The FINAL Thread on what "atheist/m" actually means!

On another thread, Drkshadow wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

Also, it's not like a whole blog communities exist full of daily posts by atheist's spewing vitriol about religion and sharing other posts dealing with other topics of interest to a group of people who don't share a belief--whoops, I mean basic common assumptions--erm, I mean coincidental overlap of certain accidental synchronizations of ideas. :rolleyes:

---

This is a very common assertion made against atheists and I thought it would be ideal if I had a handy thread with the evidence to point to every time!

Let's start with the fact that atheism is not a belief, but a simple lack of belief.

Atheist = without god/s.

It really is that simple.

Drkshadow has been good enough to provide some links, but unfortunately - for him - they support my position far more than his!

First link, from the front page:

Quote:

---

"The American brand of Christianity is unraveling while its hypocrisy is being weighed by the minds of our younger folks and discovering that questioning religious doctrine is a trait of human nature, not the voice of Satan."

---

Appears to be attacking christianity and I can't find any comment about there being no god as a factual statement.

The bloke seems to be taking great and rightful pleasure in poking fun at the rituals of christianity. Pretty funny stuff - thanks for that link. Anyone that starts an article with "Words of a prominent Cactholic" and quoting Hitler is worth a look any day!

:D

I see he gives his position away later in a Q&A:

Quote:

---

Questions: Do we need a “war on religion”?

Blog: Can we simply just expose the ridiculousness of religious rituals without an open display of mockery?

---

Doesn't appear very hard line at all.


Second link, from the "About" page:

Quote:

---

In 2005, I finally decided to listen to my rational self and conceded that Christianity was flawed. I am now an ex-Christian, and I’ve been writing my thoughts on leaving the faith for a long time. Look at my archives and you will see the progress of my de-conversion from anger and turmoil to self-respect and free thinking.

Please beware that my earlier posts do not describe my current ideas. Those posts reflect who I was at the time. I am a work in progress.

---

"I am a work in progress"??

Doesn't sound that much like a hardline atheist to me!

Third link, from "About Me":

Quote:

---

I am a former minister currently living in the southeastern USA. I am now an atheist, one who does not hold any belief in any god. If there is any divine or creative entity, I believe that he/she/it is probably conceived most accurately in deist terms. On Richard Dawkins’ 7-point scale of belief, I am a 6.

---

No equivocation on what he means there, and for those unfamiliar with the world's most-famous atheist, Richard Dawkins' scale, here it is.

'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

That is definitely not saying Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!.

People who say that atheism is a complete denial of god are mistaken or guilty of assumption. It results from taking one look at a headline and making assumptions about what it says.

In my vast experience of talking to atheists - which I'd bet is exponentially more than you - I have met very, very few atheists who will try to say that they are 100% convinced that god/s do not exist.

Just as it would be absurd for me to base my view on christianity on Fred Phelps and Jack Chick, it is absurd to base one's thoughts on atheism on the lunatic fringe, which is the part that states factually "There is no god!".

All clear now?

Is there such a thing as FINAL on Litnet? Then the world's coming to an end!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Drkshadow has been good enough to provide some links, but unfortunately - for him - they support my position far more than his!

---

Actually the links support my position, which was an entirely different point.

I linked to those sites because it seems to me the existence of communities of atheist posting relatively similar material suggests a shared set of beliefs/ideas/ideologies/whatever word you wish to fill in the blank.

You used the links to argue against the notion that "Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!" To be perfectly honest, I was being mostly facetious and I know not all atheists really hold that position. These were basically meant to be two completely separate points that you confused for a single idea for some reason. But I realize perhaps due to the ordering it wasn't clear why I included the links. Still, you haven't actually addressed the point I made by including the links at all.

To point out what I'm getting at, it seems to me atheism is in fact a kind of belief system/ideology/thought system (I don't want people getting caught up on the word "belief"), and other than declaring it not to be so, I haven't seen much counter evidence to the contrary.

I think it's a bit of a spurious argument. Certainly, people with similar opinions will organize and share ideas. However, the difference is that atheism can exist independent of contemporary organized ideologies. A child never exposed to the idea of God is not an atheist in the same sense as people who read Dawkins.

