i read Midbar's Prayer, and honestly i just couldn't connect with it in any way. i don't love and long for holiness, or lament the absence of god. is it arrogant to say i feel no need whatsoever for spirituality? better yet, do i even care if it is? there's definitely nothing missing from my life without prayer. i've had about 25 years to notice any negative results from it's absence, and i've seen exactly the opposite.

as to the death of atheism, it would seem a prerequisite for this would be the death of theism. and unless i missed something..

"Is Atheism dead?"

 Answer: No.

Next. 

Is this like smelling the flower is not there or am I missing something?

Ok I think Midbar is projecting his want for holiness on everyone or trying to get theist to give up their idea of god without taking away their safety blanket. Why would they want to give this feeling up? It feels good its not something people will want to set aside if they don't have to. I just don't see how holiness can exist for an atheist.

Is this what theist just finished reading when they say atheism is a religion? Because that would make sense...

I don't really see a place for spirituality for an atheist. Even if you want to talk about an afterlife some how it would a natural process which you would have to explain such a thing.

Spirituality may have more then one meanings and maybe thats what is throwing me for such a loop. When I hear the term I think supernatural and religion, faith. If you want to use the term spirituality for say having a sense of purpose you are going to confuse many people as this would be like an atheist saying he is faithful because he is loyal.

I have heard people talk about the idea that people can't give up their religion without having something to replace it with so maybe that is what this guy is trying to create. I just don't think it works very well as it admits its trying to have a cake and eat it too....

If there is nothing to pray to is this too not just going through the motions because it gives you comfort? 

Triumphed? Far from it. Just look at who is leading this country. We have a long way to go.

I think you're missing the whole point of being and atheist. It's because we don't believe in religious mumbo-jumbo. We don't need to waste our time shoving love comments up our ass with "prayer" and "spiritual feelings".  Leave that stuff to the new-agers.  We have infinitely better things to do than to "try to be spiritual". Like, for example, enjoy life.

Well, I'll be honest.  I smell an agenda here, but I can't quite put a finger on it.

Like I said in the other thread you started (dealing with pretty much the same topic, by the way...) it's fine to talk about something emotional, hard to define, and somewhat elusive... natural "spiritual health" for lack of a better word, but the words, "spiritual, holy, sacred, etc... DO have religious meaning.  Using those words effectively breaks down many of the barriers between dualism and naturalism, and this is not something I want to see happen.

I find that self reliance works just fine for me.  I don't miss prayer, and meditation... nah.  Not for me.

As to atheism being dead?  Um... huh?

Wrong.  No-one outside the lunatic fringe wants to bring slavery back.  Plenty of people want to bring back 'traditional Chrisitan values' such as compulsory prayer in schools, the banning of abortion and the criminalisation of homosexuality.

 That's  my point. Such groups are intellectually superfluous. They are -- if you'll forgive my saying so -- something like churches or self-help AA groups. That's NOT a bad thing, but it's not an intellectually significant thing either. It allows people to find community, to "come out" and to complain about the Other. But Nietzsche wouldn't have joined. He took his penetrating look at the modern world, said "God is dead," and was done with it. That was what? - 130 years ago? 

There ARE important church/state rights issues remaining, but all aspects of democracy always need to be defended and reiterated. There are free speech issues, due process issues, seach and seizure issues and so on. Again, in the world of ideas secularism has triumphed, just as due process has. We do need Human Rights Watch and the ACLU (in the USA), but we don't need Free Speechists or Due-processists  or a-legalsearch&seizure-ists. Why? Because the rights, though often abused, are fundamentally viewed as core principles of modern democracy. Iran and Saudi Arabia may need Atheist Leagues, but if you give them complete Internet access and freedom of speech, the rest will take care of itself. SHaria, like God, is also dead. They just haven't buried the corpse yet. 

Well, wonderment, I don't think there's much more I can say about this, but I'll try to be more precise:

Your claim: Atheism is irrelevant in the same way as abolitionism

The Facts: 84%(ish) of the world's population believes in a god/gods/supernatural thing. A significant portion of them want to increase religiosity in government/society.

It is virtually impossible in America for an openly atheist person to win public office.

We are arguing about whether to teach creationism in schools. There are many school districts that make mention of it in biology texts.

The Church and its "outreach ministries" account for a multi-billion dollar industry in the U.S. alone.

The Christian music industry is an international industry. One of the leaders in the field (for which a family member of mine works) is a multinational conglomerate encompassing markets in over 40 countries and 25 languages.

The President of the United States, for two elections now, has been "elected" largely based on his appeals to the far religious right.

There is, at present, exactly one lobby firm in Washington representing atheist interests. There are hundreds of Christian firms, collecting millions of dollars in donations, earmarked for greasy political fingers.

