What Atheism is NOT!

[rivrrat]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Those claiming to know anything regarding the supernatural are either lying or crazy, or genuinely touched by the divine, yet haven't proven it.

Or maybe we don't consider it "super"natural at all, but rather completely natural.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Or maybe we don't consider it "super"natural at all, but rather completely natural.

Of course-- nothing can occur outside the natural laws of our universe, because any phenomena that appears to contradict those laws merely suggests that our understanding of those laws is incomplete.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Of course-- nothing can occur outside the natural laws of our universe, because any phenomena that appears to contradict those laws merely suggests that our understanding of those laws is incomplete.

Yeah... I think folks use the term for things that they (or our science) cannot explain or do not understand. Personally, while I do use the term for clarification purposes, I don't like it since it implies "unnatural" to me in a sense. It says "above" nature, or "greater than" nature, etc. When I think it's just... nature.

 

[Cephus]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Accusing someone of irrationality, or ignorance, or even stupidity for believing in a god (or other supernatural phenomena) implies a strong belief in the opposite.

Not at all. I have the same opinion of people who believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It's entirely possible that Bigfoot or even God might exist out there somewhere, but to believe it's true and especially to wrap your entire existence around something that, from all available evidence, is a complete myth, is indeed foolish.

Mankind doesn't need any more self-delusional falsehoods, especially one that some big juju is going to come down from the sky and solve all our problems. The only one who can solve our problems is *US* and the more that we pass off that responsibility to convenient and comforting falsehoods, the longer it will actually take for us, as a species, to improve.

It doesn't matter if it's God or Xenu or Harry Potter, thinking something is real without any rational, logical or intellectual reason is, at least from where I'm sitting, silly.

 

[kal-el]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

It is very different from the faith based negative claim "I believe that your god, Yahweh, does not exist." That is a claim no one should make, for it is impossible to prove a negative, and is an intellectually unsafe position to hold, or expect anyone to find compelling.

Lachean, I don't mean to stir up the pot here, but I think claiming the God of the Abrahamic religions does not exist, is a perfectly reasonable claim to make. In his book, God is described to a "t". It is also fairly easy to rebuke all of the "omni" qualites that the bible God is attributed with. As soon as we are presented qualites of a god, we can go about disproving it. Of course, if we are given no properties, it is literally impossible to disprove it. If someone would say, "My god is a giant, purple ape that blesses mankind" We cannot disprove that, as we would have to scower the entire universe and report back that nobody seen such a god. If the God of Christianity would exist by chance, it cannot be perfect.The amount of suffering in the world is incompatible with a God who loves humans and is all powerful.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I wasn't calling anyone stupid.

The distinction is important, but the reason people in this thread aren't making that distinction is that many atheists have taken a confrontational tone-- not only proclaiming their own lack of belief, but chastising and ridiculing others, not for their specific beliefs, but for having those beliefs at all.

Accusing someone of irrationality, or ignorance, or even stupidity for believing in a god (or other supernatural phenomena) implies a strong belief in the opposite.

Anyone who has attempted to defend theism in an argument has probably been accused of all of these things by people who identify themselves as atheists.

And the level of skepticism-- of outright hostility-- shown to people making those claims is far beyond what one would expect from a neutral position.

I agree, and as I have explicitly explained, I do not see their delusion as a matter of stupidity or education (with exceptions to matters regarding evolution.) I believe someone can be so educated as to be able to build a nuclear bomb and still be as deluded as to expect those 72 virgins.

I do not call anyone a stupid for their beliefs. I will admit to having calling the defensive, sanctimonious, "tu quoque" emotional non-sequitors that theists make when first confront someone who doesn't automatically respect their beliefs/justifications "moronic."

But that is only after they baselessly attack me, or warrant such a pejorative.

Or maybe we don't consider it "super"natural at all, but rather completely natural.

Yeah... I think folks use the term for things that they (or our science) cannot explain or do not understand. Personally, while I do use the term for clarification purposes, I don't like it since it implies "unnatural" to me in a sense. It says "above" nature, or "greater than" nature, etc. When I think it's just... nature.

I consider all things that exist to be natural, even if they are on higher orders/dimensions of complexity.

