Welcome to the Atheist/ Agnostic Forum. From what I can see things have been rather quiet here recently. As the site�s new editor I aim to change that � with your help. I�m required to post something here as part of my training, so I�ve decided to address an issue that confronted my predecessor on the site. If I take a clue from her, maybe I can avoid the problem she encountered.

Like Ali I want to encourage a wide range of visitors to our site and to our forum, including not only agnostics and atheists, but also people of faith, many of whom can contribute signicant insights to our discussions. There are two problems with this inclusiveness. Religious people don�t share our reverence for empiricism. When faith conflicts with observation, they generally come down on the side of faith, which is pretty much the antithesis of our approach. When the participants in a discussion adhere to such different standards of truth, the quality of debate suffers. They wind up merely talking past one another, usually at great length!

Even more problematical is the tendency of religious fundamentalists to pass moral judgment on those who disagree with them. I experienced this during a year of almost daily interaction with Creationists on the Townhall website. A relatively small cadre of religious zealots uploadeded long, rambling diatribes into nearly every thread, filled with apocalyptic threats, personal invective, and specious arguments based on Scripture. They seemed to believe that the more biblical text they block loaded, the more convincing their arguments became. This is not to say that religious people were the only offenders. Posters on my side often treated religious posters with open contempt as if they were superstitious morons. Tactics like this stifle constructive dialogue and create bad feeling, both of which I�d like to avoid.

Here�s what I propose:

(1) It makes no sense for people to argue, when they hold diametrically opposite views about the nature of truth. There's no basis for agreement on anything. Therefore I suggest that each thread on this site be classified as either �faith based� or �empirical�, depending on the form of truth-testing to be used in it. The person who starts the thread and defines the topic should also make that choice and everyone who posts on the thread subsequently should agree to abide by her decision.

(2) The next one�s easy. I think that personal attacks in any form should be out of bounds. This isn�t a subtle determination; people know when they�re attacking others. I suggest that those who use ad hominem language on a thread be given a single warning before being banned from that thread. This includes not only disparaging a person's intellect, but using religious language or Biblical quotations to condemn her as a sinner or threaten her with damnation.

These policy suggestions are not intended to discourage civil debate, but to do just the opposite. If you have an opinion one way or the other, please post a comment. I look forward to hearing from you!

and I quote you; "Religious people don�t share our reverence for empiricism."

Wow....that is really stereotyping "religious" people and seems bigoted in my estimation.

Some of us "religious" types came to our conclusions based on science and our observation of the creation.

It takes just as much "faith" for you to be an atheist as it does for me to be a creationist.

choose2live -- Thank you for posting your thoughts in the A/A Forum. You�re the first person to respond. I hope you won�t be the last. And I hope you�ll keep coming back too. I think that religious people have a lot to contribute to the type of discussion I find most meaningful: about ethics, about what we do with our lives and about what we can become as human beings.

I�m sorry that you found my remarks offensive. They weren�t intended that way. I believe in treating everyone with respect, but that doesn�t mean giving credence to bad ideas and misinformation.

Since you say you�re a �creationist�, I�m going to guess that you�re not a scientist and that you have little training in science. That�s not an insult. It�s just a fact that the vast majority of creationists aren�t scientists and very few scientists are creationists � in spite of what you�ve been told. I have no doubt that you know a great deal about many things - things that I know nothing about. Maybe you�re an expert cook, or musician, or banker, or mechanic. Yet somehow you�ve been convinced that you understand enough about sophisticated sciences like molecular genetics and thermodynamics and biochemistry to contradict the experts in those fields. I find that really weird. And frustrating.

It�s frustrating, because you spend so much time debating issues you know nothing about, instead of contributing to constructive discussions about the things you do understand.

This has gone on long enough for one post. I�ll just deal with a single issue specifically. You say it takes faith to be an atheist. This recent addition to creationist dogma depends on a lack of understanding of empiricism and of faith too. The best definition of faith � and the most beautiful one - that I know comes from Hebrews 11:1. Faith is �the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.� At one time religious people acknowledged their faith candidly and proudly. It inspired them in good times and sustained them in bad. Sadly that�s no longer enough. They�ve been told that their beliefs must also withstand the empirical testing of science. It�s a pernicious lie, which requires them to accept all manner of nonsense, mostly about science.

Scientists don�t trust in anything without question � not anything. Even the basic epistomological underpinning of knowledge � that the universe is orderly and accessible to rational understanding � is subject to continual doubt and testing. If observations ever indicate that the universe doesn�t behave as we think it does, we will abandon that assumption. This is empiricism. It sure isn�t faith.

I think it�s very sad that religious people have started treating faith as an insult to throw at atheists, instead of a matter of pride in themselves. As I said, you shouldn�t be angry with me, but with the cynical people who have filled your head with falsehoods in order to take away that pride.