In short, your claim is so ridiculous as to be completely ignored, which I will do henceforth. I can't say that I've ever seen someone make a more ridiculous claim here, and that's saying a lot.

why most  atheists, evolutionist are ex christians?
why athiests denied something  that they know doesn’t. exsists
 or am I missing something?
Is this like smelling the flower is not there?
am I making any sense? sorry if I´M not

I'm not a athiest/thiest ...sorry

Do you even live in the U.S.?  Prayer in public schools happens every day.  The last thing I need is some Muslim praying over my future kids at school.  That would kind of creep me out.  The reason we continue to challenge the ten commandments in public places is because if you give the Christians an inch, they'll take a mile.  The war is far from over.  It almost seems to me that you are a Christian telling us that the war is over so that we will not care anymore and theists (namely Christians) will win.  I've never hear such bullsh*t in my life. 

I was thinking Wonderment might be a theist, too. Especially with the "Hitler and Stalin" argument.

 Wrong. Not only am I not a theist, I am a radical atheist without a drop of agnostic in my bloodstream. 

>>Either that, or an atheist who has never lived in the U.S.>>

 Wrong again. I am born and raised in the US. Born and raised on the East Coast, and have lived in Calif. for 20 years. 

>>Or, possibly, someone who really doesn't comprehend reality. That does happen from time to time.>>

Wrong for third time. I hate to break this to you, but one doesn't have to agree with you about everything to be sane.  

>>In any case, I have to put my moderator's cap on for a second: Wonderment, feel free to post in the three existing threads as much as you like about this topic, but three posts on the same topic is enough. Any more posts with the same links, or same topics will be considered spam. >>

You mean your censor's cap.  

 >> I just want you to be aware of our spam rules.>>

The one you make up when your ideas are challenged?  

>>Once I'm done with this post, I'm officially done discussing this, though. I haven't seen anything coherent enough to respond to.>>

Bye-bye. 

No, we are closer to say a gay activist group. I want to note that both of those orgs you gave up their say something about a higher power and prey on the weak or fearful.

Here is the thing. Nietzsche had good ideas and was an atheist, but that doesn't mean atheists have to do what he would do or in this case not do. I honestly don't think you can claim Nietzche wouldn't join a group though. Really all thats a bad attempt at an appeal to authority...

Faith-based Initiatives.

No, things do not just work themself out. Thats dangerous thinking that allows others to achieve goals that could oppose yours. 

Uh, if I didn't think it was an issues I'd be relived... 

Its not that free of a world and the politics of atheists can very widely. The only issues I can think of that would have mostly atheist on its side is separation of church and state. Yes their can be religious groups siding with atheists, but I can't see an atheist wanting to have a religious government.

What makes you think it can't? Magic? 

Your opinion, I give a damn. 

To the first part, tell the religious right. To the second, there is no guarantee it will.

Good luck with that Wonder...

Wonder maybe you should go to mall with a sign that says "God is dead" and ask people's opinions on it.

Hmmm...maybe America for the moment? At least with Bush in power, taking orders from "the guy in the sky". Israel is far from going atheistic. WTF do gays and lesbians have to do with this? It's beside the point. I think you're getting the spam warnings because you're just...well, not really thinking intelligently. Where do you get all this crap about atheism being dead and atheists needing to be religious? Do you just decide it should be that way or are you brainwashed? I'm trying not to be too ad hominen, but this is just_plain_stupid.

Then what are you?...are you simply temporarily undecided as of now, or have you created a new state of the mind?

I think you can have case for atheists relaxing in non-US modern democracies. Here in Australia religion is largely a non-issue, occasionally a religious group will try to push something in politics but the people and media will usually tell them to get back in their box. Recently, when questioned, the archbishop answered that government ministers who were catholic but voted in favor of allowing embryonic stem cell research might be excommunicated. The media immediately attacked the statement and actually overreacted as far as I'm concerned. He was directly questioned on the issue and answered yes, as his faith tels him but the newspapers reported it as though he had actually issued a threat in order to make the vote go the way the church wanted. In most places here the only reaction you'll get to declaring that you're an atheist is "yeah, so?"

Most of europe appears to be even better than us on this issue. It just seems that america refuses to move with the times.

I watched Jesus Camp last night and I'm now more certain than ever that as an American you have no reason to be complacent. You have leaders that are convinced that atheists are lesser citizens than christians and aren't afraid to say so.  You have many fundamentalists who genuinely believe that freedom of religion means only the freedom to believe their religion and are pushing to have that enforced by law. You actually have creationism being considered as a possible valid topic in science classes.

And even though we have it much better in Australia I'm still not prepared to give up my vigilance. There's always someone who thinks they can force their god's rules onto everyone else, children are still being denied freedom of thought by fanatical parents and Science is still being impeeded by religious morality.

but most of all I recognise that Australia is not in a protective bubble. We have islamic fundamentalists just north of us in indonesia who would love to inculde us in their theocratic perfect world. America has a massive number of christian funamentalists with pretty much the same idea and if America falls to theocracy it is powerful enough to become everyone's problem.   

Wonderment, three posts with the same topic having the same links... If we were going to censor you we might start by deleting a few of your threads or maybe taking down those links. Hamby asked you to be careful about posting the same topic over and over and you called it censorship. I'm thinking Susan said something because you thought he made it up.