But usually when someone invokes the supernatural, they mean something that defies causality. Something miraculous that could not have occurred through natural processes.

I do not imagine a natural god, that evolved from simpler beginnings to be worthy of worship to the supernaturalists here.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Perhaps I misspoke

Lachean, I don't mean to stir up the pot here

Thats what the pot is for.

but I think claiming the God of the Abrahamic religions does not exist, is a perfectly reasonable claim to make.

Depending on his attributed claims. If the Yahweh you're talking about "created the earth in 6000" yes that didn't happen, and is easily falsifiable.

I was speaking on being able to prove he doesn't exist, which is logically impossible.

In his book, God is described to a "t". It is also fairly easy to rebuke all of the "omni" qualites that the bible God is attributed with. As soon as we are presented qualites of a god, we can go about disproving it.

We can always of course show how his attributes are contradictory, and how the functions attributed to him can be explained by natural processes. But the theologians will engage in a shifting goalpost, saying that "if god doesn't do it, he set things up so that they would work that way."

Of course it is reasonable to not believe that, my point was that it is impossible to prove such negative claims. Just like it is impossible to prove that Leprechauns do not exist.

Of course, if we are given no properties, it is literally impossible to disprove it. If someone would say, "My god is a giant, purple ape that blesses mankind" We cannot disprove that, as we would have to scower the entire universe and report back that nobody seen such a god. If the God of Christianity would exist by chance, it cannot be perfect.The amount of suffering in the world is incompatible with a God who loves humans and is all powerful.

Which also suggests that even if such a god did exist, such a tyrant would hardly be worthy of worship.

 

[kal-el]

Re: Perhaps I misspoke

Depending on his attributed claims. If the Yahweh you're talking about "created the earth in 6000" yes that didn't happen, and is easily falsifiable.

Yes, the God of the bible just can't have all the attrbutes circumscribed to it, so there is no possible way, besides faith, that would lead someone to believe that it exists. So...being shown overwhelming piles of evidence, and no Christian has presented a shred of proof in 2,000 years, it is totally reasonable to assume it doesn't exist.

I was speaking on being able to prove he doesn't exist, which is logically impossible.

If Christians and atheists alike can agree on a set, certain amount of attributes (The God of Christianity would have to take a big hit here) that God is endowed with, and none of them are contradictory, yes you are correct, it would be nearly impossible to prove God doesn't exist.

Of course it is reasonable to not believe that, my point was that it is impossible to prove such negative claims. Just like it is impossible to prove that Leprechauns do not exist.

Yes, negative claims are almost always an impossible feat to prove. But the one who asserts the claim, shoulder's the responsibilty of providing evidence if they want to be taken seriously. But Christians don't feel they have to, as they are the majority in society; everywhere you go, it is practically impossible to totally get away from Christianity. Even on fictional TV shows. I don't know if you ever seen Smallville, but in the pilot episode Clark Kent was hung on a beam of wood, and Lex freeded him commenting that Roman soliders must have done that. There's Jesus fish on cars, "Jesus loves you" propaganda everywhere, religious radio, commercials. On my way to work I disctintly remember seeing 2 religious billboards. Were ever one goes, there is constant exposure to Christianity. This is a form of brainwashing. They place all these signs and give us messages to draw us in, not unlike lambs to the slaughter.

Which also suggests that even if such a god did exist, such a tyrant would hardly be worthy of worship.

Exactly. I don't see how Jesus can be anyway related to the God of the OT. They send totally different messages. Jesus preaches to repay evil with good, while God on the other hand, is in to torture and dashing infants to pieces. What morality are Christians supposed to follow here? What if the God from the OT returns, and starts commanding "eye for an eye"?

 

[Kasmos]

Excellent post kal-el

 

[kal-el]

Excellent post kal-el

Muchas gracias amigo. But yea I think it is a subtle form of brainwashing. People need to wake up, we are constantly being forcefed subliminal, and not so subliminal messages everyday. You can't escape it. You have people everywhere you go constantly referring to a sky man as fact, their is constant exposure to Christianity, and lastly the indoctrination of young children. Religion preys on a young, feeble mind, as when a mind is in the process of maturing it is susceptible to all sorts of ideas. Religion exploits this. It usually, not always, but usually starts to grab ahold of the person's mental faculty when they are young, settles in to the background, and over time, the person comes to accept this. Once you have believed in God for so long, it is irrational not to believe in him. IMO one of the single greatest deceits pulled by religion is the stupid idea that faith is a good thing, and something to be rewarded.

