WTF Is Up With Atheists Lately?

[atrasicarius]

The Classic atheist lines:

1)There is no God.
2)Theists are not logical.
3)Sheep
4)Religion is about control.
5)Religion is violent.
6)Think for yourself.

I am sure that anyone who is a theist of any form who has talked to an atheist has heard some of these classics. I also find the topic of this discussion funny because I essentially see Atheism as Nihlism. I further this by seeing Nihlism in the comical sense of a radical belief in nothing. So in essence to me when an atheist mocks me for belief I hear this instead:

"You have hopes, dreams, and aspirations. What kind of fool are you to believe in something bigger than yourself? You are a sheep for wanting to have hope that there is something more important. You are a sheep for believing in something. So sad. You should be like me and believe in nothing. Maybe live your life according to only you. Ignore what might be deemed as a good deed or an act of charity. It doesn't matter because nobody will enjoy it in the long run. God certain doesn't exist, so why would he want you to do a good deed? I am a sad, pathetic, and lonely person and I want you to believe in nothing with me because misery loves company."

Ok ok. I confess I don't see that every time. But it always seems to sound something like that to me. A radical attack on me because I believe in something. I also love being told what I believe by an atheist. But that is beside the point. I do have a question to propose to the thread:

Can an atheist really love someone?

Think about it? There is no proof of love. Heck they can dumb it down to scientific terms, but do they actually believe in love? Can they? I don't know. Atheism to me just seems depressing. I will highlight that this is not meant as an attack on someone for non-belief. This is an attack on anyone who mocks someone for their belief in something. Specifically their belief in God. If you don't mock, then don't worry. I will never have a problem with your beliefs. They are yours alone.

I don't see it that way at all. Atheism is inspirational. Life is entirely what you make of it. There is no set path you need to follow. The only meaning in life is the meaning you give it yourself. Of course, the idea that you're gone forever when you die is sort of depressing, but the idea of existing forever with no way to ever escape consciousness is just terrifying.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Modified to hopefully help you understand why your position is flawed.

I get that you don't want to commit to one position or the other. One position makes your stance as valid as Pinkie's, and the other requires you to produce evidence you can't possibly produce.

 

[atrasicarius]

I get that you don't want to commit to one position or the other. One position makes your stance as valid as Pinkie's, and the other requires you to produce evidence you can't possibly produce.

Alright, I'm done talking to you now. You're like a little kid who responds to everything with "I know you are, but what am I?" Come back if you ever feel like actually addressing my argument.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I know it's frustrating that I won't let you re-frame the question to give you an out. Sorry about that.

 

[atrasicarius]

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try reading that. It might help with future arguments.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Logical Fallacy: Redefinition

Ditto.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

They've been saying that for the past 2000 years or so. Heck, look at some of the crazy religious groups who keep preaching the end of the world and are always wrong, yet their followers still cling to their absurd ideas. Reality and religious belief seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I were a devout Christian I probably would've been a bit concerned on December 31, 1665. Things seem to be nicer today than back then.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim of fact, not the one making a claim of belief.

If one believes something they think that something exists or is true. The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If one believes something they think that something exists or is true. The burden of proof rests with the one making a claim.

You are making the same mistake as at least two other people in this thread. A statement of belief is just that -- someone is saying, "I believe this." No proof is required, because they are not stating it as fact.

If Pinkie had said, for example, "There is a god," then that would be a statement of fact and she would need to provide evidence to back up that statement.

If someone believes something and says so, you can certainly ask them to expound on their belief so that you can better understand it -- but since it isn't being presented as a truth that others must accept as true, such an exposition is in no way required.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There are facebook pages for atheism? I'm out of the loop - I don't do the online stuff much so I can't chime in beyond that.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

You are making the same mistake as at least two other people in this thread. A statement of belief is just that -- someone is saying, "I believe this." No proof is required, because they are not stating it as fact.

