Religious liberals gain new visibility

[markalot]

Left-winged group no longer overshadowed by Christian right
By Caryle Murphy and Alan Cooperman
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:59 a.m. ET May 20, 2006

The religious left is back.

Long overshadowed by the Christian right, religious liberals across a wide swath of denominations are engaged today in their most intensive bout of political organizing and alliance-building since the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s, according to scholars, politicians and clergy members.

In large part, the revival of the religious left is a reaction against conservatives' success in the 2004 elections in equating moral values with opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Religious liberals say their faith compels them to emphasize such issues as poverty, affordable health care and global warming. Disillusionment with the war in Iraq and opposition to Bush administration policies on secret prisons and torture have also fueled the movement.

"The wind is changing. Folks -- not just leaders -- are fed up with what is being portrayed as Christian values," said the Rev. Tim Ahrens, senior minister of First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio, and a founder of We Believe Ohio, a statewide clergy group established to ensure that the religious right is "not the only one holding a megaphone" in the public square.

"As religious people we're offended by the idea that if you're not with the religious right, you're not moral, you're not religious," said Linda Gustitus, who attends Bethesda's River Road Unitarian Church and is a founder of the new Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture. "I mean there's a whole universe out there [with views] different from the religious right. . . . People closer to the middle of the political spectrum who are religious want their voices heard."

Gaining popularity
Recently, there has been an increase in books and Web sites by religious liberals, national and regional conferences, church-based discussion groups, and new faith-oriented political organizations. "Organizationally speaking, strategically speaking, the religious left is now in the strongest position it's been in since the Vietnam era," said Clemson University political scientist Laura R. Olson.

What is not clear, according to sociologists and pollsters, is whether the religious left is growing in size as well as activism. Its political impact, including its ability to influence voters and move a legislative agenda, has also yet to be determined.

"I do think the religious left has become more visible and assertive and is attempting to get more organized," said Allen D. Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma political science professor who follows religious movements. "But how big is it? The jury is still out on that."

"My gut tells me that all this foment [on the religious left] is bound to create more involvement in politics," he said. "I don't know whether there's going to be more of them numerically, but you don't need greater numbers to have a political impact; all you need is to be more active. You already see that in Ohio and some other states, where Christian conservatives no longer have a monopoly on faith in politics."

More media attention
Conservative Christian activist Gary L. Bauer said the religious left "is getting more media attention" but "it's not clear" that it is getting more organized.

"My reaction is 'Come on in, the water's fine' . . . but I think that when you look at frequent church attenders in America, they tend to be pro-life and support marriage as one man and one woman, and so I think the religious left is going to have a hard time making any significant progress" with those voters, he said.

The quickening pulse of the religious left is evident in myriad ways:

# More than a dozen books have been published in the past year decrying the religious right's influence in politics. Three have been particularly influential in galvanizing activists: Michael Lerner's "The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right," Jim Wallis's "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," and Jimmy Carter's "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis."

# The recently formed Network of Spiritual Progressives is holding a four-day conference that began Wednesday at All Souls Church in Northwest Washington. A thousand participants from 39 states are discussing a new "Spiritual Covenant for America" and spent Thursday visiting their members of Congress. Lerner, the California-based rabbi who founded the network, said the conference is partly aimed at countering an aversion to religion among secular liberals and "the liberal culture" of the Democratic Party. "I can guarantee you that every Democrat running for office in 2006 and 2008 will be quoting the Bible and talking about their most recent experience in church," he said.

# The Democratic Faith Working Group, made up of 30 members of the House and scores of aides, has begun meeting monthly on Capitol Hill to discuss faith and politics, opening each session with a prayer. Its purpose is to "work with our fellow Democrats and get them comfortable with faith issues," said its chairman, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), a preacher's son who was raised in the fundamentalist Church of God.

# Organizations and Web sites that meld religion and liberal politics have mushroomed since the 2004 elections, said Clinton White House chief of staff John D. Podesta. The think tank he heads, the Center for American Progress, has helped form alliances between some of these new groups -- such as Faith in Public Life, the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good and FaithfulAmerica.org -- and long-standing organizations, such as the National Council of Churches.