I also think what you may be perceiving as an atheist ideology is rather the result of philosophical ideologies which lead, in general, to atheist world views. Someone who believes in empirical materialism, as I do, is very likely to be an atheist. However, empirical materialism is not an ideology of atheism by definition.

Atheist hold roughly ideological views, just like everybody else on Earth, but I don't think you really find many ideologies which have at their base that gods don't exist.

You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

They can't say "well, how do you KNOW that there's no such thing as god(s)? You have faith in your own ideology, you hypocrite!" because the response to any theological question will only be "it just doesn't matter." Conversation cut short. Everyone that I've argued against didn't have a practiced route to follow from there to try to convert me. Then you can go back to arguing about why organized religion is socially, morally and economically damaging without anyone turning it around on you and telling you that atheism is just as faith-based as Christianity to try to shut you up. Plus, there's no more theological blah blah blah that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yep: as a debater, good ol’ apathy's worked pretty well for me so far.

*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist. Arguing against organized religion, however: now that is a worthy cause, and I really think that it's do-able.

R e m i n d e r

This thread will remain open on the condition that it does not deteriorate into yet another "my belief is better than yours" bickering and explores what it has set out to; i.e., "what is atheism?"

Off-topic posts and/or posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

Those who ignore this reminder might expect to receive infraction points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.M. The Third

Is there such a thing as FINAL on Litnet? Then the world's coming to an end!

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Actually the links support my position, which was an entirely different point.

---

What?

How on earth can you say that when they utterly refute your initial assertion? Here it is again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow

Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

---

That's really the only part I have a problem with. Whether or not atheists are reasonable to religion - or indeed, should be - is a different question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I linked to those sites because it seems to me the existence of communities of atheist posting relatively similar material suggests a shared set of beliefs/ideas/ideologies/whatever word you wish to fill in the blank.

---

Is that surprising?

Atheists do share something, and in USA especially, they share despised minority status. There was a poll not long ago which showed atheists to be the least-trusted group if the several groups offered.

Given a commonality, communities will develop. Those communities are still a tiny minority of atheists. The vast majority of atheists never raise it as a topic and many keep it quiet to not upset family & friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

To point out what I'm getting at, it seems to me atheism is in fact a kind of belief system/ideology/thought system (I don't want people getting caught up on the word "belief"), and other than declaring it not to be so, I haven't seen much counter evidence to the contrary.

---

Well, hopefully you'll be disabused of that notion, because it can't be a belief system and using communities of like-minded people is not a way of showing any kind of doctrine.

Truth be told, those groups are not anywhere near as cohesive as a casual glance may make you think. I don't belong to any atheist groups but have been on the periphery of several and can assure you that there are frequent and violent disagreements between the members. Funnily enough, the worst enemies I've made online are atheists. I usually get along fine with theists and a couple of my most trusted online buddies are lifetime christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

---

I think it was Rowan Williams who said some time ago that the real threat to christianity was not militant atheism, a la Dawkins, but apathetic agnosticism - that exact "don't care" attitude.

My wife is the #1 practitioner of it.

:)

She actually calls herself a "coproagnstic". Doesn't care, doesn't give a .......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist.

---

It's interesting and unsurprising that the decline of religion in the west is matched by the growth in belief in psychics and the paranormal.

I can't see that as an improvement myself.

The idea of a creator God was always problematic for me, and I could never get beyond the creation of evil by a creator God.

I was brought up in a "coproagnstic" household myself, (I only went to church for harvest festival at Primary school, my secondary school was also coproagniostic), though my parents had a couldn't give a **** attitude to everthing, worthwhile or not.

I think atheism is a healthy state of mind, as it's not a passive one but questioning. Doubting Thomas is given such a bad press - imagine the hard time he had in the pub - I jest - but the moral of the story is too uncritical for me.

I had a response, but I edited it out.

I am just finding the more I think about this issue, the more I don't care. So I'm bowing out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think atheism is a healthy state of mind, as it's not a passive one but questioning.

---

You're sailing into the same region that causes misconceptions here - atheism isn't questioning at all. Lots of atheists ask questions, but atheism isn't a default quest for knowledge.

There are many people who correctly call themselves atheist, but who believe in the most awful garbage - astrology, numerology and homeopathy etc - and who wouldn't know how to ask a question if instructions were painted on their right arm.

Yes - I was thinking of being questioning rather than questing. Seems clear.

