Atheism - alive and well in Thailand?

[csabo]

I think we are mixing 2 different issues.

1/ Is there a god / gods?

I don't believe there is, but I completely don't care that others do believe, to me it is not an issue, what does it matter?

2/ Organised religion.

Every organised religion is evil, stupid, nonsensical, based on indoctrination, backward.

Of course one could argue that believing in god(s) will inevitably lead to organised religion.

But let's be optimistic.

Stranger things have happened.

After all, is atheism not the fruit of the christian culture?

It does effect you. I don't know where you are from but I am assuming it is from democratic nation. If elected officials succumb to the will of religious constituents or worse yet their own religious beliefs, then they likely contribute to the creation of laws involving education, medicine and various freedoms that are often infringed upon because of religious adherence. That is unfair to to non believers like you. You have no voice when outnumbered by the god fearing.

[nidieunimaitre]

I think we are mixing 2 different issues.

1/ Is there a god / gods?

I don't believe there is, but I completely don't care that others do believe, to me it is not an issue, what does it matter?

2/ Organised religion.

Every organised religion is evil, stupid, nonsensical, based on indoctrination, backward.

Of course one could argue that believing in god(s) will inevitably lead to organised religion.

But let's be optimistic.

Stranger things have happened.

After all, is atheism not the fruit of the christian culture?

It does effect you. I don't know where you are from but I am assuming it is from democratic nation. If elected officials succumb to the will of religious constituents or worse yet their own religious beliefs, then they likely contribute to the creation of laws involving education, medicine and various freedoms that are often infringed upon because of religious adherence. That is unfair to to non believers like you. You have no voice when outnumbered by the god fearing.

I see your point, but the problem you describe lies with people and their organised religions, not with their gods.

No god ever told his followers to do or not to do something, of course not, since there are no gods.

It is always organised religion and it's clergy that tell their followers (and even non followers) how to behave.

If somebody chooses to believe that his god organised the big bang, and from there on accepts scientific explanation of evolution, that doesn't bother me.

I will even let them claim that this evolution is according to a devine plan. Silly, but in no way harmfull.

It is only when the believer claims to know exactly what his god(s) wants, and tries to impose this, that problems arise. But at that stage, the transition from believing in god(s) to organised religion has taken place.

[AyG]

Slightly off topic, but in the UK and many other western countries religiosity has declined dramatically. In the UK only 6% of people attend church regularly. However, in the US it's a (to me) staggering 40% report that they have attending church in the last week. Why does America continue to have such a high level of church attendance and high level of belief in a god for which there is no evidence? Is it that church in America acts as a sort of social club? Are American church services actually fun things to attend? Is it that non-believers are shunned or belittled by churchgoers, putting a social pressure on people to be Christians? Or is it something in the American psyche that causes Americans to be less rational than, say the British or the French?

Furthermore, amongst Americans who don't subscribe to one of the major religions, there's a lot of interest in New Age beliefs, suggesting a much higher level of religiosity than in other western countries.

What's going on?

[wilcopops]

Slightly off topic, but in the UK and many other western countries religiosity has declined dramatically. In the UK only 6% of people attend church regularly. However, in the US it's a (to me) staggering 40% report that they have attending church in the last week. Why does America continue to have such a high level of church attendance and high level of belief in a god for which there is no evidence? Is it that church in America acts as a sort of social club? Are American church services actually fun things to attend? Is it that non-believers are shunned or belittled by churchgoers, putting a social pressure on people to be Christians? Or is it something in the American psyche that causes Americans to be less rational than, say the British or the French?

Furthermore, amongst Americans who don't subscribe to one of the major religions, there's a lot of interest in New Age beliefs, suggesting a much higher level of religiosity than in other western countries.

What's going on?

A report on views about human evolution, showed that 33 percent of Americans think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

...and these people have the bomb! Of course they didn't invent it....how could they?

[wilcopops]

Slightly off topic, but in the UK and many other western countries religiosity has declined dramatically. In the UK only 6% of people attend church regularly. However, in the US it's a (to me) staggering 40% report that they have attending church in the last week. Why does America continue to have such a high level of church attendance and high level of belief in a god for which there is no evidence? Is it that church in America acts as a sort of social club? Are American church services actually fun things to attend? Is it that non-believers are shunned or belittled by churchgoers, putting a social pressure on people to be Christians? Or is it something in the American psyche that causes Americans to be less rational than, say the British or the French?

