Is this a group attack on an important part of the Democratic base?

It's not an attack. It's the opening salvo in a discussion. It's meant to be provocative to foster discussion.

People who choose to be offended should avoid places and conversations that might offend them. I'm sure there are safe spaces on the internet. I hop DU never becomes one. That would mean anything controversial could not be discussed here.

They were set up specifically to enforce intolerance of opposing views. Posters may not criticize religion, express disbelief, point out inconsistencies, or ask awkward questions in these groups.

Gil knows about the existence of those groups, and he chooses not to participate in them. He prefers to post here instead

Get a spine and stop being offended by posts and opinions you dislike.

You want to choose to be offended? Go ahead.

I can choose to ignore.

I have no idea how you think from my post that I'm offended. I was agreeing with you. You said to the poster you were responding to, "I'm sure there are safe spaces on the internet." I simply pointed out that there are safe spaces right here on DU available for that poster to use, and I described them.

This type of insulting speech is intended to put people on the defensive.

And this type of insult speech is frequent here. All part of making the religion group a toxic place.

Which is the epitome of irrationality. So that doesn’t mean religionists are irrational about everything, but within the context of what is being discussed, they are by definition.

with absolutely no proof is rational.

The posts to this Group are routinely anti-religion.

I've had to explain to people who have looked at DU at my suggestion that DUers are not uniformly anti-religion, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

our horrible posts. So like that’s an interesting story.

Posts to this Group appear under the Greatest and Latest tabs. I know that people I have told about DU have found them and decided that DU was not for them. DU has lost potential members because they concluded that DU was anti-religion.

It is an opinion on whether religious belief is rational or not. Do you feel attacked?

because they are based on *faith*, not reason.

Pope George Ringo II? What do you call them?

Then Johnny it is!

I really do love the picture.

A real Day Tripper...

But either way, there's no reason to treat sky wizards any differently than, say, the Hitler Diaries. Lump them all together until and unless there's an actual reason to separate them.

You can be an atheist for irrational reasons, such as anguish over the loss of a loved one. My guess is that such a position is probably temporary, but I could be wrong.

But that means that you cannot imply rationality only from a professed lack of belief.

Disbelieve in anything you like, and the only one which must be specifically categorised is sky wizards? There just isn't enough space between them and, say, The Lady of the Lake to decide that this one particular lack of belief gets its own word.

group is characterized by "faith".

A teenager is not likely to get kicked out of his house for his position on the Piltdown Man hoax.

Yet we don't have a word for people who don't use drugs.

boring

It's a definition with many holes.

Laundry is the first thing which comes to mind with "clean," followed by the bathroom. Sober is more typically applied to alcohol (technically a drug in the denotative but seldom connotative definition, and vastly less relevant to teenagers being evicted) and sometimes involves things like cough syrup. Auto-brewery syndrome actually is possible for people who don't even make it that far, so technically it's possible to not be sober without ever having had a drink. Abstinent generally involves sex rather than chemicals. And drug-free isn't even a compound word, just a hyphenated term which isn't even always hyphenated.

But we need a word specifically to label people who don't believe in 4,200 constructs instead of 4,199.

Clean, Sober would be a few.

Straight has so many other uses it's not funny, with sexual the normal use regarding people.

Clean applies to people, toilets, laundry, countertops, cars...

Sober doesn't even have to apply to anything chemical. There are "sobering thoughts." People on an adrenaline/endorphin rush can "sober up." And the word is often used as a near-synonym for "serious," especially in professions which cultivate that sort of thing, like bankers and undertakers.

But we have to have one particular word just to describe people who don't believe in one particular subset of magic. It's not an efficient use of language.

I'm told we've invented ~4,200 gods. The people who count themselves as the "predominant religious group" don't believe in ~4,199. The word is a quibble to differentiate people who don't believe in ~4,200 gods from another group which doesn't believe in ~4,199.

One out of 4,200 is .02 percent. That's not even a rounding error. It's simply not a big enough deal to merit its own word.

It’s the suspension of irrationality.

If you lived in 200 AD, the idea of radio waves would have appeared to be magic, for the better part of a thousand years.

You can judge your contemporaries by your own knowledge, or you can let history judge them by the knowledge of the future. There is probably more knowledge that has been proven wrong than right. This is especially true if one considers the example of Newton and the reality that he was "wrong" because he and his contemporaries assumed mass was constant. It wasn't, and if you presume that, his work is more modern than he knew. Darwin questioned his own hypothesis based upon flawed thermodynamics. I could go opn but...

But that being said, one must understand the immense challenge of those of faith. It is almost the unprovable condition despite the attempts to the contrary. Alternately, the contrary is unprovable as well. You can't unprove a diety, especially the Christian/Jewish/Muslim kind because the very foundation of the concept is that it is unknowable without faith of the unknowable. As soon as it becomes knowable it is no longer an issue of faith and therefor "knowable".

