Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i forgot to mention Buddhists and Confucians but i think we have more crazy than we have members of either faith/philosophy/belief/wtv on NGs

At 8/7/11 01:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Like somehow you and everybody else with some kind of religion is "better".

Then that would be a conclusion you chose to draw based on your knowledge of me as an individual, not on anything that I intended to convey in this topic. If I had started this topic as a known agnostic, would your conclusion have changed?

Ok...and who exactly is trying to do that?

I never said anybody was. Again, a conclusion you drew, not one I intended to convey. I was showing how atheism as an ideology tends to shut itself off from everyone else.

However, to pose a question to you that was once posed to me... do you not wish the whole world to share in your belief or lackthereof?

I don't know honestly, does it?

The ACLU is quick to offer legal aid to any individual wishing to take on another individual or institution over religious matters, based on "seperation of church and state." But that's a topic unto itself.

Ok, and what does that do other then, again say "hi, I'm here to be a dick to atheists because I assume their smug and need to be knocked off their perch"? I still fail to see what this accomplishes other then being a very clever bit of trolling on atheists.

It's a graphic representation of something I couldn't have said better myself; atheists don't care what anybody else thinks of them, and society at large doesn't care about atheism.

At 8/7/11 11:25 PM, Proteas wrote: Then that would be a conclusion you chose to draw based on your knowledge of me as an individual, not on anything that I intended to convey in this topic. If I had started this topic as a known agnostic, would your conclusion have changed?

Bullshit. You didn't forget your opening paragraph, and you are not oblivious to the negative connotations of apathy, solitude (or loneliness), an end to one's existence, or an end to one's legacy. And as much as you want to hide behind innocuous phrasing like "how you feel," you weren't careful enough to keep from phrasing it alternatively as "how you deal."

At 8/7/11 12:10 AM, Proteas wrote:

Yeah, I'm aware of how paranoid it makes me sound. But I have my reasons for being paranoid, especially when folks like Lapis expect me to give them an honest response.

Trolololo?

My definition of atheism is based simply on the one posited on these forums the most often; the rejection of all things religious and lacking physical proof. If you reject the concept of a heaven or an afterlife, then it is not without reason to believe that the average atheist also does not believe in a soul.

No offense to *you* but that's a terrible definition.

I suppose you could differentiate between agnostic atheism and identity atheism. Atheism in my mind simply refers to the non-belief in super-natural entities. Although you could also parce between non-belief in all things spiritual and simply a non-belief in god. I have heard of such a thing as buddhist atheists.

Identity atheists are different. Just as not everyone who would consider themselves christians identifies themselves strongly on the basis of their Christianity, not everyone who fits the above category identifies themselves on the basis of their Atheism. I know I don't.

Atheists are too few in number in most places to be able to identify on the basis of their atheism except through the internet, which is where the are most prominent. Atheists being in the company of other atheists reinforces their [non]beliefs and gives them a sense of self confidence that acts as a double edged sword. Without a sense of community a person feels isolated. However when, people have to defend their ideas without the aid of others they have to be calm under pressure and have to have a very thorough understanding of the topics in question. When any group represents the majority they become arrogant and OVER confident. 'there's safety in numbers' as the saying goes.

Also when a community is large enough in one place, on the internet for example, they can engage in 'debates' with other groups of people where the objective is not to try and reason with the person they are debating, nor to educate the people that are spectators to the 'debate', instead the objective is to gain prestige in one's identity group by ridiculing one's opponents.

And that, to me, is the essence of the Identity Atheist.

If some of you think I'm being unfair to atheists just keep in mind that this applies to any group under similar circumstances. This is the same problem that Libertarians have been experiencing. 30-40 years ago libertarians were a small elite of mostly economists, historians, journalists, authors, etc. Today, They seem so numerous on the internet in comparison to their actual size, and their proximity towards one another, has allowed the average Libertarian [and by libertarian I do not mean Bill Maher libertarian] to be much less knowledgeable, and also much less cordial, than he used to be.

Anyway, that long ramble was just to explain the difference between someone who is an atheist, and someone who goes around calling themselves an atheist.

On the contrary. I was just showing how due to the disorganized and disparate nature of atheism as it stands today, a concerted effort to convert the general populace at large to atheism could never happen.

I'm still interested in seeing your thoughts to what I said about this issue. Even if it isn't posted on this forum.

Probably going to be untold scores more that take their place in holding similar thoughts and opinions.

Now i suspect identity atheism will not take off the ground. Atheists and social liberals have very few kids, social conservatives do, in fact, almost in proportion as to they are social conservatives. But odds are the religious folk will become increasingly secular in their attitude.

The barbarians might sack Rome, but by the time the Roman Empire is but a memory, the Barbarian world will have been mostly Latinized. Not to call religious folk barbarians, the Romans were the true barbarians IMO, but the analogy still holds.

At 8/7/11 11:25 PM, Proteas wrote: Then that would be a conclusion you chose to draw based on your knowledge of me as an individual, not on anything that I intended to convey in this topic.

Uh no, that is a conclusion I draw purely based on what I read of your opening post. Other people caught that too. Don't try to use the fact that we know each other off the board to try and deflect and act like that colors what I read in your post. That's not what's happening at all good sir :)

If I had started this topic as a known agnostic, would your conclusion have changed?

Nope, my conclusions would stay the same since they're based off the fact that you made some pretty unflattering blanket characterizations about a segment of the board (a characterization that frankly is just as applicable, if not more so in some cases, to the other side of the coin). How you identify is really irrelevant to what you said. Even if you said "I'm an atheist too" well, then you'd be an atheist taking a swipe at other atheists.