 

[kal-el]

Lachean, good job bro. I just read your OP and like AustailianLibertairian said it should be a sticky. I'm growing rather tired of hearing the bumper sticker slogan, "atheism is as much a religion as Christianity", and "the belief is in the denial." Too bad the theists probably won't pay it any attention.

 

[Cephus]

Lachean, good job bro. I just read your OP and like AustailianLibertairian said it should be a sticky. I'm growing rather tired of hearing the bumper sticker slogan, "atheism is as much a religion as Christianity", and "the belief is in the denial." Too bad the theists probably won't pay it any attention.

Of course they won't, they can't. Their entire position is adversarial, theism on one side and everyone else on the other. They can't accept anyone who isn't on their side, yet is not an enemy, that's the way the whole religion is set up.

 

[kal-el]

Of course they won't, they can't. Their entire position is adversarial, theism on one side and everyone else on the other. They can't accept anyone who isn't on their side, yet is not an enemy, that's the way the whole religion is set up.

Yep. Christianity teaches that anyone that does not adhere to their line of thinking will burn eternally, and as far as I know, in the Koran, Allah instructs his followers to kill unbeliever's or "infidels." I don't know, but if I were to create a religion, I wouldn't pose a figurehead who I can't even prove existed. Religion teaches that their scripture is perfect, so to Christians, whatever the bible asserts is assumed to be true, and their is no way to falsfiy their dogma.

Why is Christianity the "us vs them" mentality? They're not making any friends that way. Their God, Yahweh, that they worship is a fictional character basically written and composed to support a control system over the sheeple. In the bible, he demands his *** wiped, and read a bed time story, not because he needs it, but the writers who dreamed him up used his character as a vessel to imprint their own ideas of worship onto the audience.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Not at all. I have the same opinion of people who believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It's entirely possible that Bigfoot or even God might exist out there somewhere, but to believe it's true and especially to wrap your entire existence around something that, from all available evidence, is a complete myth, is indeed foolish.

Tell me, what is the available evidence that suggests that all religion is mythical? What are the "rational" explanations for reported miraculous phenomena?

There is limited evidence on this subject, and what evidence does exist can be reasonably interpreted in either direction. Spare me the refutations of Biblical verse-- any number of false statements can coexist with the truth without damaging it. If there are indeed spiritual forces at work in the universe, then falsehoods and myths can only obscure them, not invalidate them.

Mankind doesn't need any more self-delusional falsehoods, especially one that some big juju is going to come down from the sky and solve all our problems.

Not every religion is so morally irresponsible, not even among the omnibenevolent monotheists. Many religions teach a sense of moral responsibility, and a need for thoughtful and committed action to solve the problems of mankind.

It doesn't matter if it's God or Xenu or Harry Potter, thinking something is real without any rational, logical or intellectual reason is, at least from where I'm sitting, silly.

It's an easy position to sit in, as long as you get to define what constitutes a "rational, logical, or intellectual reason".

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: I wasn't calling anyone stupid.

I agree, and as I have explicitly explained, I do not see their delusion as a matter of stupidity or education (with exceptions to matters regarding evolution.)

You do understand that, especially in the absence of evidence, referring to another persons' beliefs as "delusions" is terribly impolite? Nearly any difference in worldview can be addressed as such-- ranging from cultural differences in moral values to, say their political beliefs.

In my own less restrained moments, I've been known to use very similar language when addressing certain arguments I strenuously disagree with.

When someone calls upon you to change your behavior "because god(s) say(s) so", the burden of proof lies on them that their god(s) exist and are worth listening to. When you call upon someone else to change his behavior because it is based on "delusions", the burden of proof shifts to you to demonstrate that either the behavior or the beliefs are irrational.

I will admit to having calling the defensive, sanctimonious, "tu quoque" emotional non-sequitors that theists make when first confront someone who doesn't automatically respect their beliefs/justifications "moronic."

