Claiming to be atheist, but..

[The Atheist]

I think I get and others get annoyed when atheists present this solely as their issue, which it isn't. It's an issue for anyone who wants a decent education, religious or otherwise.

I am a very frequent admirer of the work done by [Archbishop] Rowan Williams and other Anglican bishops in fighting fundamentalism, but I'll glaldy acknowledge any other groups that are involved as well.

Dawkins himself stumbled on this predicament when asked about the amorality of some non-religious historical persons, to which he replied "it wasn't in the name of their atheism that they committed those crimes." I would take that question a step further and ask, "why then should atheism be mentioned at all within the context of morality, if not only to say that the rules of religious morality do not apply?" how can he, in short, advocate atheism, while accusing religions of advocating evil moral judgments and policies - is he not being a complete hypocrite?

Brilliant!

The question you ask has no bearing at all on Dawkins' statement - bolded. None. Not a smidgen. You don't take it a step further, you ask a nonsensical question for which you have pre-determined an answer, making Dawkins a hypocrite.

Tip: he isn't.

The answer to your question is even simpler: Why should atheists care about morality?

Some do, some don't, but it's pretty obvious to even the most beginning intellectual atheist that if our morality is based on texts which are complete cobblers - then what do you do if you throw that morality out?

See, atheists do that kind of thing, because many are quite rational and accept that in the real world, without the threat of hellfire and damnation and a moral guidebook to work by, the world would descend into anarchy pretty quickly - I'm very pleased Pip already brought up the French Revolution!

The more thoughtful kind of atheist - no doubt somewhat ironically from your perspective - are generally the more militant kind. They do actually realise that a world without cops, courts and laws would be a fairly unpleasant place, and accordingly apply their minds to the questions.

Since you hadn't noticed, this debate - which is at least 3000 years old - has not managed to come up with one set of moral guidelines!

Amazing, huh?

Some of the greatest brains that ever lived have tussled with just that question and not one of them has been able to solve it. These atheists continue debating it even today and so far, there isn't even a consensus on what forms a consensus, let alone a consensus on morality.

Your perspective on atheism and morality is fatally flawed.

In all of your anti-atheism posts, you still remain to present a single real-world case of this fundamental atheism you rail against.

Completely made up.

[The Atheist]

More to the point...

The nature of science is to question. Science attempts to disprove theories. If a person believes religious theory is above criticism, that person is anti-science.

Sadly, that's an attraction for many people.

[Varenne Rodin]

Sadly, that's an attraction for many people.

Happily, you are not one of those people. You say some pretty impressive stuff.

[JBI]

I am a very frequent admirer of the work done by [Archbishop] Rowan Williams and other Anglican bishops in fighting fundamentalism, but I'll glaldy acknowledge any other groups that are involved as well.





Brilliant!

The question you ask has no bearing at all on Dawkins' statement - bolded. None. Not a smidgen. You don't take it a step further, you ask a nonsensical question for which you have pre-determined an answer, making Dawkins a hypocrite.

Tip: he isn't.

The answer to your question is even simpler: Why should atheists care about morality?

Some do, some don't, but it's pretty obvious to even the most beginning intellectual atheist that if our morality is based on texts which are complete cobblers - then what do you do if you throw that morality out?

See, atheists do that kind of thing, because many are quite rational and accept that in the real world, without the threat of hellfire and damnation and a moral guidebook to work by, the world would descend into anarchy pretty quickly - I'm very pleased Pip already brought up the French Revolution!

The more thoughtful kind of atheist - no doubt somewhat ironically from your perspective - are generally the more militant kind. They do actually realise that a world without cops, courts and laws would be a fairly unpleasant place, and accordingly apply their minds to the questions.

Since you hadn't noticed, this debate - which is at least 3000 years old - has not managed to come up with one set of moral guidelines!

Amazing, huh?

Some of the greatest brains that ever lived have tussled with just that question and not one of them has been able to solve it. These atheists continue debating it even today and so far, there isn't even a consensus on what forms a consensus, let alone a consensus on morality.

Your perspective on atheism and morality is fatally flawed.

In all of your anti-atheism posts, you still remain to present a single real-world case of this fundamental atheism you rail against.

Completely made up.

It's a simple question of advocation, which you do not understand. You self label yourself as The Atheist (the being a definite article, and in this context, an affirmation) and don't realize that you by doing so have taken a stand. Someone who does not believe in a deity need not concern themselves even with the notion of atheism, as atheism in itself stems from an understanding of the world within a dialectic question (atheism would be the anti-thesis to theism) but really non-believe predates belief. I do not believe in God, I just don't think people who pontificate with such a zealous anti-theism public should act as if they are somehow morally higher because of their lack of belief. Simply put, not believing in a deity in itself signifies nothing about the morality of character, and believing in God does not particularly either.

