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

[sixsmith]

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.

[Paulclem]

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

[The Atheist]

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?

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:

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!

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.

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!

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.



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.

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!

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! ) 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!!!

[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.
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.

[Lokasenna]

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.

[dafydd manton]

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!

[Paulclem]

You can't be a 10!

The belief index only goes to 7.

Ah. Did I miss it? 7 then.

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[Lokasenna]

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.

[MarkBastable]

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.

[sixsmith]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[JBI]

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.

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.

[The Atheist]

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!

.... 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.