Atheisim in your own words - what should Christians know

[A Christian Sceptic]

OK -

So I got mixed responses on the thread about whether I can quote you if I write a book.

Let me give everyone a chance for their say.
Here is what I would like.

I would like to include a chapter at the end of the book where I only post exactly what you write.

Only post in this thread if you give me permission to include your post in this section of the book (if it's ever written. :) ).

Question:

What are some things you wish Christians understood about atheism?


Disclaimer: Please verify I have permission to use your post. I may or not use it - but if I do I will simply quote exactly what you wrote (spelling errors and all, but I'll correct mine. :)). Also - make sure to let me know if you want me to use your Screenname or simply quote anonymously.

[Rufo]

Do you want contributions from everyone, or only from atheists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Do you want contributions from everyone, or only from atheists?

Well - I was mainly thinking that since many posters here feared I would misquote them I'd give them a chance to say something without fear of being misquoted at all - in fact I won't even comment on their posts - merely duplicate exactly what they write.

But, of course, I would love contributions from anyone else!

[Pato2747]

Looks good. If I have time, I might make up something in the future.

[fuelair]

There is no evidence of any kind (based on reality rather than word games/philosophy) of the existence of God, a god, a group of gods, a group of non-god god substitutes, etc. None.

[thaiboxerken]

The only thing they need to know is that atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist.

That will make the book very short, but honest.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do not hold any belief in god.

That is all.

~~ Paul

[Silentknight]

Write down all the reasons why you do not believe in the gods of other religions. Chances are that many of these are the same reasons why atheists do not believe in your God.

[Hokulele]

As the earlier posters have noted, atheism to me really only means that there are no gods for which I have seen evidence, so I do not believe any such god exists. What may be of more interest to you is what I feel atheism isn’t.

To me, atheism is not a philosophy, belief structure, or framework upon which I base my ethics or other routine decisions. Atheism does not define who I am. I do not refer to my atheism when describing myself, any more than I tell people the diameter of the thickest part of my large toe. If someone is interested, I am happy to share the fact that I do not believe in any gods, but I do not make it a point of pride anywhere other than maybe certain discussions on religion. Atheism does not dictate what I eat, what I wear, the people I will or will not associate with, which politicians I will vote for, and what I choose to do in the privacy of my bedroom, kitchen, living room, or other places (hey, you gotta do something on Sunday morning ;)). Atheism does not prevent me from learning about various religions and what their adherents believe. And since the topic comes up fairly often in this forum, atheism does not require that I need evidence to support my beliefs, skepticism does.

There is much I could tell you regarding my morals, my preferences, what I do and don’t admire in other people, but none of that is determined by my atheism.

[The Atheist]

Question:

What are some things you wish Christians understood about atheism?

Bad question, and the responses so far say all there is to say:

atheism = lack of belief in deities. The end.

Feel free to ask more questions. Something a little more challenging would be ideal. "Atheism" as such, does not exist beyond the confines of that statement. Jesus, even in your short time here you must see how atheists refuse to be held under one banner.

Take this as a blanket statement to quote me anywhere, anytime, under either my screen name or my real name, Alan Charman.

[The Atheist]

To me, atheism is not a philosophy, belief structure, or framework upon which I base my ethics or other routine decisions. Atheism does not define who I am. I do not refer to my atheism when describing myself, any more than I tell people the diameter of the thickest part of my large toe. If someone is interested, I am happy to share the fact that I do not believe in any gods, but I do not make it a point of pride anywhere other than maybe certain discussions on religion. Atheism does not dictate what I eat, what I wear, the people I will or will not associate with, which politicians I will vote for, and what I choose to do in the privacy of my bedroom, kitchen, living room, or other places (hey, you gotta do something on Sunday morning ;)). Atheism does not prevent me from learning about various religions and what their adherents believe. And since the topic comes up fairly often in this forum, atheism does not require that I need evidence to support my beliefs, skepticism does.

That's good. The easiest way to describe "atheism" is to say what it's not.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Bad question, and the responses so far say all there is to say:

atheism = lack of belief in deities. The end.

Jesus, even in your short time here you must see how atheists refuse to be held under one banner.


I was thinking maybe people would want to correct any misconceptions and / or perceptions Christians may have about Atheism here.

[The Atheist]

I was thinking maybe people would want to correct any misconceptions and / or perceptions Christians may have about Atheism here.

Well, the statement about atheism being merely a lack of belief in deities does just that. Once christians accept that it has no other meaning, all of their misconceptions vanish.

Good luck teaching them!

[X]

I don't believe in God. In my case, the lack of belief is a direct result of an interest and some research in theology. I am not "angry at God", I am not "searching for meaning", I don't "hate religious people", and I don't "worship the devil".
So long as religious groups don't try to push their beliefs on others or try to "save" me, I'm content to live and let live. I am human, as are you, as are we all. My atheism does not change that relationship.

Feel free to quote me anytime, ACS.

[skullerello]

Stop me if you've heard this one...
"Quetzalcoatl, Baal and Zeus all walk into a bar..."

[GreyICE]

I wish Christians understood that they're the ones making positive claims that need to be proven, and handwaving about faith is a joke. So many of them seem to think that atheism is something you have to prove. When, in fact, its pretty much the default position (you can argue weak agnosticism is the default position - i.e. "I haven't thought about it," but that's really as far as you can go.)

I'm actually what I believe is called an agnostic atheist, since I have heard several plausible ways a God-like being (a being possessing the powers attributed to the God(s) or as close to as to make no difference) could occur. I just haven't seen any evidence that one has, so I'm pretty sure they haven't.

[Robin]

Being an atheist means that I lack a belief in God or gods, simply because I have yet to see any evidence that would lead me even to the slightest suspicion that one may exist.

I am happy to look at any evidence should it be forthcoming.

My lack of belief has nothing to do with biblical inaccuracy, or with the supposed misdeeds of religious people throughout history, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or trying to change the world for the better.

I have a friendships with people of many faiths and do not think myself superior to them because I disagree with them.

I don't want our government promoting or suppressing religion, or having anything whatsoever to do with religion apart from guaranteeing freedom of or from religion.

I would be happy for the above to be quoted and attributed to me.

[joobz]

I do not hold any belief in god.

That is all.

~~ Paul
He does not hold any belief in god.

That is Paul.

~~ Joobz

[Wolfman]

"What Christians should know"?

Christians should know that I'm a Humanist. Not just an atheist. As noted by others already, being an atheist means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that I do not believe any god exists.

Being a Humanist, on the other hand, means very specific things. To summarize:
The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:
Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
Humanism supports democracy and human rights (http://www.iheu.org/glossary/term/248). Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.
Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.If you want to say anything about "what Christians should know" about me, I'd say that the above is the most relevant and useful.

[sol invictus]

In a world without god there would still be religion. Feeling the need for reassurance, people would invent a powerful, loving paternal or maternal figure to worship.

Therefore the existence of religion is not a valid argument for its truth. But since there are an infinite number of possible beliefs about the world, there is then no longer a way to choose between them. Ergo, there is no god.

[dogjones]

I just think it's unhealthy to go around believing in things willy nilly. You end up being prey for scam artists and sales people. Getting suckered into buying an overpriced holiday is relatively minor. But buying into an entire worldview, with the corresponding loss of individuality and reason - now that's a SERIOUS ripoff. Why should I believe the proselytiser any more than the salesman? Particularly if either of their advances are unsolicited, as is so often the case? They both insult me, by judging me and finding me wanting - one in a "spiritual" sense and another in a materialistic sense. Their claims are preposterous, their motives questionable.

Of course, people can believe what they want. If people want to go and get stoned on baseless joy by clapping their hands like idiots, fine. I just wish they wouldn't involve me. But that's the problem with belief. They must share their Truth! "Why," they think, "can't more people understand the Truth?"

Their Truth is just themselves. The unknown exists. The believer projects upon the blankness his own little worldview, his own volitions, his own attitude. And voila! No more unknown - ain't it cosy. But lo! What's this? An Other who doesn't share his beliefs? Discord, uncertainty, fear! The believer feels attacked. The fanatic goes further; he reacts violently.

The atheist, on the other hand, is comfortable with uncertainty.

At least, this one is.

[jond]

As the earlier posters have noted, atheism to me really only means that there are no gods for which I have seen evidence, so I do not believe any such god exists. What may be of more interest to you is what I feel atheism isn’t.

To me, atheism is not a philosophy, belief structure, or framework upon which I base my ethics or other routine decisions. Atheism does not define who I am. I do not refer to my atheism when describing myself, any more than I tell people the diameter of the thickest part of my large toe. If someone is interested, I am happy to share the fact that I do not believe in any gods, but I do not make it a point of pride anywhere other than maybe certain discussions on religion. Atheism does not dictate what I eat, what I wear, the people I will or will not associate with, which politicians I will vote for, and what I choose to do in the privacy of my bedroom, kitchen, living room, or other places (hey, you gotta do something on Sunday morning ;)). Atheism does not prevent me from learning about various religions and what their adherents believe. And since the topic comes up fairly often in this forum, atheism does not require that I need evidence to support my beliefs, skepticism does.

There is much I could tell you regarding my morals, my preferences, what I do and don’t admire in other people, but none of that is determined by my atheism.

As usual, Hokulele says perfectly what we're all trying to say. ACS: please be sure to pay attention to this post, because it really is important to understand this. And, please be sure to point out why you don't believe in Thor, but do believe in Christ.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

What would I want Christians to know about atheism? Hmmmm ... most importantly, I would like to point out that "atheist" does not mean what many theists seem to think it means. Despite the very negative baggage usually associated with the term, it is only a lack of belief in gods.