You seem to be a completely intolerant person of any perspective except your affirmation of you being right, and one must wonder, what would you be without those that believe? The Nothing? Even if you are right, what does it represent? I say this, if you don't believe, who cares? Why should I care that you are the atheist, why should you feel it is necessary to tell me? For all I know you are a big *** in your private life, and are just making up for the insignificances of being annoying by posting on a forum and acting like you are somehow smarter than people who came not to debate religion but to talk a little about literature, and enjoy friendly discussion - but for all I know you are also a saint - either way, how I judge you is based on my own subjective criteria, as is your judgement - there is no objective morality, and even if someone believes in God, it aught not to be of any concern. Simply put, it is your convictions against theirs, you are just as dogma-driven as anyone else.

That being said, I have moral preoccupations, and try to be a good person. I however don't see the need to preach it, nor do I see the need to advertise it, and call myself "The Do-Gooder(according to me)". I don't need to tell people they are wrong, since, if they are, am I even right? And what does it matter?

[Varenne Rodin]

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." - Malcolm X

Someone who claims to be atheist, and bashes people with atheist views on a message board thread about atheism, is either a self-hater, or a dishonest theist. Whatever the case, it is obvious which posters are speaking out from a place of bitterness and negativity. I hope theists can peacefully come to terms with large numbers of people staying off of their bandwagons.

[Varenne Rodin]

It's a simple question of advocation, which you do not understand. You self label yourself as The Atheist (the being a definite article, and in this context, an affirmation) and don't realize that you by doing so have taken a stand. Someone who does not believe in a deity need not concern themselves even with the notion of atheism, as atheism in itself stems from an understanding of the world within a dialectic question (atheism would be the anti-thesis to theism) but really non-believe predates belief. I do not believe in God, I just don't think people who pontificate with such a zealous anti-theism public should act as if they are somehow morally higher because of their lack of belief. Simply put, not believing in a deity in itself signifies nothing about the morality of character, and believing in God does not particularly either.

You seem to be a completely intolerant person of any perspective except your affirmation of you being right, and one must wonder, what would you be without those that believe? The Nothing? Even if you are right, what does it represent? I say this, if you don't believe, who cares? Why should I care that you are the atheist, why should you feel it is necessary to tell me? For all I know you are a big *** in your private life, and are just making up for the insignificances of being annoying by posting on a forum and acting like you are somehow smarter than people who came not to debate religion but to talk a little about literature, and enjoy friendly discussion - but for all I know you are also a saint - either way, how I judge you is based on my own subjective criteria, as is your judgement - there is no objective morality, and even if someone believes in God, it aught not to be of any concern. Simply put, it is your convictions against theirs, you are just as dogma-driven as anyone else.

That being said, I have moral preoccupations, and try to be a good person. I however don't see the need to preach it, nor do I see the need to advertise it, and call myself "The Do-Gooder(according to me)". I don't need to tell people they are wrong, since, if they are, am I even right? And what does it matter?

If you don't want people to talk about this, why are you talking about it? If you dislike theist/atheist debate, why are you here debating it? You seem to be opposed to people posting their views on message boards. Advice? Get over that and have fun talking with people on message boards, or try your hardest to get them shut down (good luck with that), or excuse yourself from activities you despise. I don't know if it's clear, but no one else is making personal attacks. Best wishes in resolving your conflicts.

[Dodo25]

The word 'atheist' is misleading because it's defined by a negative: 'not believing in god(s)'. We hardly ever need such words. There's no word for 'not a racist' or 'not a stamp collector' or 'someone who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy'. By its very definition, 'atheist' has a hostile connotation because it singles something out as worthy of coining a word 'against' it. And because people who rationally argue against their views are a great threat to religious people, the word has acquired an even more negative connotation. Scientificially and historically illitarate theists have ranted again and again about the 'amorality' of atheism, and have started the moronic comparison of atheism and Stalinism, or come up with the stupid claim 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist'.

This could have been predicted. The awkward labelling makes it easy for religious people to attack the philosophical point being made -- altough their attacks ultimately rest on a willful (or something else which I'm not writing here because it could be interpreted as being offensive) misunderstanding of the definition 'atheist'.

So it has to be stressed again and again: If someone doesn't think a god exists, he's an atheist. AND THAT'S IT, END OF THE STORY.

If someone thinks the question fundamentally can't be answered, he's an agnostic, and consequently also a relativist (because if God existed, it should in theory be able to find evidence for that; whoever denies that doesn't believe in objectivity and thus seems to be a postmodernist. Those are usually the ones saying 'why bother, no one can know anything, and the ones who claim to know things know the least, yeah ignorance rules!' Not a very wise position if you ask me, and definitely not a productive one.).