May or may not be polite, but I'm not going to try to tell you it ain't fair. Frankly, a goodly portion of religious zealots-- or irreligious zealots-- are morons, and their demands for you to respect their beliefs are as ridiculous as their beliefs themselves.

On the other hand, it is to be expected when you deliberately confront someone about their religious beliefs-- just as you'd get the same response when confronting their political or moral beliefs, or their taste in music. I see very little difference between the man who confronts my religious beliefs to convince me to change them, and the man who confronts my religious beliefs to convince me to abandon them.

I do not imagine a natural god, that evolved from simpler beginnings to be worthy of worship to the supernaturalists here.

Really depends on your definition of "worship". I won't submit my Will to any other being, and I won't take a knee for any other being, but I can recognize that some beings are worthy of my praise and my consideration. My religion is prone to both ancestor-worship and hero-worship alongside our worship of our gods, and I certainly can't claim that my ancestors' origins were any less lowly than my own.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I only use the word "Deluded" when its warranted.

You do understand that, especially in the absence of evidence, referring to another persons' beliefs as "delusions" is terribly impolite?

"Terribly impolite" would be putting it lightly.

When you call upon someone else to change his behavior because it is based on "delusions", the burden of proof shifts to you to demonstrate that either the behavior or the beliefs are irrational.

I do not believe I have ever asked someone to change their behavior "because it is based on delusions." That would be tautology; "You're wrong because you're wrong."

I am quite sure if I call a belief a delusion, it is after I have exposed a logical fallacy or false premise, and they persist. I only use the word "Deluded" when its warranted.

Really depends on your definition of "worship". I won't submit my Will to any other being, and I won't take a knee for any other being, but I can recognize that some beings are worthy of my praise and my consideration.

Ditto.

My religion is prone to both ancestor-worship and hero-worship alongside our worship of our gods, and I certainly can't claim that my ancestors' origins were any less lowly than my own.

I do not hold the dogmas of my ancestors against them just as I do not hold what this country has done to become great against its modern form.

Most of what I believe now is only because I happen to have been born when I was, and stand on the shoulders of the great minds that preceded me. It was hard to be intellectually justified as an naturalist before Darwin, and so fourth...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why is Christianity the "us vs them" mentality? They're not making any friends that way.

Slave religion. It was born in oppression, and so many of its values and its symbols are based in that oppression that it's hard for many of its followers to recognize the absence of threat-- that people who do not share their beliefs might still tolerate them.

Of course, it's turned into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Much of the public discourse on religion gives them plenty of justification for their fears.

 

[kal-el]

Re:

Frankly, a goodly portion of religious zealots-- or irreligious zealots-- are morons, and their demands for you to respect their beliefs are as ridiculous as their beliefs themselves.

On the other hand, it is to be expected when you deliberately confront someone about their religious beliefs-- just as you'd get the same response when confronting their political or moral beliefs, or their taste in music. I see very little difference between the man who confronts my religious beliefs to convince me to change them, and the man who confronts my religious beliefs to convince me to abandon them.

I agree, I constantly hear, "You must respect my beliefs"- that's insane. It's an excuse so they don't have to justify them or explian why they believe, and frankly, you'll end up getting **** on at every turn. I personally respect how a person treats someone, how their personality is, how good their actions are, etc. I don't have to respect people's beliefs. Actions are louder than words. But there is a difference between ridiculing one's beliefs, and plainly not seeing eye to eye on them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: I only use the word "Deluded" when its warranted.

I am quite sure if I call a belief a delusion, it is after I have exposed a logical fallacy or false premise, and they persist. I only use the word "Deluded" when its warranted.

Fair enough. This didn't seem apparent from your earlier posts-- I gathered the impression you regarded all religious belief as delusional in nature. (May simply have been Cephus' influence.)

 

[Cephus]

Why is Christianity the "us vs them" mentality?

To be fair, it's not just Christianity, it seems to be the majority of western religions that are exclusionary. "Us vs. Them" characterizes them, it's all "We're right, you're wrong, screw you" nonsense. Eastern religions on the other hand tend to be inclusionary, it's about a philosophy, a way of thinking, not about a belief. For a lot of eastern religions, you can belong to several of them with no problem whatsoever.

 

[Cephus]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Tell me, what is the available evidence that suggests that all religion is mythical?