Furthermore, amongst Americans who don't subscribe to one of the major religions, there's a lot of interest in New Age beliefs, suggesting a much higher level of religiosity than in other western countries.

What's going on?

Of course it isn't just Christians who go to "church" there rare other religions in UK that are more devote.

however the truth remains that UK is essentially NOT A RELIGIOUS OR NATIONALISTIC COUNTRY.

Even Tony Blair admitted that he plated down his religious beliefs while in office so as not to appear a "nutter" (his own words).

C of E believes that Jesus wore a tweed jacket and tortoiseshell spectacles.

[isawasnake]

I have always found this to be a rather awkward and obtrusive topic. To me, it is on par with a question like "do you have a tool belt fetish?". It just doesn't seem to matter in any meaningful way what I answer, and it certainly isn't anybody's business. I just don't think it adds anything to meaningful conversations, in other words, these are the types of things that kinda reveal themselves naturally over the course of some good conversations. That is the way it should be handled.

[wilcopops]

I have always found this to be a rather awkward and obtrusive topic. To me, it is on par with a question like "do you have a tool belt fetish?". It just doesn't seem to matter in any meaningful way what I answer, and it certainly isn't anybody's business. I just don't think it adds anything to meaningful conversations, in other words, these are the types of things that kinda reveal themselves naturally over the course of some good conversations. That is the way it should be handled.

so...if you don't want to talk about it, why post on the thread?

[nidieunimaitre]

[...]

atheism is alive and well here, as in many places where people worship the holy dollar. thats my 2 cents.

The holy dollar... on which is written "In God We Trust"?

Do you know that there is a European country that has the same nonsense on their 2 euro coins?

(euro coins are minted by the individual member countries, unlike the notes that are standardised)

[GuyL]

[...]

atheism is alive and well here, as in many places where people worship the holy dollar. thats my 2 cents.

The holy dollar... on which is written "In God We Trust"?

Do you know that there is a European country that has the same nonsense on their 2 euro coins?

(euro coins are minted by the individual member countries, unlike the notes that are standardised)

Yes, the Dutch ones, with a motto similar to those that were used (for instance) by the Imperial Russia and by the German military (from the German Empire to the end of the Third Reich).

[robblok]

[...]

atheism is alive and well here, as in many places where people worship the holy dollar. thats my 2 cents.

The holy dollar... on which is written "In God We Trust"?

Do you know that there is a European country that has the same nonsense on their 2 euro coins?

(euro coins are minted by the individual member countries, unlike the notes that are standardised)

Yes, the Dutch ones, with a motto similar to those that were used (for instance) by the Imperial Russia and by the German military (from the German Empire to the end of the Third Reich).

Never knew about that but just checked it. Stupid Dutch government.

[manarak]

Never really felt like atheism was the sort of thing where I'd want to meet up- for me it's not a belief in something, it's a lack of belief- like a default setting.

But yes, there are groups that meet up for this sort of thing. Next meeting is Aug 26th.

http://www.meetup.com/Bangkok-Skeptics-in-the-Pub/

Personally, I don't feel atheism to be a lack of belief, on the contrary, it is a strong belief in the non-existence of... what? supernatural beings?

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a true absence of belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Maybe people mislabel Agnosticism as Atheism because they don't know the precise difference.

[Rumblecat]

Never really felt like atheism was the sort of thing where I'd want to meet up- for me it's not a belief in something, it's a lack of belief- like a default setting.

But yes, there are groups that meet up for this sort of thing. Next meeting is Aug 26th.

http://www.meetup.com/Bangkok-Skeptics-in-the-Pub/

Personally, I don't feel atheism to be a lack of belief, on the contrary, it is a strong belief in the non-existence of... what? supernatural beings?

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a true absence of belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Maybe people mislabel Agnosticism as Atheism because they don't know the precise difference.

Yeah, I guess I disagree with the "strong belief in the non-existence" part... unless you want to say that, yes, I've got a strong belief in the non-existence of witches on broomsticks, of ghosts, of the earth being flat etc etc... But that's an active stance- which is why I think a lack of belief sums it up better. Because you could equally argue agnostics believes we can't possibly know one way or the other.

I don't even think aethism is a useful label, because it seems odd that people who don't believe in Gods need any sort of label. I'm happy if people want to believe in fantasy and fairytales- free world- I just think it's weird to then label people who don't buy into these folk tales.