There's also a second generally accepted definition of agnosticism: Someone who just isn't sure, at all. Atheists don't have to be 'sure' either(!), so there's a fine line. Yet if you think god might very well exist, but you don't really BELIEVE it, but you still KINDA believe it, then that would qualify as 'agnostic' (though in a different non-relativistic sense).

So in short, agnosticism means either 'the answer is fundamentally unknowable' or 'I don't feel confident even making an educated guess about it'.

As soon as the 'educated guess' leans towards there being no god, this person turns into an atheist.

Some people might not want to label themselves as 'atheists' (because the word really is a bit awkward), but by definition, that's what they are. (Get over it.)

Regarding militant atheism and 'morality', most public atheist speakers not only advocate atheism, but also, in support, secular humanism and philosophy. Those frameworks DO provide values and morality (from a secular basis).

Something somewhat unrelated:

Since you hadn't noticed, this debate - which is at least 3000 years old - has not managed to come up with one set of moral guidelines!

Amazing, huh?

Some of the greatest brains that ever lived have tussled with just that question and not one of them has been able to solve it. These atheists continue debating it even today and so far, there isn't even a consensus on what forms a consensus, let alone a consensus on morality.

This isn't quite true. (Preference) utilitarianism has gained a lot of support recently and is now regarded by many philosophers as the ethical theory. Its flawlessly consistent, and the basic axioms are of a sort you can't sensibly disagree with. The standard objections to utilitarianism are almost as misguided as the standard objections to atheism. Some philosophers will never understand that, but as long as the arguments for utilitarianism crush any argument against it, who really needs an overall 'consensus'?

[Armel P]

So in short, agnosticism means either 'the answer is fundamentally unknowable' or 'I don't feel confident even making an educated guess about it'.

As someone who, before eliminating a label altogether, considered himself an agnostic, I'd say that's true though only as consequence of the logical principles that actually define it.

The extension of the logic presented by Huxley is essentially the logic behind the scientific method. The important element behind agnosticism is the principle of how to discover what is probably true and merely concerning oneself with that information rather than concerning oneself with that which falls outside of the logical method of discovery. It then becomes a position that takes an issue with belief rather than stating disbelief. This is important so that it does not get misinterpretted as "fence-sitting."

It is my contention that todays atheists are actually agnostics because denial of the existence of God has become more of a rhetorical reaction rather than an actual statement of belief. In the God Delusion, Dawkins referred to a scale of belief from 1 - 10, 1 being the most pious and 10 being the most atheistic. He placed himself at 9.9999, etc. I think that's what agnosticism is. At some point in time in history, atheists were probably unafraid to place themselves at a 10. However, as people have become more versed in the logic involved in characterizing the nature of the universe, they have understood that a 10 is indefensible.

[Dodo25]

It is my contention that todays atheists are actually agnostics because denial of the existence of God has become more of a rhetorical reaction rather than an actual statement of belief. In the God Delusion, Dawkins referred to a scale of belief from 1 - 10, 1 being the most pious and 10 being the most atheistic. He placed himself at 9.9999, etc. I think that's what agnosticism is. At some point in time in history, atheists were probably unafraid to place themselves at a 10. However, as people have become more versed in the logic involved in characterizing the nature of the universe, they have understood that a 10 is indefensible.

True, but IMO only about the adjective 'agnostic'. In a sense every atheist who's open-minded enough to consider even the slightest possibility of being wrong is technically an 'agnostic atheist', simply paying tribute to the fact that proving a negative is logically impossible. By the same token, we'd all be 'agnostic' about tooth faries, Narnia in the wardrobe, or leprechauns. But used this way, 'agnostic' is merely an adjective qualifying the non-dogmatic nature of disbelief. That's different from the nouns 'Agnosticism' or 'agnostic' (as in 'he's an agnostic'), which are actually labels for a position regarding the existence of god.

Thanks for pointing out this aspect, I hope it didn't make things even more complicated though.. Semantics can be really annoying.

[Armel P]

True, but IMO only about the adjective 'agnostic'. In a sense every atheist who's open-minded enough to consider even the slightest possibility of being wrong is technically an 'agnostic atheist', simply paying tribute to the fact that proving a negative is logically impossible. By the same token, we'd all be 'agnostic' about tooth faries, Narnia in the wardrobe, or leprechauns. But used this way, 'agnostic' is merely an adjective qualifying the non-dogmatic nature of disbelief. That's different from the nouns 'Agnosticism' or 'agnostic' (as in 'he's an agnostic'), which are actually labels for a position regarding the existence of god.

Thanks for pointing out this aspect, I hope it didn't make things even more complicated though.. Semantics can be really annoying.

