Calling All Atheists

[CelticRavenwolf]

Whenever I hear someone ask why an atheist would join a religious website, I feel like I'm from some separate species. Atheists engage in all the same pursuits as any other human being (if you cut us, do we not bleed?). But I've got thick skin and don't let this question cause me any loss of sleep.

I didn't ask the question with the intent of making you feel marginalized, I apologize. It was pure curiosity for curiosity's sake. I did a search on atheism related topics, but none of them really answered my question, so I posted a new topic. I can apprecitate that atheists are forced to defend their viewpoints a lot - especially because the vast majority of the world is religious in some way - so I'm sure that you all get that questions alot, in some form or another.

From a non-believer's pov, they may come to discuss the sociological, historical, and political influences of religion, and thus rightly feel that this is something that interests everyone. And obviously ethics and politics are of interest to all.

As usual, Lilithu is quite right. In fact, being of a marginal religion myself, these are the main reasons why I am here. Mostly, I like to know why people believe what they do, and since atheism is still a belief system, it is not exempt from my curiosity.

Heh, so anyone who likes talking about yourselves, I'd love to hear about why you chose atheism, and what it's done to improve your life.

 

[robtex]

and since atheism is still a belief system,

atheism is a lack-of-belief system. It is a passive idea, by most, that in which the active idea of believing in a higher power is not prospected. There are some debate threads on RF somehwhere but the idea i want to present to you is that belief is an active acceptance in that for which there is no evidence and non-belief, is a passive lack of acceptance.

Or even more simply, belief = requires active believe; action
non-belief= non-requirement of active believe; no action requirement.

Heh, so anyone who likes talking about yourselves, I'd love to hear about why you chose atheism, and what it's done to improve your life.

atheism isn't as much of a choice as it is a realization. For myself, it is the understand that belief in an omnipotent /omnipresent being when presented by religions and religious philosophy is a contradiction to my understand of reality.

Most notible being understand

of life as organic vs belief in a spirtual world,

understand that invisible is applicable to things that are which too small and/or too far away don't apply to the invisible Gods of religion,

realization that belief cannot be applied to omnipresent beings as they are always present by stipulation of the definition

understanding that natural explainations are enough to construct a feasible paradigm of our existance and supernatural claims are add on's with no neccessity nor tangent applications to the natural paradigm (naturalism).

strong study of religious texts of which many make strong cases against the validity of their faith. For instance, IMHO, the bible is the greatest case against Jesus's existance ever written.

rejection of religous "evidences" for their faith and understanding that if there was evidence than faith would be impossible by mutual exclusion.

intimate understanding of the anthropic principle that lends a stronger arguement against theism than to theism to me.

realization that my 5 seneses by their natural constraints create all that i have an intimate relationship with which precludes the possibltiy of an intimate (personal) relationship with a God that I cannot ever precieve with my 5 senses

rejection of traditional theist arguements of cosomolical arguement, ontological argument, teleological arguement and pascal's wager

 

[Nanda]

Yes, I have to admit that I cringe whenever I hear someone call atheism a belief system, or worse, a "religion." Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is one disbelief. There is no code of conduct, no rituals, no dogma at all that atheists follow. We do not have a set view on how the world was created - different atheists believe many different things, all based on their individual discoveries, not on one set of shared beliefs. This does not a religion make. For example, when someone says that they are a Christian, you can infer from that statement that they follow the teachings of Christ, and already you know something about their morals and beliefs. But if someone says to you that they are an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they don't believe in any gods. You know nothing about their morals, beliefs, their views on how the world was created, or their traditions.

Please forgive me for being a little Off-Topic. :flirt:

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

Heh, heh, oops! I guess I found a nerve there. I only say belief because if one starts out with the premise that the existence of gods can neither be proven nor disproven, then one either believes that they exist, or does NOT believe that they exist. Non-belief, disbelief, or a belief in and of itself. I say it's a belief system because you stand firmly by your belief that the gods are not there. Where as some religions accept the presence of other gods, or that a worship is just a different form for the same god, atheism rejects one and all. That's a pretty darned strong belief in my opinon.

atheism isn't as much of a choice as it is a realization.

