Raf

Thanks, George. As of 11:40 am Friday, the cone of Ida (this is Ida) hasn't changed much, though it did become a hurricane a touch sooner than predicted.

Sorry I dropped the ball on Henri. Meet Ida. Or Julian. There are two storms out there, and this one's name will depend on which becomes a Tropical Storm first. The other one is nothing to worry about from what I can tell. This is the doozy.

"I found my thrill..."

I would strongly disagree with associating atheism with a hermit-like society, although again, we're reading more into "atheism" than the word itself requires. Atheism means a person doesn't believe in God. That's it. Within that category of people, you will find hundreds of different ideologies and beiefs. An atheist who believes in astrology? Possible. Alchemy? Sure. How about an atheist who does not believe in evolution? Plenty. Flat-earthers? Yup, got them too. Nothing about atheism precludes a belief in anything else. So when you associate atheism with an increasingly hermit-like society (which is quite probably accurate many times), you inadvertently disassociate atheism with a society in which communities are formed around something OTHER than religion. Theater. Art. Politics. Name that Flick. All sorts of human endeavors. And associating atheism with these various communities is also quite accurate, many times. So I think, when embarking on this conversation, you need to approach it in an affirmative way. The Way International is an affirmative set of beliefs and practices. Go ahead and sum them up. Christianity in the West is challenging to summarize, given the variety within it, but you can make some broad generalizations. But atheism, in this sense, isn't a thing. It's the absence of a thing. So let's try to sum up a thing instead, even if it means breaking atheism up into more than one category (which, I would argue, is the same approach we should use with Christianity in the West, but that's someone else's point to make. Humanism is a thing. Sum it up. Nihilism is a thing. Sum it up. Both fall rather neatly under atheism, with exceptions. Anti-socialism may fall under atheism, but I would submit it transcends religious belief. What do you think?

Impossible to steal... "You can't take that away from me." Don't know who sings it tho

Any one of the definitions you and I proposed can be explored in depth. None are adequate (nor do any pretend to be). To me, the most important words in my definition of atheism were "Often (but not by definition)..." Because we associate certain attributes with certain beliefs, even though they do not apply in every case. But to further the discussion, the attributes I raised seem to be the constructive ones most relevant to the definitions you provided on the other categories.

We're exploring what it means to exist, and our ability to bring things into existence by consensus. You exist, as do I. You can choose not to believe in me, but that doesn't change the fact I exist. Agency might not have been the best word choice on my part. A chair doesn't have agency, but its existence does not depend on whether I believe in it or acknowledge it. Some things exist purely because we acknowledge them (a social contract, laws, national boundaries, property lines). Other things exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them (chairs, tables, rocks, rivers, anthropogenic climate change). And some things don't exist no matter how many people believe them, acknowledge them, etc (Santa Claus, the health benefits of superoxygenated water, voter fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of a national election). I believe God falls in the third category, not the first or second. If we were to insist on placing him in the first category, then He can affect laws and mores. He can establish societal norms. He can tell us what words we can and cannot say. He can tell us which day of the week is okay to pick up sticks. He can tell women how to dress and men whether they can marry another man or multiple women. But the moment you insist that he belongs in the second category, you will learn very quickly he belongs in the third.

I don't want to go off on a tangent about what it means to exist unless it is relevant to your thread. So, since you brought it up, I'll err on the side of "it's relevant." It is true that national boundaries do not exist. Neither do property lines. "Ownership" doesn't really exist. Why can't someone else just get in my car and drive off with it? But ownership and property lines, and national boundaries, are part of a social contract (which also does not exist) that we recognize in order to maintain order. Humans are a social animal, and societies are governed by written and unwritten rules that have developed over millennia. We recognize boundaries that do not exist in any objective sense because without those boundaries, the social contract starts to crumble. My house is mine. It's not my neighbor's. Social contracts evolve over time as the population's knowledge evolves. The more we know about the world in which we live, and about the differences in society, the more we adapt our social contract. We don't ban polygamy because our scriptures do. Our scriptures ban polygamy because we do. When we permitted polygamy, so did our scriptures. Some of our scriptures still allow polygamy. Some say our scriptures do, too! Religion, every religion, is an attempt to codify that social contract at a specific moment in time, with the goal of preserving it for all time. That's why you can have a Bible that takes slavery for granted and doesn't condemn it as an evil. Our society did not condemn slavery until many, many years (centuries) after the Christian scriptures were completed. Now we read freedom into scriptures that never condemn slavery. Anyway, that's another tangent. My point is, I agree that national boundaries don't exist, but we bring them into existence by drawing and recognizing them. And we can erase them just as easily. Gods are different in that regard because they have agency. You can't merely acknowledge them into existence by agreement anymore than you can acknowledge my third son into existence by agreement (I only have two sons. That I know of. Another tangent. That was a joke). You and I can agree that there is a God, that his name is Yahweh, that He bans this and commands that. And by our agreement we can craft a society. But anyone coming from the outside is under no obligation to acknowledge that God or his rules because he is not real. Look at the Western Hemisphere. It had TONS of boundaries that were simply not recognized by the European settlers who came here. "But look! These are our boundaries! They exist!" Whatever, I claim this land for Spain, for England, for Holland, for Portugal. But what about the boundaries? The reality that they don't exist except by mutual agreement comes into sharp focus. And when was the last time you watched a Star Trek series where they talked about the national boundaries of the planets they visited? I don't think the aliens of Independence Day gave a hoot about our national boundaries. Or our gods. Because they don't exist except by mutual agreement.

