[Terez]

So, CI has this soapbox thing in the religion department; he's been going on about it for years. I'd link you to old arguments but they are excessively long. I think he makes some good points and some bad ones, the latter being mainly a tendency to come too much from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

If we are looking for some sort of creed that the atheists and agnostics and deists and skeptical religious people can all agree on, it might go something like this (first word being the key one):

IF there is a Creator(s), or some sort of force that exists on a higher plane than mere mortals, then it stands to reason that we can best learn more about it by seeking to learn and appreciate more about Creation itself - the world around us, and the people in it. And IF there is not such a being or force, then our greatest benefit (conveniently) lies in the same direction.

I think that true religious tolerance will be a long jump away so long as this principle remains secondary to the various religious and doctrinal texts of the world. Elsewise, what happens? Will one religion finally conquer the world? The top three are all growing last I checked. What then? The Rapture and the Tribulation! Or maybe we will get bored with it finally with no other religions to subjugate. Maybe the world will burn before we make it that far.

(Blame HD, he told me I should post elsewhere. And this was on my brain, so I did.)

[HoosierDaddy]

Where did I say that? When did I say that?

That aside, two ways religion could go bye bye:

1) First contact with aliens
2) A very slow deterioration of religious people. On the scope of evolutionary time scales, and certainly not revolutionary ones.

[stone monkey]

Why should there be a creed for atheists, agnostics and deists to agree on? We're all individuals and we arrive at our beliefs (or lack thereof) in our own ways and we all agree or disagree with each other over one thing or another. Inclusivity is great, but the things lumped together actually have to have something in common.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 23 November 2010 - 09:04 PM

[Morgoth]

I don't entirely understand how you can pretend to provide for agnostics a common creed.

It doesn't really work for atheism or theism either mind.

[Terez]

stone monkey, on 23 November 2010 - 09:02 PM, said:

Why should there be a creed for atheists, agnostics and deists to agree on? We're all individuals and we arrive at our beliefs (or lack thereof) in our own ways and we all agre or disagree with each other over one thing or another. Inclusivity is great, but the things lumped together actually have to have something in common.

That was sort of the point - that all of those groups do have something in common. There need not necessarily be a creed, but I find that too often we assume that our disparities are absolute, without actually trying to find common ground, and a lack of common ground can often inhibit progress. I think this is sort of what CI has been trying to get at over the years, but IMO he leans too much toward the assumption that we must all accept the existence of this higher whatever, which is inherently exclusive to some of the aforementioned parties.

[stone monkey]

Well they're all human... But I can say that about everyone else too

These groups are not monolithic, they all have internal disagreements too. So even getting some of them together (even those who have the most in common) to agree on a list of common precepts is going to be like herding cats, I should think. That's not to say it shouldn't be attempted, but it's more than likely to be a losing proposition...

[Terez]

In the short term, undoubtedly. Think of it as a philosophic proposition rather than a realistic one.

[Silencer]

Hrm.

The problem is not one of philosophy, however. Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

It may provide grounds for working together, but the real problem is one of fundamental differences in outlook - unless you can reconcile one person telling you that your beliefs are wrong, or that you will be punished after death for your beliefs, there can be no common ground which bridges this gap fully. Not when people are more than willing to use said beliefs as a vehicle for gaining secular power.

The best philosophy to adopt is one of 'live and let live', and yet this continually fails to encompass all parties - plenty of people at the moment don't hate each other on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, and yet those that do provide a stumbling block of monumental proportions.

As far as the outlook for the future goes, I predict an interminable stalemate, just like global politics. Our present system of nation-states and what have you are pointless. After all, we all actually use the same currency, after a fashion, and yet refuse to simply scrap the outdated notion of individual currencies and adopt a world coinage. Why? Because it's impossible to get everyone to give in (Britain still holds out on the Euro/Pound thing, ffs) and because the jobs and profits generated from international currency trading outweigh the stupidity of having separate coinage.
We have yet to adopt any form of truly unified world government - the UN is almost as bad as the League of Nations, if slightly more effective overall. But why doesn't everyone come to the party? Because they don't want to. (And even then, the UN is still too remote to be called an attempt at government - it's basically an elaborate forum for politicians to talk to each other. Progress, yes...but not near enough to count.)

