How I Feel About Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It isn't surprising that you didn't realize this, since by saying "I don't know," you were also rejecting human perception and cognition.

Good thing you'll have time to reflect on this, since as an atheist, you see no value in art, philosophy, or religion and therefore presumably have no hobbies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Then you are incorrect about what atheists believe. This atheist has always agreed that there is the possibility of a god or gods. I'm simply waiting for a reason to believe that they exist.

Also, I've tried religion. There were no benefits, just costs. I am intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually fulfilled without such notions and rituals.

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.

Theism begins with a self-delusion. Atheism is the refusal to participate in that without good reason.

Why are theists always trying to tell us what they think we really believe. We don't think like theists. We don't hate God. We aren't trying to escape accountability. There was no traumatic event that led to atheism. We don't deep down really believe in gods.

they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice.

You might work on your own imagination skills a bit. You don't seem to be able to imagine what atheism is even when told by atheists.

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

Why would the refusal to believe something without a reason have any effect on one's appreciation of philosophy or art? My home is stuffed with art collected over a lifetime, and my wife and I are both amateur painters and musicians.

I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Christianity is the most misanthropic belief system I have ever encountered. It teaches that man is a failed and decrepit race born worthy of being whacked by a giant celestial magazine unless he begs for forgiveness for being human, that his societies are diseased, and one should remain separate from them.

Humanists believe and teach the opposite as the word humanist implies. Man, who has the capacity to be noble, brilliant, inspired, and altruistic, is the only hope for improving the human condition.

Your view of what ubelievers are, what we want, and what we strive for is the typical impoverished view that I am accustomed to encountering with people raised in the intellectual shadow of religion. The view of atheism such people have is one taught to them by our detractors in the church. They simply refuse to listen to what we actually say.

How many tell us that we can have no basis for moral thought without a god belief, or that life is meaningless without one? What are they actually telling us when they say that other than that they have no concept of an internal moral compass guiding one's choices, and that their lives have no meaning until they are over, at which time they hope to spend eternity worshiping. If that belief alone is what gives one's life meaning, then that life is the one with no meaning both before and after death.

 

[PureX]

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

You're not being evil. You're simply being agnostic. But when you say "I don't know" and then proceed to tell everyone else how what they choose to believe is wrong, well ... (I'm not saying you do this, but a lot of self-proclaimed atheists do it. Theists, on the other hand, rarely admit that they "don't know", which is a different kind of dishonesty.)

 

[Laika]

This is just a denial of weak atheism as being atheism.

Weak Atheists then spend most of their time:

1) Denying that Strong Atheism is even possible because we "can't know god".
2) Questioning the need for the concept of atheism or the need for the word. (i.e. there aren't "a-unicornists" for not believing in Unicorns.)

So in practice, weak atheist try to liquidate atheism as a whole as they treat "lack of belief" means a "lack of atheism". The destructive part of this is the extent to which "weak atheists" fail to recognise their understanding of atheism is not representative of all "atheists". They will plead individuality and choice, but only to the extent that it conforms to what they believe are the "correct" methods to reach conclusions. Strong atheism is typically (but not always) excluded from it.

 

[metis]

It isn't surprising that you didn't realize this, since by saying "I don't know," you were also rejecting human perception and cognition.

Good thing you'll have time to reflect on this, since as an atheist, you see no value in art, philosophy, or religion and therefore presumably have no hobbies.

BTW, I really am more of a "believing agnostic" because I do think "Something" is out there but I just don't know what that "Something" actually is.

Ya gotta be aware that those of us in science tend to make lousy theists because we keep looking for something called "evidence". And those of us in anthropology are even weirder yet because we study so many different religions that we can't figure out how we may fit in.

 

[Revoltingest]

Weak Atheists then spend most of their time:

1) Denying that Strong Atheism is even possible because we "can't know god".
2) Questioning the need for the concept of atheism or the need for the word. (i.e. there aren't "a-unicornists" for not believing in Unicorns.)

I had no idea that I spent any time at all on such things.
#1 isn't supportable.
#2 is uninteresting.

So in practice, weak atheist try to liquidate atheism as a whole as they treat "lack of belief" means a "lack of atheism".

I'd never say that weak atheism is a lack of atheism.

The destructive part of this is the extent to which "weak atheists" fail to recognise their understanding of atheism is not representative of all "atheists".

Destructive?
Nah!
To be one type of atheist is not failure to recognize another type.
The very fact that I'm discussing both should be evidence of this.

