[Dakar the Fourth]

You know me, the scourge of the PL.

[BRussell]

I think the term "materialist" (or maybe philosophical materialist, to distinguish it from consumerism) is a better term than atheist. The term atheist implies a rejection of a specific belief, but that's really unnecessary. It's better to just say you're not religious, if that's the case. But I'd guess that most atheists are not just non-religious, rather they simply believe that physical matter is all there is - no supernatural, etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um. I can't really tell if you're an atheist trying to explicate your point of view, or a theist trying to satirize an atheist's point of view, but either way I, as an atheist, take issue with a few all of your points here.

I'm an atheist explicating my view in a somewhat extreme (and slightly satirical) manner for the sake of argument.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I support all rights (being a libertarian) including women's reproductive rights. However I suspect you're talking about abortion here, and I'm rather anti-abortion (not pro-life, anti-abortion). I think it's a necessary evil at this point in time, but an evil none the less. I would think that most who support a right to abortions would, if they put even the slightest modicum of thought into the matter, say that abortions are regrettable and it would be better if they didn't happen even while we should have the right to them. Being pro-abortion is hardly an atheist position, it's just a large intersection in the great venn diagram of life.

Also, I think the 10th ammendment is one of the most important ones we've got (being, for lack of a better word, and anti-federalist).

We've actually discussed this before and are more or less in complete agreement. I intentionally didn't put any negative value judgments in it because that's not the kind of thing a law does in this context (i.e. laws don't say things are "a legal right but regrettable"). Likewise, every pro-life person I've ever discussed this with isn't interested in how I feel it's regrettable.

Regardless of all the value judgments that I do make about abortion, I still support women's (almost exclusive) reproductive rights, which means abortion, more or less on demand. The fact I don't feel great about it isn't really changing my position, so my regrettable feelings about it strike me (and have often been argued) as irrelevant.

OTOH, as someone who doesn't see a blank spot where the 10th Amendment is, I understand that the only way women should have these reproductive rights is through another Amendment. I added the blank spot part because this is something I have seen in other people on numerous occasions, including myself long ago.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Condoms are certainly a useful invention, and we should certainly be encouraging their use. The idea of teaching kids that sex and condoms are an inseparable pair is a good one. But again it's not an atheist position. There are many theists who believe this as well, and probably atheists who don't.

Absolutely. But, as you say above "it's just a large intersection in the great venn diagram of life", all of my points here have been of that nature.

A big reason for this would be the significant religions religions that have a doctrinal problem with condoms. Atheists are obviously not constrained by that.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This is just ridiculous. I have a lot of gay friends. I'm all in favor of gay rights, gay marriage (at least as long as the government is going to insist on being involved in marriage at all), and all that jazz. As far as homosexuality itself is concerned, I'm neutral. Other people are whatever they are, I'm neither pro- nor anti-homosexual.

This was probably the biggest stretch, but is by no means untrue with myself.

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Just because people disagree with you, does not mean that they are threatening.

Of course. But all three of my examples have policy implications, that's why I chose them. You can shrug-off an idea, it's much harder to shrug off policy.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Again, I don't buy it. Safety, for an atheist or any other minority, comes not in numbers, but in liberty.

I think you mistook what I said. I was giving safety in numbers as a reason people would make the (very poor) choice to mock someone other than having an inferiority complex.

I wasn't saying it was a good notion in any way shape or form. I was merely pointing out it was different.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think the term "materialist" (or maybe philosophical materialist, to distinguish it from consumerism) is a better term than atheist. The term atheist implies a rejection of a specific belief, but that's really unnecessary. It's better to just say you're not religious, if that's the case. But I'd guess that most atheists are not just non-religious, rather they simply believe that physical matter is all there is - no supernatural, etc.

Well that brings into question the definition of god. At its most basic 'atheist' simply means 'without god(s)'. Perhaps you still believe in pixies or whatever, but not god(s) so you're a non-materialist atheist. On the other hand, maybe you want to define anything supernatural as equivalent to god(s) in which case just believing in pixies might be enough to be considered a theist.

As you implied, there are plenty of people who are atheists yet believe in souls. There are, of course, plenty others who don't. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many self-describing atheists do or don't believe in the supernatural, or even specifically the soul.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm an atheist explicating my view in a somewhat extreme (and slightly satirical) manner for the sake of argument.

Ah, mostly a matter of misunderstanding then. Sounds like we're in much more agreement than I thought.