If Pinkie had said, for example, "There is a god," then that would be a statement of fact and she would need to provide evidence to back up that statement.

If someone believes something and says so, you can certainly ask them to expound on their belief so that you can better understand it -- but since it isn't being presented as a truth that others must accept as true, such an exposition is in no way required.

"I believe this" means I think "this" is true. If you say "X" is a fact and you are not trying to deceive then you necessarily believe "X".

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

"I believe this" means I think "this" is true. If you say "X" is a fact and you are not trying to deceive then you necessarily believe "X".

Absolutely true -- the difference is that saying you think a certain way doesn't require you to back it up with evidence so long as you don't represent it as fact.

Saying something is a fact means you believe it, but saying you believe it doesn't mean you're representing it as fact.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Absolutely true -- the difference is that saying you think a certain way doesn't require you to back it up with evidence so long as you don't represent it as fact.
Saying something is a fact means you believe it, but saying you believe it doesn't mean you're representing it as fact.

If you aren't representing a coherent belief about an aspect of reality of reality as a fact, then what are you you representing your belief as?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If you aren't representing a coherent belief about an aspect of reality of reality as a fact, then what are you you representing your belief as?

As your belief, of course. That's precisely what someone who communicates the nature of their religious convictions without "pushing them on someone else" is doing.

 

[mbig]

Lack of belief isn't a belief in the same way that off isn't a television channel. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion. Atheists assert nothing, since the base position is to assume that nothing exists until shown otherwise. This is not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Three different dictionaries completely disagree with you -- but I can see where you'd like to take that position, as it gives you the best of all worlds.

And I can find Dictionaries that agree with him. "Lack" of belief.

Perhaps the best I've heard this put is by a former poster here 'C Gerstle':

To call atheism a religion is to call bald a hair color.

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around.

 

[Arcana XV]

The Oxford English Dictionary is more of the same.

So, let's try again -- are you stating that you believe there is no god, or are you stating that there is in fact no god?

First of all, semantics really are the most boring debate tactic there is. Discussions never get anywhere by splitting hairs the way you're doing. I understand what you're trying to do, but to quote the famous lolcat, "ur doin it wrong".

Let me try and put it to you a different way, so maybe you'll understand where most atheists are coming from when we say "there are no gods".

When my daughter was small, she loved fairy tales. Cinderella, Snow White etc... One day she asked me if the people in these stories were real. I said: "No, baby. There's no Cinderella and no fairy godmother. It's just a story someone made up a long time ago." Note my confident statement of fact. Do you think it was necessary for me to add the words "I believe" to that statement? Of course not. It's a commonly accepted fact that Cinderella is not real.

Now, bear in mind that most atheists view all religious books and the stories they contain in the same way the average person views fairy tales or old Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies. Stories someone made up a long time ago. Our minds process these stories the way we process all other works of fiction. Is it any wonder that we sometimes fail to be semantically correct? Just as no one would expect me to add "I believe" to my Cinderella statement, atheists should not be required to add "I believe" when we say "there is no god".

If new credible evidence emerges to prove the existence of fairy godmothers, Allah, Zeus or Osiris, I for one stand ready to change my mind. Until then, they shall all remain in the literary fictional realm where they rightly belong.

 

[Ikari]

It's as if this is some new fad....as in, it's cool in 2011 to be an atheist.

Any thoughts?

Fad? No. I think what's really happened is that it's finally become OK to be an atheist. Now atheists can say stuff out loud and in public without fear of heavy repercussion. While there were little in the ways of laws, there was much in the way of social stigma. And to this day you'll likely see one who may otherwise claim atheism make some personal statement towards belief to avoid the controversy in total.

Yet it is becoming more and more acceptable to be atheist. And as that happened and groups coalesced. there became outspoken members of the group. To be expected for sure, every group has the loud mouths. And these people, through lack of anything better to do or for some other unknown reason, like to be heard and recognized and will say stuff to get that. Some make silly points about manger scenes on public property, some try to put up signs. It's how they act.

