Well, this really strikes at the problem of self identification, where you get Christians who don’t believe that Jesus was God or atheists who believe in God. What they claim to believe doesn’t always sync up with their self identification, in terms of clear definitions of the terms.

Possibly, although sometimes it is a problem of definitions. For example, being Gnostic I identify myself as a theist–although no atheist and few theists have ever agreed with my definition of God.

I broadly define atheism as a mere nonbelief in God or gods, which of course opens the door for someone to be a deeply religious atheist. I would argue that anyone who profeses such a disbelief is an atheist, whether they choose to apply that label to themselves or not, just as I would argue that anyone who believes that Jesus was God is a Christian, even if they don’t choose that label.

I actually agree with your definition of atheism. However, the simple belief that “Jesus was God” does not make one a Christian; hence the Nicene Council.

Though I can tell that you take an awfully skeptical approach to this kind of polling.

I am skeptical of interpretation.

Ah, so you were more talking about straw gods than straw men. My misunderstanding then.

If you were being clever, well done! However, on the chance that you are not aware, I’ll point out that “raising a straw man” is a specific logical fallacy in which one creates a false arguement to divert your opponent’s attacks away from the real point.

Fair enough, if it was an honest mistake. You should be aware, however, that this “mistake” of capitalization is so commonly used as a deliberate baiting tactic by atheists on the internet, that it would be worth taking pains to avoid if you wish to have a civil conversation.

Understood.

if you know the difference between disbelief in gods and identifying as atheist, then you shouldn’t have quoted the study in your original post

Well, this really strikes at the problem of self identification, where you get Christians who don’t believe that Jesus was God or atheists who believe in God. What they claim to believe doesn’t always sync up with their self identification, in terms of clear definitions of the terms. I broadly define atheism as a mere nonbelief in God or gods, which of course opens the door for someone to be a deeply religious atheist. I would argue that anyone who profeses such a disbelief is an atheist, whether they choose to apply that label to themselves or not, just as I would argue that anyone who believes that Jesus was God is a Christian, even if they don’t choose that label.

Ah. Then I suppose that it depends upon one’s definition of “very well.”

Low crime rate, good health, good education, and happy. Denmark consistently polls as one of the happiest nations on earth. Though I can tell that you take an awfully skeptical approach to this kind of polling.

Though I certainly understand that some religious people find that these markers of a healthy country are irrelavant if they aren’t right with God, they certainly serve as validation for the secular humanist. They serve as good examples when theists bring up Soviet Russia, North Korea, or the Jacobins.

Whether God exists or not, being without God is due to circumstances beyond our control. We may choose to believe whether or not He exists, but we cannot make either reality true by choice.

Fair enough.

The particular straw man to which I was referring is the practice of the atheist defining God as something which obviously does not exist

Ah, so you were more talking about straw gods than straw men. My misunderstanding then.

First an internet lesson: expect jotted off posts to be less polished than dissertations. And expect grammar Nazis to be looked down upon.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Fair enough, if it was an honest mistake. You should be aware, however, that this “mistake” of capitalization is so commonly used as a deliberate baiting tactic by atheists on the internet, that it would be worth taking pains to avoid if you wish to have a civil conversation.

I suppose I would have to check my Cambridge Companion to Atheism to see how the poll was conducted. I do know that the poll itself was conducted by Gallup, which is generally very well respected. And I also understand that there is a distinction between self identifying as having a non belief in a god or gods and self identifying as atheist or nonreligious. The poll itself used the more liberal question of nonbelief in god or gods. I’m fully aware that far fewer people would self identify as atheist or nonreligious.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Again, with the capitalization. There is a signficant difference between the question “Do you believe in god (sic) or gods?” and the the question “Do you believe in any gods?” You can’t interpret the poll from a half-remembered translation of a question viewed from your own understanding of metaphysics–the results are only valid if you understand exactly what was asked and how the population understood the answers they were giving.
Finally, if you know the difference between disbelief in gods and identifying as atheist, then you shouldn’t have quoted the study in your original post.

Not at all what I was implying. I was trying to imply that the book itself makes a very convincing case than the first nations to embrace atheism willfully, and not through state mandate, are in fact doing very well. It’s a good read and highly recommended. It focuses on Denmark and Sweden.

Ah. Then I suppose that it depends upon one’s definition of “very well.”

I suppose that’s a matter of perspective. I would argue that everyone is without God. Just some people believe otherwise. As such, I use “without God” and “without a belief in God” interchangeably.

I’m sure you would. My choice of words was quite deliberate, however: Whether God exists or not, being without God is due to circumstances beyond our control. We may choose to believe whether or not He exists, but we cannot make either reality true by choice.