Now Dan shouldn't be insulting, but he is trying to talk about the idea of "atheism being dead and atheists needing to be religious." To me theism needs to be dead first, which just isn't the case, and the whole notion of biological need for religion doesn't seem well supported.

Lets just try to focus on the argument, complaining about forum rules or rudeness isn't going to help your case.

The two big problems you have with your idea are the large populations of theists and the idea everyone needs spirituality.

If there are theists there are going to be atheists, if there are a lot of theists atheists probably can't claim victory.

I suggest you explain the need for spirituality as I don't see the first claim turning out so well and this idea baffles me.

Since you seem dead bent on keeping your point, I will ask you this:  what is the point of being a religious atheist?  Are there any benefits? 

The only valid threat to atheism is preventing people from exercising their freedom of religious belief to not to actually have one.

Most actually. In fact you could substitute any totalitarian regime in there. People should have the choice to quietly believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

Two points:

1) This is a baseless assumption.

2) People who actually do take offence at something like that need beaten with a stick. A big stick. With nails in it.

No such gene I'm afraid.

Newberg would be a lot more convincing if he paid attention to the studies that showed faith either had a neutral or detrimental effect rather than just the ones that had a positive effect. As it is his work is just pop psychology.

Not so.

Again, not so. Religion fits well with democracy if it is relatively homogenous. A large block of people with a common religious creed provide a powerful force for the promulgation of their faith through government in a way that wasn't possible before emancipation.

Whilst still lobbying and raising funds to promote candidates that are amenable to their views. If you think theism is dead in the US as a political force then perhaps you would care to wager on the odds of a confirmed atheist becoming President?

True, however the funding and lobbying behind the people promoting these agendas is not so constrained. You also fail to explain how democracies with noseparation of church and state - such as the UK - operate. The real reason that a lot of motions suceed or fail is that the people want them to, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Good because it isn't.

Nope. Religion has been one facet of a common binding of individuals throughout history as has cultural myths, laws and societal convention. Religious practices are universal but so are the other things I mention - you can't isolate one and ignore the others.

No, the atheist position is that we can all make an individual choice. Religion is not hardwired, it's software.

Except sex is essential to the continuation of the species. Religion is not.

Again, nonsesne.

Your whole argument fails on the principle that you are treating religion as the one uniting factor throughout history and, frankly, it isn't. If you are going to argue that religion is hardwired into our genes then you must also argue that storytelling, communication and group co-operation is as well and they're not. We can survive without any of these elements.

Was there ever any doubt?  You still haven't answered my question.  What are the benefits of being a "spiritual" atheist, if any?

You're going to have to explain this one to me since you argue that we need spirituality. No, really, you are.

But without a higher being...it's...empty. It's like eating your cake, but your cake is just a frosting shell...there's nothing inside.

So are you going to explain your post or what?

I'd think it might be easier if you just ate the frosting out of the can then.

I guess if we go back to reality we would need to figure out what the can is and make sure this frosting isn't going to give us a cavity or worse diabetes.

Well, rather than keep going in circles,  I can only tell you posters my honest opinion: I think you are a bunch of smart people wasting your time making much ado about nothing. You don't live in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Spain during the Inquisition. (But speaking of Spain, you do seem a bit like Don Quijote battling the windmills for a noble but irrelevant cause.) 

 You are no more under threat from theists than Chicken Little was of the sky falling.  Your militance suggests that atheism has a political agenda, when the truth is that atheists and theists are all over the political map. There are pro-war atheists (like Karl Rove and Stalin) and pro-peace theists (like Martin Luther King and Gandhi). In fact, I might argue that politics trumps religion. White Southern theists based segregation on the Bible,  for example, while black  theists  based  integration on the same Bible.  The same is true with the war in Iraq today and issues like the death penalty. 

 You have complete freedom from religion. Move on to something -- like the war in Iraq -- that really matters, that people really die over, and that you might have some real influence over.

If you want to devote your life to getting "under God" out of the POA or "in God we trust" off the currency, fine. I, frankly, have bigger problems with the whole Pledge of Allegiance. With or without 'under god' it is a silly, jingoistic, untruthful loyalty oath. 

 Faith-based initiatives are a step backward in separation of church and state, and I oppose them. But they weren't argued in the name of Jesus. They were argued as a way to get poverty funds in the hands of community groups and eliminate gov. bureacracy. A lot of atheist community organizers are happy with the $$ they're getting by hooking up in joint ventures with churches, mosques, etc.

 If you are concerned with the backward steps of the Bush administration (and the worst is the two Supreme Court justices he appointed), you should a) become a Democrat if you're not already and b) talk to your "libertarian" atheist friends who voted for Bush and his faith-based programs. 

You should also face the fact that there is a huge difference between GW Bush and say Barack Obama ( a religious man). That should get you to the real issues that will affect you the rest of your life, like war and peace, not slogans on coins.