The real conflict among faiths and those of no faith is all the same. In the end, are our actions of "free will" or are they pre-ordained. And even those of faith cannot agree. But regardless, the question is:;, (I'm not sure of the correct punctuation) What is the moral thing to do? Not just on ones own behavior, but in the earthly judgement of others?

You asked about people who didn't believe in something they had no reason to believe in--and which nobody "believes" in today, since it's more in the category of a known fact. Nobody ever gave that group its own name.

And why would anybody need to "unprove" a deity? Did somebody prove Cthulhu?

Admittedly, I can think of a few conflicts religious people have with non-religious people about free will. Religion does not have a great track record on respecting free will. Some examples:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Liberty_Accommodations_Act

http://www.dioceseofgaylord.org/religious-liberty-691/

Yes, there shouldn’t have to be a word for it, but you have to remember language has been defined by and for religionists pretty much forever. That’s how privilege works.

I just see no reason to extend it. Deities, gremlins, no difference.

oh wait............9/11 WAS an inside job!!!

The only part that bothers me...and I don't mind being labeled...is that if I tell someone that I don't believe in mermaids, I am not ridiculed by a majority of society OR pitied by my close family members. When I made the mistake of saying that that I don't believe in god, after being pushed to the limit for an answer, I may as well had been admitting to being a mass murderer. It was not pretty.

I agree that if an Atheist would rather be called Rational, then I should do so.

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

Atheist is someone who is not religious and does not beleive in god, most rational people are, some don’t want to admit it and hold on to traditions or upbringing which is different from being actually religious and beleive in god. I celebrate Christmas and sometimes even Easter but in no way I would call myself a christian, those are just traditions that are secularized and have nothing to do with god of any kind.

And why should that be any different?

superman is intentionally created for entertainment. Religion was created by people to control population. The more advances we make as humans, the less religious society will become because it is fundamentally incompatible with science. Some folks on this forum eager to provide China as an example of ‘atheist’ country conveniently forgetting that it is a communist country which in itself can be easily classified as religion (‘dear leader’). It was the same in Soviet Union, officially atheist but de facto deeply religious (belief in bright future no matter what, supremacy of communism and its dear leaders, brainwashing through propaganda). Religion in itself is propaganda and these days operate more like a business in civilized world.

They're not all that dissimilar in age.

Really, the word doesn't serve a function.

there is another word - agnostic, that some prefer to use but I think it is more vague. Personally, I like Bill Maher explanation the best - religious people suffer from
neurological disorder; it is not simply belief but actually a mental condition. It is mostly a result of indocrination from early age but some people may develop it later in life; it is also similar to addictions. That said, many religious people can be quite a bit happier than most, and isn’t happiness one of the most important pursuits, even if irrational? Feelings are often irrational too.

He does so in a way which I find quite incompatible with integrity, and crams his nonsense down everybody's throat in an appallingly rude display at every opportunity. It's simply inexcusable. At any rate, his determination to fail to know what it means suggests you might want to reconsider the usefulness of the term when dealing with such individuals.

But granting Maher's point about religion as a mental illness, most mental health providers will struggle to come up with much more than something like "reasonably normal" or "very functional" or some such as a description for somebody without a mental health diagnosis. A one-word term for the absence of an impairment is not really part of the lexicon.

But we have to have a specific word for somebody who doesn't believe in 4,200 constructs, instead of 4,199 or so.

"You can't unprove a deity." " (Faith) is almost the unprovable condition despite attempts to the contrary..." Those two sentences were quite clearly written by somebody who has absolutely no idea what the hell atheism means and is utterly baffled by the very concept.

The fact that we have a word specifically for people who don't believe in one particular kind of magic--not even wizardry in general, just one particular sub-type of wizardry--actually confuses the hell out of religionists.

such as myself, who are unable or unwilling to either believe or not believe.

The word "atheist" refers to those who have staked out a position of non-belief. I see it as an entirely useful word. I generally prefer seeing choices--in language and elsewhere--expanded rather than contracted.

As for religious people suffering some sort of "neurological disorder"--that's about as non-fact based as faith in a deity. Unless Maher can provide some science based evidence for this belief--brain MRI scans for instance that show specific areas of damage linked to faith--he's blowing just as much smoke as any Evangelical ranting about Jebus.

His position is also politically dangerous. Bear in mind that the Soviet Union used to define those who weren't happy in its "workers' paradise" as psychotic, often institutionalizing dissidents (including people of faith) and subjecting them to forced psychiatric "treatment." We see the same abuse of psychological terms by those pushing "conversion therapy" to turn gay people straight. Using medical terms to ostracize those with differing religious or political beliefs or different in other ways has a rather sordid history I think it best to avoid.

I agree though that, as you say, religion often provides people with a framework in which they can be happier than non-belief. I'm agnostic myself, but I have quite a few progressive friends who are religious, and I don't notice any particular pathology, though many of them do seem happier.

Best wishes.

between "religion" and "faith" or "belief."

I suspect that belief in deities--that is, some sort of active intelligence behind natural forces--predates anything like organized society, much less organized religion. There is evidence of ritual burials, for instance, dating before Neolithic times.