My question to you is why do you think atheists should be different? Why of all the groups out there do you think ours shouldn't have jerks and that those jerks shouldn't be allowed to run their mouths? In the end, atheists are human and this is how humans act. Why would you wish to enact superhuman limitations on the atheists?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

First of all, semantics really are the most boring debate tactic there is. Discussions never get anywhere by splitting hairs the way you're doing. I understand what you're trying to do, but to quote the famous lolcat, "ur doin it wrong".

Probably. If I'm not famous for jumping up on my high horse and riding it all the way into hell by now, I should be. :lol:

Now, bear in mind that most atheists view all religious books and the stories they contain in the same way the average person views fairy tales or old Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies. Stories someone made up a long time ago. Our minds process these stories the way we process all other works of fiction. Is it any wonder that we sometimes fail to be semantically correct? Just as no one would expect me to add "I believe" to my Cinderella statement, atheists should not be required to add "I believe" when we say "there is no god".

I absolutely understand where you're coming from, and I agree that the words "I believe" should not be a requirement. There is a difference between you and I chatting about religion, and the conversation I've had with Cephus (for example).

When you and I have a conversation, as much as we tease each other or sometimes take the position of devil's advocate just for the fun of it, we respect one another. There's no name-calling, no derision. Neither of us pats the other on the head and says, "Yes, dear." We don't assume a superior attitude with one another. Because of this, you and I are able to maintain a fairly informal conversational atmosphere where we give one another a lot of wiggle room, rather that nitpicking over definitions (except to make sure we're both using the same word to describe the same thing) or trying to pin each other down on a single turn of phrase.

This thread was started about a whole other kind of "conversation" (and I use the term loosely). There we will find name-calling, derision, and so forth, and Cephus was quick to defend that brand of malarkey as being necessary in order to make oneself heard over religious fanatics. A lot of words like truth and honest and lie and fact and proof were thrown out there as a way of justifying either the kind of behavior Pinkie was encountering or atheism in general. Not only was a hostile environment quickly established in response to a "gee, why's that" kind of question, but several posters (of which Cephus was only one) assumed superior attitudes and asserted the superiority of their perspective over Pinkie's perspective.

I got picky over the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of belief because I wanted certain individuals (of which Cephus was only one) to take one of two positions -- either you believe whatever your perspective is, which gives your perspective as much weight as Pinkies (and for that matter, that of any monotheist loudmouth who talks smack about atheism), or you're stating that your perspective is factually accurate, in which case you need to provide evidence to back it up.

A simple "I believe" would've sufficed, but even that was too much to ask, hence why I kept at it rather than walking away.

 

[Arcana XV]

I can dig it. Although, as these sort of threads go, this one was really quite civil and mellow.

 

[Paschendale]

I got picky over the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of belief because I wanted certain individuals (of which Cephus was only one) to take one of two positions -- either you believe whatever your perspective is, which gives your perspective as much weight as Pinkies (and for that matter, that of any monotheist loudmouth who talks smack about atheism), or you're stating that your perspective is factually accurate, in which case you need to provide evidence to back it up.

A simple "I believe" would've sufficed, but even that was too much to ask, hence why I kept at it rather than walking away.

Our position is factually accurate. That's the whole point. Belief is not required, nor is it even relevant. Atheism is not a religion. Belief is not a part of it. Nor does it function like a religion. I will not say "I believe xyz." Because I don't. I don't believe in anything. I know plenty of things. I think plenty of things. Every one of those things is backed up by evidence. Every single religious claim that has been examined for evidence has failed to be consistent. We do not "believe", we conclude based on evidence. There is no faith whatsoever involved. We don't have faith in Darwin, or in Hawking, or in Richard Dawkins (what oddly similar names they have...). We don't even have faith in scientific principals. It's entirely okay if every last one of them is wrong. Because when we find out they're wrong, we just go and figure out why, and sort out what's right.