[rgs2001uk]

I think we are mixing 2 different issues.

1/ Is there a god / gods?

I don't believe there is, but I completely don't care that others do believe, to me it is not an issue, what does it matter?

2/ Organised religion.

Every organised religion is evil, stupid, nonsensical, based on indoctrination, backward.

Of course one could argue that believing in god(s) will inevitably lead to organised religion.

But let's be optimistic.

Stranger things have happened.

After all, is atheism not the fruit of the christian culture?

It does effect you. I don't know where you are from but I am assuming it is from democratic nation. If elected officials succumb to the will of religious constituents or worse yet their own religious beliefs, then they likely contribute to the creation of laws involving education, medicine and various freedoms that are often infringed upon because of religious adherence. That is unfair to to non believers like you. You have no voice when outnumbered by the god fearing.

Thankfully there are enlightened countries such as Holland where euthanasia isnt a taboo subject.

Wonder how the family of this poor woman feel.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-refused-abortion-ireland-dies-132018792.html#XOhkGRz

[Mzungu]

[...]

atheism is alive and well here, as in many places where people worship the holy dollar. thats my 2 cents.

The holy dollar... on which is written "In God We Trust"?

Do you know that there is a European country that has the same nonsense on their 2 euro coins?

(euro coins are minted by the individual member countries, unlike the notes that are standardised)

I never thought Holland would do such a nonsense...

[attrayant]

Personally, I don't feel atheism to be a lack of belief, on the contrary, it is a strong belief in the non-existence of... what? supernatural beings?

Can you explain the difference between:

1. absence of belief that something exists ("I don't believe fairies exist")

2. presence of belief that something does not exist ("I believe that fairies don't exist")

I see no important distinction. They are functionally identical, atheistic points of view. Both can be reworded as "I don't believe in the existence of fairies".

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a true absence of belief.

That's incorrect (and your cite disagrees with you too). Agnosticism is refusal to establish a belief (or non-belief if you wish) one way or the other because the agnostic asserts that the truth cannot be known. Agnostics are true fence-sitters. An atheist, however, has made a decision on what he believes - and believes that supernatural beings (as you put it) do not exist.

To use my earlier examples:

1. Atheist: "I don't believe fairies exist."

2. Atheist: "I believe that fairies don't exist."

3. Theist: "I believe that fairies exist."

4. Agnostic: "I refuse to make a decision because it is impossible to know whether or not fairies exist."

And as I said above, 1 and 2 are both atheistic viewpoints that are just differently worded.

[manarak]

Can you explain the difference between:

1. absence of belief that something exists ("I don't believe fairies exist")

2. presence of belief that something does not exist ("I believe that fairies don't exist")

I see no important distinction. They are functionally identical, atheistic points of view. Both can be reworded as "I don't believe in the existence of fairies".

It's a matter of precise language.

The "believe" in something is to accept it as a reality. A belief is something that's absolute, a yes or no.

An absence of belief describes a situation were we didn't make up our mind about something (if ever).

<<Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a true absence of belief.>>

That's incorrect (and your cite disagrees with you too). Agnosticism is refusal to establish a belief (or non-belief if you wish) one way or the other because the agnostic asserts that the truth cannot be known. Agnostics are true fence-sitters. An atheist, however, has made a decision on what he believes - and believes that supernatural beings (as you put it) do not exist.

To use my earlier examples:

1. Atheist: "I don't believe fairies exist."

2. Atheist: "I believe that fairies don't exist."

3. Theist: "I believe that fairies exist."

4. Agnostic: "I refuse to make a decision because it is impossible to know whether or not fairies exist."

And as I said above, 1 and 2 are both atheistic viewpoints that are just differently worded.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a true absence of belief.

You are right if considering agnosticism as defined by Christian philosophers (as does Rowe) - but I strongly suspect they weren't able to go further into the question without getting in trouble with the Church.

I much prefer Huxley's comments:

<<Thomas Henry Huxley said

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.^>>

And there are different types of Agnosticism:

<<Types of agnosticism

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against.

Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

*Agnostic atheism

The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.

*Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Also interesting:

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero a person is willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. About himself, Dawkins continues, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."[93] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics: Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice"

>>

I also would like to point out that in your 4 little examples, the agnostic (#4) is the only one where the word "believe" doesn't occur.