I've heard many who are born again into a faith use the exact same words, especially the ones whose monotheistic faith leaves no room for other gods. THEY come to realize they are right in their religion and god, just as you claim that atheism is a realization.

I'd love to independantly address some of your points, but I fear that would take us way too far off topic. So I'll sum it up to say that while mysticism is indeed a huge part of religion, don't forget that there are people out there who firmly believe in their religion while at the same time conceding that its stories are metaphorical in nature, and that science does indeed go a long way to explain the earthly realm.

Which brings us full circle. In such a case, you can choose to believe, or not.

 

[robtex]

Heh, heh, oops! I guess I found a nerve there.

You will have a hard time striking a nerve actually. There is no nerve to strike. Nothing to defend for atheists. For most of us, you can either produce your god or you cannot. The burdon is on you for production. We can't anti-produce, non-produce, or negatively produce your non-evidencable God or anyone elses either.

I only say belief because if one starts out with the premise that the existence of gods can neither be proven nor disproven, then one either believes that they exist, or does NOT believe that they exist. Non-belief, disbelief, or a belief in and of itself. I say it's a belief system because you stand firmly by your belief that the gods are not there. Where as some religions accept the presence of other gods, or that a worship is just a different form for the same god, atheism rejects one and all. That's a pretty darned strong belief in my opinon.

It is more of a lack of belief in God. fideism incidently is the philosophical postulation that belief is the only path to God. If you really want to understand the God/belief debate from all sides, not just the atheist-vs-theist position, fideism would be a good word to google.

There are things I believe that i have no evidene for. God is just not one of them. Let me draw you a parallel that might help you out. I am going to step out on a limb and assume you don't believe that pegasuses exist. If I am wrong please cyber slap me and warn me never ever to assume that again. (kidding). Now say for the sake of arguement I happen to believe pegasuses do in fact exist.

The idea that pegsuses exist is an active idea. I have to actively make the fideistic assertion that their are horses with wings that can fly. You by contrast are not making that assertion. Your motives might be apathy to the idea of a pegasus, lack of conviction of the premises supplied by their existance or feeling that evidence is the most reasonbable avenue for acceptance of the pegasuses existance. Motive aside, the fact of the matter that the non-assertion is passive. Again understand fideism is an key-word in philosophical language for addressing this, buty the bottom line is my belief is active ---I am going out on a limb and saying in the absense of evidence i conclude pegasuses exist and your non-belief is passive. You don't need to assert to me that pegasuses don't exist because the burdon of persuasion is on the one making the claim in the first place. In the postualation of God religion is that persuasion.

I've heard many who are born again into a faith use the exact same words, especially the ones whose monotheistic faith leaves no room for other gods. THEY come to realize they are right in their religion and god, just as you claim that atheism is a realization.

i have too, and many times no RF, however, in the context every single time, realization was another way of saying "having faith."

I dont' have faith that god doesn't exist. I lack faith that god exists. Most all of the other atheists on rf are of the same venue.

I'd love to independantly address some of your points, but I fear that would take us way too far off topic. So I'll sum it up to say that while mysticism is indeed a huge part of religion,

take the qoutes you want and make new threads in the religious debates section with them. I am really laid-back about that so anytime you want to make a thread of my qoute i am game but other posters on here are less comfortable with that so with others if you could, for courtesy's sake pm them first and ask. For me, don't ask just do it.

don't forget that there are people out there who firmly believe in their religion while at the same time conceding that its stories are metaphorical in nature, and that science does indeed go a long way to explain the earthly realm.

for me, i am not very science-smart. I am not science stupid either but my formal education in science stinks and most of what i know about biology came after i was 30. Religious people's attempts, success and failures in reconciling their faith with earth and organic sciences is really fascinating to me, and in rolling back to the op is a high point on me being on rf.

