yeah, sort of. In a way I am looking to unite those that are here in  stating that position openly. I think it may be a relevant influence on the direction and atmosphere in this forum if not all theists come here to decry the RRS movement, which I am pretty sure is the case.

Wavefreak and Pineapple are still around. That's at least 3.

Of course, they're only theists in the sense that they're really weird and refuse to believe that the universe doesn't fart on cue from time to time.

I'm sure there are Christians who will say we're ok at first, but if you ask them approximately three more questions, you'll find their tune changes -- for instance:

1) Ok, so we have meaningful lives. Do you think our lives are equally meaningful as people who have religion?

For the few who answer "yes" to this one, ask:

2) Do you think there is something particularly meaningful about theism that atheists don't get to experience?

When they inevitably say yes, because they have to or they're invalidating their own theism, you ask them:

3) So, you actually do think our lives are less meaningful than yours?

Then, you sit back and watch them get pissed and call you names for shitting on their religion and their beliefs.

How can our lives be equally meaningful if there's something you have that we can't?  That's unequal.

It's all subjective.

If given any particular group of people that is defined by a single common attitude and a person thinks most of them are cool, then I think that that person has to be guileless and gormless but probably happy.

...and somebody who makes the above statement is conceited and cynical but probably right

I think I expressed my not agreeing to that part when I said that the value that comes from theism is not something an atheist can't have, athesist movements like the RRS, who believe in standing up for right in spite of the adversity, experience it, scientists like DG, who search through creation every day for new truths and new understanding, experience it too, because that's what the particular experience that comes from theology is as well.

some theists will call it getting closer to God and then call god "love" or "the truth and life of the universe", but never once put two and two together to see how simple it is. Atheism can be a very holy road. LOL. I think God likes irony.

Many here, and I dont speek for everyone, just as you dont speak for every theist. I do apreciate the attempt at the "olive branch".

I do take a govermental Jeffersonian approach regarding religion, "This goes here, that goes there, and nay shall the two mix" IE "wall".

From a strictly autonomus view I do believe in your right to be a theist, of whatever label. And I am capable of getting along with and loving theists. I cant excape it even if I wanted to. They are in my family and are my co-workers and friends.

NOW, having said that you do have to keep in mind some here take a soft aproach while others, including me dont mind taking the gloves off when it comes to theistic claims. Bottem line, we are all different, even atheists dont agree on all things all the time.

You are getting questioning about your original post, not to put you down, but to get you to think about why you make the claims you make, nothing more, nothing less.

We are happy and angrey at the same time. In our personal lives we are happy. But we are angrey at how science has been attacked and dumped by schools as a priority and used and twisted by relgiion to prop up myth(NOT JUST CHRISTIANS). We are angrey at being marginalized and demonized and tired of being equated to Stalin and Hitler who were far from atheists.

So thank you for stating what we already know and it is important for theists to hear it, not just from atheists, but other theists, like you as well.

However, the question still remains as Hambi rightfully asked. "What is it that you think you have that we dont?" We are not asking that to upset you, but for YOU to ask yourself WHY you believe what you believe, not WHAT you believe.

Here is where we are going with this. If you admit, as you have and rightfully so, that atheists can live without theism and still lead decent moral lives, then why arent you an atheist? 

We see theism as unesssary baggage. It is utiopian wishfull thinking based on wanting a super hero to protect you. We are not saying that to put you down, but merely to get you to consider something you may not be aware of going on in your head.

It is quite simple. As fervant as you may believe in your version of deity, so did ancient Egyptians believe in Isus and Osirus and Horus. You know that those deities were nothing but the envention of Egyptian emagination. If human nature is consistant, what makes modern society, no matter what deity they claim, any different than the ancient socieites that have deities that your rightfully reject today?

You are right in saying that we atheists dont need a deity to lead a meaningfull life. THANK YOU! That is a sincere thank you.