If you want personal interpretation or application of atheism, I'll gladly tell you that, too. To this humanist, atheism means:

Living without fear of supernatural judgement and severe punishment. I'm no longer being repeatedly (and rather gleefully) informed that I am going to burn in Hell and suffer Eternal Torment for my inability to achieve true faith.Living without religious-induced guilt or shame for thinking the wrong things, not praying fervently enough, expressing doubt, or asking questions.Living without religious-induced guilt or shame concerning consensual sex or masturbation.No longer thinking that I am sinful, unclean, or subordinate by virtue of my womanhood.No longer being encouraged to revile people whom the church openly condemns -- like homosexuals, feminists, intellectuals, or non-Christians.No longer worrying about which church is the "right" one.

No more mental contortions in trying to reconcile biblical or doctrinal contradictions. No more blind dogmatic acceptance of religious absurdities.
Having a much clearer understanding about the world around me and the people in it.Having an enhanced appreciation for the world around me and the people in it.Having a humanistically moral, happy, positive life.
... and you can quote me on that! My personal realization of atheism was like waking up from a bad dream. It was like finally putting together a picture-less puzzle and having it come to life in Technicolor. It was like finding Waldo or finally seeing the matchstick in an I Spy image. It was, quite simply, the most breath-takingly liberating process I have ever experienced. Mental freedom rocks!

:)



ps. you may find my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385424&postcount=535)helpful, too.

[kedo1981]

Embracing atheism isn’t a response to having a bad experience in church

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Embracing atheism isn’t a response to having a bad experience in church

True.

Atheists aren't "just mad" at God, either.

[Moochie]

I pray to the patron saint of atheists daily.

M.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Stop me if you've heard this one...
"Quetzalcoatl, Baal and Zeus all walk into a bar..."

And they all say in turn, "Ouch. You'd think that, with us being Gods and all, the foolish plebs would clear things like that out of our way before we walk into them and get hurt".

[Beerina]

I do not hold any belief in god.

That is all.

~~ Paul

I do not hold any belief in god.

I also understand that a god who would throw people into Hell, torturing them, because they refused to believe in him without proof*, is not deserving of worship, but is, rather, a thug to be spit upon.

I find the religious person's sucking up to such a being to be contemptible. I encourage you, religious person, to join with me not just in disbelieving in god, but in finding the very concept, as portrayed by western religions, as vile and pathetic.



* Or with proof, for that matter.

[pgwenthold]

God who?

[Mister Earl]

Here's my question, as an atheist, to Christians:

Belief in a god demands that worship of that deity becomes the focus of your efforts and the main reason for your life. It is of paramount importance. Considering the level of impact this has on your life, it boggles my mind as to why you don't demand more proof. All you have to go on is a heavily modified, translated, and re-written book more than fifteen hundred years old, and the say-so of others. This isn't proof enough for me, why is it for you? If someone wanted to sell me a boat, I'd want to see it myself, or at least have proof it exists and as advertised before I gave over any monies. Why would you put more effort into checking into a small purchase than you do with your life's effort?

[Tricky]

This will probably cover some of the same ground as others have hit, but here's some things off the top of my head that are common misconceptions about atheists. I'm not saying you have these misconceptions, ACS, but we see them here time and time again.


Most atheists don't say "No god is possible". Most say "I have never seen a believable description of a god." There are exceptions of course.
Atheists are not mad at God. That would mean they were not atheists. Some atheists, however, are angry or deeply scarred by their experiences with people who believe in God. Theists would be well advised not to try to convince these wounded people that their church didn't cause their wounds.
Most people who call themselves by the word "atheist" have thought about it very deeply, or they wouldn't choose such a label. It is likely they have extensive experience with religion. It is also likely that they know the Bible better than most Christians. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are simply ignorant.
Atheists are no more likely to be immoral than theists. There is some evidence that they are less likely.
There are brilliant atheists, dim atheists, dogmatic atheists, loving atheists, sarcastic atheists, generous atheists, a***le atheists, quiet atheists, loudmouth atheists... in fact, just about every human characteristic you see in other humans, you will also find in atheists. This is a consequence of them being human. It is just as much a mistake to stereotype them as it is to stereotype theists or other groups.
Atheists understand things like love, beauty, a sense of wonder, wishing good things for another (that you may call "praying"), and being genuinely awed by the universe. They are just as likely to be creative and artistic as theists.
Atheists do not feel like they "know it all". Just the opposite. However, they don't think you know it all either.
Most atheists believe in personal responsibility and consequences for their actions.
Atheists are not, as a general rule, trying to destroy your right to believe as you wish. They merely don't want your beliefs indoctrinated onto others or codified into government.
Atheists are not all liberal. Check the politics forum if you doubt this.
Occasionally (or frequently) an atheist will say something like "God knows what he was thinking..." or "I pray that you will reconsider..." or any of a number of phrases that have religious implications. This is not an indication that they hypocritically believe in God. These are just idioms they grew up with and say without thinking about them.
Most atheists don't believe "The universe came from nothing". Most simply admit that they don't know how the universe came into being.
Some atheists don't want you to pray for them. Some don't care. Some are happy for you to. Try to find out what they want before you pray for them. It may avoid a lot of unpleasantness.
There are a whole lot of closet atheists out there, especially in the US. Because of the strong current of anti-secularism in the US, they may not reveal their position to you. For this reason, you would be wise not to assume everyone who looks like you and acts like you is a believer in god. Please do not make disparaging remarks about atheists in the mistaken belief that everybody is on your side. This is one reason why some atheists resent religion.That's enough for now. I may add more.

[Upchurch]

As an atheist, I am not closed minded. I am perfectly willing to listen to someone if they think they can prove (or even show some evidence) that their God exists.

However, being open minded does not mean:

I will accept the Bible as an authoritative source.
I will accept famous believers as an authoritative source.
I will accept anecdotal stories of personal revelation as evidence.
I will accept my own momentary emotional swings during stressful times as evidence of anything other than that I have momentary emotional swings during stressful times.
I will necessarily agree with them when they are done.


Yes, I am setting a high standard for what I will accept. That doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It does mean that I expect something to be pretty convincing before I will accept it as truth.

[Freethinker]

Christians, in particular, need to know that 2/3 of the world does not believe in their god.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

You have my permission to use this:

God is a joke, you are the punchline.

LLH

[slingblade]

Embracing atheism isn’t a response to having a bad experience in church

No, but being abused by the religious can be an impetus for examining one's lifelong beliefs and ultimately rejecting them. Especially if one was reared within a religion, from birth.

If you're happy within your religion, there's little reason to question it.

Sometimes, for some of us, it takes "bad experiences in church" to wake us up.

[This Guy]

This will probably cover some of the same ground as others have hit, but here's some things off the top of my head that are common misconceptions about atheists. I'm not saying you have these misconceptions, ACS, but we see them here time and time again.


Most atheists don't say "No god is possible". Most say "I have never seen a believable description of a god." There are exceptions of course.
Atheists are not mad at God. That would mean they were not atheists. Some atheists, however, are angry or deeply scarred by their experiences with people who believe in God. Theists would be well advised not to try to convince these wounded people that their church didn't cause their wounds.
Most people who call themselves by the word "atheist" have thought about it very deeply, or they wouldn't choose such a label. It is likely they have extensive experience with religion. It is also likely that they know the Bible better than most Christians. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are simply ignorant.
Atheists are no more likely to be immoral than theists. There is some evidence that they are less likely.
There are brilliant atheists, dim atheists, dogmatic atheists, loving atheists, sarcastic atheists, generous atheists, a***le atheists, quiet atheists, loudmouth atheists... in fact, just about every human characteristic you see in other humans, you will also find in atheists. This is a consequence of them being human. It is just as much a mistake to stereotype them as it is to stereotype theists or other groups.
Atheists understand things like love, beauty, a sense of wonder, wishing good things for another (that you may call "praying"), and being genuinely awed by the universe. They are just as likely to be creative and artistic as theists.
Atheists do not feel like they "know it all". Just the opposite. However, they don't think you know it all either.
Most atheists believe in personal responsibility and consequences for their actions.
Atheists are not, as a general rule, trying to destroy your right to believe as you wish. They merely don't want your beliefs indoctrinated onto others or codified into government.
Atheists are not all liberal. Check the politics forum if you doubt this.
Occasionally (or frequently) an atheist will say something like "God knows what he was thinking..." or "I pray that you will reconsider..." or any of a number of phrases that have religious implications. This is not an indication that they hypocritically believe in God. These are just idioms they grew up with and say without thinking about them.
Most atheists don't believe "The universe came from nothing". Most simply admit that they don't know how the universe came into being.
Some atheists don't want you to pray for them. Some don't care. Some are happy for you to. Try to find out what they want before you pray for them. It may avoid a lot of unpleasantness.
There are a whole lot of closet atheists out there, especially in the US. Because of the strong current of anti-secularism in the US, they may not reveal their position to you. For this reason, you would be wise not to assume everyone who looks like you and acts like you is a believer in god. Please do not make disparaging remarks about atheists in the mistaken belief that everybody is on your side. This is one reason why some atheists resent religion.That's enough for now. I may add more.

Pretty much what I wanted to say, only said better.

I would only add that the odds are if a current Christian had been born in another country and raised by parents that believed in another religion, there is a very good chance that the Christian would have turned out to be a follower of that other religion. Born in Iran, you might follow Islam. Born in India, you would most likely be a Hindu. Born in China you would probably be Buddhist. Most of the worlds largest religions are not fully compatible. They disagree to such an extent that they can not all be right. They can, however, all be wrong. Think about it ;)

If there are any post of mine that you would like to use, you have my permission.

[FireGarden]

On behalf of all the atheists on this forum, I would just like to say that we have no spokesman.

No, not even that Dawkins fella.