Which brings us full circle. In such a case, you can choose to believe, or not.

the question may not be that simple. For instance, as a celtic why do you choose to say that Jesus is not your savior or that Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet? Is it that the premises lack conviction for you, the paradigm is doesn't add merit to the premise or they lack needs that your celtic faith gives you? Or all of those reasons or others?

as you shift from one religon to the next what gives one more validity than the other? how is validity measured? What the the value in the relationship between evidence and faith? How do you define a personal relationship and under what constraints?

perhaps the how defines the value of the what and that too is an allure for atheist to a religious forum.

 

[Halcyon]

I dont' have faith that god doesn't exist. I lack faith that god exists. Most all of the other atheists on rf are of the same venue.

Rob, do you think you have ever met an atheist who does have faith that God does not exist?

What do you think of these phrases;
1. I do not believe in God.
2. I believe God does not exist.

Do you think that these similar phrases perhaps represent a split in atheistic thought?

That maybe people who would say phrase 1 are of a passive, non-belief atheism and that people who use phrase 2 are perhaps of a more assertive/anti-theist persuasion?
Or is it just semantics?

 

[robtex]

Rob, do you think you have ever met an atheist who does have faith that God does not exist?

no i dont think i have. I think faith is a postive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. Faith is an idea accepted in the absence of evidence. the atheists on rf and in my life (austin is atheist infested), lack conviction that faith is applicable to god. it isn't faith that there is no god but lack of faith . Faith, in the context of the God question is a synonym for spirtual conviction and as such the inverse of anti-spirtual conviction i don't see as applicable in anyone i have ever encountered.

What do you think of these phrases;
1. I do not believe in God.
2. I believe God does not exist.

Do you think that these similar phrases perhaps represent a split in atheistic thought?

I would say you would have to view those qoutes in context to really academically view them. I think, in context when people say "God does not exist" or "I believe God does not exist" that if you drill down deep enough you will find the lack of conviction neccessary to equate them to the idea of "I do not blieve in God" or "I lack faith (conviction) in God's existance."

That maybe people who would say phrase 1 are of a passive, non-belief atheism and that people who use phrase 2 are perhaps of a more assertive/anti-theist persuasion?
Or is it just semantics?

i would be implied to go with semantics on that one but again we would need a context to view to really be academic about it. I don't think one can have an anti-belief which is what the assertion of "don't believe" comes across as in your post.

 

[Halcyon]

i would be implied to go with semantics on that one but again we would need a context to view to really be academic about it. I don't think one can have an anti-belief which is what the assertion of "don't believe" comes across as in your post.

Ok, i'll try to think of a context but it might not work.

How about we have a Buddhist who says "I don't believe in God". And we have a Christian who says "I believe Ganesha does not exist".

Now, in that scenario you can see that the atheism within each case is based upon different reasoning, the Buddhist - like most atheists - simply lacks a belief in God, she has no reason to believe in God.
The Christian however disbelieves in Ganesha because He is not his God, his disbelief is more a positive assertion, "That god does not exist".

Do you not think there could be the same difference in peoples' reasons for atheism? Some simply lack a belief in God because of no evidence, while others quite forcefully contend that there is no God, to the point of eliciting emotional responses when challenged by a theist?

I'm speculating here, but i imagine the former being of a more open mind. If someone presented evidence they believed proved God, the former i think is more likely to examine the evidence, while the latter would more likely respond much like a theist and dismiss the evidence out-of-hand. Would the latter not have a form of faith?

 

[lilithu]

i have too, and many times no RF, however, in the context every single time, realization was another way of saying "having faith."

I dont' have faith that god doesn't exist. I lack faith that god exists. Most all of the other atheists on rf are of the same venue.