Now be brave and ask yourself why you need a deity yourself. Could it simply be that you like the idea of a super hero protecting you? If you reject the super heros of others, and have reasons for rejecting the others, we simply reject one more super hero than you do.

Religion gives meaning to the life of the believer that a non-believer doesn't get, but the non-believer will have their own sources of meaning. You've probably noticed that I'm fine with moderate religion, recognising they have something I don't, but also recognising that I don't need it because I have something of my own.

Edit: I think Eloise's reply to your point was better than mine.
btw, I think you (and Wave, LosingStreak and Pineapple) are all cool too.

Cool atheists? They have a celebrity atheist list somewhere. I was quite surprised to see some of the names on it. I saw Jack NIcholson, who I freaking love. I saw BIlly Joel, who has some great songs. Does it really matter if someone is an atheist? I mean does it make them any "cooler"? There are a bunch of cool christians too ya know. And cool Muslims......Ok maybe not cool Muslims, wait, isn't Muhamad alli a Muslim? he's pretty cool. Though I don't know of any cool Mormons, haven't met any, I thik its agaisnt The book of mormon to be cool.... 

Sorry Losingstreak...

I guess you um... just ... can't win.... um....

sorry. Had to go there.

Eloise, I get what you're saying about finding meaning in your life. Even outside of RRS, I have a great deal of meaning in my life. I have yet to concoct the perfect bernaise sauce, for instance. I don't mean that to sound flippant. I really dig cooking.

Here's my question to you. Suppose god doesn't exist. Despite everything you believe you have felt or experienced, what if it was wrong? What if everything you've felt was simply chemicals inducing nerves to fire in a certain way, and there is no spirit world, no god, no nothing other than this world. While you can easily say that your life experience has given you purpose or meaning, despite being based on something that isn't real, wouldn't it be fair to say that IF god isn't real, THEN everyone experiences personal satisfaction based on their own experiences?  In other words, if there is no spirit world, then your happiness/contentment/etc is on an equal field with mine, regardless of whether you believe it comes from something greater?

In still more words, if there is no spirit world, then people are more or less happy based entirely on their own experiences and choices, right?  (and brain chemistr!)

Well, that's just great.  Now, the cat is out of the bag.  What is going to be my new excuse for not having a good, happy, meaningful life?  Hmmmm, I guess I could blame my lack of bonhommerie. 

I already say that, Hamby, but as I mentioned to Brian, I don't thus conclude that my theism is baggage it's part of my expereinces and I have gleaned a lot of wisdom, philosophy and understanding from those experiences. I believe theology has the reputation for being divinely inspired because it is often the product of an inspired writer with interesting insight; mythology and parable are great art forms in themselves.

there is a "spirit world" we just have come to better understanding of it since that phrase was coined and I like that.

The phrase 'spirit world' conjures up the religious desire to position itself at a distance from the natural explorations of humanity. This is ironic considering the first believers of the spirit world intiated naturalistic quests to prove it. frankly, the oppositioning of latter day religions against naturalism is all about the securing the pertuity of material structures and control, a stubborn determination to 'survive' by establishing a saleable entity on a point of difference. the point of difference is made up nonsense and always will be.

What is, is that quantum mechanics predicts a floor level of material energy, the ground state. beyond the ground state, the zero point, there is a breakdown of material laws. this quantum vacuum interacts with the material world and virtual particles pop in to existence from it. It's a part of our own reality. It's not called the spirit world in naturalism, but that means nothing. Spirit world was an ambiguous term for something intuited but not seen, seeing it gives it a different meaning, a more precise meaning. Letting go of the 'spirit world' and letting go of the superstitious nonsense that has slowly engulfed the original intitive reasoning, are two different things.

You keep citing your judgement as if it's the final authority.

I love many of the stories in myths. Besides being poetically beautiful, many myths are windows into the minds of our predecessors.