Hence, the issue with disparate religions, sub-sections of religions, and absences of religions. You can't unify them all, because they don't WANT to be unified. It's petty, it's childish, it propagates problems like almost nothing else (except maybe skin colour, nationalism, and militarism) and yet we cling to the differences between us no matter what. You can't solve that with a catch-all phrase or philosophy. It's been tried. People ain't listening. Unfortunately.

[Satan]

Terez, on 23 November 2010 - 08:10 PM, said:

I think he makes some good points and some bad ones, the latter being mainly a tendency to come too much from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

This is ironic, considering how biased your argument for atheism is towards Judeo-Christianity. (Actually, the whole atheism debate is based around Christian paradigms, so it's not all your fault. But you use the term "religions," and that's were you lose.)

Silencer, on 23 November 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hrm.

The problem is not one of philosophy, however. Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

I'd argue that the unifying principle among the disparate groups of atheism and agnosticism is one of disagreement. Or rather, non-agreement. There is a common non-agreement among atheists and agnostics towards one or more of the Christian creeds. As such, maybe it's best to talk about atheism and agnosticism as a political (counter) movement?

Quote

It may provide grounds for working together, but the real problem is one of fundamental differences in outlook - unless you can reconcile one person telling you that your beliefs are wrong, or that you will be punished after death for your beliefs, there can be no common ground which bridges this gap fully. Not when people are more than willing to use said beliefs as a vehicle for gaining secular power.

The best philosophy to adopt is one of 'live and let live', and yet this continually fails to encompass all parties - plenty of people at the moment don't hate each other on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, and yet those that do provide a stumbling block of monumental proportions.

Again, I think that politics play a huge part in dismantling the 'live and let live' philosophy. There will never be enough resources in this world to fully accommodate all groups of the world. In part because most groupings aren't satisfied with just being accommodated. Saturated is probably a more suitable word in this case.

Quote

As far as the outlook for the future goes, I predict an interminable stalemate, just like global politics. Our present system of nation-states and what have you are pointless. After all, we all actually use the same currency, after a fashion, and yet refuse to simply scrap the outdated notion of individual currencies and adopt a world coinage. Why? Because it's impossible to get everyone to give in (Britain still holds out on the Euro/Pound thing, ffs) and because the jobs and profits generated from international currency trading outweigh the stupidity of having separate coinage.
We have yet to adopt any form of truly unified world government - the UN is almost as bad as the League of Nations, if slightly more effective overall. But why doesn't everyone come to the party? Because they don't want to. (And even then, the UN is still too remote to be called an attempt at government - it's basically an elaborate forum for politicians to talk to each other. Progress, yes...but not near enough to count.)

Hence, the issue with disparate religions, sub-sections of religions, and absences of religions. You can't unify them all, because they don't WANT to be unified. It's petty, it's childish, it propagates problems like almost nothing else (except maybe skin colour, nationalism, and militarism) and yet we cling to the differences between us no matter what. You can't solve that with a catch-all phrase or philosophy. It's been tried. People ain't listening. Unfortunately.

I don't understand why you want everyone to be the same. Is that your utopia? Everyone walking around in uniform, like in Star Trek. No individuality, no identity, no personality? To sacrifice fun in the name of peace and understanding? No, thank you. If you don't mind, I think I'll keep my wars.

PS! Yes, I know my use of categories are off hand. But so are yours, so nnnnyeeeaaahhh!

[Silencer]

Brynjar, on 24 November 2010 - 09:43 AM, said:

Terez, on 23 November 2010 - 08:10 PM, said:

I think he makes some good points and some bad ones, the latter being mainly a tendency to come too much from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

This is ironic, considering how biased your argument for atheism is towards Judeo-Christianity. (Actually, the whole atheism debate is based around Christian paradigms, so it's not all your fault. But you use the term "religions," and that's were you lose.)

Silencer, on 23 November 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hrm.

The problem is not one of philosophy, however. Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

I'd argue that the unifying principle among the disparate groups of atheism and agnosticism is one of disagreement. Or rather, non-agreement. There is a common non-agreement among atheists and agnostics towards one or more of the Christian creeds. As such, maybe it's best to talk about atheism and agnosticism as a political (counter) movement?