For most of the 20th century -- from the Progressive era through the civil rights movement -- religious involvement in American politics was dominated by the left. That changed in the 1970s, after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights, the formation of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and, on the left, "the rise of a secular, liberal, urban elite that was not particularly comfortable with religion," said Will Marshall III, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

All denominations included
According to John C. Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, and others, the religious left cuts across almost all denominations, drawing in black churches, liberal Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants as well as Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and people who say they are "spiritual" but not affiliated with an organized faith.

It also includes some theologically traditionalist Christians.

Janel Bakker, 28, a graduate student at Catholic University who attends Washington Community Fellowship on Capitol Hill, an evangelical church affiliated with the Mennonite denomination, said she grew up in a "relatively conservative religious home" where "the big issue was considered to be abortion."

But Bakker, who has attended several rallies against the Iraq war, said she now regards poverty, peace and the environment as important spiritual issues ignored by the religious right. "The religious right has assumed that capitalism is the way to go and is the most moral way to organize society," Bakker added. "Young people are questioning that."

Liberal evangelicals are " leaping out of the closet and they are saying 'Enough is enough,' " said Jack Pannell, spokesman for Sojourners, a Washington-based evangelical social justice ministry. "Evangelical Christians are not all white people living in the suburbs and only concerned with abortion and same-sex marriage."

Some groups on the religious left are clearly seeking to help the Democratic Party. But the relationship is delicate on both sides.

"If I were the Democrats, the last thing I would do is really try to mobilize these folks as a political force . . . because I think some of this is a real unhappiness with the whole business of politicizing religion," said Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

The Rev. Joseph W. Daniels Jr., senior pastor of Emory United Methodist Church in Northwest Washington, said a key question for him is whether the religious left will become "the polar opposite to . . . the religious right" or be "a voice in the middle."

"What this country needs is strong spiritual leadership that is willing to build bridges. We don't need leaders who are lightning bolts for division and dissension," he said.

Nonetheless, some observers doubt that the revitalization of the religious left will lessen the divisions over religion in politics. "I do think," said Hertzke, "that, if in fact this progressive initiative takes off, we will see an even more polarized electoral environment than we did in 2004."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12879318/

[justmaybetiger]

My antitheism compels me not to vote for them.

[ICONOCLAST420]

The American Taliban conservative christians will just say that these "infidels" are hell bound false christians and do and say whatever they have to in order to discredit them.

Again, we have separation of church and state to prevent such sectarian bias.

[markalot]

My antitheism compels me not to vote for them.

I ignore religion when voting. Actually I ignore religion most of the time.

Antitheism, or militant atheism, is a religion. :)

[justmaybetiger]

Antitheism, or militant atheism, is a religion. :)
Bollocks, antitheism/atheism (It's the same damn thing) doesn't believe in gods or any other super natural beings. Soooo that pretty much leaves out any possibility of being a religion now doesn't it?

[markalot]

Bollocks, antitheism/atheism (It's the same damn thing) doesn't believe in gods or any other super natural beings. Soooo that pretty much leaves out any possibility of being a religion now doesn't it?

Depends on how you look at it. If you behave as closed minded as many religious people do then as far as I'm concerned you're just another zealot. :)

Ones religion, or lack of it, should not be a concern of others.

[justmaybetiger]

Depends on how you look at it. If you behave as closed minded as many religious people do then as far as I'm concerned you're just another zealot. :)

Ones religion, or lack of it, should not be a concern of others.
Until they can provide evidence I have no reason to change my mind about religion, granted some are worse than others. I do consider religion the biggest blight on the face of human history. I don't hate the religious, just what religion has done to them (and everyone else). Why the hell is it so wrong to question them? If I said I seriously believed I had a 50 foot tall invisible friend would you just take my word for it? An irrational belief is bad by virtue of its being an irrational belief. Think of it this way. Would you let a couple of guys have a gun fight in a busy street because they believed they were the best person on earth and anyone who disagrees has to die? Wouldn't you want to stop them before they killed themselves, innocent bystanders, and yourself?

