-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Being An Atheist Isnt Enough
- Thread starter jarofthoughts
- Start date
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Fair enough, and I agree.
The point of the OP was, as I'm sure you've deduced, that what really matters is being critical about claims made, no matter the source, and that one examines "truths" held both by others and by one self.
In other words, I'm an empiricist first and foremost. The fact that I am an atheist is more or less just a consequence of that.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
The point of the OP was somewhat opposite of that actually.
Critical thinking should come first.
Atheism often comes as a result of that.
Do you think I got it wrong by being an atheist from the outset, even before I started doing the critical thinking part?
Don't blame me...I just never had a reason to believe in gods.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I think you actually did think critically from the get-go.
The bolded part is a good starting point for exactly that.
Wow! I feel embiggened.I think you actually did think critically from the get-go.
The bolded part is a good starting point for exactly that.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
While I agree that the label "atheist" is one that we should be able to do without, it still remains in common usage and as a label it is a descriptive word defining a certain characteristic about a person.
There are many such labels and they are usually created to indicate a differing trait from the norm, and while I would love seeing atheists being the norm, I fully admit that this is not yet the case.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't think that's an oxymoron or a paradox.
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
If atheism was only enough it would become like a form obsessive complulsive disorder where you let the world fall around you and you have only just one thing on your mind called "atheism". There are plenty of other things which color my life other than atheism; plenty of other things in my life where I have to take a handle on.
dust1n
Zindīq
Because it isn't. "Being an atheist" is logically correct. One possesses the quality to be defined as atheist. Pretty straight-forward, if you ask me.
joeyhouchin
Member
Im sorry but this thread just screams out troll!
On a more serious note, i myself am an atheist and i am as proud of my religion as any other devoted spiritual being. Just because were proud doesn't mean where superior.
On a more serious note, i myself am an atheist and i am as proud of my religion as any other devoted spiritual being. Just because were proud doesn't mean where superior.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Huh? Elaborate please... :sarcastic
On a more serious note, i myself am an atheist and i am as proud of my religion as any other devoted spiritual being. Just because were proud doesn't mean where superior.
Well, you've written "JESUS" as your religious stance, and also, atheism is not a religion.
By the looks of it the only troll here is you.
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
For many humanists, atheism is not enough, which is of course why they frequently describe themselves as being "humanists" rather than just simply “atheists”. Just as many rationalists prefer to wear the "rationalist" label and scientific pantheists the "scientific pantheist" label. Both being very much opposed to a supernatural creator being creating a controlling their lives and the universe.
I had subscribed to some purely atheist web forums for some time and after a while I grew tired of them as I was either just preaching to the converted or some of the moderators had rather narrow definitions of their "atheism". Some were in favor of leading the way to some atheist state, which IMHO was a complete violation to freedom of thought.
I had subscribed to some purely atheist web forums for some time and after a while I grew tired of them as I was either just preaching to the converted or some of the moderators had rather narrow definitions of their "atheism". Some were in favor of leading the way to some atheist state, which IMHO was a complete violation to freedom of thought.
Last edited:
PhAA
Grand Master
Maybe they just deny their previous religion (if they had any), or the major religion there but they are not really atheists? Yes, I agree with the previous post that if you believe in something irrational, and think "something greater", then you're a believer, just not the common one.Alright, Im going to posit a claim that may or may not offend some people, but there you are.
Some atheists Ive 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 Im still left feeling that they have somehow missed the point.
Now, Im 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 Im 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?
Yeah, I don't really mind if folks require an ego-boost at my expense. They can have it.