Godless Dave

I don't either. But it is bigoted to deny people employment because they don't believe in God, or force them to pray or become baptized, or confiscate all their property, or burn them at the stake.

GeoTheo

So, How do you explain the "Trial of Socrates"? It seems to me that "atheism" was a serious charge back then. Are you sure you are not just viewing past cultures in an overly romantic way?

philechat

I acknowledge the fact. I specifically said of the later periods such as the Hellenistic and Roman societies, and modern India and East Asia. The modern East Asia, specifically, shows a remarkable tolerance in that they can easily elect a Christian president (with Xians making up 3% of the population) when the majority of the population are Buddhist or Taoist. Most Taiwanese tolerate differences of religious practices within families including a high instance of interfaith marriages. Most Hindus, according to religioustolerance.org, also accept interfaith marriages and seperate "spiritual paths" to truth.

Rhea

But here I argue is the religionist's take on that. The religionist is the one who feels she is "forced to admit" that she "thinks they're deluded". I believe it is more accurate for many atheists to say, that I am just plain not convinced. I haven't seen anything convincing. And therein lies _my_ frustration. Religionists (some of them) won't accept that answer. They translate it into "she thinks I'm deluded". I DON'T. I think they are convinced by something that either I don't see or that is unconvincing to me. That's it. Leave it there. You know? But they won't. They keep saying, "so you're saying that you think I'm..." I'M NOT. I am only saying _I_ am not conviced. Period.
And so they feel attacked when they are not being attacked. And that is incredibly frustrating.
"I think he dyes his hair"
"I don't."
"You think I'm an idiot?"
"Uh, no. I said I don't think he dyes his hair."
"Yeah, but since I said I did think that, you're calling me an idiot."
"Uh, no, I'm not thinking that at all. I just don't see enough evidence to conclude that he dyes his hair."
"But you know that I do think that. So I must be an idiot."
"No, I said I wasn't convinced, so I can't make that claim. It's really not important that we agree."
"My hairdresser _said_ I'd be persecuted!"
"Well that may be so, but I haven't done any persecuting."
"Are you saying my hairdresser is a liar?"
"So! How about that Formula 1 race?"
"So you do think I'm an idiot."



If you're talking about me, perhaps I don't know the meaning, but I was using it in the sense of someone saying that one race/religion deserves more than another. Is that incorrect usage?

Jamie_L

Rhea,

I agree with you somehwat, but when we, as atheists, state "I am not convinced", implicit in that statement is "I believe I am correct." If we didn't think we were correct, we wouldn't hold to that conclusion. We'd be agnostics or theists. Since a theist holds an opposite opinion, our implied "I am correct" is a statement to the effect: "I think you are incorrect."

There's no getting around that. In fact, I'll state it for the record:

I think theists are incorrect in their belief in a god or gods.

I don't state that as an attack against theists, but it is a conclusion that I've come to. It's the conclusion that defines me as an atheist. And, unfortunately, it's a conclusion that makes a lot of people feel like I'm calling them idiots.

I'm not calling them idiots, of course. But I am calling them wrong. Whether I like it or not.

Of course, the theists don't have to go into teeth-bared counter-attack mode when I call them incorrect, just as I don't go into Madalyne O'Hair, militant atheist mode when someone tells me they love Jesus. That's where people start getting carried away.

Jamie

Goliath

Jamie_L,

Incorrect. I am a weak atheist, holding no beliefs whatsoever about whether or not theists are correct in their conclusions about theism.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Amaranth

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Weak atheism, as I understand it, is disbelief in gods. Strong atheism is denial of gods as a fact.

I suppose you mean agnostic athiest, Goliath?

Starboy

I am an a-theist - one that lacks or is without theism. The a is used in the same fashion as is used in the words apolitical, asexual, asymmetric ....

Atheism makes no claims about the non-existence of anything. Many Christians like to think it does. Those that do think being an atheist is the same as making a negative claim confirm the OP. As an atheist I can think that a particular kind of theism is nonsense, but then again so can a Christian. It just so happens that I think all forms of Christianity are nonsense.

Starboy

Jamie_L

Not quite. Unless you have never heard of the concept of god (which is doubtful if you hang around here ), you have been presented with god stories. As a weak atheist, you hold no god belief because you find these god stories unconvincing. Or, put another way, it is not rational to believe those stories. Thus, by implication, those who find such stories convincing are behaving irrationally.

Atheism is a response to the proposition of theism. You just can't get around the accusatory implication unless you are agnostic. Then, and only then, can you say "I don't know, so maybe you're right and maybe you're not."

Jamie

Goliath

Jamie_L,

Correct.

Incorrect. I do not believe that any gods exist because I have not seen a proof of the existence of any particular god. I find the stories to be irrelevant, not unconvincing.

My existence as an atheist shows this statement to be false.

Sincerely,

Goliath