[markalot]

Until they can provide evidence I have no reason to change my mind about religion, granted some are worse than others. I do consider religion the biggest blight on the face of human history. I don't hate the religious, just what religion has done to them (and everyone else). Why the hell is it so wrong to question them? If I said I seriously believed I had a 50 foot tall invisible friend would you just take my word for it? An irrational belief is bad by virtue of its being an irrational belief. Think of it this way. Would you let a couple of guys have a gun fight in a busy street because they believed they were the best person on earth and anyone who disagrees has to die? Wouldn't you want to stop them before they killed themselves, innocent bystanders, and yourself?

I love my wife. Isn't that crazy and irrational? I have kids, also irrational. Who the hell am I, or you, to tell others what to believe in or how to behave? You are a zealot.

edit: Note my thread on Saudi textbooks. This is the type of religious intolerance that should be rejected, not religion in general. People need something to believe in, and as long as those beliefs don't demand intolerance then I don't see anything wrong with them.

My point, as I feel you might have missed it, is that atheism is a belief that there is no god, and an insistance that those who do believe are crazy. There is no difference between that and a religious person who rejects a non-believer as crazy.

[justmaybetiger]

I love my wife. Isn't that crazy and irrational? I have kids, also irrational. Who the hell am I, or you, to tell others what to believe in or how to behave? You are a zealot.

edit: Note my thread on Saudi textbooks. This is the type of religious intolerance that should be rejected, not religion in general. People need something to believe in, and as long as those beliefs don't demand intolerance then I don't see anything wrong with them.

My point, as I feel you might have missed it, is that atheism is a belief that there is no god, and an insistance that those who do believe are crazy. There is no difference between that and a religious person who rejects a non-believer as crazy.
You should know the difference between outspoken and zealot at your age. Rejecting ideas and beliefs is one thing, rejecting people is all together different. Love can be rational too (and measured some what), it's just not that much fun that way. Love isn't tearing our world apart either. I've never told anyone they had to listen to me or do what I say. I believe what I said was if your going to run on the platform of "I believe in god, vote for me" I probably won't.

[Slar]

"Atheism is not a belief. It is the 'lack of belief' in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion.

Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in 'holy' writings and conformity to an absolute creed.

Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic - it is not a religion." - Dan Barker

Ones religion, or lack of it, should not be a concern of others.I agree, but the Christian right is not about to extend me the same courtesy it would seem. If the non-religious don't stand up for themselves no one else will either.

By your statements here, then anyone who stands up for anything is a zealot.

[purple_octopus]

"Atheism is not a belief. It is the 'lack of belief' in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion.

Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in 'holy' writings and conformity to an absolute creed.

Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic - it is not a religion." - Dan Barker
Actually, it cannot be proven that God does not exist any more than it can be proven that (s)he does. Therefore, athiesm is indeed a belief. The only ones who honestly don't believe in anything are the agnostics.

[bjk15]

Actually, it cannot be proven that God does not exist any more than it can be proven that (s)he does. Therefore, athiesm is indeed a belief. The only ones who honestly don't believe in anything are the agnostics.
and jmbt should be old enough to know the word agnostic vs. atheism. and should at least also know the definition of zealot, which is simply a fanatically committed person. and jmbt is definitively committed against religion, therefore she is a zealot. but if she chooses to be more outspoken than a zealot, then that by very definition, she would not have the ground to walk on to defy religion, rather she just prefers to verbally slam it (i.e. outspoken).


anyway. back to the subject. i, too, am sick and tired of people twisting which ever religion to best support their beliefs. what makes me most sick is that politicians are purposefully using religion to control a large portion of america. pastors are basically getting paid off and that makes me sick. the politicians are defying the church / state separation b/c it is easier for them to control that population and therefore get their twisted agendas across. screw them all, i say.

[markalot]

By your statements here, then anyone who stands up for anything is a zealot.


I disagree. My statement was in response to someone saying they would not vote for someone because they were religious.

Anyone who is a fundamentalist is narrow minded. Those who call themselves atheists are, in my opinion, the fundamentalists of the non-religious. Most of us non-believers don't really give a damn who you believe in or why.