The complete lack of evidence to the contrary and the fact that we can examine claims made by religions and find them to be totally without merit. While that may not absolutely invalidate the remote possibility of truth, it certainly does make belief in it without additional verification foolish.

What are the "rational" explanations for reported miraculous phenomena?

Virtually no miracles are even open to scientific review, they are claims without substance and the few that ever are, like some guy ******* on a wall and if you look at it sideways and squint a lot, it might look like the Virgin Mary, aren't miracles at all, no matter how many whackjobs might flock to see the piss-stain.

It's an easy position to sit in, as long as you get to define what constitutes a "rational, logical, or intellectual reason".

If someone would like to come up with a better definition, I'd be all for it, but so far, you don't get theists doing more than making bald-faced claims that their religions are true, while claiming the bald-faced, virtually identical claims of other religions must be false.

Sorry, doesn't wash.

 

[kal-el]

To be fair, it's not just Christianity, it seems to be the majority of western religions that are exclusionary. "Us vs. Them" characterizes them, it's all "We're right, you're wrong, screw you" nonsense. Eastern religions on the other hand tend to be inclusionary, it's about a philosophy, a way of thinking, not about a belief. For a lot of eastern religions, you can belong to several of them with no problem whatsoever.

You're right. To my knowledge, I don't believe Buddihism is like this. If you say you don't buy their belief structure, they accept it and go on with their day. But like you said, western religions are very much entrenched in that mentality. In every western religion, there is a reward and punishment scheme set up. Either believe, or be torured forever. That's not much of a choice at all.

 

[Ometauru]

You're right. To my knowledge, I don't believe Buddihism is like this. If you say you don't buy their belief structure, they accept it and go on with their day. But like you said, western religions are very much entrenched in that mentality. In every western religion, there is a reward and punishment scheme set up. Either believe, or be torured forever. That's not much of a choice at all.

Well I'm not sure if Buddhism is really technically a religion. We had a debate about it in World History. It's only commonly referred to as a religion. Confucianism also. There are actually plenty of Asian 'religions' like that. However, Hinduism is an Eastern Religion and they say to accept other religions for what they are. I don't think Hindus think I'm going to 'hell'.

 

[Mr. D]

(1.) It seems to me quite obvious that if a person holds a belief that no god exists, he holds that belief in faith since no evidence is present to confirm that belief. As we all know you cannot prove a negative. Attach whatever name you wish to this position. Most people who don't write in blogs consider that an atheist! Those that claim there is no god are religious because their belief is based on faith not fact!

(2.) In my vocabulary (right or wrong) an agnostic simply is saying I see no evidence that can help me establish if God exists except the observation that man likely did not create the universe I see around me!

Put simply, "I don't know if God exists and there seems to be no reason to believe I will find out in thsi life! So not wanting to become the Mad Captain Ahab trying to find that answer in the White Whale, I will establish morals, values and ethics to live by based on what I learn from the world around me! Maybe the only source of morality is not from religious faith!"



The rest seems to be a hair splitting contest of mental masturbation without meaning!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

"I do not believe in any god(s)." /= "I believe that there is/are no god(s)."

(1.) It seems to me quite obvious that if a person holds a belief that no god exists, he holds that belief in faith since no evidence is present to confirm that belief. As we all know you cannot prove a negative. Attach whatever name you wish to this position. Most people who don't write in blogs consider that an atheist! Those that claim there is no god are religious because their belief is based on faith not fact!

"I do not believe in any god(s)." /= "I believe that there is/are no god(s)."

The latter statement is not atheism, it is in fact a faith based claim.

(2.) In my vocabulary (right or wrong) an agnostic simply is saying I see no evidence that can help me establish if God exists except the observation that man likely did not create the universe I see around me!

Put simply, "I don't know if God exists and there seems to be no reason to believe I will find out in thsi life! So not wanting to become the Mad Captain Ahab trying to find that answer in the White Whale, I will establish morals, values and ethics to live by based on what I learn from the world around me! Maybe the only source of morality is not from religious faith!"

The rest seems to be a hair splitting contest of mental masturbation without meaning!

Everyone is agnostic regarding the supernatural, anyone claiming to know anything on the subject are crazy or lying.