Quote

It may provide grounds for working together, but the real problem is one of fundamental differences in outlook - unless you can reconcile one person telling you that your beliefs are wrong, or that you will be punished after death for your beliefs, there can be no common ground which bridges this gap fully. Not when people are more than willing to use said beliefs as a vehicle for gaining secular power.

The best philosophy to adopt is one of 'live and let live', and yet this continually fails to encompass all parties - plenty of people at the moment don't hate each other on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, and yet those that do provide a stumbling block of monumental proportions.

Again, I think that politics play a huge part in dismantling the 'live and let live' philosophy. There will never be enough resources in this world to fully accommodate all groups of the world. In part because most groupings aren't satisfied with just being accommodated. Saturated is probably a more suitable word in this case.

Quote

As far as the outlook for the future goes, I predict an interminable stalemate, just like global politics. Our present system of nation-states and what have you are pointless. After all, we all actually use the same currency, after a fashion, and yet refuse to simply scrap the outdated notion of individual currencies and adopt a world coinage. Why? Because it's impossible to get everyone to give in (Britain still holds out on the Euro/Pound thing, ffs) and because the jobs and profits generated from international currency trading outweigh the stupidity of having separate coinage.
We have yet to adopt any form of truly unified world government - the UN is almost as bad as the League of Nations, if slightly more effective overall. But why doesn't everyone come to the party? Because they don't want to. (And even then, the UN is still too remote to be called an attempt at government - it's basically an elaborate forum for politicians to talk to each other. Progress, yes...but not near enough to count.)

Hence, the issue with disparate religions, sub-sections of religions, and absences of religions. You can't unify them all, because they don't WANT to be unified. It's petty, it's childish, it propagates problems like almost nothing else (except maybe skin colour, nationalism, and militarism) and yet we cling to the differences between us no matter what. You can't solve that with a catch-all phrase or philosophy. It's been tried. People ain't listening. Unfortunately.

I don't understand why you want everyone to be the same. Is that your utopia? Everyone walking around in uniform, like in Star Trek. No individuality, no identity, no personality? To sacrifice fun in the name of peace and understanding? No, thank you. If you don't mind, I think I'll keep my wars.

PS! Yes, I know my use of categories are off hand. But so are yours, so nnnnyeeeaaahhh!

Nice try at strawmanning there, Bryn...did I once say I wanted everyone to be the same? I said 'unified', as in, 'together'. As in, 'not tearing each others' throats out'. The point is not that everyone become uniform, identical clones of each other, but that we stop using our differences as a basis to kill and maim and fight and argue. Which is what the issue at hand is, I believe.

However, you do nicely demonstrate the point I'm making. Take any one issue, and try and find consensus on it. Go on. Try it. It's even hard to find an issue which has universal ambivalence, unless it's no longer a concern - and then in come the anthropologists and historians, so even then, awkward.

RE: "Live and let live", exactly my point - people won't be satisfied with it. Ever. Because everyone wants more than what they have. In some post-scarcity world, far into the future (or not...who knows?), there will still be something to desire, something to hoard. It may not be material, or it might be life, or it might be something else, but there will be something.

And as for your little tangent on atheism vs agnosticism, I'm not sure what your point is there, mate. I was merely suggesting as to how, even if theism and atheism could find a common philosophy, such as Terez' attempted to provide at thread-start, it would not be grounds for unification or acceptance of each others' existence.

So, aside from your attempt to strawman my argument into something it's not, thank you for providing an example of the exact flaw I'm pointing to. Good day.

[Satan]

Silencer, on 24 November 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

Brynjar, on 24 November 2010 - 09:43 AM, said:

Terez, on 23 November 2010 - 08:10 PM, said:

I think he makes some good points and some bad ones, the latter being mainly a tendency to come too much from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

This is ironic, considering how biased your argument for atheism is towards Judeo-Christianity. (Actually, the whole atheism debate is based around Christian paradigms, so it's not all your fault. But you use the term "religions," and that's were you lose.)

