What aspects of the atheist religion do you like/dislike?

[falsifiedhypothesi]

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Journyman16]

A lot of our scientific knowledge has directly contradicted religious claims and the confidence Atheists have is high, concerning the probability of a particular set of beliefs being completely wrong. This translates into not holding those beliefs and certainly not practices which require unnecessary obligations.

Theistic beliefs are not objective phenomena that can be studied or tested, not any rational ones anyway. There is virtually no evidence to support them. We have witnessed many common sense ideas, seemingly, with better evidence supporting them, none the less, objectively disproven.

Atheism need not come about from any kind of certainty in what doesn't exist but can simply leave the unknown as is. One can still conjecture and imagine, naturally, and hold other beliefs. Atheism is a reaction to Theism, which would also include Gnosticism, making Atheists Agnostics as well.

Atheism does not necessarily apply to all religions, especially ones the Atheist is simply unfamiliar with.

EDIT: Gnosticism seems to be a religion unto itself, not simply a viewpoint applied to another religion or irreligion.

Regarding it as a theistic religion makes Atheism necessarily Agnostic.

As terms dealing in absolute certainty, Gnostic, or conversely, Agnostic, do not matter to Atheism. Whether you have absolute certainty or not these views are both atheistic.

There is a redefining of words going on with Atheists - it's like they have decided that maybe being believers of the antithesis of Theists is somehow demeaning and they are trying to abrogate the position of Agnostics. An Atheist is 'against God' and in the actual meaning, denies God. If Atheists are not certain they are, again by definition, not Atheists but Agnostics.

So let's not start redefining words as some kind of squib reaction to being found out to be believers, let's stick with the actual meanings and make Atheists decide if they wish to remain God-Deniers or move into the 'I don't know' camp.

I think we have more than enough PC word-changing going on in our world - let's not add more to the mess?

 

[rickolasnice]

atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

There is really little difference if any between agnostics and atheists.

 

[Journyman16]

No, that's the modern PC version. A-theist means 'Deny God' or 'Without God' from origin. To denote them as simply somehow being blank about the idea is using the squib modern definition that lets them get away with slagging off at believers without actually having the fortitude to make the stand they are claiming with the label.

If they want to step away from the positive belief that there is no God, they need to start calling themselves Agnostic and being a little less vehement about those who do believe in God.

Can't have it both ways - if they want to attack then they need to have courage; if they want to claim they don't know, they are agnostic and the attacks should stop.

 

[nuttynutskin]

There is a redefining of words going on with Atheists - it's like they have decided that maybe being believers of the antithesis of Theists is somehow demeaning and they are trying to abrogate the position of Agnostics. An Atheist is 'against God' and in the actual meaning, denies God. If Atheists are not certain they are, again by definition, not Atheists but Agnostics.

I totally agree... While some types of agnosticism are closely related to atheism they're not the same thing. My current religious views would fit under a type of agnosticism but I do not rule out the possibility of a higher power. There's many types of agnosticism and it irritates me when people use agnostic and atheist interchangeably.

Meridiam-Webster definitions...

atheist
noun athe·ist \ˈā-thē-ist\

: a person who believes that God does not exist

agnostic
noun ag·nos·tic \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

My main issue with some Atheists/skeptics, are the ones that seem very vocal on the internet that want to claim that Atheism/Skepticism is so radically different than Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all other religions/spiritualities, etc.; but then they want to convert other people, proselytize others, and lead other people into Atheism/skepticism. They also completely ignore and discount the spiritual and religious experiences of others.

Also, some of them seem skeptical, and extremely argumentative about pretty much everything, just for the sake of being skeptical, extremely argumentative, and clearly are not into free thinking, actually being intelligent, or looking at actual facts at all.

I have friends who are Atheist, and they are not like this at all. Some are completely Atheist while others are Atheist or more Agnostic yet spiritual.

 

[flyhighk]

My main issue with some Atheists/skeptics, are the ones that seem very vocal on the internet that want to claim that Atheism/Skepticism is so radically different than Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all other religions/spiritualities, etc.; but then they want to convert other people, proselytize others, and lead other people into Atheism/skepticism. They also completely ignore and discount the spiritual and religious experiences of others.

