Atheists....

[JGL57]

Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

[Redzeppelin]

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Freud. The only person who really has no argument is the person who professes to know the content of someone else's heart and mind - which is precisely what you claim. You know neither, and your claim that you do is beyond absurd.

[Logos]

Mod note to all:

Please stop with the

'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours' posts.

Stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...

[Redzeppelin]

OK, I'll play nice.

[JGL57]

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?...

So, back to the OP:

The word atheist, like the word asatanist, is not a very informative word, intrinsically. One is stating what one does not believe (in), not what one does think is true. One does not believe in Satan - or a god - so now what? What does one positively believe about the nature of reality?

Technically, there can be as many personal philosophies as there are atheists. However, the word atheist is used by many as a synonym for one who assumes a naturalist, materialist, or rationalist world view. It has come to mean, then, looking at the negative side, that an atheist does not believe in the reality of so-called supernatural or paranormal claims. E.g., an atheist is generally not thought of *** someone who could be a deist, a pantheist, a believer in astrology, homeopathy, or believe in the reality of any entity, force, power,or "energy" or what have you that cannot be understood in scientific rationalist terminology.

This would describe me, for instance. However, it has come to my attention over the last 30 years (the time I have considered myself an atheist) that atheists can indeed believe in various crazy and/or unhealthy ideas. E.g., Marxism, Ayn Rand Objectavism, nihilism, escapist hedonism, anarchism, etc. Also, I have met atheists who were narcissistic - in the clinical sense of the word.

So, my view now is that being an atheist is a healthy start, but a person may still have a long way to go. Putting aside the socialist politics, which is a huge can of worms, I think the Humanist Manifesto II is a good philosophy of life. Albert Einstein, although thought to be a "mystic" by many, qualifies enough as an atheist for me to see him as a fellow atheist - certainly he was a non-theist. Einstein articulated a great many good precepts that could form the basis of a decent and rational lifestyle.

Which brings me to two final considerations - agnosticism and Buddhism.

This can be argued endlessly by those who wish to split hairs, but an agnostic is certainly not a believer in things that go bump in the night. The word was invented by Huxley to mean a person who does not claim certainty but who still rejects unsubstantiated claims, with the burden forever being on those making such unsubstantiated claims (e.g., Huxley rejected all second-hand revelations as being unsubstantiated).

So agnostic = non-absolutist atheist in my view (agnostics, if you wish to argue this start another thread rather than hijack this one - thanks).

Thus, agnostics such as Ingersoll, Russell, Huxley, Sagan, and many others have articulated a view of life that is rational, ethically uplifting, meaningful, productive of happiness and contentment, and all the other wonderful things in life that I could mention. Such people have articulated "something to believe in" that seems adequate to me and, really, the best we can do. So-called religious "faith" seems to work quite well for some - not so well for others. But that is someone else's ball game.

Now, to Buddhism - many westerners (Occidentals) have articulated a Buddhism that is agnostic in nature and is completely understandable, pragmatic, and morally uplifting. Esoteric Buddhism, not to mention Taoism and Hinduism, are non-supernaturalist in nature, and all can be informative to a sane, rational, moral, and happy life (really, reincarnation and karma belief are optional).

So, in a nutshell, atheists are radical individualists for the most part. They can disagree on the best positive philosophy in many ways. So, grouping them together and putting them in a box and thinking you now understand them, makes about as much sense and is as useful as grouping together things that are purple i.e., the commonality is overwhelmed by the variables.

[bluevictim]

That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion

I pretty much agree here, except I would add that it also "works" with people who are willing to change their beliefs to those of that religion.

One thing I was trying to point out was that, to someone who believes in that particular religion, this is all that is necessary. He has enough logical structure to prove to himself that he is right, and to prove to his fellow believers that he is right. Since he really believes that his religion is true, he doesn't need to be bothered by the fact that others reject it (he simply concludes that they are wrong).

[RobinHood3000]

2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.

Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

[Logos]

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...

OK, I'll play nice.

Thanks you guys

[Redzeppelin]

Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

You are quite correct: religious systems are mutually exclusive because they all claim to have the truth. Scientific subdivisions complement each other - I get that. But, I think some of the branches of science may be easier to validate factually and provide evidence for than others (which must, by necessity, be more theoretical) - which was the point I was trying to make (but obviously not very clearly).

Good to see you back, Robin. I'd noticed your absence on the forums

[RobinHood3000]

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

[Dorian Gray]

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

[JGL57]

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

Thanks, my friend, for proving my point. Atheism actually referred to non-belief in theism - nothing more, nothing less. The word has come to mean a lot more because of all the historical baggage, but I think we should just stick to the etymological definition to avoid confusion.

[Redzeppelin]

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

The Sad Cafe does not use microwaves - it's harder to appear tragic and tortured ("in the middle of the tall drinks and the drama") if your coffee is hot and piping.

[RobinHood3000]

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf.