h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Ultimately the reason that many people become quickly really annoyed by the truly religious is that secular rules don't apply to them."

Actually, it's almost the opposite. The reason people become annoyed by the truly religious is that THEY THINK that secular rules don't apply to them, and they're just too f**king stupid to wake up and get with the programme and realise that they do. Religions oppose freedom of speech, freedom of sexuality, freedom of worship, freedom to defend oneself from physical attack even. Which is fine for the followers. It's when they start trying to impose their backward middle-eastern superstition on me or other people's children that I reach for my revolver.

H.

Personally I have never pushed my views on anybody in an agressive, or sneering manner. I simply observe and absorb what happens in the name of religion round the world and despair - I only comment when a direct invitation to reply (This Thread) is given.

I do have beliefs but in all my time and understanding of mainstream religions, the only "Version" I have any time for is Native American spirituality - which I guess makes me a Pagan I suppose.

I really am all for live and let live - if anyone is a practising whatever, then peace be with you and good luck. I only get on my high horse when somebody tries to ram their beliefs down my throat. Jehovahs witnesses or other front door callers that have absolutely no rights to call on me. I also fight the notion that Religious instruction should be a fixed period in any school day. If my children wish to understand or absorb information about any religion, then I would be happy for them to do so. To have to have it inflicted on them with no free choice is just plain wrong.

hi Doc,

I'm all for live and let live as well but, unfortunately, you don't have to go very far in your day-to-day secular life to find the influence and interference of religion affecting your own life choices. Hoo pointed out a few of the more glaringly obvious one's in his last posting. If anyone here is living in the States now they must see how right-wing Christian fundamentalists are changing and creating laws in order to suit their doctrine. But I think this happens everywhere in the western world to varying degrees.

I'm not against teaching about religions in school at all. But I do think RE should include a good cross-section of religious beliefs as well as other options to religion, such as atheism.


az

Another point. I have never understood why people who don't believe in a personal god or gods are referred to as 'atheist'. Why? It presumes that god(s) exist and that these people are somehow refusing to believe in them.

In fact, many so-called atheists are simply people who are happily or otherwise living their lives. It is only religious people who place them in a box and label them as being contrary to their own beliefs. As if the whole world revolved around their god(s) concept.

To say, when asked, that you don't believe in a personal god(s) concept doesn't necessarily make you 'a-anything'. Does it?


az

Unfortunately those that don't are often defined in terms of those that do:

non-smoker, non-drinker, a-theist, un-superstitious, wo-man (joke ), in-sane, a-gnostic etc

because defining 'something' and 'not-something' saves coming up with a completely new word for the not-something.

F (rationalist)

Another point. I have never understood why people who don't believe in a personal god or gods are referred to as 'atheist'.

Um... because that's what they are? An atheist _means_ someone who doesn't believe in a personal God... don't really understand the problem.

Why? It presumes that god(s) exist and that these people are somehow refusing to believe in them.

No, it just means "without gods" - a pretty good description of someone who doesn't believe in gods.

To say, when asked, that you don't believe in a personal god(s) concept doesn't necessarily make you 'a-anything'. Does it?

Yes. It makes you a-"believing in gods". Hence a-theist. no?
It's a word perfectly designed to encapsulate "not believing in gods" in one handy short term.

Personally, I consider myself a rationalist. By definition, anyone with a belief in something unobservable is an irrationalist. Those are the only two labels I need. Of course, there are various different forms of delusion which make up the wonderful spectrum of irrational beliefs, but they need not concern me. To me, they're all exactly the same.

Calling someone an "atheist" is like calling someone "pro-abortion". It's a cheap, ineffective tactic used by people who, deep down, know that they've already lost, but can't accept it.

H.

"An atheist _means_ someone who doesn't believe in a personal God... don't really understand the problem."

The problem is that the term implicitly validates the concept of theism as something to be reacted against. This is a fallacy. I'm no more an atheist than I'm a "non-believer in the theory that gravity is caused by inch-high pink bunny rabbits" - an "abunnyist". As it goes, I don't in fact believe that gravity is caused by inch-high pink bunny rabbits, but I'd be very, very stupid to go around announcing the fact. People would think I was soft in the head for even considering the idea worth bothering with.

So with theism.

Hence: "rationalist".

H.

What a very utterly thoroughly strange argument

Personally, I consider myself a rationalist. By definition, anyone with a belief in something unobservable is an irrationalist.

Fair enuff, sounds accurate enough to me

Calling someone an "atheist" is like calling someone "pro-abortion". It's a cheap, ineffective tactic used by people who, deep down, know that they've already lost, but can't accept it.

Um, nope, it's like calling someone a carpenter who makes things out of wood. It's a descriptive term. If you are in favour (hence: pro) of abortion (hence: abortion) you are surely pro-abortion? You could maybe put this in a superordinate category of "right to live" or something along with animal rights people, and this would be what you are doing with atheists and rationalists. Rationalist is not synonymous with atheist just as irrationalist is not synonymous with religion (a person could believe computers are powered by invisible weasels on pogo sticks and hence be irrational but not religious).

<>

Only if gods actually exist and one is actually choosing not to believe in them. But no one can prove that gods exist. So why make this assumption and regard everyone else in relation to this belief? Because it *is* simply a belief, nothing more.

I'm not an 'atheist' by the way, but neither am I an afairyist nor an adragonist.


az

I should probably shut up now, but, hey, I haven't got anything better to do for the next couple'a minutes. so...

Only if gods actually exist and one is actually choosing not to believe in them. But no one can prove that gods exist. So why make this assumption and regard everyone else in relation to this belief? Because it *is* simply a belief, nothing more.

