How I Feel About Atheists

[leibowde84]

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.)

In the OP you said very clearly that atheists were wrong.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

(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.

Imagine you walk down a street and hear some lunatic with a tinfoil hat on the corner raving about how we are under the thumb of alien overlords from planet niburu. Your reaction is my reaction to religious claims.

 

[Jumi]

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.

Your set of options is rather limiting, compared to real life. I wasn't presented with any of these choices and during my life as an atheist I went through all three(and more) in various different ways at various periods, my lack of belief in the gods not changing at any step. When I learned more about gods by reading and discussing about them I came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of any gods defined as supernatural. Though some types of gods were easy to evaluate as impossible based on education. There were no gods that changed my lack of belief during that time.

An agnostic is someone who believes that we can't know if there is a god, presumably accepting some kind of definition of god, usually singular. Since I had no good definition available for a god, given that I had a set of possible gods to evaluate, I could not be an agnostic. Neither did I ever believe that if God exists, that it's unknowable. A weak atheist is someone who has a lack of belief, and this group I identified with after I heard that such things existed. As far as I knew before that, I just didn't think there was anything to the religion I was taught. It felt the same as sword and sorcery books, I didn't explore those either.

Now that I'm gnostic, I have god and I accept that the belief isn't something I can prove to anyone else but myself. I also accept that it's not the same as many other gods.

 

[Jesster]

I always love it when a theist gets pissed off enough to attack the idea of atheists. What do you think that is going to accomplish other than defensive responses back at you? If you want me to be a theist, you might try presenting valid reason for that belief instead.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Thank you for the kind words.

I don't see myself as in conflict with strong atheists, I just don't understand their position. I have about the same relationship with gods that I have with vampires and leprechauns - some people claim they exist but are unable to provide evidence, I ignore their claims, and go about living as if none of them do without having any means to rule any of them out.

So, I claim agnosticism in all such areas because there is no need to say anything stronger.

It also contradicts those theists claiming that all atheists have rejected the possibility of gods, another.

If you engage us in debate, yes, we will tell you you are wrong, or at least that your theism is unsupported.

Of course, this is what I meant by saying that theism begins with a self-delusion, atheism being the refusal to participate in that without good reason, which obviously peeved at least one poster. Believing that gods are real is unsupported belief, which meets my criterion for self-delusion, which I would also think about anybody who made the same claim about vampires and leprechauns. I'm not sure why two of those beliefs are considered foolish and the other not.

• "It's weird, isn't is, that when we're taught about Thor and Odin, it's called Norse mythology, but when it's about Jehovah and Allah, it's called religion. It's like saying. ‘I know that Batman and Superman don't exist, but I have a personal relationship with Spiderman' " - anon.

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.

In the West, Christianity does violence to authentic spirituality, which above all else, involves a sense of connectivity.

Christians seem to be living as if they're waiting at a bus stop for a bus to a better place, with their focus diverted to a place I believe they'll never see and a time when they will no longer be able to experience anything.

They are told that this world is base matter, a passing phase fit to be destroyed in a fiery apocalypse. A better world can be found elsewhere. They are told that man is born inherently sick, and that he is incapable of helping himself, instead being utterly dependent on an invisible savior. His societies are spoken of with contempt ("the world" is a derogatory term), and he is to remain psychologically separated from them. His own body is described contemptuously as "the flesh," a prison from which he is told his soul years to escape. Even his own mind is to be distrusted, doubts and assorted impulses being defined as the urging of an enemy invading and manipulating his thoughts.

That's pretty much the opposite of spirituality to me. How could you be more disconnected from our world?

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.

That's my experience as well. There was a huge benefit to leaving religion. Just for starters, when some doe-eyed child dies of leukemia later today somewhere in the world, I can consider it rotten luck rather than the machinations of a god that could have helped but didn't.

I'm still waiting to read what benefit the OP imagines religion offers people that are fulfilled without it. What could possibly offset so many costs, such as the one I just outlined to icehorse?

I always love it when a theist gets pissed off enough to attack the idea of atheists. What do you think that is going to accomplish other than defensive responses back at you? If you want me to be a theist, you might try presenting valid reason for that belief instead.

I believe that what you are seeing is the bigotry of many theists toward atheists. They are taught the worst things about us - that we hate God, or are inherently immoral. They resent us for being atheists. I doubt that we would give them a second thought if they weren't attacking and trying to dominate the lives of unbelievers.

