can help to fine-tune any weak points in my worldview.
Quote:
As I have mentioned, I'm not affiliated or involved in any religion or church group. I'm a theist in that I believe having reviewed evidence in my opinion it favors the belief we are the result of a Creator. Anything I can say about the Creator what he, she or it is like would be pure speculation or how such a Creator would go about causing a universe to exist. I have no more idea how God would create a universe anymore than how non-God forces would. You have complained that the Creator designer I am promoting is too generic but that is theism.
|
Where do they exist? How do they exist? What was the mechanism for creating the universe and matter? What was the mechanism for creating any external realm they might exist in? What was the mechanism for creating them?
This is one of the problems I have with religion and theism - it doesn't answer any questions, it simply moves them back a level and pretends that solves the problem.
Quote:
Maybe your not really an atheist just a guy who thinks all revealed religion and revelation from God is false.
|
Call me what you want, my worldview doesn't change just because you gave it a new label.
Quote:
If it turns out I'm wrong and we really do owe the existence of the universe and sentient humans to non-God forces it wouldn't cause my underwear to explode and my life fall to pieces and all my dreams hopes and aspirations to be shattered. I'd be surprised if that were the case and I wouldn't think our existence is any less miraculous perhaps more so. I have subjected my beliefs to the most dedicated opponents I can think of born again atheists. I have been around religious zealots as well as atheist zealots and I find they share a lot in common.
|
That's the horseshoe theory in action, and I agree with it in principle. However it is of course not a law, and can't be applied to all cases.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory if anyone is interested.
Quote:
You have suggested that I must have an answer and I'm uncomfortable with not having an answer. That might be partially true I would very much like to know the truth of the matter we are discussing. The best I can come up with is an opinion regarding the matter we are discussing because there isn't enough evidence in either direction (also in my opinion) for us to claim either belief is a fact.
|
Hence why the best response is "we don't know". To say anything else is merely speculation - which is fine, we wouldn't get anywhere if we didn't speculate and seek to verify, but it should absolutely not be treated as anything but speculation until proven.
This is the basis of my 'atheism'. That and a leaning towards what I suppose would be called naturalism, which I find has a broader, more justifiable base.
Quote:
There was an article I read years ago that influenced me greatly.
|
For the sake of brevity I am going to skip this bit for the moment, as I haven't had a chance to read the entire article/s yet, or any responses to the article/s for context.
But thankyou for providing the link, as that will now make it possible to do so.
These are the kinds of things I want citations for - that and any specific claims you make. If you don't link to dictionary definitions it's not the end of the world, my insistence earlier was more to make a point than to be a specific demand.