Yes, but your are referring to very recent manupulations of the terms. "Agnostic atheist" is a virtually meaningless idea in that it is an unnecessary distinction. People who label themselves as atheists necessarily accept the principles of agnosticism whether or not they are informed about agnosticism and whether or not they state the principles explicitly. For me "every atheist who's open-minded enough to consider even the slightest possibility of being wrong" is an agnostic. It's up to them to acknowledge this even if they are unsatisfied with the lack of rhetoric associated with agnosticism as a label. Stating that we are agnostic about fairies etc. is a derivative use that isn't really related to the fact that people who are advocates of atheism, particularly in a post-agnosticism era, base their world view on ideas represented fully under the label of agnosticism.

(This is part of the reason why I don't care to label myself anymore. I find it more satisfying to describe myself as placing my confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method.)

[Dodo25]

I see your point, but I think it makes sense to distinguish between the following two positions though:

1) Someone who isn't confident enough to even make an educated guess on the issue

2) Someone to whom the existence of God is about as unreasonable as the existence of pink, flying unicorns

According to your definition, both represent Agnosticism. If it were suddenly universally accepted that atheism is a subcategory of agnosticism, I'd be happy too. The problem's just that some theists as well as agnostics accuse atheists of being dogmatic and 'having faith in the non-existence of God'. And in theory, it's possible to be a 'dogmatic/gnostic atheist', though this hardly ever happens.

Oh well, let's drop this. We agree on the actual parameters, the rest is just semantics. I'm more and more convinced that labelling people 'atheist' was a very bad strategy to begin with.

"I find it more satisfying to describe myself as placing my confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method."

-- Good point, I should start doing that too.

[Armel P]

Well, it was nice to briefly revisit the topic so thanks for that.

[The Atheist]

It's a simple question of advocation, which you do not understand. You self label yourself as The Atheist (the being a definite article, and in this context, an affirmation) and don't realize that you by doing so have taken a stand.

Fallacy upon fallacy.

I do know what I'm advocating, and my name, complete with the definite article was chosen very deliberately to make a statement and a stand. That's a stand by me personally, nothing to do with "atheism", or any other atheist.

Someone who does not believe in a deity need not concern themselves even with the notion of atheism, as atheism in itself stems from an understanding of the world within a dialectic question (atheism would be the anti-thesis to theism) but really non-believe predates belief.

Nonsense.

Atheism means what it has always meant and it's quite simple:

"a" without + "theism" belief in god/s.

I do not believe in God, I just don't think people who pontificate with such a zealous anti-theism public should act as if they are somehow morally higher because of their lack of belief.

Which people are these? I repeat that I have repeatedly asked you to identify these mythical anti-theists you're railing against, but I have yet to see evidence of them. I actually know a couple of strong anti-theists, but they generally keep it pretty quiet.

Where are these zealous anti-theists?

Simply put, not believing in a deity in itself signifies nothing about the morality of character, and believing in God does not particularly either.

Very good, we found something to agree on at least.

I have been labouring that very point.

The rest of your post appears to be no more than personal observations about me, and therefore irrelevant.

You seem to be opposed to people posting their views on message boards.

That's the strangest part. It appears that atheists shouldn't enter religious debates, but it's ok for non-theistic non-atheists to enter debates on atheism.

[The Atheist]

This isn't quite true. (Preference) utilitarianism has gained a lot of support recently and is now regarded by many philosophers as the ethical theory. Its flawlessly consistent, and the basic axioms are of a sort you can't sensibly disagree with. The standard objections to utilitarianism are almost as misguided as the standard objections to atheism. Some philosophers will never understand that, but as long as the arguments for utilitarianism crush any argument against it, who really needs an overall 'consensus'?

No, you're putting the cart well before the horse here, because utilitarianism pre-supposes that value to a species, group or individual is somehow moral. Not to mention who decides what is "desirable".

It'll make a good subject for discussion elsewhere if you want to start a thread, but a bunch of philosophers agreeing on it being cool isn't anything like consensus.

[JBI]

If you don't want people to talk about this, why are you talking about it? If you dislike theist/atheist debate, why are you here debating it? You seem to be opposed to people posting their views on message boards. Advice? Get over that and have fun talking with people on message boards, or try your hardest to get them shut down (good luck with that), or excuse yourself from activities you despise. I don't know if it's clear, but no one else is making personal attacks. Best wishes in resolving your conflicts.

I am not debating the existence of God, I told you, I do not believe in God. It is you who are forcing the debate, I never once have mentioned such a debate. I am talking about this obsession with confrontation people who call themselves atheists have, this obsession with promoting their non-belief. I didn't make any personal attacks, it is you who are making personal attacks.