Claiming to be atheist, but..

[jajdude]

Wasn't sure if things belongs in this forum or 'religious texts' - anyway.

There's that word 'atheist' again, stirring up trouble. haha. It's not an easy claim to make. I can make the claim yet I know I'm too heavily influenced, conditioned I suppose, by my background, to be completely that. Some of my morals, if I have any, rest on that background. I can sense that at times. Sure the claim is not solid I guess.

Confusing stuff; usually don't care to talk about it much but right now I'm feeling a bit doped up, on Tylenol, believe it or not. Had a cold, took a couple of pills yesterday, one last night before passing out, and this morning have a strange mindset. Odd.

[YesNo]

Wasn't sure if things belongs in this forum or 'religious texts' - anyway.

There's that word 'atheist' again, stirring up trouble. haha. It's not an easy claim to make. I can make the claim yet I know I'm too heavily influenced, conditioned I suppose, by my background, to be completely that. Some of my morals, if I have any, rest on that background. I can sense that at times. Sure the claim is not solid I guess.

Confusing stuff; usually don't care to talk about it much but right now I'm feeling a bit doped up, on Tylenol, believe it or not. Had a cold, took a couple of pills yesterday, one last night before passing out, and this morning have a strange mindset. Odd.

I hope you're feeling better.

I don't know what theism or atheism is. Those who take a stand based on these words usually mean adhering to some religion or philosophy that they want others to accept as well. But there are so many of these philosophies and religions and they differ so much--how can one put all this diversity together into a choice between two words?

I don't think it is necessary to make the choice. Sometimes I'm an atheist. Sometimes, a theist. Sometimes, a pantheist with gods and devils and angels all over the place, a full universe of consciousness that popped space-time out of nothing filled with matter and energy that evolves churning out its delicious karma.

Who knows?

This is my guiding rule: The people who insist they have the answer that I must accept are the ones who know the least. Just my two cents worth.

Hope you feel better.

[The Atheist]

Wasn't sure if things belongs in this forum or 'religious texts' - anyway.

It's been discussed in here several times, so you're in the right place.

I'm an atheist, by the way.

There's that word 'atheist' again, stirring up trouble. haha.

Isn't that a sad admission? That saying "I don't believe your dogma" is going to upset some people.

It's not an easy claim to make. I can make the claim yet I know I'm too heavily influenced, conditioned I suppose, by my background, to be completely that. Some of my morals, if I have any, rest on that background. I can sense that at times. Sure the claim is not solid I guess.

I hope you can expand on that a little, because I'm not sure what claim you're actually making.

I hope you're feeling better.

I don't know what theism or atheism is.

I'll gladly try to assist with that.

Those who take a stand based on these words usually mean adhering to some religion or philosophy that they want others to accept as well. But there are so many of these philosophies and religions and they differ so much--how can one put all this diversity together into a choice between two words?

I see the mistake you're making, and it's one I've tried to correct on many occasions. There's even a long thread about "What atheism actually is" right here, but the main point is short enough to note again.

Atheism isn't a doctrine, a philosophy or a movement.

There is nothing to adhere to, or "get others to accept".

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god/s. That's all.

This is my guiding rule: The people who insist they have the answer that I must accept are the ones who know the least.

Given that that only applies to theists and a few anti-theists, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[JuniperWoolf]

*shrug* I think you're just feeling squirmy because of the negative public association with the word atheist. I remember feeling like that when I was fifteen-ish. Use/hear the word enough and that association goes away.

[Armel P]

I don't label myself with any -ism. I define myself by what I think without a reductive, catch-all word.

[jajdude]

I say nothing regarding it all (usually), though I know my background creeps.

Can you deny that? That bit which is there?

Who cares if there is a god anyway?

If there is, he is doing a lousy job.

[Paulclem]

I say nothing regarding it all (usually), though I know my background creeps.

Can you deny that? That bit which is there?

Who cares if there is a god anyway?

If there is, he is doing a lousy job.

Yes I think some kind of repository that stays with you can be denied. Everyone can change their ideas, and in fact it's natural to do so. Who thinks the same when they are 10, 20, 30 etc. I'm only taling about ideas and influences.