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixsmith

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

---

It's a moot point for some people, and so the term is useful for these. How would you term yourself- sceptic? Or is that another superfluous term?

I think sixsmith has a point.

On the question of 'God the creator' I come in at about 6.5 on the Dawkins scale. That's pretty atheist.

But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility. The universe presents me no more reason to contemplate the prospect that individual human beings will ultimately be judged by a Cosmic Umpire than it gives me reason to contemplate the possibility that the the law of gravity is suspended on alternate Thursdays or that the world is spun on its axis by the sweeping tails of invisible dragons attempting to fly to the stars.

I guess that's pretty atheist too - but not in the same sense as the first circumstance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixsmith

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

---

I think you're on to something as well.

The concept of 'atheism' can encompass several distinct cultural phenomena. On the one hand, there is the understanding of certain people that there is no Creator; it is a lack of belief, albeit a profound one. And then there is the more militant 'atheism', which serves as a radically active anti-religious doctrine.

Speaking as a tolerant man, and as someone who identifies himself as something between a pantheist and a deist, I know which of the two makes me feel more uncomfortable. I have many atheist friends, and many devout friends, and I have seen them get on together very well. But when somone argues, in a dogmatic manner, against someone else's dogma, it gets my heckles up. Some atheists, the militant ones (who are most definitely a minority), have such a patronising, condescending air about them, they are in fact a parody of the religious institutions they attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think sixsmith has a point.

But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility. The universe presents me no more reason to contemplate the prospect that individual human beings will ultimately be judged by a Cosmic Umpire than it gives me reason to contemplate the possibility that the the law of gravity is suspended on alternate Thursdays or that the world is spun on its axis by the sweeping tails of invisible dragons attempting to fly to the stars.

---

This is basically my point. The term sceptic is similarly unnecessary because I am not presented with anything to be sceptical about.

On the God the creator scale - I must be a 10 - I can't believe there is a creator God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixsmith

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

---

Stoi!

That is exactly the mistake I'm trying to correct here.

Atheism is not a belief or theory that god does not exist. Someone who believes no god/s exist, is certainly an atheist, but they are a very small subset of atheists. The word has a wider meaning as I have already stated:

"I do not believe that god/s exist."

If you cannot grasp that issue, then you're in the wrong thread!

You're right in there being no need to even contemplate the idea, but that tends to ignore the point that unchecked, religion has, can and will try to enforce its morality and teachings on the world.

How many cases of the religious right in USA trying to subvert justice, education and society do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

I think you're on to something as well.

---

Have a think about the more accurate description of atheism and I think you'll find he's wrong, but you get onto a more sensible track here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

The concept of 'atheism' can encompass several distinct cultural phenomena. On the one hand, there is the understanding of certain people that there is no Creator; it is a lack of belief, albeit a profound one. And then there is the more militant 'atheism', which serves as a radically active anti-religious doctrine.

---

(bolding mine)

Not forgetting Buddhists and many millions of others who have supernatural beliefs but do not believe in a god. Atheism by definition must encompass all non-religious cultures. If you think I like rubbing shoulders with people who believe the world is run by alien lizards, you're wrong! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Speaking as a tolerant man, and as someone who identifies himself as something between a pantheist and a deist, I know which of the two makes me feel more uncomfortable.

---

That's an interesting and oft-repeated criticism I hear from the "middle ground" if I may call you that.

Why does militant, anti-religious atheism actually bother you? What, in particular about attacking religions gives you pause to dislike it? I'm genuinely interested.

My defence of militant atheism is as noted above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Some atheists, the militant ones (who are most definitely a minority), have such a patronising, condescending air about them, they are in fact a parody of the religious institutions they attack.

---

Hard not to be dogmatic when you're right!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

On the God the creator scale - I must be a 10 - I can't believe there is a creator God.

---

You can't be a 10!

The belief index only goes to 7.

:D

I class myself as a 6.9999 recurring. Infinity to one is the odds I'd offer on there being god/s. As close to absolute as you can be without making an unsupportable claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixsmith

The term sceptic is similarly unnecessary because I am not presented with anything to be sceptical about.

---

Wow. Where do you live?

And can I move there?