Hello,
I agree with your suggested rules and think they are a good one. I am an atheist, though I tend not to love the word, perhaps that is directly related to being raised in a strictly catholic family. I have participated in a lot of discussions with those on both sides of this issue and what I seem to find over and over again is that those of faith always in the end revert back to damning the atheists to hell and the atheists hitting the religious over the head with books about Darwin.Everyone taking every statement personal. Although choose2live didn't damn you to hell so thats a good starting point and thus I think the rules are wonderful. I can never seem to find a middle ground but hopefully that will change. I'm going to start reading the God Delusion here soon so perhaps Ill come back and post something when I'm done.

CoffeeDrinker '80 -- Good to hear from you and thanks for your input. I agree with you about the term "atheist". Besides its historically provocative connotation for people of faith, the word itself sounds harsh, maybe because it sounds too much like "anti-theist". I'm currently working on an article about Humanists, who use the term "nontheist" instead. It seems a lot milder.

You're right: choose2live didn't damn me. In fact, I thought her post was perfectly appropriate, because it challenged what I said. I hope she'll contribute again. Regarding the rules of discussion, assuming enough people comment on them, I'm going to keep track to see if there's a concensus. My impression is that unproductive ad hominem filled arguments grow in a chain reaction. One impolitic remark elicits another and before long, everyone's angry. If the exchange of unpleasantries can be curtailed immediately, maybe our discussions here will remain civil.

I enjoyed The God Delusion although I had a few caveats. I hope you'll come back after you've read it and give us your impression! With so many books coming out from both sides regarding religion, it would be great to have a number of threads based on them.

Beyond that I hope to encourage discussions about other issues besides whether God exists or not. For an atheist making that first decision is in many ways the easiest step! I'm interested in the choices that come later, when people reach critical points in their lives and without relying on supernatural authority have to decide what to do.

I hope to see you again.

I'm wondering, for #1, if there may be a possibility of cross-over. Not any specific topics in mind, but the possibility exists, I think.

#2 is just politeness, which I heartily agree with! (Wish more people would exhibit it, especially on-line. There was an article, I think in Scientific American, about how the anonymonity of the internet makes many feel free to be far ruder than they would if they had their identity out there.)

Anyone who doesn't agree with these is a stupid idiot -- ;-) (I'm sorry, I just can't resist joking around!)

BTW, in case you are wondering, I'm a second-generation agnostic. My son seems to be leaning that way (dh is athiest, but was raised Christian) -- we have tried to encourage him to think things out, and to be respectful to those who believe whatever they believe. (As long as it doesn't hurt others. I have a real problem with hurting others!)

Ms A - Thank you for contributing. You make a very good point about "cross-over" topics that would profit from both empirical and faith-based viewpoints. If a consensus ever develops (or if circumstances make such a rule desirable) I'll probably follow your suggestion and implement all three categories.

Hi AJ,
I hopped on over to this discussion after seeing on the editor forum that you were resigning. I'm glad to see that you chose to stay! I don't get a lot of visitors at my stomach issues site, either. But I understand that not everyone has a connection with the topic and there isn't a whole lot to debate about there other than perhaps which remedies a person believes in.

I think that this is a great topic and I completely agree with your approach. It can be tough to find people who don't tenaciously defend their belief system, even though they don't honestly understand what they are defending. They seem to think that "right fighting" is the same thing as faith. True faith comes with a purity that the defensive ego can't attach itself to.

So, I do have some curiosity about what it means to be an atheist or "nontheist" (though to me they say the same thing - the prefix "a" meaning "non" - to change this appears to be splitting hairs.) Where do you believe that life comes from? Is atheism empirical in it's nature because you see no evidence of a God? Is the search for evidence based upon the "menu" of religious choices you have encountered that have fallen short of meaning for you? Do you believe that there is a distict separation of "ego" and "self?"

I have struggled all of my life with trying to find God. I always had the sense that life began with something - that awareness in and of itself was proof enough for me that life exists beyond matter. Yet I found no comfort in the Christian religions that I encountered. They all seemed to be "right fighters" who if you lined them all up, were saying exactly the same thing. I'm "right and you are wrong," therefore God loves me and hates you. Talk about an ego trip! Same message, different ritual to adhere to. I couldn't relate to Catholicism or Buddhism, because there is an inherent belief system in each of them that one needs to adhere to, based on a specific storyline and ritual. Without the storyline and ritual, there is no actual religion.

I went to a medium/intuitive counselor and told her nothing about myself. She said to me that I have a real problem with religion - because I was a nun more than once in past lives! Heh, that is a whole other topic (or two) but I had to raise an eyebrow...