Silencer, on 23 November 2010 - 09:42 PM, said:

Hrm.

The problem is not one of philosophy, however. Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

I'd argue that the unifying principle among the disparate groups of atheism and agnosticism is one of disagreement. Or rather, non-agreement. There is a common non-agreement among atheists and agnostics towards one or more of the Christian creeds. As such, maybe it's best to talk about atheism and agnosticism as a political (counter) movement?

Quote

It may provide grounds for working together, but the real problem is one of fundamental differences in outlook - unless you can reconcile one person telling you that your beliefs are wrong, or that you will be punished after death for your beliefs, there can be no common ground which bridges this gap fully. Not when people are more than willing to use said beliefs as a vehicle for gaining secular power.

The best philosophy to adopt is one of 'live and let live', and yet this continually fails to encompass all parties - plenty of people at the moment don't hate each other on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, and yet those that do provide a stumbling block of monumental proportions.

Again, I think that politics play a huge part in dismantling the 'live and let live' philosophy. There will never be enough resources in this world to fully accommodate all groups of the world. In part because most groupings aren't satisfied with just being accommodated. Saturated is probably a more suitable word in this case.

Quote

As far as the outlook for the future goes, I predict an interminable stalemate, just like global politics. Our present system of nation-states and what have you are pointless. After all, we all actually use the same currency, after a fashion, and yet refuse to simply scrap the outdated notion of individual currencies and adopt a world coinage. Why? Because it's impossible to get everyone to give in (Britain still holds out on the Euro/Pound thing, ffs) and because the jobs and profits generated from international currency trading outweigh the stupidity of having separate coinage.
We have yet to adopt any form of truly unified world government - the UN is almost as bad as the League of Nations, if slightly more effective overall. But why doesn't everyone come to the party? Because they don't want to. (And even then, the UN is still too remote to be called an attempt at government - it's basically an elaborate forum for politicians to talk to each other. Progress, yes...but not near enough to count.)

Hence, the issue with disparate religions, sub-sections of religions, and absences of religions. You can't unify them all, because they don't WANT to be unified. It's petty, it's childish, it propagates problems like almost nothing else (except maybe skin colour, nationalism, and militarism) and yet we cling to the differences between us no matter what. You can't solve that with a catch-all phrase or philosophy. It's been tried. People ain't listening. Unfortunately.

I don't understand why you want everyone to be the same. Is that your utopia? Everyone walking around in uniform, like in Star Trek. No individuality, no identity, no personality? To sacrifice fun in the name of peace and understanding? No, thank you. If you don't mind, I think I'll keep my wars.

PS! Yes, I know my use of categories are off hand. But so are yours, so nnnnyeeeaaahhh!

Nice try at strawmanning there, Bryn...did I once say I wanted everyone to be the same? I said 'unified', as in, 'together'. As in, 'not tearing each others' throats out'. The point is not that everyone become uniform, identical clones of each other, but that we stop using our differences as a basis to kill and maim and fight and argue. Which is what the issue at hand is, I believe.

You seemed to criticize Great Britain for keeping the Pound instead of just adopting the Euro. And that was just an example you used for people not agreeing with each other. I'm saying that, in this case, coinage and currency isn't just some utilitarian means of exchange, but part of a national identity. Note that this identity marker arrives to the stage only once the matter of currency is discussed. But then it's used as a way for the Brits to differentiate themselves from the "Europeans." And they do that because they want to have a separate identity, not to be bickering idiots. These things may seem trivial to those that don't care about them, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to care about it.

Quote

However, you do nicely demonstrate the point I'm making. Take any one issue, and try and find consensus on it. Go on. Try it. It's even hard to find an issue which has universal ambivalence, unless it's no longer a concern - and then in come the anthropologists and historians, so even then, awkward.

I didn't understand one bit of this.

Quote

RE: "Live and let live", exactly my point - people won't be satisfied with it. Ever. Because everyone wants more than what they have. In some post-scarcity world, far into the future (or not...who knows?), there will still be something to desire, something to hoard. It may not be material, or it might be life, or it might be something else, but there will be something.

