Athest vs Theist and being free from religion

[steve_bank]

I went through an atheist-agnostic-skeptic sequence over time years back on the forum. I foudn atheism to be in a sense as much as an ideology as theism, and both sides locked in mortal combat. Ateheism has many voices and there are fights within the atheust community.

The woman who ran the forum got into an inter forum feud.

Agnostic can mean any number of things. For me it was a way for not having to come down on either side. Logicaly god was possible so to be intelectually fair I went agnostic, I do not know. I came to think it was a bullshit postion. Boyh atheist and agnostic feed the theist narative.

I evolved to the point that the quetion itself is no more meningful than the question of flying goats.

Both theists and atheists seem to dervive meaning from the conflict. Picture the Yin Yang symbol.

I ascribe to freethought and see no evidence of a god. It can not be proven or disproven. There used to be lively atheist theist debates years back. Lots of logical arguments and counter logical arguments.

I choose not to identify as atheist, they can be just as wacky as theists, IMO. Part of it is also atheism fits the theist narrative of the enemy out to get them. They declare god exists and then those who do not become a part of a duality.

I argue here on the forum, but as a genaeral poistion I choose not to play the game. Real freedom from religion occurs when the atheist theist question becomes irelevant to you. Until that point you are in a reqctionary poistion. That being said we have to be watchful of religion working to imopose on us in the public arena.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I went through an atheist-agnostic-skeptic sequence over time years back on the forum. I foudn atheism to be in a sense as much as an ideology as theism, and both sides locked in mortal combat. Ateheism has many voices and there are fights within the atheust community.

The woman who ran the forum got into an inter forum feud.

Agnostic can mean any number of things. For me it was a way for not having to come down on either side. Logicaly god was possible so to be intelectually fair I went agnostic, I do not know. I came to think it was a bullshit postion. Boyh atheist and agnostic feed the theist narative.

I evolved to the point that the quetion itself is no more meningful than the question of flying goats.

Both theists and atheists seem to dervive meaning from the conflict. Picture the Yin Yang symbol.

I ascribe to freethought and see no evidence of a god. It can not be proven or disproven. There used to be lively atheist theist debates years back. Lots of logical arguments and counter logical arguments.

I choose not to identify as atheist, they can be just as wacky as theists, IMO. Part of it is also atheism fits the theist narrative of the enemy out to get them. They declare god exists and then those who do not become a part of a duality.

I argue here on the forum, but as a genaeral poistion I choose not to play the game. Real freedom from religion occurs when the atheist theist question becomes irelevant to you. Until that point you are in a reqctionary poistion. That being said we have to be watchful of religion working to imopose on us in the public arena.

You must do as you feel is appropriate for you. Yes, the two are locked in philosophical combat, probably for all time. But you display a common attitude I see often in religion and politics. Basically insisting that both are different sides of the same coin, and about the same. I disagree vehemently. I think this attitude is too simple. It's easy to display, appear aloof, feel morally superior to both, and yet do nothing except tell everyone how you're above it all. I don't find it useful, or even accurate really. I mean this as no disrespect to you personally, I just find the attitude itself distasteful.

 

[steve_bank]

Not aloof, at least I do not think so. Religion in the USA must be opposed when it comes to our freedoms, atheists are sunk and mired in a debate that can not be won on either side.

The left right politcal debate is one of substance which over time has clear winners and losers. As to tactics and ideological casting in stone they are flip sides of the same coin. None sensical back and forth posturing that goes nowhere.

On the atheist side there are those that make money writiing books and so on, just like Christians. Both sides have profit components.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was an atheist for a long time before I met anyone else who identified as an atheist. Then after dating a man for a month or two, who later became and still is my husband, I asked him if he believed in god. When he said, "no", I was pretty sure I had met my mate. My first husband was very religious and among other things, that caused a lot of conflict. In the next 20 years, I met only one other atheist, a nurse that I worked with in Greenville, SC.

I am a strong atheist, but I don't necessarily dislike religion or religious people, as long as they are not fundamentalists. I can even get along with fundamentalists as long as our beliefs are kept outside of our friendship. That's how my evangelical Christian mother and I maintained a close, reciprocal relationship for over fifty years. We simply didn't judge each other and instead emphasized what we had in common, not what might cause conflict.