[Slar]

Actually, it cannot be proven that God does not exist any more than it can be proven that (s)he does. Therefore, athiesm is indeed a belief. The only ones who honestly don't believe in anything are the agnostics.Oh come on. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in the gods of Mount Olympus? You can't prove they don't exist, so your choice to not believe in them is actually a belief.

That makes no sense. You either believe in something or you don't.
I disagree. My statement was in response to someone saying they would not vote for someone because they were religious.This probably means that she never votes. No atheist could get elected as county dog catcher in this country.

Anyone who is a fundamentalist is narrow minded. Those who call themselves atheists are, in my opinion, the fundamentalists of the non-religious.How does a lack of belief in something make you a fundamentalist? You are a Mount Olympian non-believing fundamentalist.

[markalot]

How does a lack of belief in something make you a fundamentalist? You are a Mount Olympian non-believing fundamentalist.

Militant atheism, or the idea that not only will one not believe but they will preach non belief. A non believer is usually agnostic. It's a choice of words. If someone identifies themselves as atheist then they are, by definition, a practicing non-believer.

[purple_octopus]

Oh come on. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in the gods of Mount Olympus? You can't prove they don't exist, so your choice to not believe in them is actually a belief.

That makes no sense. You either believe in something or you don't.
A universal negative cannot be logically proven. And because it cannot be proven, stating as a fact that God does not exist is a belief like any other. I suppose you could turn the Santa Claus analogy into a positive by saying that it *can* be proven that the existence of Santa Claus is a fabrication (because parents everywhere continue to lie about it, and perhaps the origin of the lie is known and can be proven). But it cannot be proven that the gods of Mount Olympus (or any other god, for that matter) do not exist. However, this does not mean that gods do exist just because their existence cannot be disproven. That would also be a logical fallacy.

[justmaybetiger]

and jmbt should be old enough to know the word agnostic vs. atheism. and should at least also know the definition of zealot, which is simply a fanatically committed person. and jmbt is definitively committed against religion, therefore she is a zealot. but if she chooses to be more outspoken than a zealot, then that by very definition, she would not have the ground to walk on to defy religion, rather she just prefers to verbally slam it (i.e. outspoken).
Committed, but not fanatical. That's the key word here folks.

[justmaybetiger]

Militant atheism, or the idea that not only will one not believe but they will preach non belief. A non believer is usually agnostic. It's a choice of words. If someone identifies themselves as atheist then they are, by definition, a practicing non-believer.
Militant atheism.... Did you just pull that one straight out of your arse? Agnostic is just someone who isn't very sure. Atheist pretty much accepts theirs nothing super natural in the world. Most people don't believe in leprechauns, does that make them aweefolkish? No, it makes them normal.

[justmaybetiger]

A universal negative cannot be logically proven. And because it cannot be proven, stating as a fact that God does not exist is a belief like any other. I suppose you could turn the Santa Claus analogy into a positive by saying that it *can* be proven that the existence of Santa Claus is a fabrication (because parents everywhere continue to lie about it, and perhaps the origin of the lie is known and can be proven). But it cannot be proven that the gods of Mount Olympus (or any other god, for that matter) do not exist. However, this does not mean that gods do exist just because their existence cannot be disproven. That would also be a logical fallacy.
The Abrahamic god, atleast the way they decribe him in their text is pretty much a sure think of being nonexistant. You're either omnipotent or your not. If it is real, we sure have one childish, vindictive supreme being on our hands.

[justmaybetiger]

This is what iconism does. First you worship your icons, then you anthromorphisize your god, then you call call him childish and vindictive. God wasnt supposed to be seen as a human, Chrsitianity has totally gone the wrong way by doing just that.
Their god is supposed to be omni everything really. If he does control everything he's not exactly loving, more like a murderer on par with Hilter. Well... You read the bible and tell me if he doesn't sound like a big angry baby to you. :p

[markalot]

I am omni potent.

My antitheism compels me not to vote for them.

I pulled my definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism which is very similar to pulling the idea out of my ass. :)

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God."

