How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life.

Atheism isn't necessarily negating a possibility, nor even denying a possibility, it is merely not accepting of a belief. Also, what "positive benefits" could theism confer that cannot be conferred by other means?

I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist.

Why do you think that? It is merely a question of definitions. I state my position quite clearly: I am an agnostic atheist, using the broad definition of an atheist as someone who "lacks belief in a God or Gods". Where is the dishonesty in this definition if I feel it accurately portrays my position?

And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

How are any of those things necessarily "metaphysical"? Do you not think that there is a possibility that cognition is a physical process, or at the very least the result of one?

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice.

I actually find the opposite is true. Most of the atheists I know are very imaginative and aware of the power of the mind and influence of intuition. While I don't think theists necessarily lack these things in comparison, I do believe that there is generally less understanding among theists of how beliefs and intuition can influence our perceptions - something similar to this was brought up in another thread about "absolute" and "conditional" thinking that I think sums it up rather well. Theists (or, at least, deeply religious people) are more commonly "absolutists" who tend to think in black and white, while atheists tend to more commonly be "conditional" thinking who regard their conclusions as tentative.

They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations.

Can you give examples of atheists saying this?

And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

I think you're worried over nothing. I find atheists display just as much humanity as anyone else.

 

[Twilight Hue]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Maybe it's because your personal desire for a better world or existence is better lived inside a metaphorical stained glass cathedral where feeling safe and secure takes precedence in face of uncomfortable truths that we all face in actuality.

I understand why we all don't want to face such things in life, but I feel it's unproductive to hide from such things and pretend things aren't there as opposed to facing and seeing directly in order to accept and adjust in a healthy way.

 

[Jumi]

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

When I was an atheist, I never negated possibilities of there being something. I just never believed to begin with. I was one of those kids who just didn't think there was anything different about stories I was reading then what I was taught in State Church.

Sure, I did eliminate some possibilities later on in life. Some logically impossible things for example became a no with education. Some unscientific views were countered, and the situation there doesn't change with shift to theism.

I still fail to see what positive benefits theism has over atheism. I don't get any immediate benefits from believing as I do, I need to work for those, just like I did as an atheist.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

I highly doubt that. Intuition, imagination and artifice are important to many atheists. They just don't believe the source of that is God. So you can rest easy with some of those worries.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

1. I'm missing out on positive benefits.

2. I'm intellectually dishonest.

3. I'm missing out on reality.

4. I don't value intuition, imagination, and artifice.

5. I think philosophy and art are frivolous.

6. I'm anti-human, which is worrisome.

Does that cover all your claims?

I'm not sure I have anything to respond to here other than strawmen, generalizations, and personal attacks. . . Based on your post, which offers absolutely nothing for us to actually discuss, you've demonstrated that you're not worth the effort.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist.

I‘m getting the impression that you share an all too common misunderstanding of what atheism is. It isn’t something people choose to believe (or not believe depending of your viewpoint ), it’s just a characteristic some of us have, a subconscious function of our knowledge and experiences as processed by our minds. Ultimately atheists are no different to theists, we just happen to believe different things in a very small element of the vast scope of existence.

And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

Plenty of people will think that way and many of them will be atheist (whether they identify as such or not) but that doesn’t render any of that a direct function or requirement of atheism. Of course, you also seem to be working from the unsupported assumption that materialism is automatically bad and wrong and that no form of materialism can acknowledge and understand the concepts you list.

And I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

I find that quite insulting and dismissive of millions of people around the world (which could also be seen as “anti-human” ). Loads of atheists give huge value to all of the things you list (sometimes too much IMO), some even giving some kind of spiritual value to them (just not relating to specific deities of course).

You seem to be working from a very limited stereotype of what atheism actually means and how it influences all of the various individuals who happen to be atheist. Maybe you should consider spending less time telling people what they think and more time asking them.

 

[ChristineM]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Other than that all bets are off, whatever dislike you attribute to atheism outside that definition is essentially ingrained discrimination.


P.s. all you have to do is provide verifiable evidence of a gods existence and you wipe atheism out in a single stroke. Billions of people in thousand's of years have not managed tom provide any valid evidence as yet, hence atheism continues to grow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Sounds like you've been so busy inventing what you think atheists believe that you haven't bothered to actually listen to many of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life.

That, quite simply, is not at all accurate.

I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist.

There is something to that. But besides lacking much significance in and of itself, that is the unavoidable consequence of the insistence of proselitist monotheism in treating theism as something to be assumed until disproven.

Theism has been cheapened by monotheists, and it is not atheists' fault that they also suffer the consequences.