If you mean inspired to be taken naturally, I agree with you. If you're suggesting you have to be in touch with the spirit world (sic!) to be an artist, I'll have to flog you with one of my piano's strings -- after all, I will not be needing them, since I reject the spiritual as nonexistent woo-woo. All that time I spent in music school.... wow... all a waste.

There again with your judgement as fact.

You see, Eloise, I think you do buy into that horse-hockey in the websites you linked for me. When you start opining on religion, you sound just like them. I think you were embarrassed that I was so angry about them, and disavowed them. Shame on you.

I'm going to spare you the vitriol, and just ask you to recall how many fallacies and how much unsupported nonsense there was in that page I deconstructed.

To keep it simple, I'll point out that this is a completely, utterly, and in all other ways unsupported viewpoint you're putting forth. This thread isn't about whether the spirit world (sic!) exists. It's about whether atheists are cool or not, so I'm not going to keep on about this.

Oh, you better hope deludedgod doesn't read this thread. He'll probably unleash a bit of his own vitriol if he sees you misusing quantum physics like this. I'll give you the short version.

A) First, this is a fallacy of composition. Even though things behave a certain way at a quantum level, we cannot extend that behavior to things above that level. Unless you're prepared to present a Nobel Prize winning proof that we've got quantum physics completely wrong, you probably will want to back off of the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with quantum physics.

B) Second, you need to think seriously about this theory of the origins of spirituality. Are you an anthropologist? Evolutionary psychologist? Historian? Anything that would qualify you to make such a judgement? I'm trying to warn you that if you continue to assert this viewpoint, you're going to get smacked down pretty hard when someone decides it's time to set you straight. There aren't too many ways you could be more wrong about this.

C) Finally, you need to do some real study about what intuition is, and more importantly, what it isn't. There's plenty of material out there. Please do yourself a favor and learn what scientists know about it. Once you do that, go back to your basic Critical Thinking Textbook -- you know, the one you would have if it was actually taught to school kids like it should be -- and review where intuition falls on the heirarchy of reliability.

God NOOOOOO!!!!!  Tell me there aren't more of you!   The world can only handle one brian.

(1) proves that neither brain or conscious mind are isolated systems

thus

(2) self identity is a construct of the whole system in which a brain and a conscious mind can exist. The anthropic principle.

To say 'wave unity shit' is just projecting the 'woo woo' image you think is me onto what I am saying instead of actually noting what I am saying.

The surfer analogy refers to an energy gradient and I think its a very good analogy, however judge for yourself.

In a wave of surf the molecules of water are in motion with lots of energy, there is enough force behind the wave that a person can stand atop it and be carried on it.

This is a little like how we understand intelligence, we are bombarded with physical data/energy/information until it builds up a certain momentum which affects the state of the conscious mind, this process is the substratum of self identity; and we go further to identify with the imaginary surfer floating on the process instead of the process which is the physical actuality; but most importantly the process is the product of the data, the free energy in motion. And the free energy in motion is the definition of conscious mind and the system that supports it.

Truthfully, it's incomprehensible to me.  Could you point me to the peer reviewed science journal that explains it?

Eloise, you're delusional.  You show me some people who spout some shit about seeking higher truth and gurus and true spirituality, and this proves contingent belief?

We can keep going back and forth all day, but the only two choices are:

1) You don't understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent faith (in which case, I don't think I can help you)

or

2) You're terribly confused, or lying, or lying to yourself (in which case, I probably can't help you)

I'm not trying to be mean.  I just can't think of any other way to explain it to you so you can understand.  There's one more thing you may not be comprehending, so I'll toss it out there.  Belief in other people is a contingent belief.  If you've always showed up to work on time, I have a contingent belief that tomorrow you will show up to work on time.  If you've always been honest with me, I have a contingent belief that you will continue to do so.