[GreyICE]

On behalf of all the atheists on this forum, I would just like to say that we have no spokesman.

No, not even that Dawkins fella.

Agreed. There is no Pope of Atheism, no matter what strawman people are putting together (though usually the theists use Stalin, because he's their shining example of how all atheists are).

[supercorgi]

OK I'll bite. Here's the post I sent someone who sent the following "Marine punches out atheist professor" urban legend. Here's the post I responded to:

> A Good Marine
A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of
the ACLU. One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him;
knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the H*** is the matter with you? Why did
you do that?" The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid crap and act like a jerk. So, He sent me."


Here's my reply:

OK, sorry to be a wet rag, but I have to object to this story on two grounds. One, there's no evidence it's true (it's been circulating around on the internet for years in different formats). See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gods-helper.htm

Secondly, I'm an atheist. Yep that's right - one of the most distrusted minorities in the U.S. (http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted). But the thing is, you don't usually know if someone's an atheist. They're probably living next door to you, really nice folks, and you don't know it. That's because most atheists don't make a big deal of it. Atheism is just a disbelief in any gods - it's not a bandwagon we jump on. Most atheists would never disrespect someone's religious beliefs - faith is a personal thing and who am I to tell you that what you believe is wrong? I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of any divinity working in this world, so in light of that lack of evidence, I choose to disbelieve. Might I be wrong? Hell yes, and I'll admit it if I see solid proof.

Most people don't understand atheism - particularly in the US. You see, there are what are called strong atheists (not many of these) and weak atheists. Strong atheists say "There is no god," weak atheists say "I do not believe there is a god" -- there is a big difference in those statements. Have you ever heard the term "you cannot prove a negative?" Well no one can absolutely prove that no gods exist - therefore it's somewhat of an absurd statement to say "There is no god." However, I personally choose to disbelieve in a diety - doesn't mean there is or isn't one - just that I haven't seen any convincing proof.. For other people that's different - they've found sufficient proof and therefore choose to believe.

There's a famous saying that goes to the heart of what atheism is:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

So please don't cold cock me because I'm a disbeliever. I'm still a good, compassionate, caring person. I'm just a person that doesn't believe in god.

Your friendly neighborhood atheist,

[Autolite]

What are some things you wish Christians understood about atheism?

I would like to suggest another approach. How about asking "What are some things you wish christians understood about christianity"? If christians did some honest research about the origins of christianity, including perhaps Mithraism, then the concept of Atheism would become self explanatory...

[slingblade]

I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of any divinity working in this world, so in light of that lack of evidence, I choose to disbelieve.

I got my butt spanked here for saying there was a choice to be had.

Apparently, once you realize there is no evidence for god, there is no choice.

No. I didn't get it, either. :boggled: I just got spanked.

[Autolite]

Apparently, once you realize there is no evidence for god, there is no choice.

It irks me when folks say that Atheism is a "choice". I could never comprehend that POV. To imply that one chooses Atheism is the same as saying that one chooses to acknowledge reality...

[thaiboxerken]

I'd like those stupid people to understand that story that science can't explain how a bumblebee can fly is a stupid lie.

[GreyICE]

I'd like those stupid people to understand that story that science can't explain how a bumblebee can fly is a stupid lie.It's a well known fact that bumblebees can't fly in a vacuum.

[The Atheist]

I'd like those stupid people to understand that story that science can't explain how a bumblebee can fly is a stupid lie.

Oh, do go on and show who says that - other than Mike Huckabee, that is. Still; another convenient strawman for you to use. The number of people who actually believe that is incredibly small.

I can find lots of people debunking the idea, but it's odd that nobody actually names where they heard the statement made. Must've been someone's hairdresser?

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, do go on and show who says that - other than Mike Huckabee

Who was a viable candidate for president at one point.

Still; another convenient strawman for you to use. The number of people who actually believe that is incredibly small.

Yet it seems to appear in sermons and church signs even today.


I can find lots of people debunking the idea, but it's odd that nobody actually names where they heard the statement made. Must've been someone's hairdresser?

I first heard it in a sermon when I was 16 at church. I've seen it on church signs as recent as a year ago. I've actually received christian spam with the story on it. The message being that science doesn't know everything, but since the bee has faith, it can still fly.

[X]

Another thought occured to me, which I'd like to say.

I did not "choose" to not believe in God.
Choice implies I decided one day I would not believe in God. This was not the case.
I can no more choose to believe in God again than you can choose to believe in the monster under your bed.

I my case, as I've stated ebfore, my atheism came about as a result of an interest in theology, and what I learned through that. This is in addition to the changes brought about in a mind as it matures, such as faculties for reason and logic, which led me to question everything I had learned about God, and showed all answers to be unsatisfactory.

So I did't "choose" to be atheist.
It simply doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, a lot of the apologetics given to atheists rests on the idea that it was a choice. This is frustrating, because then the atheist has to deal with someobody who does not understand that atheism is not a choice. The theist does not understand the arguments presented, because the basic underlying assumptions are wrong, and the atheist might not catch that. Not to mention that the atheist might even be guilty of the same assumptions themselves regarding theists.

[Zep]

It's a well known fact that bumblebees can't flyWell known to anyone who has never seen a helicopter... :rolleyes:

[Bob Blaylock]

Jesus, even in your short time here you must see how atheists refuse to be held under one banner.


Why would you invoke Jesus' name, if you don't believe in him?

[The Atheist]

I first heard it in a sermon when I was 16 at church. I've seen it on church signs as recent as a year ago. I've actually received christian spam with the story on it. The message being that science doesn't know everything, but since the bee has faith, it can still fly.

As I've just noted in another thread, living in USA might give you that impression, it is the world's foremost repository of wilful ignorance.

Again, though, quite anecdotal "evidence". If it were something quite popular, I would have expected to find more than just the one actual reference to it in the first 30-odd Google results. Sounds very much like the "bananas are proof of ID" - something actually believed by very few people. I'm not doubting the existence of the myth, I think you're just vastly over-estimating who believes it.

[Mark6]

I was thinking maybe people would want to correct any misconceptions and / or perceptions Christians may have about Atheism here.

I think the most offensive (and also one of the most common) misconception Christians have about atheists is “There are no atheists in foxholes”. Or the more detailed version I once heard: “There are no atheists with Purple Heart, although there are people who were atheists right up until the second they earned Purple Heart.” In other words, only someone living a safe life can ignore God – a traumatic experience automatically causes a person to believe in Higher Power.

Which is a total BS. I had never been in combat, but I had been in life-threatening situations, including one time when I risked my life to save another. Never did I have the slightest sense that there is a “higher power” watching over me, nor any desire to pray for help.

[MRC_Hans]

I was thinking maybe people would want to correct any misconceptions and / or perceptions Christians may have about Atheism here.Unlike saying what athism is, that would be a vey thick book.

Hans

[Upchurch]

The statement:
Jesus, even in your short time here you must see how atheists refuse to be held under one banner.

The question:
Why would you invoke Jesus' name, if you don't believe in him?

The answer:

Occasionally (or frequently) an atheist will say something like "God knows what he was thinking..." or "I pray that you will reconsider..." or any of a number of phrases that have religious implications. This is not an indication that they hypocritically believe in God. These are just idioms they grew up with and say without thinking about them.


Well, that was easy.

[FireGarden]

Well, that was easy.

Why would you invoke Well's name, if you don't believe in him?

[Tricky]

Why would you invoke Well's name, if you don't believe in him?Would you prefer "Weavens to Betsy?"

[Moochie]

Oh my Dog!

[dogjones]

Yes?

[Moochie]

Yes?



:cheerleader4:cheerleader4:cheerleader4

[Tricky]

Yes?
You're not Moochie's dog. You're Obelix's, by Toutatis.

[The Atheist]

Well, that was easy.

Actually, Tricky wasn't quite right. I don't do it through having always done it, I use the terms from choice because the only use they have for me is as epithets.

[FireGarden]

Would you prefer "Weavens to Betsy?"

Hubert J Farnsworth, that's an epithet to remember!

[Dr H]

To paraphrase Nixon: "I am not a Satanist."

And yes, you may quote me.

[GreyICE]

Well known to anyone who has never seen a helicopter... :rolleyes:

Ha! But have you ever seen a Helicopter in the fossil record? Answer that!

[slingblade]

;3536927']Another thought occured to me, which I'd like to say.

I did not "choose" to not believe in God.
Choice implies I decided one day I would not believe in God. This was not the case.
I can no more choose to believe in God again than you can choose to believe in the monster under your bed.

I my case, as I've stated ebfore, my atheism came about as a result of an interest in theology, and what I learned through that. This is in addition to the changes brought about in a mind as it matures, such as faculties for reason and logic, which led me to question everything I had learned about God, and showed all answers to be unsatisfactory.

So I did't "choose" to be atheist.
It simply doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, a lot of the apologetics given to atheists rests on the idea that it was a choice. This is frustrating, because then the atheist has to deal with someobody who does not understand that atheism is not a choice. The theist does not understand the arguments presented, because the basic underlying assumptions are wrong, and the atheist might not catch that. Not to mention that the atheist might even be guilty of the same assumptions themselves regarding theists.

Here's a thought: how about we grant that different people can perceive different experiences of what appear to be relatively similar events?

That you don't perceive a choice to be had doesn't make your experience the only one. That I do perceive a choice doesn't make mine the only one, either. I can easily grant that you felt or perceived no choice to be made, even though I do. Why can't I get that same respect?

Here's what you don't get, though I don't understand why: a lot of my religious experience involved a constant, daily choice to bury my head in the sand; to convince myself by lying to myself, for years. As I learned more, learned to really think, I had to tell more and more lies. And I never had to stop. Who was going to make me?

