I’ve asked all to refrain, not just the atheists. I recognize that some theists refuse to, and understand your feelings on the subject. However I do not lump all theists and atheists together. Otherwise I could bring up the forced conversion to atheism practised by communists without conceding that as a fallacious argument.
I know! Every Sunday morning, there are all these atheist shows like the 666 Club, there are always atheists handing out materials at the train station, winning high office and ending their speeches with “Nature bless America”, screaming about the War on Festivus every Winter, blaming disasters on straights and anti-abortion policies. I’m really getting sick of them all up in my face.
I’d call that not believing in Zeus. But saying you don’t think any God exists seems pretty much to be the definition of being an atheist.
So if I ask 100 atheists, “Is there a God?”, how would they respond?
So as someone who is not religious at all and have no opinions on whether there is a God or not because I never think about it, I should be considered an atheist? I wouldn’t have said so. I don’t think we should call me an atheist just because we lack a proper word for someone who hasn’t thought about it. Atheism seems to necessarily suggest a stronger sentiment than a simple disinterest in the topic.
Yet people have strong beliefs about all kinds of things they have no evidence for, and which can’t be falsified through evidence. Many of these people claim to have absolute knowledge that their opinions are right-- i.e. many self-described atheists and many self-described theists.
[quote=“Johnny_Angel, post:18, topic:564281”]
This comes up fairly often in theological debates, and generally what the questioner has in mind is to establish that secularism is essentially a kind of religion, and so there can be no such thing as a separation of church and state so we might as well start dismantling this foundational principle of our republic. Is that where you’re going with this?
No.
I was thinking of taking up not rebuilding classic cars as a hobby. Perhaps we could start a club and have meetings where we don’t drive around in our cars.
I really don’t care if the believers of the world want to claim that not believing in a God is actually believing IN something. That is just watering down the word “belief” to the point that it has no meaning (as demonstrated by RitterSport). Considering that belief is such an integral part of some religions I have to wonder what the margin is claiming that atheists are just as much believers as everybody else.
Heh. Sounds like fun! I could proselytize about my interest in not collecting stamps when we meet.
Do you not collect just U.S. stamps, or do you not collect stamps of the world?
That person is an atheist. Atheism is just about the simple lack of belief. You can’t draw any other conclusions from this. An atheist can be skeptical, or an atheist can be superstitious. An atheist can be good or bad. Besides lack of belief, there are no other rules in the atheist club.
Now, someone who says he isn’t religious but believes in some sort of higher power who gives a reason for the universe isn’t an atheist. Atheism isn’t a synonym for non-religious.
Sure. Someone can be an atheist for very stupid reasons. Atheism can be and often is the result of a rational examination of the evidence, but it doesn’t have to be.
In 35 years of on-line discussion on this topic (yes, before there was an Internet) I’ve run into exactly one person who claimed to know that no gods exist. And he was a jerk.
Couldn’t that statement be equally true in reverse? Juxtapose “believers” and “unbelievers” and you’d still have a generally true statement.
Actually, not all believers are prone to forcing others to believe likewise, nor are all unbelievers. Unfortunately it’s the noisy aggressive ones of both stripes that get all the attention.
It has always seemed to me that it takes fully as much faith to live a life based on atheism as it does to live a spiritual life of some kind. As the good Robert Zimmerman has pointed out;" Ya gotta serve somebody". An atheist claims the authority of science, logic, rationalism, (or simply self-interest), a believer operates on the principle that he is informed in some way by a higher conscience or a higher power. Both live their lives based on certain assumptions.
People who act on the assumption that they are directed by a higher power can and do act badly, can be misinformed. But science and logic are not always infallible either. Science is always in flux…it discovers many truths, but no final or ultimate Truth. And most of us have faced situations that defy logic…and when logic fails you what is left?
As Inigo Montoya said about a different word, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "
[atheism –noun
- the doctrine or belief that there is no god.](Atheism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
This entire thread can be boiled down to a dictionary on one side, and those who can’t read/understand a dictionary on the other.
Wait, is the dog carrying the dumbbell while you try to train him, or are you carrying it while you try to train him? Cause, if it’s the latter, I’m not sure I agree with you.