Even now, my computer screen is bombarded with adverts, many of which I am deeply sceptical about. In fact, my whole life is bombarded with advertisements. I can't even walk to the shop without seeing a huge variety of advertising material. I'm sceptical of most of the products advertised. Is Coke really the "Real Thing" where you live?

All day, I talk to people who try to talk themselves into getting a job. Every one of them is the ideal candidate, apparently. Then, when I'm trying to hold a sane conversation with someone, he or she may well drop in a fact I know is wrong. This kind of stuff, where I must be sceptical of almost everything I see, hear or read, is a bloody nuisance.

If I can move to a place where everything is kosher, count me in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility.

---

You've never met a christian who made the claim that there is a scorekeeper/judge thingy? The one I usually refer to as the "sky-daddy"?

Christ, if I can't move to 6smith's place, can I come to where you are instead?

Over here, even in a relatively irreligious country like NZ, my kids are deluged with religious dogma from all sides. Not by teachers, that kind of stuff is verboten officially, but even when she went on school camp last month, some damn parent told the kids to sit tight while he said grace. (It had to be a Yank, didn't it?) Her previous school had a religious period once a week as do the majority of schools in NZ.

My daughter's friends take her to churches where people actually preach that there is indeed a sky-daddy and that he's watching her right now, and if she screws up, she's going to the hot place! Because religion relies on getting new recruits by infecting them young, she's a prime target. (not that it'll work - she has certainly inherited her father's cynicism. ;))

Crikey, if you and 6 can amalgamate your worlds - one without lies, the other without religion (same thing really! :D) I'd find it paradise.

My passport's ready, and I even have a British one, so I cna be there next week!

Freedom, here we come!!!

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.
As for the bit about the eternal bonfire, nice dogma, but if you were to look up the words Sheol and Haides in GREAT detail, analysing every time they are used, you'll find that it just means "grave", so you won't need the asbestos underwear. Even if it were a reality, who has the right to frighten kids with it, least of all somebody else's. Most unhealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.

---

My sentiments entirely.

Atheist, my objection comes from people lecturing at me. I feel it insults my intelligence. We can neither categorically prove or disprove the existence of divinity, and thus any debate must be foregrounded in some degree of belief (or lack of it). As for why lecturing atheists seem to annoy me more, that comes as a result of frequency. While I have, on rare occasions, been called a godless heathen, and even a "filthy apostate" on one memorable occasion by the religious crowd, I have much more often been called a "moron" for deigning to believe in something as "stupid" as a God. In my personal experience, I've recieved a hell of a lot more tolerance from religious people than from radical atheists. They have a tendency to treat you as if you were somehow mentally dificient for holding belief.

I think to be fair there are a goodly number of evangelizing zealots on both sides of the argument. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!

You can't be a 10!

The belief index only goes to 7.

Ah. Did I miss it? 7 then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.

---

Honestly, and as I've said several thousand times, if religious people would stick to that, I wouldn't be The Atheist and I'd revert to my gamer name: Arrogant_B_Stard. I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs, but how they try to propagate them concerns me a great deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

As for the bit about the eternal bonfire, nice dogma, but if you were to look up the words Sheol and Haides in GREAT detail, analysing every time they are used, you'll find that it just means "grave", so you won't need the asbestos underwear. Even if it were a reality, who has the right to frighten kids with it, least of all somebody else's. Most unhealthy.

---

Couldn't agree more. Why the hell people fall for it continues to astonish me, and even more astonishing is that it's the brand of christianity that's growing.

If I look at it logically, the type of theism which should have appeal in the year 2010, is Rowan Williams' brand of non-dogmatic, hug-a-stranger, all-inclusive kind of agnostic theism. Rowan even said a few years ago that "belief in the virgin birth and bodily resurrection are not essential".

Heresy!

No wonder RatZZinger's mob is showing the welcome mat to disaffected Anglicans.

Yet that type of theism, which acknowledges science and reason and asks nothing more than faith, is failing - dying with its adherents from last century.

Meanwhile fundamentalism in both islam and christianity is rising.

Bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

My sentiments entirely.

Atheist, my objection comes from people lecturing at me. I feel it insults my intelligence. We can neither categorically prove or disprove the existence of divinity, and thus any debate must be foregrounded in some degree of belief (or lack of it). As for why lecturing atheists seem to annoy me more, that comes as a result of frequency. While I have, on rare occasions, been called a godless heathen, and even a "filthy apostate" on one memorable occasion by the religious crowd, I have much more often been called a "moron" for deigning to believe in something as "stupid" as a God. In my personal experience, I've recieved a hell of a lot more tolerance from religious people than from radical atheists. They have a tendency to treat you as if you were somehow mentally dificient for holding belief.