And as for your little tangent on atheism vs agnosticism, I'm not sure what your point is there, mate. I was merely suggesting as to how, even if theism and atheism could find a common philosophy, such as Terez' attempted to provide at thread-start, it would not be grounds for unification or acceptance of each others' existence.

I admit, I completely missed the point of this thread. I thought it was an exercise in uniting the agnostics and atheists, and my comments went towards that purpose. On a closer re-read, I see that Terez wants to put the deists in there as well.

[Terez]

Actually, the real point of the thread was to draw CI out of hiding. I know he's hanging around somewhere...

[Silencer]

Brynjar, on 24 November 2010 - 12:43 PM, said:

You seemed to criticize Great Britain for keeping the Pound instead of just adopting the Euro. And that was just an example you used for people not agreeing with each other. I'm saying that, in this case, coinage and currency isn't just some utilitarian means of exchange, but part of a national identity. Note that this identity marker arrives to the stage only once the matter of currency is discussed. But then it's used as a way for the Brits to differentiate themselves from the "Europeans." And they do that because they want to have a separate identity, not to be bickering idiots. These things may seem trivial to those that don't care about them, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to care about it.

Quote

However, you do nicely demonstrate the point I'm making. Take any one issue, and try and find consensus on it. Go on. Try it. It's even hard to find an issue which has universal ambivalence, unless it's no longer a concern - and then in come the anthropologists and historians, so even then, awkward.

I didn't understand one bit of this.

I see where the problem is, right. I wasn't criticising Britain for keeping the Pound rather than adopting the Euro in the same sense as I was talking about people being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I was pointing out that in the same way global politics has stagnated, so will any attempts at reconciliation and unification between theists and atheists.

I'll grant you, it was a tangent, and I was talking more about the folly of the economic principles behind retaining independent currency than about any grand notions like world peace. The transition was hidden by:

Quote

As far as the outlook for the future goes, I predict an interminable stalemate, just like global politics.

And I then dropped in a paragraph complaining about lack of unified government, the ineffectiveness of the UN, and how, given pretty much all currencies are gold-backed (or similar) the only difference between them is the amount of gold we consider to be one [insert currency name here] compared to the next guy. I wasn't dealing with cultural matters - it's an economic concern.

But, I was using the last few EU nations who're holding onto their original currency as an example of how people will choose to be different, even in the face of good sense, so I can see how you're taking that as "everyone should be the same1!!!1eleven!!!", but that wasn't really what I was saying there.

And then of course, you misread 'unified' in the next paragraph along, so all good...I think?


**************

As for differentiating oneself from being a 'European', I had a good laugh at that one - aside from the fact that the English are 'European', you also managed to lump everyone else into the category at the same time, despite their own uniqueness. After all, the French are not just European, they're French! So, while I appreciate the sentiment, I really do - NZ is talking about changing our flag (well, rather, a few activists and the media were pushing for it despite the vast majority of the population giving a big NO in response) and I am firmly against doing so, because it represents us, our history, and the people who have fallen under that flag in our defence deserve it to be kept - I also think that, in this case, it IS a bit petty to claim it as a differentiating factor when other people who have adopted a common currency are still considered individual (except by the British?).

But, by the same token, and I'm by no means insinuating this, your argument (in general) has the unfortunate implication that racism is perfectly acceptable as it allows one group of people to differentiate themselves from another - a thing I think you'd agree is bad, yes? The problem with any culture preaching 'live and let live', of course, is that it too has to accept the people who have conflicting cultures. I.e. "do not interfere with another group's culture, don't try and enforce your culture on them" sounds great...EXCEPT that in doing so you are enforcing your culture on those groups whose culture says it's OK to enforce their culture on others. So kinda contradictory. But by the same token saying that you'd rather wars than everyone getting along together has the same unfortunate implication that anything is good and fine as long as it differentiates you. *shrug*

Erm. I'm really just rambling now. So I will stop.

tl;dr - wasn't really using the currency thing as an example of people disagreeing, so much as pointing out the economic folly of keeping them, and thus slipping into the problem of lack of world of government, which was really a tangent.
And, can't really help you with the bit you didn't understand, sorry...