I disagree with you on this. I think the word is referring to the assumption that some people believe in gods and others don't. Regardless of the validity of the assumption, the fact that some people believe and other don't is irrefutable. Hence you can fall in to the believing category (theists, theologians, religious types, whatever) or the non-believing category (atheists). The assumptions isn't that gods exist - it's that some people believe they do.

<>

It is not an assumption to say that some people believe in gods. This is a fact.

It *is* an assumption to say that these gods actually exist.

So 'atheists' are only a-theist when placed against a religious backdrop for contrast. Otherwise they are simply people who don't happen to have a relationship with other people's imagined god entities. But . . . why would they?


az

It is not an assumption to say that some people believe in gods. This is a fact.

Agreed

It *is* an assumption to say that these gods actually exist.

Agreed

So 'atheists' are only a-theist when placed against a religious backdrop for contrast. Otherwise they are simply people who don't happen to have a relationship with other people's imagined god entities. But . . . why would they?

To argue that, you need to be denying both that gods exist AND that a religious context exists. Religious context DOES exist, as you say yourself above. You may agree or disagree or want nothing to do with the religious context, but it does exist so you can be classified in reference to it.

I don't like liquorice and I want nothing to do with it, but if someone called me a liquorice-hater, I wouldn't deny that I could be classified in reference to it.

" Religious context DOES exist"

Yes - but only inside other people's heads. It seems to me to be height of utter, thorough strangeness for someone to attempt to define me in the context of something that is happening inside their own head, or even more bizarrely, inside *someone else's* head.

"it's like calling someone a carpenter who makes things out of wood. It's a descriptive term."

Yes it is - and it's wrong. Live with it. There are a couple of companies which use an enormously complex chemical process to make silk-like fibres from wood: A654987 . Are these companies, or anyone who works for them, carpenters?

"If you are in favour (hence: pro) of abortion (hence: abortion) you are surely pro-abortion?"

Wow, did you ever miss the point.

The POINT was that the term "pro-abortion" is *exclusively* used by ANTI-abortionists to label and stigmatise their opponents. And it's an inaccurate term, because their opponents are NOT "pro-abortion", they're pro-CHOICE. Most people who are pro-choice would prefer there to be fewer abortions, but they recognise and defend the right of each woman to make that choice for herself. So, "pro-abortion" is a pernicious slander perpetrated as a cheap tactic by morons who know they've lost the argument.

And "atheist" is a term mostly used by the religious to label and stigmatise people who are not like them. And it's an inaccurate term. It's just a shame that a LOT of people actually describe *themselves* as atheists, without thinking through the implications. In effect, they're allowing the irrationalists to dictate the terms of the debate, to load the dice in their favour.

Quite apart from anything else, not all "religions" are theistic, so for instance "atheist" and "Buddhist" are not mutually exclusive.

Mind you, not knowing that much about Buddhism, I don't really know whether it's irrational, either.

Hope this helps you understand where your thinking is in error.

H.

<>

I said that atheists are only viewed as such when placed against a religious backdrop for contrast. This religious context only exists in the minds of the people who believe it exists - it does not exist as a separate and immutable reality.

<>

Basically anyone can judge and classify you based on their personal beliefs (which may or may not be religious). For example, someone might think I was a very attractive person, another might find me quite ugly. Yes, their 'context' for classifying me exists - inside their minds. As with religious context, it is only a personal belief. It does not make it real.

<>

Licorice is real.


az

If I had any self-preservation instinct, I'm sure I'd have the sence to stay out of this arguement, but I don't, so here goes:

There are a variety of legitimate reasons for argueing against the word "atheist"--inaccuracy (technically it would apply to religious people whose religions aren't forms of Theism), prejorative history, inaccurate implications, presumption of Theos. However, I use it to describe myself mostly because I don't feel like explaining to people what any other term I might select means. I think agnostic is actually a better description of me, and terms like rationalist make sence, too.

However, I still maintain that atheist, while not really the most accurate term, is very useful for the simple reason that the average person on the street has heard it before. People will use any word you pick in a prejorative way if they want to, I don't think it's worth fighting the battle of trying to get people to stop using the word atheist--esp since we know perfectly well we aren't going to come up with any alternative that we'll all agree on.

The average person on the street has heard the word "n****r" before. The fact that the ignorant herd use a word is no reason to allow them to continue. Educating them away from it may take years, so we should start right now.

"People will use any word you pick in a prejorative way if they want to"

If people want to use the word "rationalist" as an insult, and are happy to consider themselves irrational by contrast - great! We agree!

The only reason I can see for "atheists" not agreeing on "rationalist" as a more accurate term is that a few of the less confrontational ones would be unhappy at the implication that we're arrogantly branding the herd "irrational". Which of course we are. It comes down to how much you care about hurting the feelings of people who believe in talking donkeys...

H.

Unlurks for the first time in a few years looking palid from the many hours in the shadows.

I always used to say I was an atheist - until I realised that it was, indeed, a description which played into the hands of religious devotees: "Just because you don't believe in God does not mean he does not exist" comes the reply.

I now say that 'I do not believe in the existence of gods'. Clear, concise and straight to the point. If some people feel incomfortable about it or do not understand the statement then fine - it normal follows a bland comment about the Living Jesus or how we should embrace God and The Lord - which to me can be construed as equally as 'clear and concise' as what I say. However, I merely state what *I* believe and not what I *know* other people should believe even if they do not realise it. Of course, I a ot saying I would not then explain the facts or lack of them surrounding the reasons why I do not bellive in the existence of Gods.

*not sure if I am going to relurk or not*

faints



H.

Eh?