So if true you not only don't believe in god but you are opposed to the belief.

[monkey neck]

The religious left is back.....


Nah. They don't exist, kind of like unicorns and werewolves. ;)

[markalot]

there wolf

[Slar]

A universal negative cannot be logically proven. And because it cannot be proven, stating as a fact that God does not exist is a belief like any other.As an atheist, my position is that I do not believe in God, gods, goddesses or any supernatural entities, including ghosts, demons, devils, angels, unicorns, monkey necks or leprechauns. Saying "I believe that God does not exist" is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe in God".

Atheism is not a form a belief, but a form on non-belief. Also atheism is NOT a religion. For proof, let's check our friendly neighborhood wikipedia definition:

"Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1] In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restrictive sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization)."

[markalot]

As an atheist, my position is that I do not believe in God, gods, goddesses or any supernatural entities, including ghosts, demons, devils, angels, unicorns, monkey necks or leprechauns. Saying "I believe that God does not exist" is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe in God".

Atheism is not a form a belief, but a form on non-belief. Also atheism is NOT a religion. For proof, let's check our friendly neighborhood wikipedia definition:

"Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1] In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restrictive sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization)."

So Slar,

you don't believe in God, gotcha. Do you oppose the belief in god by others?

[bjk15]

Atheism is not a form a belief, but a form on non-belief. Also atheism is NOT a religion. For proof, let's check our friendly neighborhood wikipedia definition:

"Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1] In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restrictive sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization)."
religion is a belief, but that doesn't mean that to have a belief is a type of religion. you do not believe in the "x". but your lack of belief in that subject is still the source of a belief in a non-belief system. it is a belief because there are an infinite number of possibilities in this world and even if your view goes towards infinity, there is still a chance that you're wrong, therefore it is a belief.

the funny thing to me is, is that people are almost worried that they'll be labeled as a believer... in what though? non-belief? who cares if you are a type of believer or not, that is really inconsequential to what you believe.

[REMgirl]

I was raised in a Presbyterian household and went to church every Sunday. I never felt like I belonged there and I went mostly to appease my mother. Even after I grew up, I didn't "get it". After many years, I have come to the conclusion that I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, nor do I consider the Bible to be anything more than an historic collection of stories, fables, and prose.

I do not believe that those who have religious faith are any better or any lesser people than I am. I am not elitist, I am not a snob. I just don't believe in everything that organized religion has come to represent. I find that many who profess to love God are critical and judgmental, which flies in the face of Biblical teachings.

I have no problem with those who believe in a higher power. What I have a problem with is when people who believe that their chosen religion is the "best" or "only" one, and that they can impose their moral standards on the rest of the population, and do so by intimidating or influencing my government to do their bidding. I resist the notion that we become better people by having the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawns or prayer in school. I think a lot of their claims of persecution are self-inflicted.

I am not a poster child for atheism. But I do know that I can live a decent life, raise a loving family, and be a good person without believing in a higher power.

[Slar]

So Slar,

you don't believe in God, gotcha. Do you oppose the belief in god by others?No. I do oppose those who seek to push it on me, as stated by REMgirl above.the funny thing to me is, is that people are almost worried that they'll be labeled as a believer... in what though? non-belief? who cares if you are a type of believer or not, that is really inconsequential to what you believe.What's funny to me is how eager people are to call us believers when atheism is not a statement of belief. Yes, I have beliefs that cannot be proven correct or incorrect. My atheism states that I do not believe in god, but it does not state what I do believe in.

You are correct in stating that there are infinite explanations for the existence of everything. We can't pick them all. Should we pick a belief system at random? Should we choose our belief system based on tradition, dogma and the beliefs of others? Should we try to look at the world and try to make sense of things by thinking for ourselves and using rational thought as best we can?

Everyone can choose in a different manner and try to rule out the more improbably explanations (the universe was sneezed out by a giant hampster) and reach the conclusions that make the most sense to us.

[monkey neck]

As an atheist, my position is that I do not believe in God, gods, goddesses or any supernatural entities, including ghosts, demons, devils, angels, unicorns, monkey necks or leprechauns.

