Can America trust atheists?

[cosmosdan]

@JustAnotherGeek

No kidding. When people ask me what religion I am, the utter looks of non-comprehension when I say that I don’t have one* are (I have to admit) somewhat amusing.
*as opposed to “I am a weak atheist/militant agnostic.”

No wait a minute, most people don’t know what those mean, either…

I get that when people assume I’m Christian and then in some discussion my beliefs clearly aren’t. “You believe what? Well that’s not Christian.”

Yeah I know. That’s why I’m not one.

I’ve been thinking about making up some outrageous name and calling it my religion.

Maybe something like “The Church of God says I’m Right”

                                "Odd name, where do you meet?" 
                                 "My house"
                                  "How many members?"
                                  "Just me"   :D  "Care to make a love donation?" 

Now that might be a little to blasphemous but I at least want to be somewhat irreverent.

[SentientMeat]

@cosmosdan

I do think that if theists claim atheism is a belief the more accurate response is “Only strong atheists have a belief that god does not exist. There is also a simple lack of belief in god that is referred to as weak atheism” I suppose either way it can be tricky to explain and grasp.

Which is why I can’t grasp it, really - it just seems a wholly unnecessary complication. Agreeing that atheism is a belief in gods’ absence would be far clearer and more useful, IMO.

[cosmosdan]

@SentientMeat

Which is why I can’t grasp it, really - it just seems a wholly unnecessary complication. Agreeing that atheism is a belief in gods’ absence would be far clearer and more useful, IMO.

But we do need some way to address the false notion that “belief that no god exists” is some sort of doctrinal or dogmatic belief. Your belief o meter works for me just as well. People should be able to grasp that some people don’t believe in god in a way that is akin to apathy. Others a feel much more strongly about it. The same holds true for believers. In your belief o meter there would be a believer and a non believer that were closer in beliefs than a fundie and that same believer or a strong atheist and that same non believer.

[magellan01]

First, Take it that my “announcement” does not apply to you or other fair and honest individuals. I am always happy to converse with someone who can read and makes the effort to understand someone’s position before banging away at the keys in front of them, particulalry when they might have a tendency to ascribe ideas to me that I have not expressed.

@MaxTheVool

I think that what you’re saying about the first decision someone has to make bieng “god vs. no god”, and the second one being to choose a religion is interesting, and logically sound, but not very applicable to the world we live in and the beliefs that people hold. How many people, when arriving (through conscious choice or any other path) at their faith (or lack thereof) first decide to believe in God, and only then decide what religion (if any) to follow? I just don’t think it happens that way very often. The vast majority of people who are religious are the religion they are just because they were raised that way. And when people convert (for instance, non-believers become born-again) it’s not because soemone sat them down and said “OK, let’s first have a discussion, based on logic or personal experience or what have you, about whether God exists. After that, if I’ve convinced you that God, in some undefined fashion, exists, well, then I have some GREAT news about how believing in Jesus will get you in to heaven…”

You are. of course, correct in how most people arrive at a religious position. But that isn’t really pertinent to the discussion. We are not talkig about examing the beliefs of a religious person, but an atheist. So we question the atheist about the most fundamental level, the thing that defines him (for the purposes here, let’s say “strong” atheist). So when he is being questioned about his reason(s), if he states because a specific religion is wrong, or all religions that he is aware of is wrong, it is incumbent upon us to point out that just because those particular expressions of a belief in (a) god may be invalid, it does not invalidate that concept of there being a god.

@MaxTheVool

Also, on the issue of whether arguing against a specific religion is a valid thing to do while arguing for atheism, it may not be valid in some global sense, but it’s certainly reasonable in a practical sense. If someone says to me “I believe in a literal God who created the universe 6000 years ago and listens to my prayers and is simultaneously infinitely good and powerful and wise… now convince me why I should be an atheist instead”, should I refuse to point out flaws in the God that HE believes in, just because they are not necessarily universal to ALL conceptions of God?

Absolutely not. In my answer above I start by indicating that we are examining the position of an atheist. In this example, we are examining the position of a believer. Therefoer, all the things he believes are up for discussion, especially the most fundemental ones. If he is arguing for Christianity, all that defines it is pertinent. If he is a Muslim, likewise. If he is a Hindu, Deist, Pantheist, ditto.

The inverse of my first answer applies here. Just as one cannot validly argue for atheism by pointing to flaws in a particular religion—or ANY religion, one cannot validly argue for their particular strain of religion by simply arguing that there is a god. As you correctly understood my position, they are two seperate and independent steps.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

You are. of course, correct in how most people arrive at a religious position. But that isn’t really pertinent to the discussion. We are not talkig about examing the beliefs of a religious person, but an atheist. So we question the atheist about the most fundamental level, the thing that defines him (for the purposes here, let’s say “strong” atheist). So when he is being questioned about his reason(s), if he states because a specific religion is wrong, or all religions that he is aware of is wrong, it is incumbent upon us to point out that just because those particular expressions of a belief in (a) god may be invalid, it does not invalidate that concept of there being a god.

And a strong atheist might well agree with you. That is a good reason why claiming knowledge that no god exists is not tenable. However, the strong atheist might argue that, since all the religions he has examined have turned out to be wrong, it is reasonable to believe that no god exists - though sufficient evidence could change his mind. I don’t buy a concept of belief involving certainty, some some theists and atheists seem to.

One valid religion wipes out atheism. Each invalid one does not prove it, but does strengthen support for it.

[magellan01]

@Voyager

And a strong atheist might well agree with you. That is a good reason why claiming knowledge that no god exists is not tenable. However, the strong atheist might argue that, since all the religions he has examined have turned out to be wrong, it is reasonable to believe that no god exists - though sufficient evidence could change his mind. I don’t buy a concept of belief involving certainty, some some theists and atheists seem to.

There is an assumption in this that I do not agree with: that the flip-side of atheism is religion. It is very possible to believe in god, but not take the next step and honor him or follow a system of beleifs based on what you devine he wants. The degree of “reasonableness” I’d say is proportonate to the # of religons—live and dead—one has acquainted oneself with. Of course, the level of certainty I’d say would still be wanting, in that there are in infinte # of religious expressions that one has not evaluated. That’s why wherever one stands on the issue, ending the sentence with “, but I may be wrong” is both honest and sensible.

@Voyager

One valid religion wipes out atheism. Each invalid one does not prove it, but does strengthen support for it.

Agreed.

[Der_Trihs]

@Voyager

One valid religion wipes out atheism. Each invalid one does not prove it, but does strengthen support for it.

Only if the religion in question includes a god or gods.

[Voyager]

@Der Trihs

Only if the religion in question includes a god or gods.

Quite right. I corrected this in the second sentence of my post, but I forgot to do it in the first. I should have used “god belief” for religion - but it is impossible to refute ther fuzzy kind of god belief that is not associated with religions.

I think it is fair that if an atheist has refuted all the major god-believing religions, he shouldn’t be expected to have to deal with five wackos meeting in a basement in Boise.

(Unless that god is a small turtle, of course. )