I feel compelled to ask: how many atheists have you actually *known? * Methinks it may be one of these situations where negative experiences with a handful of people color one’s judgement against a whole spectrum of people. I’ve known brilliant athiests and stupid Christians. Likewise, I know brilliant Christians and stupid atheists.
But perhaps it’s a “personality thing.” I tend to judge people based on their behavior and the exhibition of their character, not whether or not they hold certain beliefs.
“You will not trust me…I do not want you to trust me.”
I do think there is truth there. Atheists by definition do not try to seek valuation or approval from others, particularly in the democratic sense. They neither expect nor want the public’s trust. And I think that is how it should be.
Atheists derive their principles from scientific observation (for the most part), and public opinion is not very high on their list of concerns, if it is there at all. Atheists take the universe as it is, and they derive a morality not from without, but from within themselves based on principles they have observed. And at the core is a basic skepticism. They do not ‘trust’ the universe, but do hope that it continues to follow the observations made so far. They do not ‘trust’ themselves in an absolute sense, since an absolute does not exist. And trust as it exists is a characteristic of personal relationships.
And atheism is a very limited word, denoting merely the absence of belief in divinity. Determining what fills that absence is the more part of the philosophy - which branches almost endlessly, and atheism is just an easy word to describe the very least they have in common.
So to address the OP, I do not think atheists have to do anything to make America trust them. It is not on the agenda, and should not be. Helping the American citizenry ‘trust’ science and scientific reasoning is a worthy goal.
Look, most people I know don’t really ever attend church or synogogue. Or some of them pay some lip service to going on major holidays. I would call them Ambivalentheists. We identify with whatever particular religeon we were raised as and that’s about it.
From what I have seen on this board (and just having watched George Carlin on HBO), a lot of Athiests (big A) seem to have an attitude of “I don’t believe in God and all of you who do are a bunch of idiots.” They make it a point to let everyone know that they don’t believe in God.
I also think it’s a little ridiculous for Athiests to compare themselves to Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks or any other group when it comes to persecution. Get over yourselves.
I don’t think the difference is as large as it appears, and it’s one that only shows up in detailed discussions and debates anyhow. I think the definitions of “strong” and “weak” atheist basically cover the difference you’re talking about, although they sound a little judgmental and can give a false impression about a person’s confidence in his conclusions. Categorically, I’m a weak atheist - I know what I think and I’m open about the fact that I can’t prove it. Does it show?
And these things are never totally cut and dried; some “weak atheists” prefer to be called agnostics and try to keep their distance from the whole mess. (Other agnostics are just agnostics.)
I think this is could be very important, actually. A lot of people seem to feel judged by atheists just by virtue of our existence. When people post on this board about atheists and how arrogant and snooty they are, it often turns out they have very little acquiantance with atheists. [I’m speaking in general, not of **Shagnasty**.] But they presume that we’re looking down our noses at them. That’s rarely the case in my experience. I don’t think I may be wrong, but I try to give everybody a certain amount of respect as long as I think I’m being given the same.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the man is a professional comedian.
Nobody has done that here. I don’t call myself persecuted and I don’t consider myself persecuted. Although in its own way - in terms of attitudes, at least - the survey I mentioned provides one basis for comparison.
Well, in the United States in the year 2006 none of those groups is being “persecuted”; atheists are, legally speaking, pretty comparable to Muslims or Jews–all are guaranteed freedom of conscience. Racial discrimination by government is unconstitutional; and is illegal in areas like employment or “public accomodations”. I suppose gays still have the best claims to victimhood in the U.S. in the 21st Century; atheists are free to marry other atheists; Jews can marry other Jews; blacks can marry other blacks–and of course atheists are also free to marry Christians; and Muslims can legally marry Buddhists; and blacks can marry Chinese. Only gays are unable to marry the people they love.
Of course, in, say Saudi Arabia in the year 1429 (A.H.), Muslims certainly aren’t being persecuted, but atheists, gays, Jews, and Christians arguably are (or would be if there were any Jews or Christians in Saudi Arabia–I suppose there are probably at least some Christians there).
And, although I wouldn’t call it “persecution”, I daresay there would be rather a public outcry if a state constitution proclaimed that Catholics, or Jews, or even Muslims were ineligible to hold any office under that constitution.
I understand what you’re saying, but here is how I look at it and why I find it odd. The peolpe who are most confident in their faith (of the Christian strain anyway) believe in the infallibility of God and the mortal, flawed nature of man. It seems consistent to me to believe in God, and even in a particular religion, and to follow it accordingly, yet to be open to the possibility that God may have chosen to not yet reveal all. Could he not appear tomorrow and clear things up? Of course he could. There are sincerely devout followers of his that disagree and particular things that we have been left to interpret for ourselves. Not both can be right, but being wrong does not make one man less a man of God than the other. We are not omniscient. We are fallible. Even the genuinely devout. And I am genuinely surprised that they are not the first to accept that. To me, it smacks of hubris.
What if the poll asked Do you trust these people:Richard Dawkins,Bill Gates,Stephen Hawking,Larry King,Jack Nicholson,Ted Turner. Or would have your daughter marry them ( whatever question is relevant).
Then ask them does it matter that these people are atheists/agnostics?
I’ve gotten into a mess on this board, while discussing a relevant topic, simply asking whether or not atheism was a religion. Some have claimed so, others said no. It was edifying, though, as this is where I first learned of strong and weak atheism. I think it was tomndebb who explained it rather well. To be honest, I find it frustrating that the one term applies to two groups who I believe have a sharp, substantive divide. It often makes discussion difficult, to the point that I often stay out of the debate. If this discussion goes the way of others I won’t be surprised and will simply offer apologies all around and withdraw. I think Atheist and Agnostic would be more helpful.