To call it a realization rather than a choice is to say that you've realized an objective truth. From your perspective, a theist's realization is based on faith while yours is based on something more substantial. Yet they are just as equally convinced that their realization is based on knowing the "truth."

I understand that from your perspective there is no choice involved. You cannot choose to believe that which you don't believe. But from a theist's pov there is no choice involved either. One cannot not believe that which one believes.

 

[lilithu]

Yes, I have to admit that I cringe whenever I hear someone call atheism a belief system, or worse, a "religion." Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is one disbelief. There is no code of conduct, no rituals, no dogma at all that atheists follow. We do not have a set view on how the world was created - different atheists believe many different things, all based on their individual discoveries, not on one set of shared beliefs. This does not a religion make. For example, when someone says that they are a Christian, you can infer from that statement that they follow the teachings of Christ, and already you know something about their morals and beliefs. But if someone says to you that they are an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they don't believe in any gods. You know nothing about their morals, beliefs, their views on how the world was created, or their traditions.

Honestly, I do not assume that I know anything about a person's morals, beliefs, or their views on how the world was created just because the person identifies him or herself as Christian. "Following the teachings of Christ" means vastly different things to different Christians. As for how the world was created, I think a Christian is more likely to think that God was involved and an atheist is more likely to think that there was no God or gods involved, right? Beyond that,

The thing that I find disingenuous about the "atheism is not a belief-system" argument is that, while technically correct - semantically atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in deities - I have yet to meet any person who is completely lacking in a belief system. Pretty much every person that I have ever met who calls him or herself an atheist is a naturalist, and that is a belief system. Naturalist, rationalist, Humanist... these words mean somewhat different things but they have more in common than they differ. And they certainly have at least as much in common, if not more, than a UCC does with a Mormon with an Eastern Orthodox with a Lutheran. In fact, I would argue that there is much more diversity of belief amongst self-described Pagans than amongst self-described atheists.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I put this in the Comparative section because I don't want to start a debate, I'm just curious.

As atheism is not really a religion persay, I wonder why there are so many atheists in a religious forum. Curiosity about people's beliefs? Nostalgia for a past belief? Disdain for all things relgious and the simple enjoyment of arguing with the devout? Sociological interest?

What makes someone who does not believe in religion frequent a religious forum?

To tell you the truth... I'm not exactly sure...... I am an athiest but grew up with A LOT of family members who are religious.....I don't just mean christian....but muslim and Jewish....a couple of buddist are in there as well.....

I, as a teenager, used to debate with them...so it has continued.....

I may be on the far end of Atheism....You will find me in forums here discussing the bible and the quran......at least the language of the people and the similarites of their customs......etc....

It gives me the oopertunity to understand what and why people believe what they do. When i was a younger athiest i thought i was supposed to put people on the defensive and i thought it was my job to disprove the existance of their god(s)......but as i got older i realized that wasn't important.

To a certain degree i was defensive against those who would try to convert me or sway my "Common Sense"....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes! What he said. Plus, I like challenging my own beliefs.

I second that..... I was just a little more long winded in my opinion i wrote...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I came for intellectual pursuit.

And because my sister is on the forum, and I wanted to see what she says/argue with her.

No, I'm not telling who she is.

dang....no secrets mannnnnnn...


We family.........:cover:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I came to eradicate the world of religion, destroy the crops of Man, and bring an everlasting shadow over the World...

And to further improve my understand of others while learning about myself.

I like that.... that was funny....

HEY....

Think not that I come brandishing a sword...NAY...I come wheelding a big stick ready to club anyone who stands in my way......