They will plead individuality and choice, but only to the extent that it conforms to what they believe are the "correct" methods to reach conclusions.

Some methods are better than others.

Strong atheism is typically (but not always) excluded from it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.

I responded to all 6 points by labeling them strawmen, generalizations, and personal attacks. I'm concise like that when all six points are serving the same function.

7. I didn't consider the points.

8. I took your OP as a assault on my identity and went into "self-defend mode".

See my response above for 7-8. You say something that isn't a strawman, generalization, or personal attack, I'll be happy to engage.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Not to start this thing off entirely combative, but I think this is a bad implementation of Pascal's wager. All humans, running the gambit from Atheist to Theist, derive value systems from somewhere. You're assuming that positive value systems can only come from Theology, and that's demonstrably false in this thread alone.

Also, it's not an unnecessary negation of a possibility. Most theists completely misunderstand the position. Is a God wholly impossible? I don't think anything is wholly impossible. I just find it highly unlikely. So in that statement alone, it's not a negation at all. It's simply a possibility with very low likelihood, like Sasquatch. If I'm proven to be wrong in my rejection of deities, then I'll change my position and become a theist.

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.

When you claim that god exists and I say that he doesn't, then I can see why you'd feel that way. But you currently have an unbelief in every single god that you've never heard of. That's a fact. It applies to both you and me necessarily as we cannot believe things that we are unaware of.

So in a conversation about your particular god, you are right. I am actively rejecting your claim that your god exists. But on the whole, Athesits are right in stating that their philosophical position contains a great amount of unbelief. If even the claimed gods don't have good supporting evidence, how else should we feel about the unclaimed gods?

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, for one, read philosophical and metaphysical material constantly. I roll my eyes a lot, sure. But I do read with a sincere interest in understanding. Just last week I finished a fantastic book about the philosophy of knowledge and the inherent faults in a strictly materialist ideology. I'm not unaware of my own shortcomings or of the limitations of our ability to process only certain types of data. But that really does nothing to help your argument because you and I, as theist and atheist respectively, are both operating with the same set of tools. So the faults of our limitations go both ways and you're stuck with a null argument.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind".

Accurately define and evidence what Spirit is, and then we can have a conversation about that.

The fact that 1,000,000 different "spiritualists" will give 1,000,000 different answers to that question is why we don't take it too seriously.

Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice.

If you're defining spirit as intuition, imagination, and artifice, then you've completely missed the mark in both claiming that we are "spirit-blind" and claiming that we are oblivious to these human behaviors...

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.

Again, you're way off base here, on all parts. While we may have an any number of individual opinions about regulated religion, for example, that does not mean that we don't see SOME value in it. The same is true of Philosophy (my first major), Art (my bedrock avenue of expression) or religion (something that we all establish within ourselves, which Aristotle called "Phronesis")

In fact, I would argue that mythology is a fundamental part of human psychology and a necessary aspect of cognitive development especially in our younger years. Whatever mythologies we were exposed to throughout the course of our development has had a hand in forming the value systems that I was talking about earlier. But the fact that we recognize mythologies as mythologies does not mean that we find them to be "frivolous dalliances." And that, I think, is the main disconnect between Theists and Atheists. Theists mistake their mythologies for objectively factual reality. Atheists don't - and so we bicker.

 

[Stevicus]

(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 don't see it that way at all. I think the problem a lot of people have when they try to critique atheism is that they try to analyze it based on what they see today and some of the more superficial imagery, without taking into consideration the historical context of why atheism developed into what it did.

That doesn't mean atheists are against art or imagination. Not that I've seen. My observation is that they tend to be free thinkers more than the average religionist, who generally tend to be more rigid and dogmatic in their ways of looking at the world. It's the religionists who latch on to the idea that there is only "one true way" - a single-minded, narrow belief system which negates all other possibilities - even to the point of negating other religions which essentially believe the same thing.

Atheists may have their faults, although I can't say that I've ever seen atheists argue with each other over which gods they don't believe in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Weak Atheists then spend most of their time:

1) Denying that Strong Atheism is even possible because we "can't know god".
2) Questioning the need for the concept of atheism or the need for the word. (i.e. there aren't "a-unicornists" for not believing in Unicorns.)