I wish everyone had that attitude. But, ironically, I find strong atheists every bit as hubristic and close-minded as the most rabid religious fundamentalists. I just don’t get how anyone could be sooo certain about the existence or, especially, nature of God. YMMV.
By the way, I’m not sure Stephen Hawking should be on that list. I seem to recall he was open to the possibility of (a) God starting the whole thing off. Anyone know for sure either way?
It’s a bizarre topic, and the controversy is more in the subtext than the words. I’ve never heard an atheist say “atheism is my religion,” and I doubt I ever will. The reason it’s so controversial is that some people use the “it’s a religion” argument as a dismissal, and attitudes like that would probably cause an argument either way.
I do think that the subject here is different. I’m mostly curious about what “we” (as varying and intentionally disorganized as “we” are) can do to improve our image a bit. And don’t feel that you have to bow out, I have enough trouble starting threads people want to reply to as it is.
We can’t reconcile the existence of something that does not exist. And by managing to go about our lives without falling all over ourselves praying to that non-existent entity it pretty much proves that there is no entity there that requires it of any of us, theist, or non-theist alike.
Yes it is. But languge is a tool we use to communicate. And when the discussion examines finer points it helps to use words that are as clear as possible. “Christian” might be fine for some discussions. As it gets more in depth, we have “Catholics”, “Jesuits”, “Dominicans”, etc. The same can be said of the clarifiers “strong” and “weak”, but it has been my experience that they are used inconsistently.
Agreed, as far as my claim goes. But I’m not even sure if Hawking qualifies as that. I’ll have to look it up, but I seem to recall that he belives that God [i}did* start the whole shebang.
I can see why some atheists don’t trust some religious people. After all, the religious people who say that atheists cannot be moral are basically saying that the only thing they can imagine that prevents people from killing, raping, stealing, etc is a belief in an invisible giant who lives in the sky and sets people on fire if he sees them doing something he doesn’t like. An atheist is going to worry that someday the religious person might start believing that the invisible giant thinks it’s okay to kill or rape or steal.
The other reason I can see that atheists don’t trust religious people is because of the way society treats them. Read the quote in the OP again. Being an atheist is like being Jewish in 1935 Germany or black in 1950 America. At some point, paranoia is no longer a mental aberration, it’s a rational assessment of your environment.
At the same time, I’ve seen atheists claim that it is a religion, as to seek protection under the Establishment Clause.
I’m barely more than a theist who believes in evolution myself, but what would help me is a willingness for (strong) atheists to:
seperate from weak atheists. In some discussions I’ve had they seem to want to pull out the more reasonable (IMHO) shield of weak atheism. Maybe we should have Agnosticism, Atheism, and Antitheism. I think those prefixes more accurately describe the positions and would facilitate any discussion. (Yeah, I know, nobody wants to label themselves anto-God. I’m open to alternatives.)
state the belief system, e.g., “We believe that ther is no God or supernatural being. That we believe that our creation and everything else in the world is purely a function of natural forces working with and against one another, etc.” State whether they view their beliefs as a religion. The “we’re defined by what we don’t believe not what we believe…” just gets a roll of the eyes from me and I become more suspect of the belief, not less.
Accept the possibility, however small, that they may be wrong.
Well, you asked. I honestly think these things would help. I mean, I’m not that for from Agnosticism and if you can’t win me over to be more accepting, that’s not a good sign. Not “you” specifically, as you are of the more reasonable strain.
I just don’t understand this. Is one supposed to be open to all ideas or is the idea of “god” special. Do you understand how someone may be certain that UFOs, elves, unicorns, and ghosts don’t exist?
On the other hand, if god came down, shook my hand, and explained that he was responsible for the Red Sox winning once in my lifetime I might change my mind.
1: I am not agnostic or a weak-atheist.
2: I don’t like the word atheist and don’t think we need it any more than we need a-elf, a-thor, or a-unicorn. Using the term atheist implies that believing in god is the default position.
3: I believed in god when I was younger, so I was wrong once. I might be again.
Are you sure you understood that properly? The Establishment Clause comes up a lot in debates about the pledge of allegiance and things, but it’s not because atheism is a religion - it’s that atheists say “freedom of religion” includes the right not to choose a religion at all, and the state shouldn’t weigh in on the side of religion.
The deeper you dig into it, the more terms and complex gradations you can find. As different as “strong” and “weak” atheism can be, they do both fit under the most literal and accepted (by atheists) label of atheist: one who lacks belief in a god or gods.
I don’t think it’s a system in the first place - the fact that atheism is a single idea rather than a system is why I say it isn’t a religion.
Again, if atheism isn’t well understood, this is probably why. By the very nature of it, it’s not organized. While position statements like the ones you’re talking about would clarify things, there’s nobody to make them. There’s no First Church of Nobody and no Atheist Bible. If people don’t understand atheists, that’s one thing. I have no trouble comprehending why that would be the case. But if people really feel as this survey suggests they do, they do think they understand us, and they understand us to be something shifty, arrogant and morally bankrupt.
Yes, it is special. Aside from all the weight of literature and stories handed down through the ages, that offer some evidence, there is the question of where we came from. What caused the Big Bang? And what caused that? And that? And that? At some point you get to an uncaused event, something that operates outside the laws of the universe. I don’t want to turn into a hijack, and I won’t participate in it. God knows there have been many threads on this subject, and many of us will have to agree to disagree. But the point here is that yes, it is different than those other things. Of course, YMMV.
But another important question is immediatley raised: is he a cruel God or a loving God? I mean, one win? And trading the Babe? Maybe God wears the pinstripes and just wanted to bitch-slap Steinbrenner just once.