I neither stated nor implied that I think that you believe that I believe that all theists are insane.

You quite clearly implied it, by bringing it up in your rebuttal. I certainly didn’t mention it.

You did refer to straw men, however, and one of the most common straw men is that athesits employ is the “delusional theist”, a la Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” I simply wanted to make clear that I do not employ this common straw man, whether you believe that I had that particular image of theists in my head or not.

Fair enough. The particular straw man to which I was referring is the practice of the atheist defining God as something which obviously does not exist, and then proving that it does not exist (as opposed to arguing against the theist’s definition of God). I suppose that that might more properly be considered “begging the question.” Sorry for any confusion.

I would argue that everyone is without God. Just some people believe otherwise.

justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Seconded!

First, an English lesson

First an internet lesson: expect jotted off posts to be less polished than dissertations. And expect grammar Nazis to be looked down upon.

Second, was the poll given in English?

I suppose I would have to check my Cambridge Companion to Atheism to see how the poll was conducted. I do know that the poll itself was conducted by Gallup, which is generally very well respected. And I also understand that there is a distinction between self identifying as having a non belief in a god or gods and self identifying as atheist or nonreligious. The poll itself used the more liberal question of nonbelief in god or gods. I’m fully aware that far fewer people would self identify as atheist or nonreligious.

Well, if they wrote a whole book, it must be true.

Not at all what I was implying. I was trying to imply that the book itself makes a very convincing case than the first nations to embrace atheism willfully, and not through state mandate, are in fact doing very well. It’s a good read and highly recommended. It focuses on Denmark and Sweden.

The people of any country can choose not to believe in God; actually being without God depends upon circumstances beyond their control.

I suppose that’s a matter of perspective. I would argue that everyone is without God. Just some people believe otherwise. As such, I use “without God” and “without a belief in God” interchangeably.

I neither stated nor implied that you held the belief that all theists are insane.

I neither stated nor implied that I think that you believe that I believe that all theists are insane. You did refer to straw men, however, and one of the most common straw men is that athesits employ is the “delusional theist”, a la Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” I simply wanted to make clear that I do not employ this common straw man, whether you believe that I had that particular image of theists in my head or not.

I’m sorry, did I say NEARLY fifty percent are atheists, I meant according to polls, over fifty percent believe in no Gods.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM

After a closer reading of your post, I would point out that every Christian, Muslim, Jew and Buddhist in the world would also answer that he did not “believe in any gods.”

Have you seen how many empty cathedrals there are in Europe, ones that seat 20,000 people and ran multiple services on Sunday centuries ago? Now they are museums without congregations.

Tantor on February 5, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Proving that taste in religion has changed, but not that religion is “withering away.”

I’m sorry, did I say NEARLY fifty percent are atheists, I meant according to polls, over fifty percent believe in no Gods.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM

First, an English lesson: “Gods” is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, like “humans.” “Gods” are natural phenomena anthroporphized into supernatural beings. “God” may be capitalized, when it refers not to an individual god, but as a proper pronoun referring to the ultimate source of reality. In Hinduism, for example, (which is both monotheist and polytheist) Brahman is God, but Brahma is a god.
Second, was the poll given in English? Because if it was given in Japanese, the term “god” would probably have been translated as “kami.” Like all translations, there are problems with this.

According to a poll a couple years back, it’s over sixty four percent. Countries can thrive, be civil, and be happy without God. In fact, they wrote an entire book about the health of Godless countries.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Well, if they wrote a whole book, it must be true. Which countries did they sample? Also, I would point out that there is a difference between “God” and “belief in God.” The people of any country can choose not to believe in God; actually being without God depends upon circumstances beyond their control.

I don’t think all theists are insane. I just also happen to know that God isn’t necessary for a healthy, civil society.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I neither stated nor implied that you held the belief that all theists are insane. I said that atheists make straw-man arguments against theism, and you’ve just defended with a straw-man argument.

obviously YOU DO moron, or you wouldn’t be here sniffing around my backside!! loser

right4life on February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I have no interest in sniffing anywhere near your brain, dimwit.

Anyone who joins a church in America does so without social pressure from an organized sect, backed up by government in some way.

OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Yes, that’s very much true. That likely has something to do with why they’re still successful.

Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Correct me if i”m wrong, Ethier, but isn’t religion in america based upon a voluntary system, rather than a state imposed condition?

Anyone who joins a church in America does so without social pressure from an organized sect, backed up by government in some way.

OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Of course, but the same is also true of the government, which points towards an issue with authority, not necessarily religion.