So in practice, weak atheist try to liquidate atheism as a whole as they treat "lack of belief" means a "lack of atheism". The destructive part of this is the extent to which "weak atheists" fail to recognise their understanding of atheism is not representative of all "atheists". They will plead individuality and choice, but only to the extent that it conforms to what they believe are the "correct" methods to reach conclusions. Strong atheism is typically (but not always) excluded from it.

The agnostic atheist continues his skepticism even after rejecting the theists' unsupported god claims. When another atheist tells him that he knows for a fact that no gods exist, we ask him how he knows that or could know that. The answers don't support the claim.

I can't estimate the likelihood of the existence of gods not trying to be found, and don't see how anybody else can, either. I can rule out the logically impossible gods such as gods with the desire and ability to be known that can't be found, and we have discovered no quality of the universe that requires an intelligent designer to account for it, but even that doesn't rule out gods that left no signature and are no longer present.

 

[bobhikes]

(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.

Your entitled to your feelings but Atheists are humans and like every grouping of humans very different from each other. As long as you don't act on your beliefs you may have them, I suggest however you would be better off trying to validate them.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That looks like four options to me. But they are NOT the only possibilities.

But, you can also think the concept to be too ill-defined to consider until clarified. You can think the issue to be irrelevant or boring.

"Unbelief" is not an honest option because it's not a reasoned response to the ideological possibility being proposed.

Sure it is! Unbelief is a fully reasoned response to the lack of information or a lack of a well-defined problem.

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.

How about if they have never found a definition of God they believe in but are open to the possibility of a new definition coming up that they could? How about if they look and see so many different definitions it is clear that nobody is talking about the same thing and so the question doesn't even have a potential answer?

And I disagree that they are simply 'disinterested agnostics'. it is possible to be *both* an atheist (lack of belief) and an agnostic (thinking knowledge isn't possible currently). For that matter, it is possible to be a theist and an agnostic (having a belief in God but not thinking knowledge is possible).

 

[Quintessence]

Theism begins with a self-delusion.

Excuse me?

As much crap as there is in the OP regarding atheists, I have a hard time caring much when I routinely see the same kind of crap leveled theists (see exhibit A, above). Here's a notion - perhaps avoid making assumptions about a person because of labels that are pretty darned superficial and tells us next to nothing about them?

 

[Mister Silver]

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

Anything positive that theism posits to provide can absolutely be found without theism.

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.

It depends upon the atheist. There are weak atheists and there are strong atheists. The weak atheist is the most common, whereby s/he will state that atheism is the disbelief in deities. The strong atheist is the least common, also known as the militant atheist, whereby s/he will state positively that deities do not exist and use knowledge to back up that claim.

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 yet to come across an atheist who was solely a materialist in the way that you describe it. In fact, every atheist I have ever come across enjoys and values life, finds hope and purpose for the future of humanity, recognizes the fine art of what can be perceived to dismiss that which is not real, finds joy in the exercising the imagination by creating art and literature, recognizes the necessity of critical thinking in a learning environment.

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.

If by "spirit-blind", you mean preferring the harsh truth of reality over the comfortable lie of that which has no empirical evidence to support its existence, then you would be correct. I've already mentioned in the paragraph above how atheists value imagination (without confusing reality for fantasy) and art; it's no different with philosophy, an atheist can strengthen critical thinking skills through that medium. As for religion, I can personally attest to studying it as the fiction it is to better understand the minds of the theists with whom I am debating.

 

[Valjean]

You're not being evil. You're simply being agnostic. But when you say "I don't know" and then proceed to tell everyone else how what they choose to believe is wrong, well ... (I'm not saying you do this, but a lot of self-proclaimed atheists do it. Theists, on the other hand, rarely admit that they "don't know", which is a different kind of dishonesty.)

If you engage us in debate, yes, we will tell you you are wrong, or at least that your theism is unsupported. I understand that these inconvenient truths are uncomfortable, but if you disagree, we're always open to reasoned rebuttals.
If you really don't want us to jostle your house of cards, though, just don't bring the subject up. It's not atheists who are the proselytizers.

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

Freethinkers and intellectuals have always supported the arts. The artsy-fartsy, bohemian crowd has never been known for its piety. Historically, its the religious who have always tried to suppress and regulate fun and artistic expression.

 

[Laika]

The agnostic atheist continues his skepticism even after rejecting the theists' unsupported god claims. When another atheist tells him that he knows for a fact that no gods exist, we ask him how he knows that or could know that. The answers don't support the claim.