It wouldn't have been all that hard to keep turning the blind eye and deaf ear. You can get pretty good at it. You can keep going back to the man who hurts you, can keep lying to yourself that this time he means it, this time he's really changed. You can keep changing churches, telling yourself that one day you'll find one that doesn't believe him instead of you.

You can keep praying, telling yourself that it isn't God's fault; it's yours. You're not praying right, you're not living right, your heart isn't right, your faith isn't strong, you're listening to the wrong people. It's your fault. It's always your fault. The religion doesn't work for you because you aren't doing it right, not because god isn't really there and you're letting some narrow little minds control you. No, no...that can't be it....

And, of course, there's the danger. What if you're wrong? What if there is a god, and you're just listening to the devil whisper his lies, believing his lies, and yet, the evidence against the whole idea of a god is so strong, but what if, what if......until, finally, it doesn't matter anymore. There just isn't any evidence for a god, and so much evidence against. You have to admit it. You have to stop lying to yourself.

Some atheists have had issues with religion that had roots and shoots in every other aspect of our lives. Whatever it is inside that made me keep returning to an abuser, also made me keep returning to religion, or never allowed me to get very far away from it. Except, that's often the nature of evidence: each piece moves you closer to one thing, and so also moves you farther from where you began.

Maybe the problem is here: maybe it's not that I had to choose to be an atheist: I had to choose to admit I'm one. That I just don't believe anymore. And knowing me, that's probably even how I said it to myself: I just don't.

But somewhere in that process, I did perceive a choice. And I made it. I've not regretted it.

[pgwenthold]

Why would you invoke Jesus' name, if you don't believe in him?

What day is today? Wednesday?

Why would you invoke Woden's day if you didn't believe in him?

In the month of MARCH, even? I mean, why would you invoke Mars if you didn't believe in him, too.

And don't get me started about Thor's day.

[martu]

The only definite difference between Christians and Atheists is that Atheists believe in one less God than Christians.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I like this thread. I'm working on my response, and will get back to you.

Also, it's great to see other people's responses.

[GreyICE]

The only definite difference between Christians and Atheists is that Atheists believe in one less God than Christians. And yet proportionally, the difference between zero and one is infinite...

[Rasmus]

Here's a thought: how about we grant that different people can perceive different experiences of what appear to be relatively similar events?

That you don't perceive a choice to be had doesn't make your experience the only one. That I do perceive a choice doesn't make mine the only one, either. I can easily grant that you felt or perceived no choice to be made, even though I do. Why can't I get that same respect?

Because I don't think your perception makes any sense. I will change my mind if you go and believe in Santa for a week. (Or the easter bunny, as that might be more appropriate right now.)

It's a choice, right? You can decide to belive in the easter bunny, and you can easily revert back next Wednesday, right?

Maybe the problem is here: maybe it's not that I had to choose to be an atheist: I had to choose to admit I'm one. That I just don't believe anymore. And knowing me, that's probably even how I said it to myself: I just don't.

I think the problem is what we want to call "choice". I'll try not to turn this into a free will discussion (yet) but I could decide to go and buy some ice cream now. I would then walk to the store and do what I'd decided I would do.

But I simply don't have that option wrt my believes.

And I still don't see that you had a choice, either. I doubt that you ever sat down and said "Yes, I will continue to fool myself for at least another week."

But somewhere in that process, I did perceive a choice. And I made it. I've not regretted it.

When you finally made that choice, do you think at that time you could also have decided to simply go on as before? (And this I would be much more willing to believe!)

I do respect you. I know fairly little about you and will not blow that out of proportion, but from what I've seen you are deserving of that respect.

I do not respect, however, my interpretation of your interpretation of something you lived through.
I think you are "mistaken" in so far as we're at least using different definitions of "choice" here.

[JCL]

To all those who do not believe in morality without a god:

As an Atheist, and for everyone's safety, I hope you believe.

[martu]

And yet proportionally, the difference between zero and one is infinite...

It is? I need to send my maths degree back then.

[Hokulele]

I think you are "mistaken" in so far as we're at least using different definitions of "choice" here.


Although slingblade can certainly answer for herself, the way I understood her post was not so much that she chose to believe or not believe in the religion she grew up with, but she chose to admit to herself (and possibly others) that she no longer believed. That is the choice she is referring to, the other choice being to keep pretending she believed.

[bokonon]

Because I don't think your perception makes any sense.
It makes sense to me. Did you read what she wrote?

And I still don't see that you had a choice, either. I doubt that you ever sat down and said "Yes, I will continue to fool myself for at least another week."
That is a silly example. Of course she didn't make a conscious decision to continue to fool herself. Such a position would be nothing more than pretending, as it involves admitting that one IS fooling oneself. She may, however, have made a conscious decision to avoid seriously considering the evidence that would lead her to conclude that she HAD been fooling herself. That is where the "choice" comes in.

Many theists of various stripes make this decision all the time. They pass around the platitudes to inoculate each other and themselves. I'm most familiar with Christians, but I have no doubt that Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and others have similar coping mechanisms. Slingblade has already listed several, but I can add one or two she omitted.

"God works in mysterious ways." This one is codified in the Gospel as "now we see as through a glass darkly..." and it is invoked any time reality contradicts some treasured belief. For example, "God is just," and "The only way to salvation is Jesus ('no one comes to the Father but through me')." At some point, it's probably crossed everyone's mind, "But what about all the people who lived BEFORE Jesus? What about all the people who never heard of Jesus? What about all the pious Hindus?" Best to leave such questions to the theologians, and just worry about YOUR OWN soul. God has a plan for the pious Hindus, and God is just.

"God is testing our faith." When someone close is stricken with brain cancer at a young age, and the prayers of a church full of believers aren't enough to save her, it's logical to conclude that prayer is ineffective. Choosing to avoid the logical conclusion, one can occupy one's mind with this phrase instead, and willfully remain determined to continue to believe, to "prove" that one's faith is strong.

"Without doubt, there can be no faith." This is kind of the platitude of last resort. It relies on a chain of platitudes, and seems to rest ultimately on the unstated assumption that "faith" is superior to "knowledge." Sure, God could reveal himself unambiguously, but then people would have no choice -- they'd HAVE to believe. So God conceals himself like a coy little schoolgirl, floating ineffably among the stars, whispering softly in the wind, leaving plenty of room for even the most fervent believers to doubt from time to time. For some reason, this is important to God (part of his mysterious plan), so if you ever find yourself beginning to doubt, just know that this is to strengthen your faith, like fire tempers steel. It's okay to have doubts, but it's also okay to deal with them like Scarlet O'Hara, and "worry about that tomorrow."

"Without doubt, there can be no faith."

When you finally made that choice, do you think at that time you could also have decided to simply go on as before? (And this I would be much more willing to believe!)
Of course. She could still make that choice. Atheists have been known to slip back into theism. Certainly, if you believe as I do, that we're all born atheists, people are commonly seduced into theism. She could decide at any time, "Yes, I have questions which don't have satisfying answers, yes, I have doubts, but you know what? I DO believe in spooks, I DO believe in spooks, I DO I DO I DO I DO I DO believe in spooks!"

I think for many people, it is definitely a choice. They want to believe, so they do believe, and the lack of evidence to support their belief, or the surplus of evidence to the contrary, is just something that they consciously choose not to focus on. They avoid, they blur, they sidestep, and wait for the doubt to pass.

It's an act of courage to face life alone, without an invisible support net from an all-powerful being who's always looking out for your best interest. Most people don't have the stomach for it.

[slingblade]

Because I don't think your perception makes any sense.

It makes sense to me. That you can't wrap your head around it doesn't invalidate it; it could mean you simply don't understand. It could mean you had a much different experience of it. It could mean that you're not me.

I will change my mind if you go and believe in Santa for a week. (Or the easter bunny, as that might be more appropriate right now.)

It's a choice, right? You can decide to belive in the easter bunny, and you can easily revert back next Wednesday, right?

I didn't say becoming an atheist is always a choice, and must be chosen by everyone who espouses it.

I clearly said it wasn't just one opportunity to choose that presented itself, but a series of small choices that had to be made, incrementally, in order to even get to the next one:

I'm not going to go to church three times a week; I'm not going to go to church anymore; I'm going to stop reading the bible; I'm going to get rid of my bibles; Heavenly Fath--no. No. I'm not going to pray anymore, what's the point? Nothing is listening. Oh, my gosh--did you hear what you just said? You said nothing is listening! Do you mean that? ....I think...I do. Well, are you ready to give it all up, finally? Have you become convinced? ...I think....yes, I think so. I know so. I'm ready to quit clinging to the shreds of belief and let them go. I just can't believe this claptrap one more stinking day.

Followed by literal months of shedding certain habits, like the habit of prayer: making a conscious decision every time I felt the urge, to resist the urge. There's no point in sitting here, crying, looking up at your ceiling and wondering why God still won't answer you, girl. He isn't there. You've done so much reading, weighed so many opinions, looked at the science, even, and you know, as well as any human can possibly know, you're just talking to your ceiling. Give up this belief and choose rationality, for crying out loud! Do it!

Why do you think some religious types encourage the young to stay ignorant about other religions? I was one such--I was committing a sin by reading that book about Norse mythology; I committed a sin by taking that world religions class in high school. I chose to defy my religious community and chose to expose myself to other forms of belief, and even non-belief, and those choices helped to start a ball rolling that didn't get to its goal for almost 30 years.

And all along the way, I had to make choices.

I think the problem is what we want to call "choice". I'll try not to turn this into a free will discussion (yet) but I could decide to go and buy some ice cream now. I would then walk to the store and do what I'd decided I would do.

But I simply don't have that option wrt my believes.

And I still don't see that you had a choice, either. I doubt that you ever sat down and said "Yes, I will continue to fool myself for at least another week."