Finally: even uniting atheists and agnostics is a tough one, as they can't agree on anything either, so...yeah. XD

[Silk]

lets just agree that people will disagree no matter what ;o)

Take my work for example... we do network installs as well as Real Time Information displays and to get two people in the same office to agree on a location for the screen and network connection is like watching a Jerry Springer show... entertaiuning but you know its not gonna resolve anything...

[Dolorous Menhir]

Obligatory post.

[Terez]

Dolorous Menhir, on 25 November 2010 - 07:22 PM, said:

Obligatory post.

You did that just so I could rep you, didn't you?

I think a lot of people have been making noise about how it's impossible to herd the proverbial cats, but I don't think anyone has explained why atheists or agnostics or deists or general religious skeptics would have a problem with the statement in the OP.

This post has been edited by Terez: 25 November 2010 - 07:25 PM

[Silencer]

It's not a problem with the statement, it's a problem with the sentiment. For a start, atheists would possibly take offence (and make a noise about) the fact that you included "if" in there - after all, you are then allowing for the existence of God/a higher power, which is contrary to their beliefs. Agnostics would sit there and go "yes...but...I'm not sure which one is which?", generally agreeing with what you're saying but pointing out how it changes nothing, and theists would be pointing out how you don't NEED a catch-all phrase, because they KNOW God does exist, and basically make the same complaint as atheists.

So the point is not the fact that the statement is good/accurate/plausible but the fact that people will, by their nature, take offence against certain parts of it because they conflict with or downright contradict their beliefs. Essentially, that statement is an agnostic statement - now tell me what problems you foresee with it and atheists/theists? Yeah, they won't like it.

As I said in my first post, opening statement:

Quote

Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

[Terez]

Silencer, on 25 November 2010 - 09:59 PM, said:

It's not a problem with the statement, it's a problem with the sentiment. For a start, atheists would possibly take offence (and make a noise about) the fact that you included "if" in there - after all, you are then allowing for the existence of God/a higher power, which is contrary to their beliefs.

Some might, but as a generalization, I'm not so sure this is true. Atheists do not believe in a Creator primarily because we believe there is no evidence for its existence. Generally we are logic-oriented thinkers, and we find it illogical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, most especially when the assumption for said being's existence primarily comes from error-riddled pseudohistorical religious texts.

But in the same vein, assuming that there most certain is NOT such a being is equally illogical. We can choose to live our lives without consideration for this being of dubious existence, but there is no reason to go a step further and insist that it certainly does not exist.

The statement in question only allows for the possibility, and it covers the other side of the coin - the assumption that the being might very well not exist. I have a tendency to think that any atheist who has a problem with such a contingency is probably a little on the dogmatic side, which is of course what most atheists in principle are trying to avoid by denouncing religion.

Quote

Agnostics would sit there and go "yes...but...I'm not sure which one is which?"

The point of the contingency is that it doesn't matter which is which.

Quote

...generally agreeing with what you're saying but pointing out how it changes nothing, and theists would be pointing out how you don't NEED a catch-all phrase, because they KNOW God does exist, and basically make the same complaint as atheists.

This is more about fixing CI's head than changing the world.

Quote

So the point is not the fact that the statement is good/accurate/plausible but the fact that people will, by their nature, take offence against certain parts of it because they conflict with or downright contradict their beliefs.

I maintain that this is a problem. I just don't have the power to fix it on a large scale. I can only influence people around me, and those only to a limited degree.

Quote

Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

Again, a problem. Part of what sucks about the world is that people have a tendency to just accept these things as unchangeable truths.

[Silencer]

Terez, on 25 November 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

Silencer, on 25 November 2010 - 09:59 PM, said:

It's not a problem with the statement, it's a problem with the sentiment. For a start, atheists would possibly take offence (and make a noise about) the fact that you included "if" in there - after all, you are then allowing for the existence of God/a higher power, which is contrary to their beliefs.

Some might, but as a generalization, I'm not so sure this is true. Atheists do not believe in a Creator primarily because we believe there is no evidence for its existence. Generally we are logic-oriented thinkers, and we find it illogical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, most especially when the assumption for said being's existence primarily comes from error-riddled pseudohistorical religious texts.