Atheism does not hold that individuals are "central." Central to what? If you answer that, I may have an answer that applies to myself, but I cannot say it applies to anyone else, and my answer would not necessarily flow from the fact that I do not believe in any god. Maybe I think family is central, or our social order is central. I don't know what you MEAN by central. And maybe it's not individuals. Maybe it's individuality that's central. "Denial of submission/relationship to any gods since they are not scientifically real." I quibble with the wording here. We don't "deny submission to or a relationship" with any gods. Rather, we reject the argument that any particular gods exist, and therefore see no need to submit to them. I feel the same way about Yahweh that most Christians feel about the angel Moroni. Yeah, I'm sure SOME Christians believe Moroni was a devil spirit who deceived Joseph Smith, but I would venture to say that most think Smith just made the whole thing up. You wouldn't say most Christians deny submission to the authority of the Book of Mormon. That presumes the book has authority to be rejected. So what would be more accurate? Try: Atheism (in the West): A rejection of arguments for the existence of a God or gods, rendering their worship moot. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a belief that religions are misleading at best and divisive/dangerous/sinister at worst. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a humanistic approach to society, the belief that our problems, to the extent they can be solved, can only be solved by the fine tuning of a social contract that elevates reason/rationalism and empathy above individual advancement. Since these are all brief summaries not intended to be comprehensive or explore every aspect of extrapolating from the implications of each worldview, I'll just stop there.

You're welcome

That's because it sucks.

Rambo?

The Legend of Billie Jean Christian Slater Untamed Heart

Yabba Dabba Doo Hi Fred.

You're presupposing your conclusion in your premise. "Beliefs are found in the unconscious." Respectfully, that is not true of all beliefs, and it's absurd on its face. Beliefs can be dependent on the information you have, and greater information can and should change beliefs. A child believes in the tooth fairy because parents fed that story. Greater information leads to a change in the belief. It's not because their subconscious never believed it. It's because they received or considered more information.

Sounds like the thread's run its course and is now officially about anything.

Although I have been more active than usual, I still hesitate to answer for fear that I will just let the thread wither while you wait for me to post a new clue. Hence my hints.

Well THAT was a giveaway

Good idea. Not that I don't love the topic, but yeah, it is different

Correct

Either that or Endgame

I really love the direction this thread went in. I remember talking about how non-Trinitarians could learn from Trinitarians about the reverence that is Biblically due to Jesus Christ, while Trinitarians could learn from non-Trinitarians about Christ's obedience, commitment and sacrifice. Each side holds a position that can enhance the other side's appreciation for the truth! I thought about that reading T-Bone's post, and I am so glad that my perspective (not taking credit for it, just that I agree with it) can help you appreciate the quality and value of life in the now, or as you called it, the urgency to appreciate life right now. I guess on the flip side of that, while I can't say to my kid "in heaven you won't have autism," I can "think big" in terms of finding something, some hope beyond hope that there's a solution that we can have here and now. The analogy doesn't quite hold up, but the heart does. Believers see a future free of heartache and pain. I see the urgency of bringing it to pass sooner rather than later. Love it. And sometimes that desire to see things from a perspective you do not share is the first step to changing your mind, your mindset, your worldview... your thought.

"It goes on forever! Six bloody minutes!" "I pity your wife if you think six minutes is forever." *** "I want you to shake the freak tree and invite anyone who plops to the ground! Dwarfs and giants, magicians, Zulu tribesmen. contortionists, fire eaters, and priests. We're going to need to confess."

It is not. The main characters are all British. It is not a comedy.

It is not