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

I didn't say I'm neutral about sex, certainly I'm not. There are certain kinds of sex that appeal to me greatly, there are other kinds of sex that do not appeal to me at all. What I was saying is that I'm neutral about the sex that other people choose to engage in. It doesn't matter to me one whit that man a chooses to have sex with another man, or that man b chooses to have sex with his great dane even though I wouldn't ever want to do those things myself. I have my own personal preferences when it comes to sex, but that's all they are: personal preferences. I don't really make any value judgements about whether a particular kind of sex is 'good' or 'bad' (so long as it's conventual, of course).

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm neutral about the sex that other people choose to engage in. It doesn't matter to me one whit that man a chooses to have sex with another man, or that man b chooses to have sex with his great dane

I noticed you neglected to proclaim your neutrality over frilly Penthouse lesbian a and frilly Penthouse lesbian b.

[nonhuman]

At the advice of counsel I have no comment at this time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

Is there some reason I'd be expected to care who Michael Cain chooses to sleep with or how he chooses to do it as long as it isn't me?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

You know me, the scourge of the PL.

Hey, stop scourging!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well that brings into question the definition of god. At its most basic 'atheist' simply means 'without god(s)'. Perhaps you still believe in pixies or whatever, but not god(s) so you're a non-materialist atheist. On the other hand, maybe you want to define anything supernatural as equivalent to god(s) in which case just believing in pixies might be enough to be considered a theist.

As you implied, there are plenty of people who are atheists yet believe in souls. There are, of course, plenty others who don't. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many self-describing atheists do or don't believe in the supernatural, or even specifically the soul.

My sense is that virtually everyone who calls themselves atheists rejects all supernatural things. But I dunno, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Are there really atheists who believe in souls, or other supernatural things?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

My sense is that virtually everyone who calls themselves atheists rejects all supernatural things. But I dunno, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Are there really atheists who believe in souls, or other supernatural things?

Absolutely. I don't know that I could provide supporting documentation, but I certainly have anecdotal evidence of atheists who believe in other things supernatural.

Also, depending on how you interpret both the term 'atheist' and the teachings, Buddhism could qualify as an atheistic faith that still teaches of supernatural things.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

I'm just popping in to this thread quickly and bringing up something from the first page, as thats all I've read so far.

That is an amazing bit of words there, RAILhead. I've never seen someone say it so bluntly and beautifully.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is there some reason I'd be expected to care who Michael Cain chooses to sleep with or how he chooses to do it

Not until someone puts that image in your head.

[Uncle Skeleton]

@RAILhead and Mac User #001

Rose colored glasses. For every flowery warm fuzzy thing that makes you think the human race is divine and flawless, there's a soury worn scuzzy thing so foul you wish you'd never known about. The human species is not fragile and it's not all beautiful, it has an even chance of showing you the beauty or the beast. It doesn't take faith to think of humanity as all good or all bad, it just takes selective blindness.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

@RAILhead and Mac User #001

Rose colored glasses. For every flowery warm fuzzy thing that makes you think the human race is divine and flawless, there's a soury worn scuzzy thing so foul you wish you'd never known about. The human species is not fragile and it's not all beautiful, it has an even chance of showing you the beauty or the beast. It doesn't take faith to think of humanity as all good or all bad, it just takes selective blindness.

I don't think he's saying "it's good and beautiful, therefore god made it" as much as "it's complex and therefore god made it." It's the argument from design rather than the argument from beauty.

And I think part of the answer to the argument that "it couldn't have happened by chance" is that evolution does not say it happened by chance. The core of evolution is not random at all, but about survival pressures, though obviously there is a random component to it (e.g., mutations).

[- - e r i k - -]

Argument from beauty and argument from design are both fallacious.

I appreciate the beauty (and the not so beauty) of the natural world at least equally as religious types. It is even more wonderful to appreciate how it has come to be, continues to evolve and works together in a wholly scientific and non-supernatural way. That my friends is true beauty.

[Taliesin]

There are still some questions that remained unanswered, which I would like to see clarified so we can go on to the next level:

No man no agriculturing/farming, but what about the sentence in Genesis 2, that God didn't let it rain yet?

Another question is if Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate the apple from that special tree.

If they were immortal, why did the eating of the forbidden make them mortal?

And before they became mortal, were all life in the universe immortal as well? And did this disobedience by Adam and Eve turn all other life in the universe from immortality to mortality and if yes, why did other life get punished for Adam and Eve's wrong-doing?

Taliesin