And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I have to wonder how frequent and how significant that might be. IMO those are simply not very worthwhile matters and most people to dwell on them would be better off stopping doing so. Theist and atheist alike, but mostly theists.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

On this you are all-out wrong. Your perception of atheists is caricatural and quite unjustified.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think atheism is the unnecessary.....

I'd say that you're almost right.
Atheism should be unnecessary, but alas, theists have created beliefs & laws which directly affect
us non-believers. When I started public school, we had compulsory religious oaths (the altered
Pledge Of Allegiance), compulsory teacher led Xian prayer, & Bible story time. If theists didn't
impose their mythologies & proscriptions upon me, I wouldn't be compelled to react against them.

....provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life.

You see religion as being positive, but I say that it's neutral at best. Religious folk aren't any
more moral than we heathens, despite claims that their strictures rein in their sinful tendencies.
Moreover, many will commit heinous crimes in the belief that their holy scripture actually requires
it, eg, murdering abortion providers, murdering the infidels, executing the apostates.

You don't address the positive aspects of disbelief, ie, that we're not bound by dysfunctional
proscriptions, eg, forbidding bacon, forbidding gay marriage, forbidding elevator use on Saturday.
And most importantly, we're not bound by a requirement to believe things which have no basis
in reality, & even conflict with it.

I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist.

There's nothing "dishonest" about recognizing the existence of both weak & strong atheism.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice.

Is it that we're "spirit blind", or do believers elevate their feelings to "The Truth",
thereby living in a reality constructed from their own illusions & myths from a book.

They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

You need a broader view of what it is to be human.
There's nothing anti-human in rejecting unquestioned belief in myths that someone else demands
we believe & obey. I say that to reject blind faith, & to use reason is a human's best path.

 

[Polymath257]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life.

Positive benefits based on a delusion aren't really positive.

I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist.

Well, there are a LOT of different viewpoints on what constitutes a 'God'. For example, identifying God with the laws of physics is a possibility and I do think there are laws of physics. I just don't think the identification is a reasonable one (God is usually taken to have a personality, which the laws of physics do not have). I am also OK with many other concepts of 'God', although I find most of them to be distortions of the concept.

Let's say that I have never found a concept of God that I found both non-trivial and that I believed in.

And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I am very open about being a philosophical materialist. But I certainly do NOT deny the values of perception, cognition, conceptualization, values, and purpose. I just think that mental states are a type of physical state and that values are a part of 'reality' as much as an aspect of humanity. We create our own purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice.

On the contrary, intuition and imagination are *crucial* to any endeavor that attempts to understand the universe. Those are where new ideas come from, after all. But they are not always (even usually) correct. Out of 100 'intuitions', there may be one that has value for real understanding. But that one is of great value. Being able to imagine is another central ability if one wants to create or learn. As for 'artifice', that word generally has more negative connotations (lying, dissembling, manipulating) that I generally care for, but I can see it as an aspect of fictional literature and theater, where it is a positive.

They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations.

Who has *ever* said that? Philosophy and art are central human endeavors. Religion has multiple negatives, but has inspired many beautiful works of art. But that doesn't make it *true*.

And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Funny, I find the emphasis on the 'next world' by the religious to be anti-human and worrisome. The idea that God will 'make it all right' is a way for the religious to avoid responsibility and iI find it to be anti-human worrisome. And the promotion of superstition as opposed to an honest look at the world I find to be anti-human and worrisome.

 

[Sunstone]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

I think you haven't really thought about atheists and atheism but have instead regurgitated several stereotypes common in our culture. I'll grant, though, that you use better language to express those stereotypes than, say, the average fundamentalist preacher.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I haven't met an atheist yet who believes they can't perceive, cognate, conceptualize, hold values, and have purpose. Exactly which atheists are you getting this stuff from?

BTW: they way you mentioned philosophical materialism made me wonder about something: when you say that you're not an atheist... do you believe in the literal existence of a god or gods?

IOW, are you actually an atheist, just with a different aesthetic approach than most atheists?

Edit: your characterization of atheist makes no sense at all if you were trying to describe atheists as a whole out in the real world, but if I approach what you're saying with the assumption that these "atheists" you describe are an aspect of yourself that you're struggling to reconcile with other beliefs, it seems to make much more sense. Is this what's going on?

 

[PureX]

When I was an atheist, I never negated possibilities of there being something. I just never believed to begin with. I was one of those kids who just didn't think there was anything different about stories I was reading then what I was taught in State Church.