[JBI]

Meh, it's the fact that the internet took the free thinking mindset of atheism, and its rationality, and politicized it into a movement, which essentially made it just as bad as anything else.

The connotation one gets is not of someone who doesn't believe, but rather, doesn't respect, which is thanks to the violence in zeal people in society now show in preaching their atheism, this forum not exempt.

[OrphanPip]

I think that's a bit of a double standard.

The Catholic Church endorses the criminalization of homosexuality in Africa, American Evangelical Protestants were closely tied to the push for the death penalty in Uganda, and it is undeniable that religion plays a major part in the restriction of rights of gays all around the world.

Then if I say I think their ideas are stupid and disagree with them, that is somehow an equivalent amount of disrespect? I have a hard time buying that.

[JBI]

I think that's a bit of a double standard.

The Catholic Church endorses the criminalization of homosexuality in Africa, American Evangelical Protestants were closely tied to the push for the death penalty in Uganda, and it is undeniable that religion plays a major part in the restriction of rights of gays all around the world.

Then if I say I think their ideas are stupid and disagree with them, that is somehow an equivalent amount of disrespect? I have a hard time buying that.

True, but religion has also done a great deal of good in the world, and continues to be significant in creating communities and seeing people through hardship. You cannot only pick and choose the good and the bad based on a moral assertion of your own views, meanwhile claim a moral superiority. is that not what you are accusing of those religions of doing?

The real debate should have been on the possibility of belief, but it turned quickly, especially in the hands of Americans, to a debate on the good and the bad of religion, which is irrelevant for atheism - even if religion was all good, atheism still would be a logical outcome, and likewise militantness is irrelevant to the debate - even a debate is irrelevant.

If you want to "disrespect" or protest policy and specific religions, fine, but don't do it in the name of atheism, since atheism is not connected to moral decisions of individuals, it is amoral. There should not, and logically cannot, be any movements of morality based on atheist "dogma" as dogma is absent in atheism.

But no, we get the preachers who cannot leave anyone alone, and cannot let anybody enjoy being atheist without being associated with a bunch of punks and geeks who get off on hanging around forums and pretending they are somehow sophisticated since they don't believe in religion, and thereby justify this as somehow enlightened. I wouldn't want to be grouped with them either.

[OrphanPip]

True, but religion has also done a great deal of good in the world, and continues to be significant in creating communities and seeing people through hardship. You cannot only pick and choose the good and the bad based on a moral assertion of your own views, meanwhile claim a moral superiority. is that not what you are accusing of those religions of doing?

More that I'm attacking them for having a general disrespect for the dignity of human life, and a danger to myself personally. It's not picking or choosing, the wrong is independent of the good. You don't get to kick the homeless for personal enjoyment just because you volunteer at a soup kitchen on Tuesdays.

The real debate should have been on the possibility of belief, but it turned quickly, especially in the hands of Americans, to a debate on the good and the bad of religion, which is irrelevant for atheism - even if religion was all good, atheism still would be a logical outcome, and likewise militantness is irrelevant to the debate - even a debate is irrelevant.

Certainly, but I'm defending anti-theism and anti-religiosity, which is not the same as atheism but connected. If religion were entirely benign, then there would be no reason to comment on it at all. It would be as pointless to discuss as whether or not one believes in aliens.

If you want to "disrespect" or protest policy and specific religions, fine, but don't do it in the name of atheism, since atheism is not connected to moral decisions of individuals, it is amoral. There should not, and logically cannot, be any movements of morality based on atheist "dogma" as dogma is absent in atheism.

However, if one takes a stance of anti-religiosity as an atheist, one gets accused of dogmatic atheism. Moreover, the morality of religious institutions is indeed a relevant critique if one takes the position that religion is a source of moral truth. Showing contradictions between conventional morality, or rather the moral opinions of a targeted audience, and the morality of religious institutions is a valid means of attacking that single religious institution. The best approach is not always to attack the concept of theism as a blanket concept. I care less if someone believes in a Spinozan God, the illiberal nature of organized religion is more socially relevant and thus will always draw more debate.