Tantor on February 5, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Also, generally speaking, religion no longer has the total social hold that it once held, even as recent as a hundred years ago. There was time when the parish priest was a figure to fear, and be guided by (or ordered around).

Have you seen how many empty cathedrals there are in Europe, ones that seat 20,000 people and ran multiple services on Sunday centuries ago? Now they are museums without congregations.

Tantor on February 5, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Yes, Europe is in a state, but not just with religion. Try looking over here. Churches are alive and well.

If you truly believe what you’ve typed, then you have no reason to insult others and instead should just appreciate your good fortune to not be as brain dead as the rest of us.

Do you think he would approve of the way you treat your fellow posters here at HA? Would he use words similar to the ones you use here?

dakine on February 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Yeah, I tried that line on him once and then he claimed that he never said he was a good Christian and that suddenly makes it OK for him to insult everyone who disagrees with him.

Just don’t even bother. I’ve only seen him with one friend here, and they’re perfectly suited for each other.

Akzed: “Which is, of course, not happening. Or were Stalin & Mao at the pinnacle of this evolution you posit?”

Have you seen how many empty cathedrals there are in Europe, ones that seat 20,000 people and ran multiple services on Sunday centuries ago? Now they are museums without congregations.

(I hope I didn’t offend you by saying that)

Bizarro No. 1 on February 4, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Not at all.

I think your post is wrong, I am right…therefore on this subject I feel your ideas are inferior to mine, hence on this subject you are not as smart

That’s a far different argument from saying that liberals are less intelligent.

not a sign of intelligence, but of tenacity.

Yes, I know this isn’t the first time you’ve called my intelligence into question and it likely won’t be the last, though on the subject of tenacity, I think it’s hard to argue that I’m any worse than you are.

I am not saying a liberal can not be intelligent, maybe even a genius…just in political analysis they are weak.

right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM

This is a superficial explanation that doesn’t address true intelligence in the realm of political analysis. If we’re talking pure politics (not ideas, but the game itself), then obviously your statement is false, because Obama is a political genius and showed that properly this past election.

Even if we’re talking pure ideas on what to do with the economy and what should be done in the world, it’s still shallow to argue that the end justifies labeling one intelligent or not. Reaching the “correct” conclusion doesn’t mean you did so intelligently, and reaching the incorrect one doesn’t mean you did so without intelligence.

I argue that liberals can be intelligent because I see some like my husband who, while still ultimately wrong, point out things that others miss and provide deep insight on issues rather than slogans and catch phrases.

Just because a conservative can say “drill, baby, drill,” it doesn’t make that person intelligent unless they can explain what the hell they mean.

And last, the full truth is that no one person has a lock on the absolute truth of what should be done in this country no matter how zealously you believe you do. Without discussing our ideas together and coming into these debates with at least a partial open mind, even intelligent people do incredibly dumb things.

You make a very ridiculous point though in calling me tenacious, as opposed to intelligent, while making the argument that tenacity is the natural byproduct of intelligence.

I’m sorry, did I say NEARLY fifty percent are atheists, I meant according to polls, over fifty percent believe in no Gods.

According to a poll a couple years back, it’s over sixty four percent. Countries can thrive, be civil, and be happy without God. In fact, they wrote an entire book about the health of Godless countries.

I don’t think all theists are insane. I just also happen to know that God isn’t necessary for a healthy, civil society.

justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM

All well and good, but Japan would not be the Japan you so admire without Christian men who sacrificed much to defeat their empire, instill our values, our style of government, and economic system.
Try a little thought experiment on what Japan might look like today without America.

Can you quit stalking me now?
In the real world, you’d be at the end of my rope-with my horse dragging your juvenile a$$ through town.
Now of course, I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I would certainly treat you humanely. I wouldn’t drag you over any sharp rocks or anything.
*SIGH*

Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 4:39 PM

you came into this thread and posted to me. moron.

why do you wackos alwasy descend to threats?? good luck with your little plans…we both know you’re all talk…and you’re fat and ugly too!

29Victor on February 5, 2009 at 4:47 PM

I take your lead.
Buh buye!

ta

right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:25 PM

I really don’t need to get a ‘line’. I know what I am bcs like you said earlier-look in the mirror-I have. It’s all good.
Dude-you are really hilarious.
Can you quit stalking me now?
In the real world, you’d be at the end of my rope-with my horse dragging your juvenile a$$ through town.
Now of course, I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I would certainly treat you humanely. I wouldn’t drag you over any sharp rocks or anything.
*SIGH*

I’m actually a hot blonde chick with a hot cowboy husband.
I do not need confirmation from the likes of trolls.

Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 4:22 PM

uh yeah every girl on the internet says that!! too funny!!

you need to ‘evolve’ some original lines…