Heh. Oh but monkey necks are very real, my friend. The first mistake that people make is denying that they are real. :p

[purple_octopus]

No. I do oppose those who seek to push it on me, as stated by REMgirl above.What's funny to me is how eager people are to call us believers when atheism is not a statement of belief. Yes, I have beliefs that cannot be proven correct or incorrect. My atheism states that I do not believe in god, but it does not state what I do believe in.
To-may-to, to-mah-to. You say athiesm means that you do not believe in a god. I say it means that you *do* believe in the non-existence of god. If you don't believe in the non-existence of god, then you're not really an athiest after all. That would make you an agnostic. They are the only ones who truly don't believe in anything. It really doesn't matter to me what you believe, just don't be fooled into thinking it's not a belief.

[Slar]

To-may-to, to-mah-to. You say athiesm means that you do not believe in a god. I say it means that you *do* believe in the non-existence of god. If you don't believe in the non-existence of god, then you're not really an athiest after all. That would make you an agnostic. They are the only ones who truly don't believe in anything. It really doesn't matter to me what you believe, just don't be fooled into thinking it's not a belief.The statement that a lack of belief in something correlates to a beleif system is contradictory.

In a way I am an agnostic because I cannot prove that god does not exist. I do not KNOW whether god exists or not. That's what an agnostic is.

If however, you were to ask me if I believe in a god, then I would say that I do not. Therefore: atheist; Non-theist; No belief in a god; Lack of belief; Non-believer. From that question and from my answer you can make no positive identification on what I do believe. It is a negative. An absence of statement.

Example: If you met someone that had never heard of god then they would be an atheist by default. It does not mean that they have belief in the non-existence of something they have never heard of.

[Emperor Wog]

I believe the children are the people.

[REMgirl]

Here are some of the basic tenets of atheism, according to www.infidel.org:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism."

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

[Buzzstein]

I don't know. To me belief and nonbelief are the same damn thing. For all practical purposes it is.

[purple_octopus]

It's all semantics, kids. Let's not be pedantic. My point is simply that if you think you *know* for a fact that god doesn't exist, you don't *know* shit. You only believe shit. Which makes the nature of your opinions on god not that much different from those who believe god does exist.

[Slar]

Sure it's semantics. I'm trying to make the case for atheism to be a negative, and you're trying to make the case for it to be a positive.

It's important, because so many people take that first step and call it a positive, and next thing you know people are trying to call atheism a religion and you hear weird sayings like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It quickly turns into a gross misrepresentation of what atheism is (or isn't).

It semantics, but it's still important. The point is, as said by REM girl, that you cannot make any positive observation about my personal belief system based solely on the fact that I identify myself as an atheist.

[purple_octopus]

Sure it's semantics. I'm trying to make the case for atheism to be a negative, and you're trying to make the case for it to be a positive.

It's important, because so many people take that first step and call it a positive, and next thing you know people are trying to call atheism a religion and you hear weird sayings like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It quickly turns into a gross misrepresentation of what atheism is (or isn't).
In my experience, hardcore athiests are preachier than any theist I've ever met. :p

(PS - I never said athiesm was a religion. Just that (using my definition of the word) it is a belief. Which it is, since it can't be proven. Of course, that doesn't mean fanatics won't *make* it into a religion. People can make anything into a religion of sorts.)

[Slar]

I never said athiesm was a religion.Yar, but remarksalot did. I'd probably be preachier, but today's ultra-religious culture concerns me, and I don't really advertise the fact since I work in ruralish Kentucky.

BACK ON TOPIC: I hope the religious left has some success with their efforts. I do much prefer the 'live and let live' philosophy which is not easily found in the religious right.

[purple_octopus]

BACK ON TOPIC: I hope the religious left has some success with their efforts. I do much prefer the 'live and let live' philosophy which is not easily found in the religious right.
I just wish people would leave religion in church and keep politics out of it. That would be the best for everyone, really.

[REMgirl]

I just wish people would leave religion in church and keep politics out of it. That would be the best for everyone, really.


Amen! ::snort:: :p