How I Feel About Atheists

[McBell]

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.

Now all you have to do is convince everyone that your opinion is more valid and or reasonable than the dictionary definition you choose to ignore.

 

[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.

Here you go:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Those who neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God still "lack belief in the existence of God". Therefore, atheism does not require any position either way. It IS the lack of a position.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. I've learned that it makes rude posters look worse if you just respond with respect.

 

[icehorse]

"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.

awesome !!!!

 

[PureX]

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).

Here is where yourself and a lot of other folks are going off the rails. You are assuming that theism and religion are synonymous, when they are not. Theism proposes the possibility that a "god" entity exists, and seeks to explore this ideal. Religions define that ideal, and define the proposed entity each according to their own spiritual/political/social agendas. Rejecting the gods of various religions is not the same as the rejection of theism, unless one does not differentiate between them. As many atheists do not.

I have no issue with anyone rejecting the gods of religion. I do so, myself. It's rejecting the possibilities offered to us by the theistic proposition, itself, that I see as foolish, and unfounded.

 

[PureX]

There are too many responses, here, for me to address each one.

I'm trying to respond to specific comments that I think apply to the subject at hand, and I hope they will satisfy more than one of you at a time.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is where yourself and a lot of other folks are going off the rails. You are assuming that theism and religion are synonymous, when they are not. Theism proposes the possibility that a "god" entity exists, and seeks to explore this ideal. Religions define that ideal, and define the proposed entity each according to their own spiritual/political/social agendas. Rejecting the gods of various religions is not the same as the rejection of theism, unless one does not differentiate between them. As many atheists do not.

I have no issue with anyone rejecting the gods of religion. I do so, myself. It's rejecting the possibilities offered to us by the theistic proposition, itself, that I see as foolish, and unfounded.

What possibilities? Again, the definition of the concept hasn't been made clear enough to even address the existence question. Which of the many definitions are you using? How do I know we are even talking about the same 'potential entity'? My problem with 'religions' is, in part, that they assume this entity exists without really even saying what it is.

Why is the existence of a 'God entity' an 'ideal'? As opposed to simply an existence statement? I don't consider the existence of the Higg's boson to be an 'ideal'. Why is a 'God entity' any different?

 

[PureX]

What evidence are you basing this opinion on?

None of this is about "evidence". There is no "evidence" that we humans could recognize as such for or against the existence of a metaphysical, supra-natural, creator-entity. There is only the the possibility, and the choice to use it, or not to.

 

[Mister Silver]

None of this is about "evidence". There is no "evidence" that we humans could recognize as such for or against the existence of a metaphysical, supra-natural, creator-entity. There is only the the possibility, and the choice to use it, or not to.

Do I forego with reason to erroneously accept the fantasy of theism? Nope.

 

[PureX]

What possibilities? Again, the definition of the concept hasn't been made clear enough to even address the existence question. Which of the many definitions are you using? How do I know we are even talking about the same 'potential entity'? My problem with 'religions' is, in part, that they assume this entity exists without really even saying what it is.

I am sorry, but your ignorance is not my problem to resolve. Theism offers you the ideological possibility that a "god-entity" exists. It does not define that entity for you. Some religions will define that entity for you, but wouldn't you rather explore the ideal for yourself than just be told what others want you to believe about it?

No one knows what such an entity would 'be like'. So all we can do is imagine it. And we can imagine it any way we want to, because there is no one and nothing to tell us our god-concept is wrong. And anyway, our conception of reality is not reality, itself. It never has been.

Why is the existence of a 'God entity' an 'ideal'? As opposed to simply an existence statement? I don't consider the existence of the Higg's boson to be an 'ideal'. Why is a 'God entity' any different?

But the Higgs Boson IS a conceptualized ideal (an idea that generates and defines a whole subset of other ideas).

 

[Revoltingest]

Theism proposes the possibility that a "god" entity exists, and seeks to explore this ideal....

I've proposed & considered it too.
It's why I'm still an atheist.

But looking at.....
the definition of theism
I don't qualify as a theist.

 

[Jumi]

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.

Not exactly. The reasoning I had was that I have no proof of the gods, therefore no reason to believe what people were saying about them. Remember though that although my lack of belief remained the same, that this reasoning was more developed then when I was a preschool kid without belief in god, when I merely saw no difference between the stories of Jesus and children's stories.

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.

I don't assume this and neither did I when I was atheist. The criteria for every god is of course different and you are basing your reaction on what you believe your god is. Not all gods are the same. The high god of my ancestors would of course have a different criteria for "proof" then a spiritual being that exists outside physical matter. As an atheist I investigated various proposed gods both purely spiritual existences, purely physical or mix of them.

Here's the ancestral high god, something supposedly capable of talking and directly helping heroes. Quite unlike in characteristics than say the one of the Christians, and with different sets of proofs needed if he were to be proven:

And as I said, I'm no longer atheist when I wrote:

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.

That I have experienced Gnosis, including the existence of a god is different from belief in one.

 

[osgart]

as long as atheists and theists don't resort to forced , coercive conformity i have no problem with either.

I do not think physical materialism holds the answers to everything and I won't conform to it even being atheist by default.

it just goes, that a person can oppress people with their causes if they have the power and position to do so. one could take any cause or stance non religious or religious and oppress with it.

 

[Mister Silver]

Theists are just mad that atheists exist: "How dare you question my fantasy!"

 

[Revoltingest]

Theists are just mad that atheists exist: "How dare you question my fantasy!"

Just as it's not my place to tell their children there is no Santa Claus,
I don't tell the childrens' parents there are no gods.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

Easy there junior, I've forgotten more about this subject than you will likely ever know. It is precisely BECAUSE I have studied a wide variety of religions in depth that I have concluded there is nothing there. Believers tend to be the ones that aren't interested in study, just easy answers.

There are no easy answers.

 

[Mister Silver]

Just as it's not my place to tell their children there is no Santa Claus,
I don't tell the childrens' parents there are no gods.

Well, a stranger spoiling a child's fantasy is one thing, s/he's a child. An adult is an adult and should act like it when receiving difficult news.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, a stranger spoiling a child's fantasy is one thing, s/he's a child. An adult is an adult and should act like it when receiving difficult news.

It's never welcomed as news.

 

[Mister Silver]

It's never welcomed as news.

Good thing reality doesn't care if you welcome it. It's reality, unless you escape it through theism.

 

[Jumi]

Theists are just mad that atheists exist: "How dare you question my fantasy!"

I wouldn't extend this to all theists, since not all find atheists problematic.