In a way, I did just that for many years, although I never put an exact time limit on it, or phrased it in that way. Each time I encountered something else that could "shake my faith," I had to choose to look at it or ignore it, and many times, I chose to ignore it.

In fact, I didn't go straight from theism to atheism. I explored other options for belief. I chose Paganism for my first (and only) dramatic switch: there may be many gods, and even goddesses. Why do I have to believe in a male god? Hmmm....I don't. I can choose to believe in a goddess. And for a little while, I did. But it didn't last long at all, because the whole notion of any god-like being was quickly eroding for me. I realized it made no more sense to believe in a goddess than a god, so I packed up the bell, book, and candles.

I didn't go back to Christianity, but I still hadn't fully given up on the idea of a god. I found it very difficult to give up the notion--don't you get that I was un-brainwashing myself, and that it doesn't happen overnight? That it's incremental for some of us? Ok, or maybe just for me. I never do anything right. It wouldn't surprise me that I'd done this wrong, too.

I just re-read what you said about not having an option for choice wrt your beliefs. You always have the option to examine your beliefs for soundness, don't you? Have you ever chosen to do that, about something you were certain of? And after examination, realized you'd been wrong? You couldn't have had that realization unless you first made the choice to take a hard look at it.

I mean: isn't the act of changing your mind a kind of choice?


When you finally made that choice, do you think at that time you could also have decided to simply go on as before? (And this I would be much more willing to believe!)

Up until a certain point, yes! And that's just what I did! I can't possibly pinpoint for you the exact moment of the exact day that I finally said "enough," and there was probably more than one time I did, only to slide back into it again, out of fear, until the last time. But a time did eventually come when I had to choose: continue clinging to even some idea of god, of religion, or give it up. It's either real, or it's not. You either believe it, or you don't. So...which is it? Decide. Choose.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't know if I could choose to take up belief in god again, but I wouldn't count it as impossible. I don't even know what it would take for me to be able to do such a thing, but people are quite good at making themselves believe what they want to believe. Frankly, I think if I did start believing in gods again, it would mean I'd become quite mentally ill. Worse than I already am, I mean. :)

I do respect you. I know fairly little about you and will not blow that out of proportion, but from what I've seen you are deserving of that respect.

I do not respect, however, my interpretation of your interpretation of something you lived through.
I think you are "mistaken" in so far as we're at least using different definitions of "choice" here.

Thank you, I do appreciate that. And I suppose what you say is possible, although I could choose to dismiss it. But I think, instead, I'll give it more thought. I choose to do so.


Sorry. I'm just a brat, at heart. :p

[Foster Zygote]

I got my butt spanked here for saying there was a choice to be had.

Apparently, once you realize there is no evidence for god, there is no choice.

No. I didn't get it, either. :boggled: I just got spanked.

I don't get it either. People choose to believe things despite contradictory evidence, or they choose to accept that evidence and modify their view. It happens all the time.

Now, how 'bout that spankin'?

[linusrichard]

I'll throw in my two cents, although it will repeat what some others have said already:

The most important - maybe the only important - thing for people to know about atheists is this: Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in the existence of deities.

If someone can truly understand that statement, there is nothing else that person needs to know about atheism.

Recognizing, however, that a lot of people might have trouble understanding that statement, there are a few other things worth saying:

These statements follow directly from the above bolded statement, and are redundant to anyone who understands it:
- Atheism is not an affirmative belief in the nonexistence of deities. Many atheists hold such a belief, but this is not necessary for atheism.
- Atheism is not a statement of knowledge of the nonexistence of deities. Some atheists claim such knowledge, but this is not necessary for atheism.
- Atheism is not a hatred of God. (In fact, hatred of God (as opposed to hatred for the concept of God or hatred of religion) seems to require a belief in God, which would be contradictory to atheism.)
- Atheism is not Satanism, paganism, etc.
- Atheism is not a hatred of religion, or a hatred of Christianity.
- Atheists are not necessarily immoral or even amoral.
- Atheists are not necessarily angry, bitter, etc.
- Atheists don't necessarily consider atheism a central part of their identity.
- Some atheists are agnostics, and some are not.
- Some atheists are former theists, and some are not.

I would also add these two thoughts:
At least some atheists (if not most or all) are atheists because there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. Most people do not believe in things for which no evidence can be shown, but make an exception for god(s). Atheists do not make this exception.

To paraphrase a well-known quote: Christians are atheists with respect to all of the thousands of possible Gods except one (or three). Atheists are atheists with respect to all of those Gods, including that one (or those three). When a Christian truly understands why he or she rejects all of the other possible gods, that Christian will understand why the atheist rejects all possible gods. I think Christians who have heard this quote before (in its original form) dismiss it as a sort of rhetorical trick. On the contrary, it is absolutely true, and deserves meditation by any Christian, especially one who honestly wants to understand atheism. Any Christian who doesn't understand why I reject YHWH and Jesus does not truly understand why he rejects Thor and Shiva.

These last two points are secondary, of course. The question of why an atheist is an atheist is not central to atheism, and may well vary widely from atheist to atheist. The central point is the point bolded above. If you can grasp that, you're good.

[skeptical]

As I've just noted in another thread, living in USA might give you that impression, it is the world's foremost repository of wilful ignorance.

Again, though, quite anecdotal "evidence". If it were something quite popular, I would have expected to find more than just the one actual reference to it in the first 30-odd Google results. Sounds very much like the "bananas are proof of ID" - something actually believed by very few people. I'm not doubting the existence of the myth, I think you're just vastly over-estimating who believes it.

FWIW, this little gem was also repeated in the beginning credits of the "Bee" movie with Seinfeld. These sorts of stories are also popular with the non-religious woo crowd, "see, science doesn't know everything", and then you get something about "big pharma" or some other conspiracy nonsense.

[skeptical]

Any Christian who doesn't understand why I reject YHWH and Jesus does not truly understand why he rejects Thor and Shiva.

Actually, I think this is the proverbial nail on the head. Many of them don't reject other Gods for rational reasons. Many of them don't consciously reject them at all, its just that they have that gap filled already with a certain God. To the extent that they consciously reject other religions, it usually amounts to no more than, "well, I just have faith that I'm right", which is ultimately not really a reason at all, but the absence of one.

[GreyICE]

FWIW, this little gem was also repeated in the beginning credits of the "Bee" movie with Seinfeld. These sorts of stories are also popular with the non-religious woo crowd, "see, science doesn't know everything", and then you get something about "big pharma" or some other conspiracy nonsense.

I'd certainly hope science doesn't no everything, or even a large fraction of everything. That would make the field rather boring.

As for big Pharma, they're not scientists. They're businessmen. And when it comes to you, they're salesmen. You know, the same people who will happily sell you a working Honda based on sound scientific principles that is proven to work reliably under a variety of conditions, then sell you a $3,000 dollar rust inhibitor coating 30 seconds later. Evaluate their claims with the knowledge that they certainly are much more concerned about their pockets being full of money than with your personal health.

[slingblade]

I don't get it either. People choose to believe things despite contradictory evidence, or they choose to accept that evidence and modify their view. It happens all the time.

Now, how 'bout that spankin'?

Exactly. Thank you, and Hoku, and Bokonon, for getting at, so succinctly, what it took me so many words to say.

And the safety word is "orange," repeat: "orange."


:p

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. Thank you, and Hoku, and Bokonon, for getting at, so succinctly, what it took me so many words to say.

And the safety word is "orange," repeat: "orange."


:p

In fact, I'd go so far as to say I did not choose Christianity, I was indoctrinated from a young age. I wasn't told "This is Christianity and here are several other options for your consideration". I was told by the authority figures in my life "This is Christianity, the only truth. Everything else is a lie so don't even look at them lest you be corrupted by their evil". Later, like many other people, I was confronted with physical and logical evidence that contradicted what I had been told was unquestionable truth.

I've seen many people who have chosen to ignore or simply not accept such evidence. There are many such people to be found on this forum. They choose not to examine their beliefs when confronted with contradictions.

I, on the other hand, chose to consider the possibility that what I believed was not really true.

[Dr H]

'll throw in my two cents, although it will repeat what some others have said already:
Very clearly and articulately stated.

- Atheism is not a hatred of God. (In fact, hatred of God (as opposed to hatred for the concept of God or hatred of religion) seems to require a belief in God, which would be contradictory to atheism.)
In my experience with theists who are willing to have a serious dialog, this seems to be the most difficult point for many of them to accept.

- Atheism is not a hatred of religion,
This one has caused me some problems, as well. It's worded a little more strongly than I would have put it. I don't know that I "hate" religion, but I dislike it, I think it is responsible for more harm than good, and I would like to see it all eventually go away. That said, I am capable of tolerence of religion, so long as those who practice it are a) not doing harm with it, and b) not actively trying to convert people to their point of view coercively. (tall order, I know).

You are correct in stating that such a position is not "atheism," though I've yet to come across a really handy term to describe it -- I've been using "areligionism".

It is perhaps inevitible that atheists get blanketly associated with areligionism through a sort of "if you ain't with us, yer agin us!" attitude, helped along by the fact that prominent areligionists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are routinely refered to in the media simply as "atheists" (or sometimes, pejoratively, as "radical atheists").

[Dr H]

Jesus, even in your short time here you must see how atheists refuse to be held under one banner.

Why would you invoke Jesus' name, if you don't believe in him?

Cultural baggage, probably.

And the fact that "Gadzooks!" and "Great Ceasar's Ghost!" sound a little unweildy in contemporary speech. :)

[Dr H]

;3536927']Another thought occured to me, which I'd like to say.

I did not "choose" to not believe in God.
Choice implies I decided one day I would not believe in God. This was not the case.
I can no more choose to believe in God again than you can choose to believe in the monster under your bed.