Once the ideological possibility of the existence of a "god" was presented to you, you had three choices. You could accept the possibility and explore it, you could reject the possibility and ignore it, or you could withhold determination based on insufficient evidence and explore, or ignore it. "Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed. If by "unbelief" one means that they withhold determination based on lack of information, and then choose to ignore the subject further, that's fine, but they are not atheists. They are simply disinterested agnostics.

 

[PureX]

1. I'm missing out on positive benefits.

2. I'm intellectually dishonest.

3. I'm missing out on reality.

4. I don't value intuition, imagination, and artifice.

5. I think philosophy and art are frivolous.

6. I'm anti-human, which is worrisome.

Does that cover all your claims?

I'm not sure I have anything to respond to here other than strawmen, generalizations, and personal attacks. . . Based on your post, which offers absolutely nothing for us to actually discuss, you've demonstrated that you're not worth the effort.

Well, that's probably because you didn't actually understand or consider any of the observations being offered. You simply took them as an "assault" on your self-identification as an atheist, and then went into "auto-defend" mode.

 

[Laika]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

**As an atheist, I agree with you. **

This will probably be lost in the sea of responses you're getting though.

I still believe atheism is necessary in the pursuit of truth and knowledge but I do think that we could do a lot better in how we treat theists objections and criticisms. If our intention is to actually convince people of the value of atheism, we cannot take it as self-evident. An exchange has to take place which is mutually beneficial and takes into account that religion is the entirety of a persons being and so is not readily given up simply by appealing to evidence or logic. The apparent irrationality of faith is inescapably part of being human because humanity is fundamentally irrational. Our reasons for being is that we are and it needs no justification. My Atheism is very much a faith and is irrational and I am quite happy for it to be that way.

I am consistently in a minority amongst Atheists when discussing Atheism however. I still feel it is important to try and represent this view in this thread because I want theists to know that there are atheists who do understand faith is more than scripture. It is about the living, breathing essence of human beings walking the path of the unknown. Our human limitations means there are limitation to knowledge. Some degree of faith is essential to be human, because we cannot ever possess a truth that is absolute. If Atheism rejects god, it must also reject the absolute of omniscience, hence it is going to be a "faith" of sorts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Once the ideological possibility of the existence of a "god" was presented to you, you had three choices. You could accept the possibility and explore it, you could reject the possibility and ignore it, or you could withhold determination based on insufficient evidence and explore, or ignore it. "Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed. If by "unbelief" one means that they withhold determination based on lack of information, and then choose to ignore the subject further, that's fine, but they are not atheists. They are simply disinterested agnostics.

This is just a denial of weak atheism as being atheism.
Tis problematic to deny commonly used definitions, eg....
the definition of atheism

And there's another aspect you've not addressed.
One cannot prove or disprove the existence of gods.
But given the utter lack of evidence for gods, & the repeated disproving
of many claims by many religions, it's reasonable to speculate....
"I can't prove there are no gods, but the utter lack of evidence
for them inspires me to bet your left one that there are none."

 

[Revoltingest]

Once the ideological possibility of the existence of a "god" was presented to you, you had three choices. You could accept the possibility and explore it, you could reject the possibility and ignore it, or you could withhold determination based on insufficient evidence and explore, or ignore it. "Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed. If by "unbelief" one means that they withhold determination based on lack of information, and then choose to ignore the subject further, that's fine, but they are not atheists. They are simply disinterested agnostics.

I notice that much of your argument hinges upon
the belief that we atheists are dishonest.
Do you really believe that we're trying to deceive you?
Or could it be that our perspective is so foreign that
you cannot imagine how we could be sincere?

One thing I notice, especially on RF, is that those with the
weakest arguments are prone to anger when challenged,
& resort to the ad hominem, eg, accusation of dishonesty.
Certainly, you don't want to be seen as one of them.

 

[metis]

I didn't know that when I say "I don't know" that I was being so evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once the ideological possibility of the existence of a "god" was presented to you, you had three choices. You could accept the possibility and explore it, you could reject the possibility and ignore it, or you could withhold determination based on insufficient evidence and explore, or ignore it. "Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed. If by "unbelief" one means that they withhold determination based on lack of information, and then choose to ignore the subject further, that's fine, but they are not atheists. They are simply disinterested agnostics.

"Disinterested agnostics" are often atheists. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

All of the positions you gave are compatible with atheism, even "accept the possibility and explore it," since accepting the possibility of a god isn't the same as accepting a god.

All of the positions are also compatible with theism, since a person can reject or ignore any number of gods but still be a theist as long as they accept at least one.