 

[robtex]

To call it a realization rather than a choice is to say that you've realized an objective truth. From your perspective, a theist's realization is based on faith while yours is based on something more substantial. Yet they are just as equally convinced that their realization is based on knowing the "truth."

actually what theists have, and I am thinking you are included in this, is a revelation, a commune with God to achieve their enlightment. the common metaphor is "god in their heart" reflects this. An atheist has no such communion and as such the realization is one not of introspection, nor of communion aka a revelation but a study of the applicable ideas of philosophy religion and or science. For me it was # 1 or # 2 but not as much # 3. The methodology if reaching each conclusion is different as opposed to the same. Not that one is better or worse than the other, I am sure that is a subjective idea in itself but at the base level, from an academic standpoint I am sure you realize they are not parallels but different in both priorities and methods of investigation.

I understand that from your perspective there is no choice involved. You cannot choose to believe that which you don't believe. But from a theist's pov there is no choice involved either. One cannot not believe that which one believes.

true and untrue. They have a choice of which faith to choose or to take a position like yours which doesnt' pursue allegiance to one but interjects merit, indescrimate into all of them. Again, relating this back to the op this is an allure for atheist to a religious site.

 

[Majikthise]

I didn't ask the question with the intent of making you feel marginalized, I apologize. It was pure curiosity for curiosity's sake. I did a search on atheism related topics, but none of them really answered my question, so I posted a new topic. I can apprecitate that atheists are forced to defend their viewpoints a lot - especially because the vast majority of the world is religious in some way - so I'm sure that you all get that questions alot, in some form or another..

I just wrote a long post about no apology needed and trying to inflect through text and worrying about being dropped, and my post got dropped.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, no worries dude , we cool!

 

[lilithu]

actually what theists have, and I am thinking you are included in this, is a revelation, a commune with God to achieve their enlightment. the common metaphor is "god in their heart" reflects this. An atheist has no such communion and as such the realization is one not of introspection, nor of communion aka a revelation but a study of the applicable ideas of philosophy religion and or science. For me it was # 1 or # 2 but not as much # 3. The methodology if reaching each conclusion is different as opposed to the same. Not that one is better or worse than the other, I am sure that is a subjective idea in itself but at the base level, from an academic standpoint I am sure you realize they are not parallels but different in both priorities and methods of investigation.

I didn't say we used the same processes to reach our respective realizations. I only said that from each perspective, it is a realization.

true and untrue. They have a choice of which faith to choose or to take a position like yours which doesnt' pursue allegiance to one but interjects merit, indescrimate into all of them. Again, relating this back to the op this is an allure for atheist to a religious site.

You think I interject merit indescriminately into all of them?? I guess you've never heard me criticize Scientology or NewAge-ism.

I do not choose to see merit in many religions. I just see it. I also see problems in most of these same religions. What I do choose to do is focus on what's good about them and not what's problematic. I have no choice in how I perceive the world, only in how I choose to respond to it. The same as anyone else.

 

[des]

Well this much is certain, esp. your little UCC line. !!!
--des

Pretty much every person that I have ever met who calls him or herself an atheist is a naturalist, and that is a belief system. Naturalist, rationalist, Humanist... these words mean somewhat different things but they have more in common than they differ. And they certainly have at least as much in common, if not more, than a UCC does with a Mormon with an Eastern Orthodox with a Lutheran. In fact, I would argue that there is much more diversity of belief amongst self-described Pagans than amongst self-described atheists.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
It is always good the start from the other end.
starting withe the premise that there is no god etc is good only if it is seriously pursued as that takes the enquirer to the other side where he believes in god.
The pendulum is still swinging from a non believer to a believer but the truth lies somewhere in bwteen the two poles it is in the centre of the pendulum where there is a balance when the pendulum takes no sides it is this lace that is true where in a sense one one sides one can see that god exists and the other side one can see that there is no god.
But without the individual serach just by debating one can never reach anywhere. Then only evolution takes care.
Love & rgds

 

[lilithu]

The pendulum is still swinging from a non believer to a believer but the truth lies somewhere in bwteen the two poles it is in the centre of the pendulum where there is a balance when the pendulum takes no sides it is this lace that is true where in a sense one one sides one can see that god exists and the other side one can see that there is no god.

Wow, we agree on something.