I can't estimate the likelihood of the existence of gods not trying to be found, and don't see how anybody else can, either. I can rule out the logically impossible gods such as gods with the desire and ability to be known that can't be found, and we have discovered no quality of the universe that requires an intelligent designer to account for it, but even that doesn't rule out gods that left no signature and are no longer present.

You largely said what I meant but only better. So I'm happy to agree with you on that.

As someone who does belief that no god exists, I concede that it is largely a faith of sorts. That's been extremely alienating and marginalising given that it is a view not obviously susceptible or readily explained by appealing to reason, evidence or logic to other atheists and goes contrary to the scepticism of agnostic atheists as the dominant group of atheists on RF. At this point, I'm simply happy to see someone say that this conflict between atheists exists. It makes some kind recognition of the diversity of atheism and co-existence between different groups possible.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

It's hard not to feel the need to respond in a defensive way when you literally make sweeping critical character judgements of a group.

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

Even if I thought theism could provide me with some positive I couldn't obtain without it, I can't change what convinces me and what doesn't.

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

For my part I am not allergic to the term 'belief' and am comfortable enough saying I do not believe in the existence of gods. I am also comfortable saying I do not know if gods exist but am currently unconvinced they do, hence agnostic atheist.

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 a physicalist/materialist. I still am quite comfortable exploring functions of mind, cognition, et al, I just do not view them as all that different from software running on hardware. E.g. that mind, consciousness, does not operate without a physical platform to process it.

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.

Well, I've been an artist as long as I can remember, I also wrote and participate in highly imaginative group role-play (D&D, shadowrum, Dresden files etc), and I'm a staff member to a religious forum where I get to learn about lots of different religions and ask questions about. I post a hell of a lot more about them than 'I disagree with them.'
I am simply not convinced 'I' exist without a physical body, so I find your post unnecessarily harsh.

 

[YmirGF]

Holy rat's nest, Batman!

(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.

Metaphysical reality? You didn't really just state that as an existential reality, did you? Perhaps you are being metaphorical?

I do admit that I am not your garden variety atheist. I'm a former theist who has looked directly into the eyes of god - as Vishnu. My strong atheism was born out of that long, warm, loving look. It was, most certainly, a life-altering experience. In my case, it goes well beyond simply not believing as my own experience shattered the image of god commonly held by most human animals. Their image of god exists only within their mind and nowhere else. That does not mean that their emotional outreach and inherent, often fervent, belief cannot create a palpable, reciprocal, feedback loop. It can and in my view, it does. This could actually become problematic for addictive personality types and could well lead to fanaticism.

My strong atheism is about being honest with myself and wrestling with inner experiences that go well beyond the norm. My life since that time has been incredibly rich and satisfying. I have enough inner peace to fuel a small village and an inherent bliss that simply cannot be quenched.

I have developed some fairly radical ideas about personality and being, but since I am not a professional, with accolades up the wazoo, I tend use that reality as an aid in keeping my hat size down. Unlike my blissful time with Vishnu, I no longer let my imagination run away with itself. Keeping a messiah complex in check is no small task, I assure you.

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.

If only there were more human animals that shared my spiritual blindness.

*Turns a fire hose on his inherent messiah complex*

This strong atheist values highly both intuition and the immense power of imagination, though I am not so big on artifice and deceit. That said, I am a fairly good actor when I am called upon to ignore my real feelings. I will admit that I have little time for philosophy and consider a lot of it to be mental masturbation. Ditto religion, in general. I am a big supporter of the arts, music and personal expression however. At least the artist and the musician know where their artistic endeavors end. The same cannot be said for theists, in very general terms, as their theology tends to spill over into all activities and pollutes whatever it touches.

 

[icehorse]

(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 your analysis is very narrowly focused. A few points:

- We're only atheists because we live in a heavily theist world. Most of us could rightly be called "a-unicornists", but it's not necessary, because we don't live in a heavily unicornist world.
- Religion attempts to co-opt spirituality, but I'm having none of it. I feel I'm more spiritual than many religious people I know. E.g. I follow the golden rule because I believe it's the right way to behave. I do NOT follow it because I'm afraid of punishment in a mythical afterlife.
- I know many atheists, and none of them are anti-philosophy or anti-art.

 

[leibowde84]

(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 have yet to meet any atheists who fit this description. I am an agnostic atheist at this point, but my beliefs tend to change over time. I don't believe that God doesn't exist ... I merely haven't been convinced that he does. I am an atheist because I "lack belief in the existence of God", and that is all that is required.