I my case, as I've stated ebfore, my atheism came about as a result of an interest in theology, and what I learned through that. This is in addition to the changes brought about in a mind as it matures, such as faculties for reason and logic, which led me to question everything I had learned about God, and showed all answers to be unsatisfactory.

So I did't "choose" to be atheist.
It simply doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, a lot of the apologetics given to atheists rests on the idea that it was a choice. This is frustrating, because then the atheist has to deal with someobody who does not understand that atheism is not a choice. The theist does not understand the arguments presented, because the basic underlying assumptions are wrong, and the atheist might not catch that. Not to mention that the atheist might even be guilty of the same assumptions themselves regarding theists.

This position hinges on how one defines "choice". That's how it worked for you; it's not how it worked for me.

For myself, I certainly did choose to be an atheist. I was raised as a Catholic, and my first doubts were about Catholicism and not about God per se. I could have accepted the time-honored responses of the priests and nuns and continued to be a Catholic. But instead I chose to look to other sources, and examine other religions. When the evidence finally persuaded me that religion was a wholly man-made construct built on a bunch of whistling-in-the-dark, I had a choice to either act on that evidence and become an atheist, or I could have chose the path of faith, and continued to believe despite the evidence.

My choice was by no means inevitible: plenty of people have looked at the same evidence I looked at, and continued to believe nonetheless.

[skeptical]

I'd certainly hope science doesn't no everything, or even a large fraction of everything. That would make the field rather boring.

Fallacy being, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything.


As for big Pharma, they're not scientists. They're businessmen. And when it comes to you, they're salesmen. You know, the same people who will happily sell you a working Honda based on sound scientific principles that is proven to work reliably under a variety of conditions, then sell you a $3,000 dollar rust inhibitor coating 30 seconds later. Evaluate their claims with the knowledge that they certainly are much more concerned about their pockets being full of money than with your personal health.

Ummm, yeah. I generally evaluate everything the same way: I prefer evidence to anecdote and peer reviewed studies to non-evidence based claims.

[Dr H]

As I've just noted in another thread, living in USA might give you that impression, it is the world's foremost repository of wilful ignorance.

Again, though, quite anecdotal "evidence". If it were something quite popular, I would have expected to find more than just the one actual reference to it in the first 30-odd Google results. Sounds very much like the "bananas are proof of ID" - something actually believed by very few people. I'm not doubting the existence of the myth, I think you're just vastly over-estimating who believes it.

While there isn't a complete consensus among those who make careers out of tracking down such urban legends, there is some reason to believe that the myth originated in a French entemology text published in 1934, Le Vol des Insectes, by Antoine Magnan. The story I've most often seen is that Magnan's friend, engineer Andre Sainte-Lague, did some "on the fly" calculations to settle an argument at a dinner party, and discovered that some insects' wings (bees were not specified) were too small to generate sufficient lift for the body mass of said insects. Of course he was assuming fixed wings, like those of an aircraft.

From there the story is that this dinner-party argument got circulated among local universities as a joke. All good urban ledgends are subject to mutation, and at some point undefined "insects" became "bees", and the story got simplified to "according to science" (or physics, or engineering) "bees can't fly". This became a sort of shibboleth for ferreting out the gullible.

I have heard the phrase repeated many times, including once from a junior high school science teacher, who really ought to have known better. I haven't heard anyone say "bees can't fly" recently, but I do periodically find the statement among the collections of "amazing, but TRUE" notions that many (far TOO many) well-meaning people feel behooved to fill my e-mail Inbox with.

[The Atheist]

FWIW, this little gem was also repeated in the beginning credits of the "Bee" movie with Seinfeld. These sorts of stories are also popular with the non-religious woo crowd, "see, science doesn't know everything", and then you get something about "big pharma" or some other conspiracy nonsense.

Unfortunately, with thalidomide and prozac, the industry manages to do a good job of foot amputtaion all on its own.

Cultural baggage, probably.

No, quite deliberate.

[GreyICE]

Fallacy being, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. Fallacy: You assume I'm making a claim I'm not. I think the name is 'putting words into my mouth.'



Ummm, yeah. I generally evaluate everything the same way: I prefer evidence to anecdote and peer reviewed studies to non-evidence based claims. Fallacy being, you don't acknowledge or even consider any claims that you think aren't peer reviewed (isn't this sticking words into peoples mouths fun? We can discuss things like this all day.).


Big Pharma has failed to document the safety and reliability of a lot of their products, especially their anti-depressants, and other mind-altering drugs. If they had, I think a lot of them would not be on the market, or at least they would be much slower to hand them out. Some Anti-depressants actually increase suicide risk, for instance.

[Dr H]

Cultural baggage, probably.

No, quite deliberate.

I stand corrected. I shall now board my bee, and buzz off. ;)

[Autolite]

I wonder if it has ever occurred to theists that one of the reasons for Atheism is the inability to believe. Once all the evidence for the existence of god has been considered, I am unable to accept the possibility that a god might exist. It would be akin to "unknowing" something. Once you know something to be factual, how is it possible to "unknow" it?

Apart from some sort of mental impairment, I am unable to "re-believe" that there might be a god. I could no more begin to believe in a god than I could begin to believe that 2+2=3. My mind cannot conceive the existence of a god with what I now know. Does christianity even address this predicament???

[godless dave]

There are two things I would like Christians to know:

1. There's no need to prosyletize me because I've already heard it. I know what you believe. (disclaimer: many Christians seem to already know this).

2. When Pat Robertson or Pope Ratzinger or any other prominent clergyperson says "Christians believe X", and no other Christians say "No we don't," then I assume you agree with the person claiming to speak for all Christians.

[The Atheist]

Does christianity even address this predicament???

Yes indeed:

Doubting Thomas, St Paul on the road to Damascus and baby Jesus. You just haven't met/had one yet. Could even be after you die, just to muddy the waters completely.

2. When Pat Robertson or Pope Ratzinger or any other prominent clergyperson says "Christians believe X", and no other Christians say "No we don't," then I assume you agree with the person claiming to speak for all Christians.

Not in the case of Herr Rat and his groupies, because he has special dispensation from the sky-daddy himself. There's no need for him to rebut Pat Robertson, because Benny XVI, knows he's right. Why waste words on weasels?

[linusrichard]

This one has caused me some problems, as well. It's worded a little more strongly than I would have put it. I don't know that I "hate" religion, but I dislike it, I think it is responsible for more harm than good, and I would like to see it all eventually go away. That said, I am capable of tolerence of religion, so long as those who practice it are a) not doing harm with it, and b) not actively trying to convert people to their point of view coercively. (tall order, I know).

I think many atheists would agree with you, and most (including me) would come very close. What I meant when I said that atheism is not hatred of religion is that atheism is not necessarily hatred of religion. Many atheists probably hate religion, but even if all atheists hated religion, that would be a coincidence, and it would not make hatred of religion part of atheism. Surprisingly to some, there are even atheistic religions, or, it might be better to say, religions which are not incompatible with atheism, in that they do not require a belief in any deity.

You are correct in stating that such a position is not "atheism," though I've yet to come across a really handy term to describe it -- I've been using "areligionism".
That seems fine, although I think I like that word better as a rejection of religion than a hatred of religion. It's also worth noting that, just as it's possible to belong to a religion without believing in God, it's possible to believe in God and reject, even hate, all religions.

[The Grave]

Whether they like/know it or not we, us, them, all are without god.

Print away.:seteacher:

[bokonon]

I wonder if it has ever occurred to theists that one of the reasons for Atheism is the inability to believe. Once all the evidence for the existence of god has been considered, I am unable to accept the possibility that a god might exist. It would be akin to "unknowing" something. Once you know something to be factual, how is it possible to "unknow" it?
At one time, after considering all the evidence available to them, people "knew" the sun revolved around the earth. Circumstances changed, new facts became available, and slowly but surely people begin to "unknow" what they used to know for a fact.

If the Christian god suddenly started honoring the fine print I read in John 14:14 ("If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it"), I'd go from unbelief to belief in a heartbeat, and I'll bet you would too. The fact that no one who has ever lived has seen that promise fulfilled is just one of the reasons I can easily dismiss the biblical version of a deity, but other versions are not so easy to dismiss.

For instance, the creator of the universe who destroyed himself in the act of creation that one finds in some Eastern religions could be "real" for all I know. From the standpoint of my limited understanding, that myth makes as much sense as the big bang. Maybe he sneezed, farted, and burped at the same time, knowing full well that that would be the end of him (I imagine eternity gets mighty boring after a time), and that WAS the big bang. Obviously a god who's destroyed himself can't be faulted for not answering prayers or steering comets away from planets inhabited by dinosaurs, and there's nothing I can see that would make such a myth impossible. While I don't actually believe in such a thing, I don't rule it out the way I rule out "Bible God."

I accept lots of things on faith. I accept that the Andromeda galaxy is heading toward the Milky Way galaxy, and will collide with it in some number of billions of years. If you and I went outside tonight, I couldn't even point in the direction of the Andromeda galaxy. I've never looked at it through a telescope. I've never observed the doppler shift or whatever it is that has convinced scientists that it is moving toward us. I have faith that other people who know how to check such things have done their homework, and if the facts were in doubt, I'd have heard about it. I have faith that if I wanted to, I could look through a telescope, and observe the Doppler shift or whatever, and crunch some numbers, and make the relevant facts my own. I don't do that. Speaking only for myself, I accept those facts, and many others, more or less on faith.

There are some things I can't, or won't, accept on faith. I don't believe there is a "higher being" who actively guides the outcome of events on earth. I consider most of the god-belief I hear expressed around me to be completely irrational. I don't believe God saves one coal miner, and lets a dozen die, because he "has a special purpose" for the one. Fortunately, I've never been in the position of having a loved one who was one of the victims, listening to a loved one of one of those spared praising the Almighty. If I ever was, the only thing I'd have to say is "Too bad God didn't spare your mouth from my fist." Unless, of course, he did. That would give me something to think about.