Alright smarty-pants. Imagine a Labrador reciting the Declaration of Independence while pulling a 1000-pound sled load, having broken out the frozen solid runners first and then running down and killing the savage tribesmen who have murdered his master…
So your argument that we should shut up is valid because, as you’ve made a big deal of pointing out, you’ve not made a fallacious argument?
“Don’t make me stop this car and lump Hitchens and Dawkins with Stalin and Mao!”
Me, I’m not too high-minded to pass up cheap shots. I’ll bet the woman in this photo (NSFW) isn’t wishing everyone would just shut up and respect each other’s religion.
No, but arguments have been in favor of atheism based on the idea that religion is bad per se. The same could be said about atheism. But I won’t stoop to your level in that regard. You are making the same argument as the right wingnuts who claim Christians are discriminated against because of their religious belief in this country. I can counter every one of those stupid arguments with an equivalent about an atheist.
If you wish to direct your attacks against theists who have demonstrated harm, do that, and leave me out of it. If both theist and atheist would do that, I wouldn’t have anything to complain about on this subject. Until that happens, I’ll continue to point out the way some atheists behave just as if they had a ‘belief’ in something. I’d respond to theists in the same way, which makes it pretty easy to argue my side in this debate.
Except that the religious like to do things like legislate away people’s rights and create legally privileged positions for their organizations.
This kind of equivocation between atheists and religious people pops up in threads all the time, and it is simply 100% false. “Well atheists have the nerve to talk about atheism, too!” Yes, we do. You’re free to listen or not. But atheists aren’t organizing and using the absence of gods to justify, for example, banning books, denying benefits to certain “improper” relationships, or forcing schools to teach only a useless version of sex ed.
The idea that “Well both sides should keep quiet” is equally obnoxious. Firstly because it gives the discussion of religious superstitions a privileged position and thus acknowledges their validity, secondly because, again, it implies that that “atheism” operates like, say, Christianity does in society, which is simply not true.
You are mistaken.
Of course atheism is a belief. It’s just incredibly misleading, because the word ‘belief’ has like a dozen different meanings, and the one used in a religious context isn’t the same as the one used about atheism. It’s a common dishonest semantics trick to use this fact to create a false equivalence between atheism and religion, so that’s why we tend to object. It rarely gets brought up without a “gotcha!” lurking in the background.
Yeah, I guess Stalin and Mao were right after all:rolleyes:
See it helps to consider the historical facts instead of just your idea of who atheists are and what atheism has done. And in what possible way does my telling everybody to stop trying to convince me that their beliefs are correct favor religious superstitions?
As we don’t know everything and things that seemed impossible before have come true, then at best all we can say is that based on our current understanding we cannot say there is a god. To arrogantly say there is no God and never will be is bad science.
I applaud Atheists battle against hardline fundamental religions but I do despair that they are at the same time targetting people who have a faith and do not blow things up etc.
No you wouldn’t. Most unbelievers wouldn’t care about the subject much at all the the believers weren’t trying to ram their delusions down their throat ever time they turn around. As demonstrated by all the foolish but non-pushy beliefs that don’t have unbelievers making a point of arguing against them.
Most believers support forcing their beliefs on others.
Well, you are wrong. Atheism fits all the facts, it is logically consistent, and it is the default position. Living a “spiritual life” on the other hand requires an outright departure into fantasyland.
No; they are always at best misinformed.
Irrelevant; they are far, far, far better than religion. Random guesses are better than religion; I’d trust a coin flip over a religious claim.
Science is “in flux” because it is getting better, that’s hardly a criticism. And any criticism you lay on logic or science won’t make religion a viable alternative. No amount of bashing science will make religion anything other than worthless malignant garbage. Again; you are better off trusting a coin flip than trusting religion, at least the coin has a 50/50 chance of being right. Religion is almost relentlessly wrong.
Here’s a thought experiment for ya: what if Staling and Mao were actually firm believers in a theistic god. Is there any reason to assume they’d have behaved differently?
Riddle me this: were they primarily atheists, or primarily Communists? Did they limit themselves to banning religious books, or did they ban all books (and people) against their form of Communism?
The current Chinese Communist government permits Catholicism, for instance - but they want the ability to appoint the priesthood. Do you think this is an issue of religion or of power?