---

I think that could only happen in an academic setting. Then again, in all my time at university it never once occurred to me to even inquire into the religious beliefs of people I know. Although, the only Christian I associate with regularly is my mother, and she's awful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I think that could only happen in an academic setting. Then again, in all my time at university it never once occurred to me to even inquire into the religious beliefs of people I know. Although, the only Christian I associate with regularly is my mother, and she's awful.

---

That's true. The only social standpoint I can talk from is that of a student. The university where I did my undergraduate degree had an extremely large and active atheist society, who made a point of going to all the socials of the religious societies in order to mock and catcall, which I found rather distasteful.

At the same time, I was also heavily involved in student politics, and found myself on several occasions working with the Christian Union, the Catholic, Jewish and Islamic societies, and I found them to be very professional, even when we were in disagreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Stoi!You've never met a christian who made the claim that there is a scorekeeper/judge thingy? The one I usually refer to as the "sky-daddy"?

---

Well, yeah. But that doesn't oblige me to consider it. I've met people who made the claim that the entire universe goes around the earth every twenty-four hours - but that doesn't oblige me to consider the possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Stoi!

That is exactly the mistake I'm trying to correct here.

Atheism is not a belief or theory that god does not exist. Someone who believes no god/s exist, is certainly an atheist, but they are a very small subset of atheists. The word has a wider meaning as I have already stated:

"I do not believe that god/s exist."

If you cannot grasp that issue, then you're in the wrong thread!

---

I do not consider it necessary to make or even contemplate the negative statement. Thus, I have a problem with the term a-theism. It countenances such a contemplation, and is thus a mischaracterisation of my non-contemplation.

Quote:

---

You're right in there being no need to even contemplate the idea, but that tends to ignore the point that unchecked, religion has, can and will try to enforce its morality and teachings on the world.

---

No it doesn't. One's non-contemplation of a God is one thing. Their recognition of the fact that those who do believe in a God frequently attempt to force that belief on others is something else.

Quote:

---

Wow. Where do you live?

And can I move there?

Even now, my computer screen is bombarded with adverts, many of which I am deeply sceptical about. In fact, my whole life is bombarded with advertisements. I can't even walk to the shop without seeing a huge variety of advertising material. I'm sceptical of most of the products advertised. Is Coke really the "Real Thing" where you live?

All day, I talk to people who try to talk themselves into getting a job. Every one of them is the ideal candidate, apparently. Then, when I'm trying to hold a sane conversation with someone, he or she may well drop in a fact I know is wrong. This kind of stuff, where I must be sceptical of almost everything I see, hear or read, is a bloody nuisance.

If I can move to a place where everything is kosher, count me in!

---

You're taking me out of context here. Products, for example, exist and thus their purported quality is something about which I can be sceptical.

Quote:

---

Well, yeah. But that doesn't oblige me to consider it. I've met people who made the claim that the entire universe goes around the earth every twenty-four hours - but that doesn't oblige me to consider the possibility.

---

Exactly.

Unsurprisingly, The Atheist, is correct on what the term atheist means. This is a list of how I understand atheist terms:
atheist-I do not believe in God
"strong" atheist-God does not exist.(obviously fallacious, and it is unfortunate that this is how most people view atheists)
"weak" atheist- I have not been given enough evidence to believe in God

Also, agnostic has nothing to do with belief. Just knowledge.
Agnostic, is thinking that knowledge of God is unattainable, or it does not exist. So, you must either be agnostic atheist (me) or agnostic theist.
Then there are all sorts of cool, but obscure terms, like ignostic, that I won't bore you with.

You are using inductive reasoning to justify a belief - a belief in the fact that god doesn't exist - you define yourself as atheist, and in the process, you create a belief - simply not believing in something does not make you atheist, being an atheist implies a recognition of the lack of belief in a deity.

As such, the whole atheist, or "The Atheist," the one identifying him/herself in this construction as atheist is merely politicizing, or categorizing something which is a negative - do we have a group of people who don't believe in Jonathan Ben-Israel as the supreme deity? Should we call them Abenisraelists? The whole notion is supported by your incessant desire to use an ad hominem in your evangelicalized preaching of atheism.