Also, some of them seem skeptical, and extremely argumentative about pretty much everything, just for the sake of being skeptical, extremely argumentative, and clearly are not into free thinking, actually being intelligent, or looking at actual facts at all.

I have friends who are Atheist, and they are not like this at all. Some are completely Atheist while others are Atheist or more Agnostic yet spiritual.

Is there anything wrong with this ?

 

[ebola?]

If they want to step away from the positive belief that there is no God, they need to start calling themselves Agnostic and being a little less vehement about those who do believe in God.

In what way are you dissatisfied with my 2 dimensional model of atheism vs. theism and agnosticism vs. certainty that we spoke about earlier in this thread (I ask as a relatively agnostic atheist/pantheist )?

ebola

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

There is a redefining of words going on with Atheists - it's like they have decided that maybe being believers of the antithesis of Theists is somehow demeaning and they are trying to abrogate the position of Agnostics. An Atheist is 'against God' and in the actual meaning, denies God. If Atheists are not certain they are, again by definition, not Atheists but Agnostics.

So let's not start redefining words as some kind of squib reaction to being found out to be believers, let's stick with the actual meanings and make Atheists decide if they wish to remain God-Deniers or move into the 'I don't know' camp.

I think we have more than enough PC word-changing going on in our world - let's not add more to the mess?

So because I am not absolutely 100% certain there is no God, and there is no way I could know for sure, that means I have to be an agnostic, not an atheist? I believe there is no God but I admit that I could not prove that no gods exist, (depending on how you define god) that makes me an agnostic atheist. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive, no one is trying to dodge the baggage that the label atheist carries with it. Maybe some are trying to get away from the label atheist, but claiming to be agnostic will not accomplish that and makes them look stupid.

 

[Journyman16]

It's not I am 'dissatisfied' with it, and actually I think it is a good way to view things, but it doesn't seem valid with how the Theists, Atheists and Agnostics tend to see themselves. I think we talked about it in relation to my view that Theists and Atheists are both at the same end of the 'Believer-Disbeliever' line - the comment above is more due to Atheists trying to maintain there is no God but wanting to be seen as being over on the other branch of the X, so to speak.

I doubt the X will be a good model for the reality until we can deal with people 'knowing' things are true without evidence, and by that time we probably won't need the model. :D

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Is there anything wrong with this ?

I find it rather hypocritical since that's what people of all religions/spiritualities, or even political parties want to do.

I have friends who are Atheist, some of who were actually raised Atheist by their parents, and they don't try to convert others, proselytize others, or try to lead other people to Atheism/skepticism.

 

[ebola?]

I have friends who are Atheist, some of who were actually raised Atheist by their parents

Interesting. As an aside, I don't actually know anyone who was raised "atheist". Usually, the process is something more like, "What happens when we die?" "Well, I don't know, and no one really does. Some think x. Some think y. What do you think?" Cosmological questions tend to be treated similarly.

ebola

 

[Journyman16]

So because I am not absolutely 100% certain there is no God, and there is no way I could know for sure, that means I have to be an agnostic, not an atheist? I believe there is no God but I admit that I could not prove that no gods exist, (depending on how you define god) that makes me an agnostic atheist. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive, no one is trying to dodge the baggage that the label atheist carries with it. Maybe some are trying to get away from the label atheist, but claiming to be agnostic will not accomplish that and makes them look stupid.

I'm not sure how I missed answering this... maybe I saw Ebola's and Replied there first...

Believing God is not real is, by definition Atheist, but you personally might fit better on Ebola's X model - strongly Atheist but not so strong on the belief level. (as in you acknowledge you cannot know for sure) To me, that's a relatively sane position - but I would add in a little more about God. I believe the God described by most Religions is not real, but I am very unsure if that means there is no supreme Beingness that caused (I don't wish to use the word 'Create' because of the Religion connotations) the Universe.

But I disagree that "no one is trying to dodge the baggage that the label atheist carries with it" because in my experience, many are so doing. Richard Dawkins, for example, is almost violently Atheist but he tries very hard to attain the confusion between Atheist and Agnostic - I think it started when people began telling him how much they disliked him but they wouldn't feel so bad if he was Agnostic instead of Atheist. When you're selling yourself to the public, it's often good not to rouse antipathy towards yourself as a person, so he tries a semantic solution.