Most atheists don't argue or debate on discussion boards. Most don't care what others believe as long as they are left alone. Of course atheists aren't going to agree on a lot of things. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression, "you can't herd cats." I don't care if other atheists hate religion or disagree with my views because atheism has no doctrine or dogma. I've known some atheists that imo, were real assholes. We never claimed to be saints or have all of the answers to life. Atheism is simply a lack of believe in gods. I didn't choose to become an atheist. I was just incapable of believing in any gods. I just can't wrap my head around that possibility, so I'm honest enough to call myself an atheist. I only tell others that I'm an atheist if they throw their religion in my face. Otherwise, it's not a big deal to me. And, since I live in the Bible Belt, I will never really be free from religion because it's all around me. I have enough atheist friends irl to help me cope.

 

[Jobar]

Plainly, atheism is the antithesis, theism is the thesis. Is there a synthesis? I personally think so- although that synthesis is much closer to atheism than to theism.

And there are religions that are atheistic, either explicitly or implicitly. Theism is not synonymous with religion.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Not aloof, at least I do not think so. Religion in the USA must be opposed when it comes to our freedoms, atheists are sunk and mired in a debate that can not be won on either side.

The left right politcal debate is one of substance which over time has clear winners and losers. As to tactics and ideological casting in stone they are flip sides of the same coin. None sensical back and forth posturing that goes nowhere.

On the atheist side there are those that make money writiing books and so on, just like Christians. Both sides have profit components.

Actually, in the past several hundred years it could easily be argued that the left is winning, as is non-belief. There's more democracy now than a few hundred years ago, and definitely, religion has lost much influence. In fact, with regards to non-belief, we're very clearly winning, but the theists will do a lot of damage until they're finally reduced in numbers, power, and influence to where they're no longer really harmful. It's a fight worth having, and people can and do change their minds. Sure, the actual debate may go on forever, as god will never be "disproven", but those very debates are having an effect.

 

[Underseer]

I went through an atheist-agnostic-skeptic sequence over time years back on the forum. I foudn atheism to be in a sense as much as an ideology as theism, and both sides locked in mortal combat. Ateheism has many voices and there are fights within the atheust community.

The woman who ran the forum got into an inter forum feud.

Agnostic can mean any number of things. For me it was a way for not having to come down on either side. Logicaly god was possible so to be intelectually fair I went agnostic, I do not know. I came to think it was a bullshit postion. Boyh atheist and agnostic feed the theist narative.

I evolved to the point that the quetion itself is no more meningful than the question of flying goats.

Both theists and atheists seem to dervive meaning from the conflict. Picture the Yin Yang symbol.

I ascribe to freethought and see no evidence of a god. It can not be proven or disproven. There used to be lively atheist theist debates years back. Lots of logical arguments and counter logical arguments.

I choose not to identify as atheist, they can be just as wacky as theists, IMO. Part of it is also atheism fits the theist narrative of the enemy out to get them. They declare god exists and then those who do not become a part of a duality.

I argue here on the forum, but as a genaeral poistion I choose not to play the game. Real freedom from religion occurs when the atheist theist question becomes irelevant to you. Until that point you are in a reqctionary poistion. That being said we have to be watchful of religion working to imopose on us in the public arena.

Atheism is one answer to one question.

By definition, you need more than one belief in order to have anything that qualifies as a belief system. Thus your assertion that atheism is an ideology is demonstrably false. Furthermore, as a long-time member of this community, you probably knew better and decided to humiliate yourself by making this argument anyway.

What I can't figure out is why.

 

[Underseer]

There is no philosophical combat.

Theism is not true because it has not been proved. The only reason theism exists is because

• Most people will happily abandon reason for trivial reasons and
• Wealthy and powerful people find it a useful tool for keeping those dirty commoners in line.
• Christians in the past were even more ruthless and violent than modern Christians.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... we have to be watchful of religion working to impose on us in the public arena.

That much is certain.

Actually, in the past several hundred years it could easily be argued that the left is winning, as is non-belief. There's more democracy now than a few hundred years ago, and definitely, religion has lost much influence. In fact, with regards to non-belief, we're very clearly winning, but the theists will do a lot of damage until they're finally reduced in numbers, power, and influence to where they're no longer really harmful. It's a fight worth having, and people can and do change their minds. Sure, the actual debate may go on forever, as god will never be "disproven", but those very debates are having an effect.

That much is also certain.

Not being able to legally murder someone anymore simply because they do not share your religious convictions is a good thing, even if it isn't so everywhere on the planet.