I have friends who come from predominantly atheist countries - China, for instance, where something like a creation story has never been taken as belief (it is not part of the original dogma) and belief in superior beings has been out of fashion for a long time. Likewise, absolute morality is not inherent in the cultural composition, so that literature, and art stresses the individual's role in deciding the benevolent moral decision, rather than acting in accordance with the great scheme.

Are those people atheists? They simply just go about their every day business, and maintain traditional and progressive views like everyone - they have no need to preach and define themselves, or state exactly what their beliefs are, or read crappy literature that preaches, or put a personal argument in a serious discussion.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity, especially in its first 1000 years did far more to help people than Atheism ever has. The dogma of Vatican two is far more progressive than any serious movement that has come out of the "Atheist movement" or the "actual atheism" as you term it.

I have no problem with beliefs, but in the end, I see what church groups do for their communities (not all church groups of course) and I hear a bunch of loud annoying brats on the internet preaching their self-superior nonsense.

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant. What is irrelevant is how well you treat the people around you, and how well one contributes to the society they are in. If someone was an Atheist or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as they don't go around preaching how much truer their nonsense is, and actually do things for those around them.

All you do is cheapen nonbelieving to suit your own political agenda, and quite frankly, the manner in which you carry it out is insulting to both those with religious affiliation, and those of us, like me, without it, who don't want to be grouped together with hateful preachers.


Simply put, the flaw with your reasoning is its hypocrisy - you define atheism as a state of consciousness - by necessity then you are promoting a movement, rather than a non-belief - you are believing in your standpoint, as apposed to not considering the question. The same way evolution is taken as a doctrine in opposition to creationism, as apposed to a simple scientific principle, like gravity, without any real political affiliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

They can't say "well, how do you KNOW that there's no such thing as god(s)? You have faith in your own ideology, you hypocrite!" because the response to any theological question will only be "it just doesn't matter." Conversation cut short. Everyone that I've argued against didn't have a practiced route to follow from there to try to convert me. Then you can go back to arguing about why organized religion is socially, morally and economically damaging without anyone turning it around on you and telling you that atheism is just as faith-based as Christianity to try to shut you up. Plus, there's no more theological blah blah blah that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yep: as a debater, good ol’ apathy's worked pretty well for me so far.

*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist. Arguing against organized religion, however: now that is a worthy cause, and I really think that it's do-able.

---

Finally, someone who shares my own views - about time people take a stand against isms that are so tediously annoying. Though I have to say, the wonders religious groups do for community welfare, especially historically is very persuasive in that we need to get a different sort of progress toward a non-ideologically-affiliated sense of community - nationalism in this world has proven to be a thing of the past, political ideology has begun to start to shrink, really now we need something to replace it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

Unsurprisingly, The Atheist, is correct on what the term atheist means. This is a list of how I understand atheist terms:
atheist-I do not believe in God
"strong" atheist-God does not exist.(obviously fallacious, and it is unfortunate that this is how most people view atheists)
"weak" atheist- I have not been given enough evidence to believe in God

Also, agnostic has nothing to do with belief. Just knowledge.
Agnostic, is thinking that knowledge of God is unattainable, or it does not exist. So, you must either be agnostic atheist (me) or agnostic theist.
Then there are all sorts of cool, but obscure terms, like ignostic, that I won't bore you with.

---

Bravo!

Correct in every respect!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

.... simply not believing in something does not make you atheist....

---

Please read the thread and at least make an effort to understand why you are wrong.

Atheism is not the strawman you create in the balance of your post, but I'll give it 8/10 for humour.

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

They're different and, actually, incompatible.

Take 'similar'. To a mathematician, 'similar' means 'identical to'. To an everyday user of English it means 'quite like, but not identical to'.

Those two uses of the same word are actually close to being opposites. But mathematicians have learned to live with it.

And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

These usages co-exist. And I agree that in a discussion like this, we need to agree which meaning we're all assuming.

But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

---

Yes, but what we also have is an emotive term.

Importantly, the emotion surrounding the word all comes from the non-atheist, vast majority of the population. I don't know a single atheist who's passionate about atheism, as I likewise know nobody who is passionate about their a-philately.