I think the use of organized religion to "control population" came much later.

Joseph Campbell, in the first volume of "The Masks of God" lays out the notion that homo sapiens are in essence hard wired to have religious beliefs, to see some sort of structure and intelligence to a universe that science tells us is in fact highly random. Melvin Lerner further defines this in his writing about "the just world" theory of how the universe works--the idea that good and bad things happen to people for a reason as a way of trying to assert some control over the uncontrollable.

I think as progressives we make a mistake to ignore this basic fact of human "reasoning." It's something like trying to pretend people don't like sweets.

I agree with your characterization of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as more religious than science based.

Any system that defines itself as immune to questioning or dissent is inherently dangerous.

has already been made. They are different words with different definitions.

It's descriptive, specific, accurate, and carries no emotional weight. It simply refers to people who do not believe deities exist.

Besides, it's a noun. "Rational" is an adjective.

And it really does baffle the religious, both the deliberately obtuse and the genuinely clueless.

Admittedly it's a different part of speech, but "rational" and "atheist" are at least both labels. "Sceptic," as suggested above, would actually be the choice to keep things more similar.

It describes my own philosophy regarding exceptionally powerful supernatural entities very well. If it baffles the religious people among us, that's all the better. It prompts them to insist on a definition, which we can easily supply and reinforce by showing the etymology of the word.

It is a simple, clean, unambiguous descriptive noun.

But I do see some difficulties with the word in practice.

The problem lies with the poor understanding of its meaning by people who believe that supernatural entities such as deities exist and should be worshiped. We should strive to understand that such people are unable to comprehend disbelief in the things they are able to believe. We should not concern ourselves with the reactions to that word. Instead, we should simply repeat its definition in response to all such reactions.

That's my opinion on the use of the word "atheist."

But I also just don't see the point in elevating one particular type of magic like that above, say, the Philosopher's Stone. If it works for you, I'm not in a position to say it doesn't work for you.

Apotterism. It is a Mugglish word, which is not in wide use in other circles.

There are useful words for many disbeliefs. For example, disbelief in unicorns is "Amonocornism."

Even newly designated deities have their own words for disbelief in them. E.g.: "Amarinarism" is the specific disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity.

I will be happy to supply words for other disbeliefs, if you wish. Neologisms 'r' Us has a long list of them.

But I suppose Potter works.

A disbeliever in alchemy is an "Analchemist." If the root word starts with a vowel, you must use the "an-" prefix. Now, I admit that "analchemist" is somewhat problematic, since it can be interpreted by some to read "anal chemist," of which there are so many in academia. However, it is important to stick to the rules for neologisms, despite the ignorance of some.

Too much detail like that and people will start to accuse you of pulling these out of your butt.

"Alutinism. That's an odd one, since it derives from the old French word for leprechaun (lutin). I can only think that the formation of the word used the French root to avoid a difficult to pronounce longer word from the Greek root: καλλικάτζαρος (kallikátzaros). Neologists often seek to simplify pronunciation to encourage the use of their new words.

.... that are a major mainstream belief among the general population. Compare all of those beliefs combined to the extent of religious belief and they won't even make a small dent. If the belief in leprechauns were as widespread as the belief in religion and God, rest assured, there would be a word for those who did not believe in leprechauns. I have to disagree that the word atheist is stupid in any way. My opinion.

Belief in any of the popular gods is qualitatively no different from belief in the myriad deities, demigods, and mythological beasts to have fallen out of favor over the centuries. There is as much evidence for the Abrahamic Yahew as there is for Odin, and yet anyone claiming to believe in a literal Allfather riding around on a literal sleipnir is going to be literally laughed at.

Atheist is a meaningless term. It is a term that shouldn't need to exist.

Christianity, or the belief in God, and unlike the so-called deities you use as examples, has not fallen out of favor among the general population. It remains popular, and is a powerful force in shaping our civilization for ill or better. It will remain so far beyond our grandchildren's grandchildren with no real proof that it's end is in sight. I am not a religious person, and I am not arguing whether God exists or not. My argument concerns the viability of Christianity as a force in the shaping of civilization which the other beliefs you mentioned have not.

When someone asks me about my opinion on religion I do not say, I don't "believe in a literal Allfather riding around on a literal sleipnir" and it "is going to be literally laughed at" when a simple word, atheist, will do just fine. Saves a lot of wasted words and time.

I'm pretty sure I know what you are trying to say. I simply have a different opinion that does not agree with yours.

If asked about the existence of God she will say, "I really don't care. Even if there is a God it doesn't change anything." I can't remember a time she even entertained the idea.

You can't entice her into debate. She truly could not care less what anyone has to say on the subject either pro or con.

If you called her an atheist she would look as bored as a cat.

It's a word with some utility.

For people who enjoy arguing against the idea of God - maybe atheist is not the mot juste?

But part of that future is moving past religion as a basis for anything, even something so minor as labelling non-religion.

is completely irrelevant in determining whether one is an atheist.

change as in AT-THEIST. I'll leave it for interpretation.