Then I encountered the Tao. In the Tao, if you can name "God" then it isn't God. God has no name, no substance, no form. God is the nothingness and the all-ness simultaneously. The only way to feel "God" is to sit in silence. In the Tao, "God" is awareness. It's all about separating the ego from true awareness.

I feel that the Tao is perfectly scientific in it's nature. If you understand quantum physics, you know that there is no actual form. Only compiled energy. That energy, to my understanding is "God."

Again, thanks for a forum free of "bashing!"

Shay

>Where do you believe that life comes from?

Shay, I can't speak for AJ, but my understanding of life on earth is that it started here. (That doesn't preclude the possibility -- imo probably a highly likely possibility, given the number of planets we already know about with our limited technology, of life on other planets.) There have been some exciting experiments done that -- in a limited time (and of course, this process happened over a far too long time period for human experiments to yield results as complex as life), given the raw materials that were likely on early Earth, along with lots of electricity (to simulate lightning), they formed amino acids -- the building blocks of life.

The questions that boggle my mind are more on the origins of the universe, and ultimate destiny of it, as well as the whole concept of finite and infinite. What precipitated the big bang? Where was all the matter and energy prior to it? How can the universe have boundaries? How can it not have boundaries?

Life, given the right materials and enough time, seems a much more simple concept to me!

I like seeing a different definition of God -- I use my own version to be able to agree to the BSA's policies for now. (I would love to get them to change their religious policy, since it is based on a fallacy, but this is not the time for that fight for me.)

And I agree -- a "bash-free" zone is always a good thing!

Hello AJ,

I, too, am glad that you decided to stay on. I enjoy reading your posts.

I was raised as a Christian, Baptist, and have always believed in God and Jesus. I have had indisputable trials and experiences that have reaffirmed this in my mind and in my heart. I do, however, also have a very strong affinity and bond to Native American beliefs, which at times are similar to Christianity in the belief that there is but One Creator, God, The Great Spirit.

The Native American beliefs came with the first peoples on this continent who came from Mongolia and Northern Japan and other Asian parts. The Mongolians practiced Shamanism and you will find, even today, many Native American rituals that are definitely Shamanistic in their approach and practice. It is a very interesting area of research and study for me.

I admire and appreciate your "rules for the forum" and also truly appreciate your invitation to persons of all beliefs to join in on good, clean discussions.

"Faith" is a very difficult word to understand. I have "faith" in my mix of beliefs and traditions and the way I pray, you have faith that your beliefs are right for you. I admire anyone who is strong in their own beliefs, whether they are like mine or not.

I wish you luck in this forum. Judging by this thread, you are going to be very successful in your endeavors to succeed. I will at times, I am sure, be back to join in on some discussions and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.

Hello,

I am agnostic at this time. I can agree only to a point that religous people are 'faith' grounded. However, I believe it's misleading to imply there is little or no emperical observations within their doctrine. Each side appears to be intertwined with both empericism and faith. For instance, we frequently ask believers to provide proof that there is a God. Yet how often are atheist asked to provide proof that there is not a God? Often times the arguement on the atheist side in effort to debunk a believer is the idea that there is no proof of God's existence. However, this is an example of 'a plead to ignorance' fallacy. In short, one cannot logically make a claim that something does not exist simply because there is no proof of its existence. We currently have no proof that there is life outside of earth. However, that does not mean there is no life outside of earth. There very well could be. We cannot assume that life outside of earth does not exist simply because we have no current proof at this time.

I believe both atheist and believers use emperical data and faith for their assumptions.

AJ,

Maybe you can help me with some thoughts I have on the term "Atheist". In the dictionary atheist is defined as "one who denies the existence of God". I believe this term must have been created way back in time when it was assumed that everyone should or did believe there was a God. There are other religions/faiths/beliefs that also deny the existence of God. So, my confusion is this: Does an atheist have any belief in a higher being or creator or does one believe there simply is no such thing other than one's self to rely on and have faith in, or should I say an empirical outlook? And if so, what about the other beliefs that say there is no God, why are they not also called atheists? Like an earlier post mentioned, and you replied to, the term "atheist" is "harsh" - and in my opinion may turn off a lot of people that may otherwise get involved in a discussion on the subject. How do you feel about the possibility of changing the name "atheist" to something else and what would you change it to - or are atheists in general ok with that term? I am rambling here, I think, but just have these thoughts I wanted to get out and get your opinion on. Is this maybe a subject for a thread of it's own?

Thank you for your response, Ms A. Unfortunately I was wrong - AJ left after all. His offense seems to have run irreparably deep.

My question was actually pretty similar to yours. When I say "life" I mean all of life. All of existence, matter, form, electricity, awareness - life. The unnameable mystery of the infinite. The fact that anything exists at all, you know? For me atheism seems to expound that things just "are." Life just "is." But what is the energy that made it exist? It's alive. What is that life? I'm so curious to understand how those of atheistic belief explain "life." If it came from "nothingness" isn't that nothingness "God?"

