Being An Atheist Isn’t Enough

[jarofthoughts]

Alright, I’m going to posit a claim that may or may not offend some people, but there you are.

Some atheists I’ve met have acted proud and somewhat superior with regards to those “backwards” theists who still believe in Bronze-Age myths. And I guess that is fine and all. But when those same atheists go on to believe in crystal healing, wacky nutritionists and support things like vaccine opposition and homeopathy I’m still left feeling that they have somehow missed the point.

Now, I’m not accusing anyone in particular, but I assure you, I have met these people and they are out there. Therefore my position is not so much one of atheism but rather one of empiricism. In short, if we have no evidence that it exists or that it is real I’m not willing to allow it into my world-view. The fact that this also makes me an atheist is more or less just an effect of my adherence to empiricism.

Am I the only one feeling this way or are there more of us out there?

 

[Revoltingest]

I generally try to appear inferior around the faithful. It makes them comfortable.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

it sounds like an excuse to be elitist. freedom from elitism is one of the things i like most about not adhering to a dogmatic religious sect.

i would agree that we all need to think critically of the things around us, but you will probably never find anyone who has disbelief in ALL the things you do. and if there's a list of things it's not fashionable to believe in - it will separate more people than it brings together.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not even sure what an elitist is suppose to mean in this context.

However, it is not as if I or anyone else is providing a list of stuff we don't like. That's not how this works. Basically it is just a scientific approach to reality.

You have to admit that it is somewhat of a double-standard when some people on one hand use the "You have no evidence for the existence of god" argument, which is good and valid in and of itself, but then turn around and say, buy homoeopathic remedies. Exchanging the belief in a god with the belief in pseudo-science is just being inconsistent in my opinion, and at the very least it should provide no reason to feel superior.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In whatever way it manifests, there are people who are believers, and then there are non-believers. Somebody can call themself an atheist, but if they believe in any other irrational phenomena, they are simply a believer to me.

 

[Alceste]

You're confusing the term "atheist" with the term "skeptic". They have different meanings. There's no more to being an atheist than lacking belief in a deity or deities. Skepticism is a world view that usually leads to atheism, but atheism doesn't necessarily stem from a skeptical point of view. You can be raised as an atheist and still end up just as credulous and feeble-minded as the most passionate fundamentalist, except that god/s don't feature in your personal delusions.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You're confusing the term "atheist" with the term "skeptic". They have different meanings. There's no more to being an atheist than lacking belief in a deity or deities. Skepticism is a world view that usually leads to atheism, but atheism doesn't necessarily stem from a skeptical point of view. You can be raised as an atheist and still end up just as credulous and feeble-minded as the most passionate fundamentalist, except that god/s don't feature in your personal delusions.

I never said they were the same and I agree with everything you said above.

But I still feel that they have somehow missed the point...that being the point of empirical evidence, an argument many of these atheists feel very comfortable applying to theists but which they for some reason fail to apply to their own view of reality.

 

[DeitySlayer]

You assume that the state of atheism must come about by logical deduction. Long story short, it doesn't. Atheism is not a single cohesive movement arrived at via the same path of empirical rationalism. It is merely disbelief in God, which can result through many different ways.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In whatever way it manifests, there are people who are believers, and then there are non-believers. Somebody can call themself an atheist, but if they believe in any other irrational phenomena, they are simply a believer to me.

I would think that's the best way to put it. The common factor being a belief in what is regarded as irrational. Cuts across the board. -NM-

 

[Smoke]

You're confusing the term "atheist" with the term "skeptic". They have different meanings.

Exactly. Just because somebody doesn't believe in god, that doesn't mean he's a rationalist or skeptic.

But I still feel that they have somehow missed the point...that being the point of empirical evidence, an argument many of these atheists feel very comfortable applying to theists but which they for some reason fail to apply to their own view of reality.

It's hard to be rational all the time, and most people have blind spots. Some people have really big ones.

 

[Willamena]

In short, if we have no evidence that it exists or that it is real I’m not willing to allow it into my world-view.

Wow, didn't know there was a choice.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You assume that the state of atheism must come about by logical deduction. Long story short, it doesn't. Atheism is not a single cohesive movement arrived at via the same path of empirical rationalism. It is merely disbelief in God, which can result through many different ways.