However, and this is a very important point, belief in the word of other people is not sufficient contingency for belief in something that is supposed to be beyond logic.  All signs point to trusting logic, empiricism, and probability over the judgement of people.  Saying that there are tons of people who believe they have spirituality is not proving contingency.  It's simply demonstrating that there are a lot of people who believe things that are illogical.  This is why I asked you to review what intuition is, and where it falls on the heirarchy of reliability.  

I have no problem with equating light and virtual particles.  I have problems with you insinuating that quantum physics in any way explains the spirit world.  I know DG does, too.  I've seen him thoroughly refute the position.

Naked assertion.  The spirit world is undefined, unfalsifiable, and obviously unprovable.

You're backing off of what you said.  I'll leave you to your olympic backpedal.

What the fuck?  I haven't asserted anything.

This is precisely why I want you to do some study about what intuition is good for.  It's really good for spur of the moment decisions.  If you get a tickle at the back of your brain about the guy at the door, it's often best to leave the chain on the door.  Intuition is decidedly inferior for coming to complex rational conclusions when the time is available to do proper critical thinking.  This is not in debate.   This is scientifically verified, over and over and over and over.

Syllogism is 100% reliable if the premises are true and the form is valid.

Probability is extraordinarily reliable with enough information.  Our use of rational processes is not always reliable.  That's why we put them in print and let other people examine them for fallacies.

Seriously, this is the third time in this thread I've had to explain something to you that seemed completely obvious.  Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really think that intuition is on a par with logic?   If you do, then this discussion is over because you're demonstrably illogical and irrational.

That is so bizarre and incredibly mistaken that I don't even know how to respond to it.   Please, do what I asked and read about what intuition is, and read some of the studies available at any university library where it has been demonstrated over and over that intuition is good for snap decisions, but is virtually useless for more complicated problems.

Other than feeling like I've repeatedly banged my head against a wall, I'm pretty happy, too.

Niice. This is your refutation?

Of course it does. you're using an appeal to ridicule, logical fallacy. Calling it 'spouting shit' doesn't refute jack squat, Hamby, as long as the shit they're spouting says "seeking higher truth" it's contingent belief, conditional trust, rationalised by probability. That's all there is to it.

just as occurred the last time we had this conversation you are employing wilful ignorance to abscond from the facts presented. It's becoming clear that you will not steer from that course, I probably should have realised that long ago, if you're going to ignore the argument the first three times you're going to continue to ignore it the next twenty times too. There's no point continuing.

False dichotomy:

Option 3. Hamby is wilfully ignoring the evidence presented and pointed out, and pointed out, and pointed out again.

The belief is not in the word of other people, Hamby, the belief is in the probability that there is some insight in the word of other people. This is a sufficient contingency.

As for the 'something that is beyond logic' there you go with the specific culture of moderate thinking again, that is a sweeping and false generalisation, but I suppose I shall have to find more evidence for that now which you will promptly challenge for the sake of it, ignore, misinterpret and then ignore some more, right?

Then let him come refute. I think you need to see that you are misreading my position.

Oh for Shit's sake!!! Now I have to find more evidence for you to ignore, mistake, ignore? surely you know this much? you seem to know so much about christian doctrine and their book is riddled with your evidence for the claim that spirit is defined as light/energy . Try again.

That's no backpedal Hamby, thats an invitation. Your response is evidence enough to me that you have read every thing I have written here with eloise-is-deluded-coloured lenses and missed completely that the entirety of my original assertion on this thread is pure physicalism.

we're done. Just last week Hamby, you were my favourite poster here (strange how things turn isn't it?) I have always respected you for your integrity (of all things?) but this discussion seems to have turned from a level debate from two sides of an idea into an endless litany of confirmation biased conclusions about the colour of my mental health and/or knowledge. I'm sorry, I just can't keep going here with you.

Atheists are cool and do live meaningful lives. Thank you. I'm sorry I can't add to your list because I'm not a theist but if I was I'd probably say that atheists are cool and live meaningful lives. Although if I was I'd probably be a hell of a lot stupider.