The Christian Bible calls us corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalms 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23​

 

[Augustus]

Why are theists always trying to tell us what they think we really believe.

Theism begins with a self-delusion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

For what it's worth, I also believe that no gods exist. I do not argue the accuracy of that point, however, because it's nigh impossible.
So you aren't alone.

We simply have to admit that we cannot fully support this claim, which admittedly goes one step further, in the same way that we cannot fully support the claim that Minotaurs never existed... In claiming that not gods exist, I'm faithfully banking on the idea that I will be proven correct in my assertion, should the possibility for total accuracy ever arrive sometime in the future.

 

[PureX]

Imagine you walk down a street and hear some lunatic with a tinfoil hat on the corner raving about how we are under the thumb of alien overlords from planet niburu. Your reaction is my reaction to religious claims.

I am not religious, and I make no religious or theological claims. I merely point out that so long as we remain unable to determine the nature or existence of a "god" entity, the possibility remains available to us that such an entity does exist. As do the benefits that possibility can generate for us when it's taken to be true, on faith.

Your blind refusal to accept the gift of this possibility, or to even explore it out of simple curiosity, is your own business. But I think it's an illogical and foolish choice to deny it based on nothing, and when doing so offers you nothing in return. And also when, in the effort to defend this illogical and foolish choice, 'the atheist' tends to become just as dogmatic and dishonest as the religious proselytizers they so staunchly claim to oppose.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am not religious, and I make no religious or theological claims. I merely point out that so long as we remain unable to determine the nature or existence of a "god" entity, the possibility remains available to us that such an entity does exist. As do the benefits that possibility can generate for us when it's taken to be true, on faith.

In all fairness, it's just as possible that any fanciful thing exists, isn't it?
The logic you're using here is just as valid for any objectively ambiguous entity. So why do you have a problem with Atheists, but not people who reject the existence of Fairies, Gnomes, Mirror People, or Ancient Aliens?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not religious, and I make no religious or theological claims. I merely point out that so long as we remain unable to determine the nature or existence of a "god" entity, the possibility remains available to us that such an entity does exist.

... in the same sense that the possibility remains available that Russell's Teapot exists.

As do the benefits that possibility can generate for us when it's taken to be true, on faith.

What benefits?

Your blind refusal to accept the gift of this possibility, or to even explore it out of simple curiosity, is your own business. But I think it's an illogical and foolish choice to deny it based on nothing, and when doing so offers you nothing in return. And also when, in the effort to defend this illogical and foolish choice, 'the atheist' tends to become just as dogmatic and dishonest as the religious proselytizers they so staunchly claim to oppose.

There is a definite possibility that, while swimming in the ocean, an island of salt will crystallize beneath you and carry you out to sea. Is it "dogmatic and dishonest" to not wear a pouch with a sandwich in a ziplock bag and a handheld marine band radio when you swim in the ocean?

Edit: keep in mind that with the salt island, we know that the odds are definitely greater than zero. Astoundingly small, but still certainly greater than zero.

 

[YmirGF]

I am not religious, and I make no religious or theological claims. I merely point out that so long as we remain unable to determine the nature or existence of a "god" entity, the possibility remains available to us that such an entity does exist. As do the benefits that possibility can generate for us when it's taken to be true, on faith.

Your blind refusal to accept the gift of this possibility, or to even explore it out of simple curiosity, is your own business. But I think it's an illogical and foolish choice to deny it based on nothing, and when doing so offers you nothing in return. And also when, in the effort to defend this illogical and foolish choice, 'the atheist' tends to become just as dogmatic and dishonest as the religious proselytizers they so staunchly claim to oppose.

I wouldn't rule out that some atheist behave this way but I certainly do not. To be generous, I have thought about this as much as you likely have. Who is to say who has the most accurate slant on things? I don't claim to. I could be wrong. I have explored this so-called "gift" for over 40 years and have written extensively on the subject. I discovered that the gift is not what it seems - at all. That is why I wish people could just get over their limited ideas of god and just get on with the business of living in the here and now.

 

[PureX]

Your set of options is rather limiting, compared to real life. I wasn't presented with any of these choices and during my life as an atheist I went through all three(and more) in various different ways at various periods, my lack of belief in the gods not changing at any step. When I learned more about gods by reading and discussing about them I came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of any gods defined as supernatural. Though some types of gods were easy to evaluate as impossible based on education. There were no gods that changed my lack of belief during that time.