#4 would be more correct if it was formulated that way:

4. Agnostic: "Since there is no proof or hint of their existence, we can for all purposes quite safely assume that fairies don't exist, but can't completely rule out their existence either since we do no have positive proof that they don't exist."

A good example would be aliens.

Replace fairies by aliens and see how many atheists still believe in aliens or at least don't rule out the possibility...

Edited August 18, 2014 by manarak

[attrayant]

Now you're splitting hairs. All of those subcategories are highly qualified with varying degrees of doubt. I merely pointed out that agnosticism is not so easily defined as "a true absence of belief". If you meant to refer to some nebulous mixture of agnosticism and atheism, then you should have said so.

[manarak]

Now you're splitting hairs. All of those subcategories are highly qualified with varying degrees of doubt. I merely pointed out that agnosticism is not so easily defined as "a true absence of belief". If you meant to refer to some nebulous mixture of agnosticism and atheism, then you should have said so.

Philosophy usually is about splitting hairs.

If I am splitting hairs, you are bundling them, didn't you write the following:

1. absence of belief that something exists ("I don't believe fairies exist")

2. presence of belief that something does not exist ("I believe that fairies don't exist")

I see no important distinction. They are functionally identical, atheistic points of view. Both can be reworded as "I don't believe in the existence of fairies".

If for you 1 and 2 mean the same, we clearly shouldn't discuss philosophy.

What do you say about aliens, BTW?

Edited August 18, 2014 by manarak

[nidieunimaitre]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

[joecoolfrog]

This conversation has become quite interesting. As I indicated earlier I am maybe 5% Agnostic , 95% Atheist , either way I reject organised religion entirely.

Edited August 18, 2014 by joecoolfrog

[manarak]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

certainly.

but the relevant question is: do you *believe* aliens exist, without any proof or hint ?

[nidieunimaitre]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

certainly.

but the relevant question is: do you *believe* aliens exist, without any proof or hint ?

I do not "believe" that aliens exist, but I consider it possible, even likely.

I do not "believe" god or fairies exists, and I consider it impossible, not just unlikely.

(And I have problems with the word "believe", as it is used in different meanings.)

[Greg Nixon]

The Four Square Church of Atheism meets at a bar every Wednesday in Pattaya. There we sing lovely hymns such as " There is no God " and " Where Will I Go When I Die " . We all adjourn after 12 beers with a lovely wench to our little monastic cells.

[isawasnake]

I guess it is kind of a circular argument, but in response to what one poster said about agnostics as "being on the fence", I actually see it the opposite way. They are the ones on solid ground kinda saying "all of you guys are crazy because we can't know for sure (which we can't)". I don't think they are being swayed either way, so the sitting on the fence analogy does not work for me.

To me, the debate goes like this, to use an analogy. A few guys are sitting looking at a green mountain. One of them asks "what color do you think the other side of the mountain is? The believer says "green", the atheist thinks for a minute, looks at the mountains around him and realizes the sun faces that way all day, and he answers "brown". The agnostic looks around too, but his final answer is "i bet it is brown, but let's walk over there and see who is right, as I am so curious". The agnostic really isn't on any fence, he is just stating the only clear known quantity (between the 3 of them) at that point in time. That's really all there is to it, and you all fit into one of those categories, whether you like it or not

Edited August 18, 2014 by isawasnake

[mauGR1]

I guess it is kind of a circular argument, but in response to what one poster said about agnostics as "being on the fence", I actually see it the opposite way. They are the ones on solid ground kinda saying "all of you guys are crazy because we can't know for sure (which we can't)". I don't think they are being swayed either way, so the sitting on the fence analogy does not work for me.

To me, the debate goes like this, to use an analogy. A few guys are sitting looking at a green mountain. One of them asks "what color do you think the other side of the mountain is? The believer says "green", the atheist thinks for a minute, looks at the mountains around him and realizes the sun faces that way all day, and he answers "brown". The agnostic looks around too, but his final answer is "i bet it is brown, but let's walk over there and see who is right, as I am so curious". The agnostic really isn't on any fence, he is just stating the only clear known quantity (between the 3 of them) at that point in time. That's really all there is to it, and you all fit into one of those categories, whether you like it or not

Nice post, but if i can go on with metaphors, there are many shades of colours, so you can be believer, agnostic or atheist in various degrees.

That said, i think a fanatic atheist is not much better than a fanatic believer, although i think it's impossible to be a fanatic agnostic.