Outside of that sort of callousness, and the minority who are trying to have their garden myth taught in the science class, I really don't have a problem with Christians. I do enjoy mocking their beliefs online, so I can understand why they might not like a guy like me, but honestly, in real life, I might be the next door neighbor you trust with the key to your house when you go on vacation. My kids are well behaved, get good grades, and have lots of friends, as do I. I don't rape, murder, steal, drink, do drugs, mistreat animals, or play my stereo loud. I'm an upstanding member of the community. Really!

[X]

Here's a thought: how about we grant that different people can perceive different experiences of what appear to be relatively similar events?

That you don't perceive a choice to be had doesn't make your experience the only one. That I do perceive a choice doesn't make mine the only one, either. I can easily grant that you felt or perceived no choice to be made, even though I do. Why can't I get that same respect?

Sorry. I thought I'd made it clear my statement applied only to me.
I certainly do not respect you less if your perception of your reasons are different from my perceptions of my reasons. In what is, in this case, a personal matter, each person is entitled to their own views.



Here's what you don't get, though I don't understand why: a lot of my religious experience involved a constant, daily choice to bury my head in the sand; to convince myself by lying to myself, for years. As I learned more, learned to really think, I had to tell more and more lies. And I never had to stop. Who was going to make me?

It wouldn't have been all that hard to keep turning the blind eye and deaf ear. You can get pretty good at it. You can keep going back to the man who hurts you, can keep lying to yourself that this time he means it, this time he's really changed. You can keep changing churches, telling yourself that one day you'll find one that doesn't believe him instead of you.

You can keep praying, telling yourself that it isn't God's fault; it's yours. You're not praying right, you're not living right, your heart isn't right, your faith isn't strong, you're listening to the wrong people. It's your fault. It's always your fault. The religion doesn't work for you because you aren't doing it right, not because god isn't really there and you're letting some narrow little minds control you. No, no...that can't be it....

And, of course, there's the danger. What if you're wrong? What if there is a god, and you're just listening to the devil whisper his lies, believing his lies, and yet, the evidence against the whole idea of a god is so strong, but what if, what if......until, finally, it doesn't matter anymore. There just isn't any evidence for a god, and so much evidence against. You have to admit it. You have to stop lying to yourself.

Some atheists have had issues with religion that had roots and shoots in every other aspect of our lives. Whatever it is inside that made me keep returning to an abuser, also made me keep returning to religion, or never allowed me to get very far away from it. Except, that's often the nature of evidence: each piece moves you closer to one thing, and so also moves you farther from where you began.

Maybe the problem is here: maybe it's not that I had to choose to be an atheist: I had to choose to admit I'm one. That I just don't believe anymore. And knowing me, that's probably even how I said it to myself: I just don't.

But somewhere in that process, I did perceive a choice. And I made it. I've not regretted it.

This position hinges on how one defines "choice". That's how it worked for you; it's not how it worked for me.

For myself, I certainly did choose to be an atheist. I was raised as a Catholic, and my first doubts were about Catholicism and not about God per se. I could have accepted the time-honored responses of the priests and nuns and continued to be a Catholic. But instead I chose to look to other sources, and examine other religions. When the evidence finally persuaded me that religion was a wholly man-made construct built on a bunch of whistling-in-the-dark, I had a choice to either act on that evidence and become an atheist, or I could have chose the path of faith, and continued to believe despite the evidence.

My choice was by no means inevitible: plenty of people have looked at the same evidence I looked at, and continued to believe nonetheless.


I think you two are making the same point.
You are saying that your decision to stop limiting yourself to the doctrines of the religions you were a part of in the past constitutes a choice for atheism.
Crudely put, I know, but is it generally accurate?


As Dr H said, it depends on how you define "choice" in this case.

In my case, I view the decision to learn about religion(s) as one choice, and, in my case, my atheism came as a result of that. But I, personally, can not say I decided not to believe in God. That was a consequence of a prior decision, not a concious choice in and of itself.

I'll say again, that this is only my perception. One man. Currently stressed out of his gourd by a brutal course called "Vibrations".

Have I answered your comments satisfactorily?

[Foster Zygote]

While there isn't a complete consensus among those who make careers out of tracking down such urban legends, there is some reason to believe that the myth originated in a French entemology text published in 1934, Le Vol des Insectes, by Antoine Magnan. The story I've most often seen is that Magnan's friend, engineer Andre Sainte-Lague, did some "on the fly" calculations to settle an argument at a dinner party, and discovered that some insects' wings (bees were not specified) were too small to generate sufficient lift for the body mass of said insects. Of course he was assuming fixed wings, like those of an aircraft.

From there the story is that this dinner-party argument got circulated among local universities as a joke. All good urban ledgends are subject to mutation, and at some point undefined "insects" became "bees", and the story got simplified to "according to science" (or physics, or engineering) "bees can't fly". This became a sort of shibboleth for ferreting out the gullible.

I have heard the phrase repeated many times, including once from a junior high school science teacher, who really ought to have known better. I haven't heard anyone say "bees can't fly" recently, but I do periodically find the statement among the collections of "amazing, but TRUE" notions that many (far TOO many) well-meaning people feel behooved to fill my e-mail Inbox with.

I watched a cool program on The Science Channel last year about insect flight. The study was aimed at helping to design insect like wings for small flying robots. Wind tunnel and model tests showed that such insects as flies and bees generate lift via the vortices created by the motion of their wings. In fact, they generate an amazing amount of lift for their wing area. Pretty cool stuff.

[Autolite]

At one time, after considering all the evidence available to them, people "knew" the sun revolved around the earth. Circumstances changed, new facts became available, and slowly but surely people begin to "unknow" what they used to know for a fact.

If the Christian god suddenly started honoring the fine print I read in John 14:14 ("If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it"), I'd go from unbelief to belief in a heartbeat, and I'll bet you would too.

Agreed, no argument there. When I claim that there is no god on "consideration of the evidence" I was indeed referring to existing evidence. If the big guy should magically appear then of course I would become a believer.

Same thing reference the "2+2" analogy. Show me evidence that 2+2=3 and I'll buy it! However, I am not holding my breath in either case...

[Hokulele]

I accept lots of things on faith. I accept that the Andromeda galaxy is heading toward the Milky Way galaxy, and will collide with it in some number of billions of years. If you and I went outside tonight, I couldn't even point in the direction of the Andromeda galaxy. I've never looked at it through a telescope. I've never observed the doppler shift or whatever it is that has convinced scientists that it is moving toward us. I have faith that other people who know how to check such things have done their homework, and if the facts were in doubt, I'd have heard about it. I have faith that if I wanted to, I could look through a telescope, and observe the Doppler shift or whatever, and crunch some numbers, and make the relevant facts my own. I don't do that. Speaking only for myself, I accept those facts, and many others, more or less on faith.


Come on over some time, I would be happy to drag out a 'scope. I couldn't show you the Doppler shifts, but everything else would be doable. :)

[FireGarden]

I accept lots of things on faith. I accept that the Andromeda galaxy is heading toward the Milky Way galaxy, and will collide with it in some number of billions of years. If you and I went outside tonight, I couldn't even point in the direction of the Andromeda galaxy. I've never looked at it through a telescope. I've never observed the doppler shift or whatever it is that has convinced scientists that it is moving toward us. I have faith that other people who know how to check such things have done their homework, and if the facts were in doubt, I'd have heard about it. I have faith that if I wanted to, I could look through a telescope, and observe the Doppler shift or whatever, and crunch some numbers, and make the relevant facts my own. I don't do that. Speaking only for myself, I accept those facts, and many others, more or less on faith.

Nominated, because the example is illustrative and to the point.

There are too many experiments for any of us to do all of them. We HAVE to trust somebody sometime.

[articulett]

He does not hold any belief in god.

That is Paul.

~~ Joobz

Would he could he in a boat?

Would he could he with a goat?

[articulett]

We think you are deluded as you think all those other believers are...

[Tricky]

Come on over some time, I would be happy to drag out a 'scope. I couldn't show you the Doppler shifts, but everything else would be doable. :)
Don't do it Porgie! Then she'll want to see yours too!

[Big Les]

This may be playing into certain people's hands rather, but it sums up a lot of what I think is positive about an atheistic, rationalist, pro-science worldview.

Tremble in fear at the the ATHEIST APOCALYPSE!!!! (http://www.viruscomix.com/putthatinyourpipeandsmokeit.jpg)

[Ocelot]

Being an athiest does not make me evil, amoral or unethical. It doesn't make me hate or oppose you or your God in any way. I have no particular reason to. I am an honest hardworking family man who has simply spent too much time examining the religions of the world to pick one as having any objective merit over any other or none at all. If I am wrong and furthermore find that filling my life with love, compassion, honour and duty was not enough to placate a vain and jealous God then that's not the sort of God I'd have been happy worshipping anyway.

[articulett]

Happy Birthday Ocelot!

Many more journeys around the sun.

[skeptical]

Fallacy: You assume I'm making a claim I'm not. I think the name is 'putting words into my mouth.'

Actually no, I was merely saying that is the usual fallacy that people are making who say "science doesn't know everything", not that you were saying that. It is true as far as it goes, but people who say that typically mean more than just the bare statement itself.


Fallacy being, you don't acknowledge or even consider any claims that you think aren't peer reviewed (isn't this sticking words into peoples mouths fun? We can discuss things like this all day.).

Up to you.