The emotive usage of atheism equating "there is no god" is a simple ploy which is shared by the religious right,and militant agnosticism.

Militant agnosticism - now there's an oxymoron for you - and it's probably why I am deeply suspicious of people who claim to be agnostic yet get vehemently opposed to atheism, but it exists. There is a good example in this thread.

My question for those who oppose atheism as a concept, and continue to promote personal agendas at the expense of reality is:

Do the anti-atheists attack fundamental religion with the same vehemence they attack atheism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

---

The word "theory" is a better example, because the psychiatric use of "paranoid" is very specific and in a very limited group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

---

But that's identical to what I've been saying.

An atheist, is someone who doesn't believe in god! From any side of the fence.

:banana:

The problem, as I've been saying since post #1, is the option and accusation screamed at atheism by both theists and miltant agnostics is that atheism is saying "there is no god!" which is completely different from what you and I have now agreed is the meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

---

Oh, I have no doubt on that score, mate!

Threads like this are a great metaphor for life; if I am unable to convince people of the simplest, most-easily provable, cast-iron fact that the OP is correct, then it pretty much shows why positions of doubt and question - atheism and scepticism - are useful tools.

Still, the facts are there for those who choose to find them.

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

Quote:

---

belief in the fact that god doesn't exist

---

I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

Quote:

---

absolute morality is not inherent in the cultural composition

---

So?

Quote:

---

Are those people atheists?

---

Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

Quote:

---

As far as I am concerned, Christianity, especially in its first 1000 years did far more to help people than Atheism ever has. The dogma of Vatican two is far more progressive than any serious movement that has come out of the "Atheist movement" or the "actual atheism" as you term it.

---

That's nice. I'd say that it did more harm as well. But the two aren't really comparable. People will do things in the name of Christ, but not in the name of Hitchens:p.The point is that good done by Christians can be attributed to the Church, as opposed to that individual Christian. Atheists do not have a unified center, or movement.. So any good done by an atheist, is just done by that atheist and not one of them will claim to have done it in the name of atheism. You have really got to get rid of this comparison, the two are nowhere near the same.
Actually, I have come up with a wonderful idea! We should all band together and buy an enormous chalkboard. And anytime an atheist, irreligous person, or anyone who even has any doubts about religion does something good, we chalk it up to our organization!

Quote:

---

hear a bunch of loud annoying brats on the internet preaching their self-superior nonsense.

---

I'm sorry that you have had poor experience with atheists.

Quote:

---

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant.

---

Progressive? Yes. True? No, just probable. Moral? Eh, as much as any group of people. Now as to charity, once again I'm sorry that your interactions with atheists have been negative. But I assure you that we do help and contribute. I personally volunteer at a hospital and donate blood on a regular basis. I might consider giving money once I start making more than minimum wage.:D I know other atheists that do the same things, even some that work abroad in programs like Peace Corps.

Quote:

---

Finally, someone who shares my own views - about time people take a stand against isms that are so tediously annoying.

---

Actually, it seems to me that he is just taking a more diplomatic and effective standpoint in regards to debating in an attempt to get results. It's also very Buddhist, in that it regards the metaphysical as unimportant. I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted you, Juniper Woolf.

Quote:

---

nationalism in this world has proven to be a thing of the past, political ideology has begun to start to shrink, really now we need something to replace it.

---

Nationalism? You have clearly never been to an international soccer match. I'm a little confused as to the political ideology portion of your post. Has the number of ideologies shrunk, or has the belief in them shrunk?

Quote:

---

Atheism is not the strawman you create in the balance of your post, but I'll give it 8/10 for humour.

---

I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

---

:lol:

Respect for opinions? Are you mad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

---

And you're still right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

---

That's the disappointing part - is is so damned simple, and you have succinctly noted twice, the meaning has been that way for thousands of years: without god/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

---

:D

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

---

Yeah - take Saul of Tarsus. Complete change of mind; no change of approach.

Quote:

---

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

---

I agree with this. Just so long as either group's image isn't defined by the evangelicals or even the passive portion. Both have positive and negative sides to them.

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

---

Doubtless it is, but I have to confess that as an addition to either side of the argument, it leaves a certain amount to be desire, such as lucidity, understandability, and a few other -ilities. :brickwall