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

[The Atheist]

On another thread, Drkshadow wrote:

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.

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:

"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!



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

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:

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":

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?

[L.M. The Third]

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

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[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.

[Scheherazade]

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.

[The Atheist]

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 .......

*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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[Paulclem]

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

[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.

[Paulclem]

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?

[MarkBastable]

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.

[Lokasenna]

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.