Big Pharma has failed to document the safety and reliability of a lot of their products, especially their anti-depressants, and other mind-altering drugs. If they had, I think a lot of them would not be on the market, or at least they would be much slower to hand them out. Some Anti-depressants actually increase suicide risk, for instance.

I would prefer links to some actual evidence for these claims, but since this is way OT, I'd really prefer you to start another thread.

[bignickel]

I accept lots of things on faith. I accept that the Andromeda galaxy is heading toward the Milky Way galaxy, and will collide with it in some number of billions of years. If you and I went outside tonight, I couldn't even point in the direction of the Andromeda galaxy. I've never looked at it through a telescope. I've never observed the doppler shift or whatever it is that has convinced scientists that it is moving toward us. I have faith that other people who know how to check such things have done their homework, and if the facts were in doubt, I'd have heard about it. I have faith that if I wanted to, I could look through a telescope, and observe the Doppler shift or whatever, and crunch some numbers, and make the relevant facts my own. I don't do that. Speaking only for myself, I accept those facts, and many others, more or less on faith.
I liked this section too, except that I would replace "have faith" with "believe". Faith is 'belief without evidence'. When evidence can be obtained, 'belief', to me, is the appropriate word. When evidence can not exist, won't be presented, etc, that's when 'faith' comes in.

Since reading Harris, I have found that 'faith' is a horrific word. People seem to the most terrible things throughout history because of 'faith'.

[GreyICE]

Actually no, I was merely saying that is the usual fallacy that people are making who say "science doesn't know everything", not that you were saying that. It is true as far as it goes, but people who say that typically mean more than just the bare statement itself. Oh. I always mean my bare statements. As I said before, the field would be rather boring if we knew everything. Its kinda sad that we're driven to the point where we have to pretend we know everything because of woo. The thrill of discovery is a huge part of what makes science attractive, and by pretending to have a vast body of knowledge (when, in fact, what we don't know is almost certainly much larger) we damage one of the attractions of science. I think it will only be detrimental to the field in the long run.



Up to you. I'd rather not. Its no fun.



I would prefer links to some actual evidence for these claims, but since this is way OT, I'd really prefer you to start another thread.
Okay. I'm going to put together some solid references so its not just a 5 line discussion, but I'll look into it. Suffice to say, I plan to show that repeatedly big pharma has made decisions that helped its bottom line at the expense of its customers - only instead of a toaster breaking as a result of corner cutting, it was someone's organs. As Jack said, "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

[articulett]

Yes, science doesn't know everything, but it does have an error correcting mechanism; faith sure doesn't. Moreover, when science and facts and evidence can't explain something, it sure doesn't mean some guru or insight or religion or god does. In fact, I can't think of a single objective truth where science didn't get to the matter long before some guru, scripture, prophet of god.

Science doesn't know everything. But you don't need to have faith for planes to fly or computers to work. Religion doesn't know anything. It's the only field where you have to "believe" to prove it "works".

[GreyICE]

Yes, science doesn't know everything, but it does have an error correcting mechanism; faith sure doesn't. Moreover, when science and facts and evidence can't explain something, it sure doesn't mean some guru or insight or religion or god does. In fact, I can't think of a single objective truth where science didn't get to the matter long before some guru, scripture, prophet of god.

Science doesn't know everything. But you don't need to have faith for planes to fly or computers to work. Religion doesn't know anything. It's the only field where you have to "believe" to prove it "works".

<- Choir

You: [Preach]

I just think a lot of the mystery and sense of discovery science used to hold is being strangled by people who are claiming to know everything, or close to. Imagine if they all said "No! Damn it, there's a million questions we would love answers to, and we would be amazed, and we'd all clap and cheer if some really smart kids came along and, using what we've done, built some really nifty solutions." For instance, Global Warming. We're fairly confident its happening - the mechanism is well proven, and in operation, and therefore the global climate will stabilize at a higher temperature, but we really could use some answers to exactly what effect this will or won't have.

Instead people are being taught the entire subject is a closed book, which is ridiculous, and the obvious backlash is to buy the woo (well if he's lying to me about how much they know, why?). Its a wide open book, and we'd love someone to write in it - just please no nonsense funded by oil companies about natural warming.

[Dr H]

I think many atheists would agree with you, and most (including me) would come very close. What I meant when I said that atheism is not hatred of religion is that atheism is not necessarily hatred of religion. Many atheists probably hate religion, but even if all atheists hated religion, that would be a coincidence, and it would not make hatred of religion part of atheism.

OK, that makes sense.

Surprisingly to some, there are even atheistic religions, or, it might be better to say, religions which are not incompatible with atheism, in that they do not require a belief in any deity.

Are you thinking of something like Buddhism?
If so, I think "non-theistic" is maybe a better term for them than "atheistic".

{"areligionism"}
That seems fine, although I think I like that word better as a rejection of religion than a hatred of religion.

That was the sense in which I intended it.
I don't hate a whole lot of things, but I most certainly do reject religion.

[Dr H]

;3543645']I think you two are making the same point.
You are saying that your decision to stop limiting yourself to the doctrines of the religions you were a part of in the past constitutes a choice for atheism.
Crudely put, I know, but is it generally accurate?
I probably would have phrased it more along the lines of 'I decided to make my own decisions, rather than let them be made for me by others,' but essentially, yes.


As Dr H said, it depends on how you define "choice" in this case.

In my case, I view the decision to learn about religion(s) as one choice, and, in my case, my atheism came as a result of that. But I, personally, can not say I decided not to believe in God. That was a consequence of a prior decision, not a concious choice in and of itself.

I'll say again, that this is only my perception. One man. Currently stressed out of his gourd by a brutal course called "Vibrations".

Have I answered your comments satisfactorily?
Close enough. Thanks.

[linusrichard]

Are you thinking of something like Buddhism?
If so, I think "non-theistic" is maybe a better term for them than "atheistic".


That's probably better. I only meant a religion to which an atheist might belong. I was thinking of Buddhism (some sects), Confucianism, Taoism, Raelianism, and Scientology.

Some say Buddhism isn't a religion (I disagree).
Some say Confucianism isn't a religion (I agree, but enough people disagree that I thought it was worth mentioning).
It's arguable whether Taoism is nontheistic.
I don't actually know whether Scientology is nontheistic. Or a religion, for that matter.

But I'm fairly sure about Raelianism. But I might still be wrong about it.

[dahduh]

Atheism is the absence of belief in God. That's all. It does not imply immorality, devil-worship, being a communist, being a Democrat, or any of the other associations that have been used to denigrate people who do not share your faith, usually in an effort to dismiss them from your respectful attention.

[FireGarden]

I liked this section too, except that I would replace "have faith" with "believe". Faith is 'belief without evidence'. When evidence can be obtained, 'belief', to me, is the appropriate word. When evidence can not exist, won't be presented, etc, that's when 'faith' comes in.

Faith is just trust. It can be blind, or it can be founded on experience.

I'm in the same boat as Bokonon. I don't even know where Andromeda is, but I believe it's headed towards us. Why? Because I trust the people who have said so. No other reason. So faith is there at the base of the belief.

Can I find the evidence if I choose to? I believe I can. Again, that is a faith based belief. I trust the people who have looked at Andromeda and my own experience of other science matters. Including some claims which I have bothered to check out.

[Wowbagger]

It does not matter if God exists or not. You are stronger than God! You have the power to make a positive difference in the world. Why rely on some entity that does not seem to do anything for anyone, anymore?


[My real name is Mitchell S. Lampert. You can quote me using my real name or screen name, if you want. (Or combine the two?: Mitchell "Wowbagger" Lampert) Whatever.]

[FireGarden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism.

[drzeus99]

Atheism is a belief in reality. It's also a failure to simply believe something because it was told to you to be true, and you had to blindly believe it, without using your own mind to validate, with empiracle evidence, some supernatural story that tends to make some people feel they are a special creation from some divine diety.

[Kaizen]

1) I am a Weak/Negative Agnostic and Atheist. This is the default position from birth, which is simply a lack of belief in anything. This is very different from Strong/Positive Agnosticism and Atheism, both of which require one to make a claim about reality, which requires a belief behind it.

If you really want to help us, then do your best to understand us rather than making generalizations and false assumptions to support your arguments so you can "prove us wrong". This is one of the biggest misconceptions that I run into when speaking with proselytizers, that they couldn't understand the difference between the 2 forms of Atheism and Agnosticism (Weak/ Negative vs Strong/Positive).

2) I do not deny God. If God were as good as you say "He" is, I would have no reason to deny Him. I don't deny him because there's nothing around me as far as I can tell to deny. I'm sitting on a chair, I'd have no reason to deny that. The chair is reality for me. The God you describe is not in front of me for me to deny (as far as I can tell) and if he is, I'm not sure why he created me with senses that don't allow me to sense him. The point is, if I could sense him and I knew that he is as good as you believe he is, I would accept him without any problems.

3) I seek truth above all things. It's above my ego and what I would prefer to believe. If God is real, then doesn't that mean that I'm searching for him? If so, how could I be opposing his will? He knows he's real, why would he punish me if I'm earnestly searching for reality?

A problem arises when I'm asked by proselytizers to accept their understanding of truth non-critically or without the use of reason. Reason is my strongest tool for filtering out falsehoods or non-truths. If I'm supposed to accept your God without the critical filtering, then what's to stop me from accepting conflicting beliefs that would ask the same of me?

Also, what's the purpose of logically bringing someone to a point where they're going to have to take a leap of faith (regardless of how small or large it may seem) to accept the belief anyway? If faith is required no matter how thin you slice it, why even attempt the logical argument? This of course assumes that you personally believe that faith is ultimately required.

You may use any of this post if it's kept withing the proper context and you acknowledge my username on this forum.

[PBTree]

God : "A 'life-crutch' for the fearful"

:)