You cannot frame atheism is a belief system. It does not come from the same place as belief, and does not follow the same thought processes. A simple "I believe" would NOT suffice. We because it is not belief, nor is it simple.

As a side note, this hostility towards belief only exists because belief is so obviously wrong. If Jesus came back and held a press conference, you can bet I would convert. But, based on myriad pieces of historical, biological, physical, psychological (and many more disciplines) evidence, I know with substantial certainty that this will not happen. I conclude that it would be far more likely that I will encounter Godzilla than god. And statistically insignificant chances just are not worth altering one's life around. If there is some kind of punishment and reward system, I have just as much chance of facing judgement based on whether or not my heart weighs more than a feather, or entering Valhalla because I died in battle, as I do of being judged based on whether or not I intentionally ignored the conclusions of my rational mind and spent every Sunday in a special building muttering compliments to a magic father figure.

If you believe in one, and you understand probability at all, then you must believe in the others. But if you understand probability at all, then you won't believe in any of them.

To return to my original point, as this turned into quite a long rant... No. It is NOT a belief. Do not presume that others think the way you do.

 

[Thorgasm]

You can't prove a negative. To say that one must prove god doesn't exist otherwise it's just a belief is not logical in my mind.

 

[Pinkie]

That belief is an opinion, it makes no objective claims about reality. The existence of a deity is a claim about objective reality, thus it has a different requirement.

No, you're wrong, Cephus. I freely and openly admit my belief in a Divine is a choice. I guess you could call it "my opinion".

What you can't call it is a "factual error".

 

[Pinkie]

Right, let's do this. The main source of information about God, at least the Christian one, is the Bible, so let's have a look at it, shall we? I'll start with the easy stuff:
A List Of Biblical Contradictions

There are two general views on the Bible. One is that it's an imperfect work by men. The other is that it's an inerrant, divinely inspired work. I think we can pretty safely dispense with the second view, considering that it's not even self consistent. The next question is, did the men who wrote the Bible know what they were talking about? There are two general sides here, as well. One is that the bible is an accurate depiction of reality, accounting for the circumstances of its writing and copying errors over time. The other is that it's a collection of bronze age mythology that's pretty equivalent to contemporary mythology from other places. If it accurately described reality, you'd expect it to get the big stuff right, even if the details had gotten confused. So, let's go down the list:

6,000 year old Earth created in 6 days
Two original humans
Talking snake
Global flood
Two of every animal
Jews in Egypt
And so on, and so forth...

There's also that fact that no historians from the time of Jesus record any of the miracles that he supposedly performed, which you'd think would be a kind of big deal. Taking all that into account, I'd say it's pretty clear which explanation is more likely. So, if the primary source of information on god is a collection of bronze age myths, then what does that make god?

Atrasicarius, I personally find the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament) preposterous. I am not a christian. I don't understand why you'd toss anti-christian analysis at me.

ALL I believe is that there is a God, a Divine. That's it. End of story.

I'm not an atheist.....but I was once. I can respect your POV, and I can respect the POV of Jews, Muslims, and (most) christians. I did consider Judaism for a long time, but in the end, it just wasn't for me.

Anyone who has dedicated time, energy and thought to developing a spiritual inner life, assuming it hasn't led them to violence, gets my respect.

So, why are SOME atheists unwilling to show this mutual respect to SOME religious or spiritual people, especially lately?

 

[Pinkie]

You can't prove a negative. To say that one must prove god doesn't exist otherwise it's just a belief is not logical in my mind.

Why not? Is referring to your POV as a "belief" somehow demeaning to you?

 

[Ikari]

So, why are SOME atheists unwilling to show this mutual respect to SOME religious or spiritual people, especially lately?

Why do SOME religious or spiritual people unwilling to show mutual respect to SOME atheists? You seem to be making a one way road here. The real answer to your question is that every group, including theists and atheists, have jerks. This isn't just some problem with atheists, this is standard human operating procedure.