I never said it came about by logical deduction, but many atheists nevertheless claim that this is the reason for their rejection of the idea of a god or gods. Neither did I claim that it was a cohesive movement.

Exactly. Just because somebody doesn't believe in god, that doesn't mean he's a rationalist or skeptic.

Absolutely true and I've never claimed otherwise.

It's hard to be rational all the time, and most people have blind spots. Some people have really big ones.

And while it is probably impossible to remove them altogether the best way we have come up with to deal with the problem is the Scientific Method.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Wow, didn't know there was a choice.

Insofar as we have a choice about anything, I would call it a choice to believe in pseudo science rather than checking and following the evidence.

 

[Alceste]

Insofar as we have a choice about anything, I would call it a choice to believe in pseudo science rather than checking and following the evidence.

Unfortunately, for many who consider themselves to be skeptics, the claim to base their views on empirical evidence is a mere affectation. Most only seek out evidence that affirms their pre-existing world view and dismiss that which does not. I see no difference between an atheist who believes in crystal healing and one who believes the benefits of acupuncture are entirely due to the placebo effect (to use a recent example).

 

[jarofthoughts]

Unfortunately, for many who consider themselves to be skeptics, the claim to base their views on empirical evidence is a mere affectation. Most only seek out evidence that affirms their pre-existing world view and dismiss that which does not. I see no difference between an atheist who believes in crystal healing and one who believes the benefits of acupuncture are entirely due to the placebo effect (to use a recent example).

And I agree, at least part of the way.
The studies I've seen so far concerning acupuncture have been inconclusive and somewhat contradictory, and even though I consider withholding belief in the case of doubt to be better than submitting to it, I fully agree on the point of exposing oneself to arguments and evidence that go against one's established views.

That is one of the reasons I seek out forums like this one. I've tried a few predominantly theist forums as well, but my experience so far is that they rarely consider evidence to be important, and when shown empirically that some of their notions cannot logically and scientifically be correct, I've usually gotten the ban-hammer...

 

[Father Heathen]

I generally try to appear inferior around the faithful. It makes them comfortable.

Why would you do that? Personally I think it's healthy for people to be dragged out of their comfort zones.

 

[cynic2005]

Alright, I’m going to posit a claim that may or may not offend some people, but there you are.

Some atheists I’ve met have acted proud and somewhat superior with regards to those “backwards” theists who still believe in Bronze-Age myths. And I guess that is fine and all. But when those same atheists go on to believe in crystal healing, wacky nutritionists and support things like vaccine opposition and homeopathy I’m still left feeling that they have somehow missed the point.

Now, I’m not accusing anyone in particular, but I assure you, I have met these people and they are out there. Therefore my position is not so much one of atheism but rather one of empiricism. In short, if we have no evidence that it exists or that it is real I’m not willing to allow it into my world-view. The fact that this also makes me an atheist is more or less just an effect of my adherence to empiricism.

Am I the only one feeling this way or are there more of us out there?

... I am willing to bet that various arbitrary presumptions and beliefs have made their way into your worldview, without you even realizing it... In fact, I believe this happens on an everyday basis, and is perhaps (to an extent) unavoidable.

Secondly, though science and empiricism attempts to divorce the subjective, I presume that one in reality cannot ignore the subjective. Meaning is the realm of the subjective, and to me, a psychological need. So, if one is atheist, but attending a UU church, doing Yoga, or even crystal healing, its because they need something that provides meaning rather than constant, nihilistic objectivity.

I myself, prefer not to be a robot. I save that for academics, science, diagnostics, and problem solving.

The studies I've seen so far concerning acupuncture have been inconclusive and somewhat contradictory, and even though I consider withholding belief in the case of doubt to be better than submitting to it, I fully agree on the point of exposing oneself to arguments and evidence that go against one's established views.

That is one of the reasons I seek out forums like this one. I've tried a few predominantly theist forums as well, but my experience so far is that they rarely consider evidence to be important, and when shown empirically that some of their notions cannot logically and scientifically be correct, I've usually gotten the ban-hammer...