An agnostic is someone who believes that we can't know if there is a god, presumably accepting some kind of definition of god, usually singular. Since I had no good definition available for a god, given that I had a set of possible gods to evaluate, I could not be an agnostic. Neither did I ever believe that if God exists, that it's unknowable. A weak atheist is someone who has a lack of belief, and this group I identified with after I heard that such things existed. As far as I knew before that, I just didn't think there was anything to the religion I was taught. It felt the same as sword and sorcery books, I didn't explore those either.

Now that I'm gnostic, I have god and I accept that the belief isn't something I can prove to anyone else but myself. I also accept that it's not the same as many other gods.

The main mistake I see in your line of reasoning is that you assumed there must be "evidence" for the existence of a god, if such a metaphysical, supra-natural entity were to exist. And that you would be able to recognize this "evidence" accurately, for what it is.

Why? Why do you assume this? I can't think of a single logical reason to assume that a metaphysical, supra-natural 'entity' as we generally concieve of "god" to be, would generate natural, physical evidence that's recognizable beyond and apart from all of existence, itself. It's an insane expectation that cannot possibly be met. So that it's really just a built-in 'terminal bias', that gains you nothing. Think about it.

 

[Mister Silver]

The main mistake I see in your line of reasoning is that you assumed there must be "evidence" for the existence of a god, if such a metaphysical, supra-natural entity were to exist. And that you would be able to recognize this "evidence" accurately, for what it is.

Why? Why do you assume this? I can't think of a single logical reason to assume that a metaphysical, supra-natural 'entity' as we generally concieve of "god" to be, would generate natural, physical evidence that's recognizable beyond and apart from all of existence, itself. It's an insane expectation that cannot possibly be met. So that it's really just a built-in 'terminal bias', that gains you nothing. Think about it.

So you're admitting that you believe in a god with absolutely zero evidence to support its existence? Yes, makes perfect sense to me. Might as well believe in all things with zero evidence to support their existences, as well.

It is not an "insane expectation". If such a being existed, it would have no problem proving its existence. The fact the world and life function just fine without proof of a god's existence is equivalent to that god not existing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why? Why do you assume this? I can't think of a single logical reason to assume that a metaphysical, supra-natural 'entity' as we generally concieve of "god" to be, would generate natural, physical evidence that's recognizable beyond and apart from all of existence, itself. It's an insane expectation that cannot possibly be met. So that it's really just a built-in 'terminal bias', that gains you nothing. Think about it.

How would your aforementioned scenario be any different than a non-existent god?

Imagine both outcomes - a god who exists but cannot be evidenced, and no gods existing.

What is the difference?

 

[PureX]

In the OP you said very clearly that atheists were wrong.

I don't think I did. I think I was merely pointing out why I think many atheists are being dishonest about what they believe, and why, and that I think they are making some incoherent and pointless choices.

In the OP you said very clearly that atheists were wrong.

I don't think I said that, because I cannot know that they are. No one can, that I am aware of. What I said was that they are negating a possibility that could afford them some positive benefits, for no reason but to serve an unfounded bias. And that, I think, is irrational, illogical, and pointlessly counter-productive.

 

[leibowde84]

What I said was that they are negating a possibility that could afford them some positive benefits, for no reason but to serve an unfounded bias.

What evidence are you basing this opinion on?

 

[McBell]

(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 have done a most excellent job stuffing all atheists into your little box.
One wonders if you acknowledge the dishonesty in doing so?

 

[PureX]

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.

The lack of a position is not a position. You aren't an atheist, because you aren't anything. You're uncommitted. You don't warrant the label "atheist" even though you assign it to yourself. So I won't accept it as valid.

 

[leibowde84]

The lack of a position is not a position. You aren't an atheist, because you aren't anything. You're uncommitted. You don't warrant the label "atheist" even though you assign it to yourself. So I won't accept it as valid.

That is the definition of the term ... atheism is not necessarily a position. You can deny it all you want, but anyone who "lacks belief in the existence of God" is technically an "atheist". That is why atheism is not necessarily a position. Of course it often is, as many atheists do believe that God does not exist. But, there are many who don't fall into that category.

Why are you demanding that atheism necessarily by a position?

 

[Mister Silver]

That is the definition of the term. You can deny it all you want, but anyone who "lacks belief in the existence of God" is technically an "atheist". That is why atheism is not necessarily a position. Of course it often is, as many atheists do believe that God does not exist. But, there are many who don't fall into that category.

Why are you demanding that atheism necessarily by a position?

I'm glad you handled the low blow from Pure better than I would have.