I never said anybody was. Again, a conclusion you drew, not one I intended to convey. I was showing how atheism as an ideology tends to shut itself off from everyone else.

That's based on what? Personal experience? You say you're not trying to convey that anybody is doing something...then say the ideology, which is held by people...tends to do this, meaning the people do it...oh look, I think I found that hair you were trying to split.

However, to pose a question to you that was once posed to me... do you not wish the whole world to share in your belief or lackthereof?

I don't really care honestly. I just want the world to not be filled with selfish people who work for their own benefit at the expense of others. Have a religion, don't have a religion, whatever. Just don't be a friggin asshole.

The ACLU is quick to offer legal aid to any individual wishing to take on another individual or institution over religious matters, based on "seperation of church and state." But that's a topic unto itself.

Yeah, I just wasn't really sure whether or not they were. S'why I answered the question with a question.

It's a graphic representation of something I couldn't have said better myself; atheists don't care what anybody else thinks of them, and society at large doesn't care about atheism.

So...this is a big ol' bag of trolling then...really? I thought you were better then this dude.

For future reference Proteas what you're calling atheism is actually metaphysical naturalism,

The first question is simply this; how do you feel knowing that after death, there is nothing?

Well IDK for sure if there is an afterlife or not, but truthfully I am comforted by the thought of annihilation. Just think of living for eternity? Wouldn't you get bored after only a couple of centuries? Even in a paradise you'd eventually beg for annihilation, or at least I would maybe you'd be happy being bored for countless eons, but I sure the hell wouldn't.

Second question; how do you feel, knowing that after you die, your beliefs die with you?

Most of my beliefs will survive in other humans, those that die will be ones that were either wrong or inconsequential like my belief bacon is the meaning of life for example.

At 8/7/11 11:25 PM, Proteas wrote: It's a graphic representation of something I couldn't have said better myself; atheists don't care what anybody else thinks of them, and society at large doesn't care about atheism.

I'd say I care what society think about atheism, to the extent that I don't think people should be hassled for being atheists. But apart from this, I don't actually get the point you're making. It's something like "Society at large doesn't care about atheism, therefore..." but then it just trails off. You've spent a whole topic establishing this proposition, but then you've done nothing with it.

I believe that in formal debate, this is known as "Five days of fucking, no orgasm"

The state I was in before being born did not bother me at all so I don't know why death should. Also my beliefs don't die with me if I share them with other people, there's people after me that will go on.

At 8/8/11 01:11 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Uh no, that is a conclusion I draw purely based on what I read of your opening post. Other people caught that too. Don't try to use the fact that we know each other off the board to try and deflect and act like that colors what I read in your post. That's not what's happening at all good sir :)

The only way in which I showed religion to be better than atheism in this topic was in how it ensured the spread of it's message and idealogy, that was it. I made no moral judgements, and I made no attempt to proselytize. I just showed how, in terms of marketing, atheism is really lacking.

That's based on what? Personal experience?

Fact. Atheism isn't evangelical in nature, it lets others seek it out if they want the information.

Which is a shame, considering how many atheists there are online, with the internet being such a huge machine for free marketing. But that's the irony, is it not? Take advantage of it, and become the enemy. Thus, atheism is kind of self-limiting.

At 8/8/11 11:36 AM, Elfer wrote: But apart from this, I don't actually get the point you're making.

This topic was part me wanting a peek inside the mind of users on the board, and part wanting to explore how they felt knowing that what they disbelieved would never take hold the world the way religion has.

Depends.
There are many kinds of atheists.
Atheism in it's simplest form refers the the disbelief of supreme beings.
Not necessarily resurrection, reincarnation or the afterlife.

At 8/8/11 01:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/8/11 11:36 AM, Elfer wrote: But apart from this, I don't actually get the point you're making.

This topic was part me wanting a peek inside the mind of users on the board, and part wanting to explore how they felt knowing that what they disbelieved would never take hold the world the way religion has.

"Never" is a pretty strong (and presumptuous) word to use. Atheism seems to be on the rise pretty much everywhere that there aren't serious repercussions for being identified as such. I guess it depends what you mean by "take hold," because there's no atheist doctrine.

Still, now that churches have reduced political power, whether or not atheism becomes the prevailing ideology isn't of great consequence.

At 8/7/11 11:25 PM, Proteas wrote: It's a graphic representation of something I couldn't have said better myself; atheists don't care what anybody else thinks of them, and society at large doesn't care about atheism.

And you get that from comparing a few phrases on Google Trends? Ever stop to wonder why people, even non-believers, might be more inclined to use "God" or "religion" rather than "atheism" in a Google search? Religion and God are something, while atheism is, by definition, a lack of something. To be able to even grasp the latter concept, you must have some knowledge of the former. It's the difference between "I believe in the Chupacabra" and "I do not believe in the Chupacabra". In order to make a judgement on which statement makes the most sense, you're going to end up having to research "the Chupacabra" either way.

It's like positive vs. negative space; without an outline of something, all you see is a flat surface- nothing.

You have to remember that the average atheist has more knowledge about the Bible than the average Christian. You don't learn about all the crazy stuff in the Bible by researching atheism; you learn about it by reading the Bible.

Also, making a judgement about what society values based on internet searches is a flawed method to say the least, as I demonstrated with MY version of your graphic. If comparing searches on the internet really tells you what peoples values are, then PORN is by far the most important thing in our society, bar none, (well, "sex" gets more searches than porn, but porn is a funnier word to put in a demotivator ^__^) which makes sense when you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. Reproduction is a far stronger instinct than our need to make up explanations for why we're here.

At 8/3/11 11:19 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: I'll quote Earfetish from when he responded to me a few years ago

It makes me very happy that something I wrote actually meant something important to someone.

Anyway, what he said.