Are these studies from a scientific or medical journal? How many studies have you seen thus far and are they representative of all studies performed? Have you looked at a meta analysis? Who performed the studies you mentioned? What are their credentials? Who funded the research? Did you review the data, analysis, and interpretation of the researchers to make sure there were no errors or bias?

 

[jarofthoughts]

... I am willing to bet that various arbitrary presumptions and beliefs have made their way into your worldview, without you even realizing it... In fact, I believe this happens on an everyday basis, and is perhaps (to an extent) unavoidable.

This is, of course, very possible, but the search goes on. I try to eliminate baseless presumptions when I find them.

Secondly, though science and empiricism attempts to divorce the subjective, I presume that one in reality cannot ignore the subjective. Meaning is the realm of the subjective, and to me, a psychological need. So, if one is atheist, but attending a UU church, doing Yoga, or even crystal healing, its because they need something that provides meaning rather than constant, nihilistic objectivity.

Subjective does not automatically mean delusional and believing stuff that there is no evidence for the existence of is delusional. You can still have a subjective outlook on the world, but what you consider to be a part of that world, i.e. what is real and what is not, should, in my book, be based on evidence.

I myself, prefer not to be a robot. I save that for academics, science, diagnostics, and problem solving.

I don't know where people get the idea that adhering to the available evidence somehow makes you akin to a robot. I consider myself to be of a rather romantic disposition and I constantly marvel at this amazing place I find myself in. But I choose not to include faeries, goblins and the faith-based idea of homoeopathy into that reality. Yes, I just lumped those together, and yes, they are equally silly.

Are these studies from a scientific or medical journal? How many studies have you seen thus far and are they representative of all studies performed? Have you looked at a meta analysis? Who performed the studies you mentioned? What are their credentials? Who funded the research? Did you review the data, analysis, and interpretation of the researchers to make sure there were no errors or bias?

The thrust of the studies I've looked at can be found in the archives of the Cochcrane Collaboration, although seeing as there have been hundreds of trials I hardly claim to have looked at them all. Medicine is usually tested by the use of double-blind tests, something which is hard to do with acupuncture which is really more of a procedure. There have been some attempts though, but overall I find the results to be ambiguous. There are surely studies out there that claim to have found some effect, while others have found none, or have found that "sham" acupuncture has a comparable effect, indicating that a placebo effect is at work.

All in all I withhold judgement on this issue until the waters clear a bit more.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Why would you do that? Personally I think it's healthy for people to be dragged out of their comfort zones.

typically humans require a little more rhetorical and coercive attention before their comfort zones can even be breached. i've found that dragging someone is terribly ineffective in comparison to coercing that person to come with you by their own will. it seems devious, but not any more devious than telling someone they are wrong and you will show them how to 'get right'.

Exchanging the belief in a god with the belief in pseudo-science is just being inconsistent in my opinion, and at the very least it should provide no reason to feel superior.

while i agree with you, because i happen to be a very skeptical atheist, i dont know that most people's experiences with rejecting god involve any 'exchange'. being an atheist has nothing to do with being an a-crystalist. or an a-ufologist, or an a-lochnessmonsterist. being an atheist is enough, only in that it fulfills the definition attributed to it, and nothing more. being a skeptic is something entirely different.

 

[jarofthoughts]

while i agree with you, because i happen to be a very skeptical atheist, i dont know that most people's experiences with rejecting god involve any 'exchange'. being an atheist has nothing to do with being an a-crystalist. or an a-ufologist, or an a-lochnessmonsterist. being an atheist is enough, only in that it fulfills the definition attributed to it, and nothing more. being a skeptic is something entirely different.

I have no problem with your definition, which is why the title of the tread is "Being an Atheist is not Enough". I don't dispute that these people have every right to call themselves atheist. The definition is clear enough.
But the point I was trying to make was exactly that I don't see being an atheist to be "enough".
Now, this might seem a bit arbitrary and I am not pretending that people somehow have to live up to my standards. I'm not the judge of you or of how you should think about the world.
But it still irks me that so many people fall for pseudo-science and alternative nonsense. Living in Norway, a very secular country by any standard, I sometimes get the feeling that while most people have discarded the concept of god they somehow still believe in magic and the supernatural. In some cases it is almost as if they have replaced religion with lots of equally silly beliefs, be it in psychics, magical healers, crystal magic or whatnot.