Shay

Hi Phyllis,

I breezed in, saw posts, joined in and didn't look at the dates. They were from January. I went to the homepage and the slot is open. AJ in fact did resign. If only he had stayed a little longer!

The way I understand atheism to be which differs from all other religions godless or not, is that they don't believe in the soul or any actual purpose to existence. That life is a kind of fluke, with no creator, no afterlife - just a chemical reaction that happened accidentally. I have met an atheist or two in my life. They both said the same thing. "If there was a God, (fill in the blank) would never have happened. I don't understand it, I can't see any justification, therefore God could not possibly exist. No God would have allowed it." I'm sure there are other reasons why those of atheistic views believe what they do. I'm curious what they might be!

I am sorry to hear AJ left us. I had different beliefs than he, but I enjoyed reading his posts - he is a really good writer and brings up some interesting thoughts.

Here is what I believe. This will probably differ in details from what other atheists believe but I will try to clarify as best I can.

The definition of "soul" needs to be clarified. A "soul" is that part of us that makes us as humans...us. Our intellect, our desires, our wishes. That "soul" whose existence is centered inside our heads, controlled by our brains, that is what I define as a "soul." That soul is created when we are conceived, develops/matures in the womb, and learns from the world outside.

If what you mean as a soul is the concept of "the eternal soul" -- a collection of experiences that can pass from one physical lifetime to another, that I do not believe in, because it doesn't pass my version of a sniff test. Where does such a soul go? Can we place it on a map? Can we send a probe there, take pictures, conceive of the rules/laws of "physics" in this location where souls go? Those kinds of missing parts make me have doubt in the concept of an "eternal soul."

Again, the concept of "...any actual purpose to existence" I think is based on the same concept. I am here. My mind tells me that I am where I am now, having thoughts about my day, this message, what I am going to do for lunch, etc. My purpose for existence is whatever I need to do for me to remain happy and content, in order to survive in this world. If you are talking about some grand scheme for existence for all people in the world that spans my physical needs and/or my lifetime, I don't see why that has to be a requirement that there be something grander. If I had to state my philosophy of "existence" out there, it would be to help the betterment of my fellow people, be helpful and caring, and whenever I die, I die and become worm food. It is that simple. To worry about what happens after I am dead seems strangely illogical.

Now, this type of attitude (that I don't have to be a good person because there is no overhanging judgment after I die to worry about) comes back to atheists from theists in the form of: "Oh, so you that means you can cheat, you can lie, you can murder, you can do anything you want because there are no rules that guide your morality." That is a straw man argument. Just because I do not follow "god given and approved (tm) (c) rules" does not mean that I have no rules at all! I was brought up by my parents to care for others, to give, to share, to be honest, to assist when needed. That is, I learned and follow rules of society that allow me to interact with others in a peaceful manner for the betterment of others overall.




I'll reply more to this section later. Life calls me to do other things.

>Now, this type of attitude (that I don't have to be a good person because there is no overhanging judgment after I die to worry about) comes back to atheists from theists in the form of: "Oh, so you that means you can cheat, you can lie, you can murder, you can do anything you want because there are no rules that guide your morality." That is a straw man argument. Just because I do not follow "god given and approved (tm) (c) rules" does not mean that I have no rules at all! I was brought up by my parents to care for others, to give, to share, to be honest, to assist when needed. That is, I learned and follow rules of society that allow me to interact with others in a peaceful manner for the betterment of others overall.


Yeah, that is the argument that I always feel shows how narrow-minded the other person is. And, for my money, it is better to behave appropriately because it IS the right thing to do, from your own internal moral compass, than either for fear of hell or hope of heaven. I don't have to have a deity judge me -- I have to live with myself every day. No deferred judgment -- I'm judging my actions on an on-going basis. And I can't just say I'm sorry, and have all my bad actions wiped away, either!

Considering some of the things done in the name of religion, I'll take my own personal morality, thanks!

I really appreciate your response, Duane. How very interesting to walk your road simply being on it. No concerns about who may be judging you, or whether you are living up to some kind of purpose.

I am looking forward to your reply on the above inquiry! The topic of "no God/no ritual" truly fascinates me.

Shay

Hi Duane,
Your definition of "soul" is captivating. Most people would define this as "ego" which is separate from the spirit - what makes the person animate, alive. As an atheist, how do you explain "alive?" Is it comparable to say, an electric oven - you turn a knob and it's "alive" turn it back and now it's not? Is it like there is some kind of current running through the body unit, and when it is "plugged in" it is "alive" and when "unplugged" it is dead? And dead means the current simply dissipates?

Shay