I have numerous reasons to associate myself with atheism. A scientific education and philosophical inclination towards materialism makes the concept of theism nonsensical to me. On the other hand, I've had friends personally hurt by religious dogma, I have been personally attacked for reasons of religious dogma, and I don't exactly have to look far to find religious groups harming people just like me.

What do you consider the alternative to criticizing religion? Allowing it to go on being oppressive? It's a no win situation, either you're being a dogmatic closeminded militant atheist by daring to criticize the institution of religion, or you have to keep your mouth shut and let them do their thing.

[Armel P]

I agree with Pip. (not feeling very wordy right now.)

[The Atheist]

Meh, it's the fact that the internet took the free thinking mindset of atheism, and its rationality, and politicized it into a movement, which essentially made it just as bad as anything else.

Utter nonsense.

Atheism was a movement long before computers were invented, let alone the internet.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself with some atheists from earlier days. Start with Bertrand Russell and work backwards.

The connotation one gets is not of someone who doesn't believe, but rather, doesn't respect, which is thanks to the violence in zeal people in society now show in preaching their atheism, this forum not exempt.

Respect is earned, not granted by right, and when religions become respectable, they will doubtless get the respect they have earned.

Prior to that happening, it will need a complete change in the doctrine that is presently trying to enforce teaching of creationism in schools.


I am continually disgusted by the attemped higher moral ground your anti-atheist polemic seems to have you striving for. You are always very keen to respect religion but not those who oppose teaching of archaic superstition to kids.

The sad part is, I suspect you'd be one of the first people complaining if atheists laid down and let religion have their way.

Then again, maybe you'd be happy with anti-gay discrimiation being legalised and the raft of "moral laws" religious groups would institute were they given the opportunity.

[Drkshadow03]

Utter nonsense.

Atheism was a movement long before computers were invented, let alone the internet.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself with some atheists from earlier days. Start with Bertrand Russell and work backwards.



Respect is earned, not granted by right, and when religions become respectable, they will doubtless get the respect they have earned.

Prior to that happening, it will need a complete change in the doctrine that is presently trying to enforce teaching of creationism in schools.


I am continually disgusted by the attemped higher moral ground your anti-atheist polemic seems to have you striving for. You are always very keen to respect religion but not those who oppose teaching of archaic superstition to kids.

The sad part is, I suspect you'd be one of the first people complaining if atheists laid down and let religion have their way.

Then again, maybe you'd be happy with anti-gay discrimiation being legalised and the raft of "moral laws" religious groups would institute were they given the opportunity.

And yes, clearly ONLY atheists are standing as the bulwark against gays losing all their rights and Creationism being taught in schools.

No liberal religious practitioners, cultural Jews (who still have adherence to some of their religious practices, even if agnostic about God), pagans, or spiritual people would ever be found among the ranks of people who oppose such things.

Also, I'm dying to know how "atheism was a movement long before computers were invented" when you previously just told us "Atheism isn't a doctrine, a philosophy or a movement."

[OrphanPip]

And yes, clearly ONLY atheists are standing as the bulwark against gays losing all their rights and Creationism being taught in schools.

Actually atheist and secularist have been at the bulwark of protecting those rights since the early days. When the Napoleonic Code was drafted it outlawed "crimes created by superstition," making France the first modern European nation to decriminalize homosexuality. Socialist groups have equally been heavily involved with the fight for gay rights in the early 20th century, and into the 50s and 60s.

Certainly there are religious people today who support these things, but they are a new breed that has grown out of the 60s New Left and increasing liberalism.

No liberal religious practitioners, cultural Jews (who still have adherence to some of their religious practices, even if agnostic about God), pagans, or spiritual people would ever be found among the ranks of people who oppose such things.

Like I said, when religion is benign it won't be worth discussing. It is impossible to attack the thought behind such beliefs without also attacking some of the thoughts and beliefs of those who are more moderate.

Edit: And let's think of what Liberal readings of religious text really mean. The implication is that the text really should be the source of where my rights as a human being comes from. Should I be happy that they think I'm OK by their book? Gee thanks. Stooping to that kind of debate makes a mockery of human dignity.