[wilcopops]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

certainly.

but the relevant question is: do you *believe* aliens exist, without any proof or hint ?

I do not "believe" that aliens exist, but I consider it possible, even likely.

I do not "believe" god or fairies exists, and I consider it impossible, not just unlikely.

(And I have problems with the word "believe", as it is used in different meanings.)

oh dear!

[nidieunimaitre]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

certainly.

but the relevant question is: do you *believe* aliens exist, without any proof or hint ?

I do not "believe" that aliens exist, but I consider it possible, even likely.

I do not "believe" god or fairies exists, and I consider it impossible, not just unlikely.

(And I have problems with the word "believe", as it is used in different meanings.)

oh dear!

My dear, can you please explain your comment?

[isawasnake]

I guess it is kind of a circular argument, but in response to what one poster said about agnostics as "being on the fence", I actually see it the opposite way. They are the ones on solid ground kinda saying "all of you guys are crazy because we can't know for sure (which we can't)". I don't think they are being swayed either way, so the sitting on the fence analogy does not work for me.

To me, the debate goes like this, to use an analogy. A few guys are sitting looking at a green mountain. One of them asks "what color do you think the other side of the mountain is? The believer says "green", the atheist thinks for a minute, looks at the mountains around him and realizes the sun faces that way all day, and he answers "brown". The agnostic looks around too, but his final answer is "i bet it is brown, but let's walk over there and see who is right, as I am so curious". The agnostic really isn't on any fence, he is just stating the only clear known quantity (between the 3 of them) at that point in time. That's really all there is to it, and you all fit into one of those categories, whether you like it or not

Nice post, but if i can go on with metaphors, there are many shades of colours, so you can be believer, agnostic or atheist in various degrees.

That said, i think a fanatic atheist is not much better than a fanatic believer, although i think it's impossible to be a fanatic agnostic.

That's a great point, I have never really thought of that. You don't really see the Tea Party version of the agnostics, haha.

[nidieunimaitre]

I guess it is kind of a circular argument, but in response to what one poster said about agnostics as "being on the fence", I actually see it the opposite way. They are the ones on solid ground kinda saying "all of you guys are crazy because we can't know for sure (which we can't)". I don't think they are being swayed either way, so the sitting on the fence analogy does not work for me.

To me, the debate goes like this, to use an analogy. A few guys are sitting looking at a green mountain. One of them asks "what color do you think the other side of the mountain is? The believer says "green", the atheist thinks for a minute, looks at the mountains around him and realizes the sun faces that way all day, and he answers "brown". The agnostic looks around too, but his final answer is "i bet it is brown, but let's walk over there and see who is right, as I am so curious". The agnostic really isn't on any fence, he is just stating the only clear known quantity (between the 3 of them) at that point in time. That's really all there is to it, and you all fit into one of those categories, whether you like it or not

Nice post, but if i can go on with metaphors, there are many shades of colours, so you can be believer, agnostic or atheist in various degrees.

That said, i think a fanatic atheist is not much better than a fanatic believer, although i think it's impossible to be a fanatic agnostic.

That's a great point, I have never really thought of that. You don't really see the Tea Party version of the agnostics, haha.

A nihilist perhaps?

[Hermes100]

I respect those who say the truth " I believe ...there will be a place in heaven" is fine. I used to believe in father Christmas. Now I do not because we all know he does not exist.

We also all know that there is not a shred of real evidence of either God's ( all 2000 of them) nor heavens or hell's or vitually anything claimed by any of major relgions.

And yet, as adults we still seem to want to cling to these.

I think the word 'faith' ( accepting something without any evidence) very dangerous.

Would you book a hotel on faith?

Buy a car on faith?

Find the best doctor for your loved one on faith?

No, you would use a logic chain as you do in every other area of your life to decide.

It will be based upon rationality which would weed out who/what is viable.You would not hear '

I choose XXX just because it was written 2000 odd years ago in an old book which can be read 1001 ways, is devoid of substantial evidence, but I was told to just "have faith' so to hell with the logic I apply to everything else, i choose XXX anyway"

Religon exists because is appeals to ones ego ( you are special and loved), allays the fear of death and provides the 'feel good factor" .

Without that one could not expect to see something so utterly flawed still in existence.

A sad statement upon mankind.

Atheism is the 'faith' that the universe was created by chemical chance.