But in the same vein, assuming that there most certain is NOT such a being is equally illogical. We can choose to live our lives without consideration for this being of dubious existence, but there is no reason to go a step further and insist that it certainly does not exist.

The statement in question only allows for the possibility, and it covers the other side of the coin - the assumption that the being might very well not exist. I have a tendency to think that any atheist who has a problem with such a contingency is probably a little on the dogmatic side, which is of course what most atheists in principle are trying to avoid by denouncing religion.

Quote

Agnostics would sit there and go "yes...but...I'm not sure which one is which?"

The point of the contingency is that it doesn't matter which is which.

Quote

...generally agreeing with what you're saying but pointing out how it changes nothing, and theists would be pointing out how you don't NEED a catch-all phrase, because they KNOW God does exist, and basically make the same complaint as atheists.

This is more about fixing CI's head than changing the world.

Quote

So the point is not the fact that the statement is good/accurate/plausible but the fact that people will, by their nature, take offence against certain parts of it because they conflict with or downright contradict their beliefs.

I maintain that this is a problem. I just don't have the power to fix it on a large scale. I can only influence people around me, and those only to a limited degree.

Quote

Just because there is a unified principle that links two groups together does not mean they will like each other, get along with each other, or even accept each other's existence.

Again, a problem. Part of what sucks about the world is that people have a tendency to just accept these things as unchangeable truths.

RE: Generalizations, well, of course, but if you're talking about the soft-central category of people...the middle of the Venn diagram, so to speak, who don't really actually care either way...they're not the problem. Those people, of whom I am likely to be one, CAN just get along with most people of conflicting beliefs. But what's the point in talking about that group? It's not where the problems lie. It's the edges, the hard-liners, the extremists/dogmatics/fanatics who are causing the problems, as always. Sometimes the centre gets caught up in things because they care just enough to point out how stupid one person is being, and that can cause a chain reaction from the other side of the middle, but it still isn't where the problem begins, or ends.

And you also probably went to far in your own attribution of traits to atheists...just as there are plenty of perfectly reasonable minds who believe in one religion or another, there are plenty of irrational, illogical ones who are atheists.

The issue I have here is that an atheist who allows for the existence of a divine being is bordering, very hard, on agnosticism. The line is too blurred in that case to distinguish, in which case they fall into the latter category I was talking about, who point out that this changes nothing.

RE: Fixing CI's head...yes, well, I think your thread got seriously hijacked shortly after you put it up, and is now encompassing a broader scope than one person. XD

RE: The problems you can't fix, well, you're falling into your own trap there - you're accepting them as too hard to change, which is the same thing as accepting it as unchangeable. Or you seem to be. But it's only through debate and discussion that you can hope to find a way to change it, so why shy away from the problems?

P.S. Clearly you missed the second 'problem' the first time round...I went into slightly more detail in that post, but either way, I'm really only posting the above and this to point out that people (or at least, I) have in fact posted reasons why herding cats would be hard/why atheists/theists might have a difficulty accepting the statement.

[Terez]

Silencer, on 25 November 2010 - 10:22 PM, said:

RE: Generalizations, well, of course, but if you're talking about the soft-central category of people...the middle of the Venn diagram, so to speak, who don't really actually care either way...they're not the problem. Those people, of whom I am likely to be one, CAN just get along with most people of conflicting beliefs. But what's the point in talking about that group?

Wouldn't you say that the most rational group is the most important? If rational people can work together, develop common goals, then we have a better chance of influencing the extremists.

Quote

And you also probably went to far in your own attribution of traits to atheists...just as there are plenty of perfectly reasonable minds who believe in one religion or another, there are plenty of irrational, illogical ones who are atheists.

I think I accounted for the fact that there are dogmatic atheists. Again, I'm talking about philosophy, not the general trends of the unwashed masses.

Quote

The issue I have here is that an atheist who allows for the existence of a divine being is bordering, very hard, on agnosticism.

Why is that a problem? There has been a rising distinction in recent years between atheists and anti-theists. The semantics of the words are becoming blurred because the concepts aren't so far apart as we once believed them to be.

Quote

RE: The problems you can't fix, well, you're falling into your own trap there - you're accepting them as too hard to change

Singlehandedly. It's all about baby steps.