There’s no conflict between those two statements, although you seem to think there is.
I don’t regard religion-v-atheism in general as “my battle.” When an R-type gets in my face or obstructs me on religious grounds, it is.
You might be surprised. But that’s another subject.
What? This makes next to no sense at all.
(Foggy shot) There are many organizations defending free speech and religious freedom. American Atheists et al. seem a lot more concerned with very narrow interpretations of rights infringement than they do with any wider scope. So forgive me if I don’t credit AA with keeping this board free. Or something.
ETA: As for my original comment, I find the rigid dogmatism of some Big-A’s to be embarrassing and counterproductive. We’d all be better off if these types would just STFU and let the American body of atheists be represented as a more normal and rational group.
I’m sorry-I don’t recall you mentioning AA in particular in the previous posts.
I wasn’t speaking of American Atheists; I don’t know anything about them besides the name. I’m speaking of all the atheists who have stood up in recent decades and been labeled zealots and similar terms for daring to support the separation of church and state, daring to claim that atheism is a valid position, refusing to stay silent like they are “supposed to”. People talk about atheists who speak up and who refuse to submit to abuse the same way they talk about other groups that kill people.
American Atheists handle narrow little issues, like manditory prayer in schools. In that 1959 court case, Madalyn Murray O’Hair “shrieked”
Yeah, the last time I served was here in Dallas, and on the questionnaire that you bring in there’s the religious affiliation question, and I just put “none.”
I feel like I’ve been turned on by my own pack of sharks, here. I didn’t suddenly turn anti-atheist or something. I just wince when a self-identified Atheist flashes his badge and pontificates on behalf of all nonbelievers, spewing just as much hate and discord as any brainless thumper, and I disavow my connections to such types no matter how much we might be marching in the same direction.
If any of my fellow atheists don’t think there are some embarrassing shriekers among the card-carrying ranks of our disbelief, never mind, moving on.
I wonder what would happen if you just failed to fill in that line at all? I could imagine if a lawyer were to ask me in voir dire,
“What’s your religion?”
“Five and a quarter inches dorsal.”
“What?”
“Five and a quarter inches dorsal, erect.”
“What kind of answer is that?”
“An answer to what I consider a very personal question.”
Which, of course, might get me sent home for the day, or maybe held in contempt or something.
No, you’re right. I can’t speak to AA, but there are atheists that interpret their irreligiosity as proof that they are more intelligent, moral, and worthy than any theist. It’s obnoxious behavior.
I believe they are a species of reddit… The reddit atheist…
Do atheists believe in the higgs boson?
I love this guy.
I don’t think you’re quite qualified to give this piece of advice.
You’re right, IMO only.
…
Atheists only agree on not believing in God.
I’ve met atheists who reject science and believe in vampires. Turn your question around, what would your answer be to the question: “Do theists believe in the Higgs boson?”
I hate being an atheist. it’s a label I don’t want or need.
I don’t know how to be an atheist - I haven’t made a conscious decision to be an atheist. the label has been applied to me by others.
The stamp-collectors don’t call me an ‘Anti-Philatelist’, the Ford drivers don’t call me an ‘Anti-Henry-ist’.
Let those who have made a definite decision to live their life in a particular way - by collecting stamps or driving Fords - provide justification for their decisions. Me, I don’t really care one way or the other - provided you don’t attempt to let your beliefs impinge upon my freedoms - either by making me only drive a Ford, or by suspending my e-mail and thus creating more postal activities and thus more stamp usage in our society.
For one, an “atheist” isn’t an anti-anything, so your analogy fails. “Atheist” is just a term that means “not a theist”, the label “not a stamp collector” fits you just fine. Labels you never asked for follow you all the time, for one – you’re a mammal, a human, a(n) <insert nationality here>, etc.
“Atheist” is just a descriptive label. There’s nothing to know about “how to be an atheist” any more than there is in how to be a mammal (or even “how to be a theist” given how many religions there are). It just “is”. That it’s used by activists is a side effect of religious culture, and does not reflect on you. No decent person is trying to corral you into a neat little box with it. You’re either an atheist or a theist – sorry, it’s not a political stance, it’s basic logic.
Yes.
FWIW, Michio Kaku appeared at a recent theist vs atheist debate giving an agnostic stance.
Jragon covered most of what I was going to write here, but you should know (if you aren’t already) that an antitheist is different from an atheist.
An antitheist is opposed to belief in the existence of gods.
An atheist merely lacks belief in the existence of gods.
If you view religion as dangerous or believe that it’s wrong to practice it, you may be an antitheist. If you merely don’t, yourself, believe, without regard to the beliefs of others, you’re just an atheist.
It is possible to be both.
What does that video have to do with atheism? I don’t get it.
He does talk about how it seems that the universe could have zero matter + energy, and therefore could possibly come from nothing, since everything cancels out to zero. So does that answer your objection in the very first post you made in this thread?
Thing is, I’m an atheist, and I have no idea if what he’s saying is correct or not. It seems plausible. But I’d be an atheist even if it didn’t seem plausible. I don’t have to know the origin of the universe to not believe in God. I consider the origin of the universe to be an impenetrable mystery, and I still don’t believe in God. Maybe there was an uncaused first cause, but even if there was, I don’t think that uncaused first cause would deserve the name “God”, and calling it “God” doesn’t add anything to the theory, or help us understand anything about this hypothetical uncaused first cause.
What you’re not getting is that **koufax **is obsessed with the atheist concept of creation.