And he's not alone... :D

Generally, in the past, Atheists are quite certain there is no God and that nobody can ever prove Her existence. Atheist has a specific definition and I think modern Atheists are trying to dodge the fanaticism that definition implies.

 

[ebola?]

but it doesn't seem valid with how the Theists, Atheists and Agnostics tend to see themselves.

Ah. This will likely betray my own arrogance, but I would go so far as to say that collapse of agnosticism, atheism, and theism onto a single dimension (or even 3 distinct categories) obscures key aspects of how religious concepts function and how one's own views relate to those of others and wider cultural frameworks. The situation is analogous with the left-right spectrum in politics: collapse of what at least requires 2 dimensions to conceptualize (economic leftism vs. rightism, social authoritarianism vs. libertarianism) obscures key aspects of the present diversity of political views, eg, as Libertarians are grouped with Republican style conservatives and as authoritarian leftists are grouped with those with more anarchic leanings. Similarly, when we try to collapse atheism and agnosticism onto a single dimension, we lose sight of the distinction between level of certainty and content of belief, resulting in incoherent comparisons between atheism and agnosticism. It's roughly analogous to grouping people as follows: "Some people prefer the color red, but others prefer the color green...but there's another group who prefers bright colors to dark colors."

Richard Dawkins, for example, is almost violently Atheist but he tries very hard to attain the confusion between Atheist and Agnostic

It's examples like these that lead me to keep advocating for this 2-dimensional model. It's only by collapsing atheism and agnosticism into laying along a single dimension that Dawkins can use this type of rhetorical trick.

Atheist has a specific definition and I think modern Atheists are trying to dodge the fanaticism that definition implies.

But is there any good reason that atheist content of belief should imply fanaticism?

ebola

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Interesting. As an aside, I don't actually know anyone who was raised "atheist". Usually, the process is something more like, "What happens when we die?" "Well, I don't know, and no one really does. Some think x. Some think y. What do you think?" Cosmological questions tend to be treated similarly.

ebola

My friend that was raised Atheist is from a country that was once part of the USSR. Mostly everyone in his original country was atheist from family going back generations, to neighbors, and pretty much everyone he met in society. My friend said how they're technically Jewish but they don't follow any of that religion at all including circumcision, the holidays, holy days, ceremonies, etc. But despite being raised Atheist, and how his whole family is atheist my friend accepts that a lot of people are religious or spiritual, and doesn't try to convert anyone to being atheist, or tell people who do happen to be religious or spiritual things like, "You're wrong!!! Atheism is correct, and anyone that believes in a religion or spirituality at all is a complete idiot!"

He and my other atheist friends do not like professional atheists or so called leaders or spokespeople like Madlyn Murry O'Hair, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Penn&Teller, Christopher Hitchens, Kathy Griffin, etc. or atheist 'churches', conferences/meetings for atheists, or the atheists who get a red A as a tattoo/jewelry, or wear a t-shirt saying they're atheist, or they do not like atheists who get all up in arms at the 10 commandments being in a courthouse, "In God we trust" being printed on money, etc.

I have other atheist friends who were raised Roman Catholic and then stopped being Roman Catholic, and became Atheist which is I guess the complete polar opposite of Roman Catholicism? I wouldn't really know since I was not raised Roman Catholic at all. Other Roman Catholic friends of mine found other spiritualities or religions but are no longer Roman Catholic.

 

[swilow]

Atheist has a specific definition and I think modern Atheists are trying to dodge the fanaticism that definition implies.

Perhaps modern atheists are correct to choose a definition devoid of implications of fanaticism. My friend, who is an atheist and gay also, is utterly apathetic about his beliefs. I think a lot of atheists are essentially saying something similar; they don't really care about god- either way, the impact god has is not apparent, so who cares? Labelling these people as fanatics would be poor use of English and entirely innacurate. Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, author, public speaker, blah blah blah; he should be seen as an exception to the normal atheist IMO. He is not a good representative of anything. Atheism is largely a matter of apathy in my opinion at least...

And yet an actually passionate atheist is often seen as militant or fanatical or aggressive, whereas someone who advocates for their religion in a similarly passionate way is often seen as simply devout. There is no atheistic example of someone dedicating every moment of their lives to preaching atheism in the way that every single priest does for their religion. Priests don't really get the heat that someone like Richard Dawkins goes; he gets death threats. That's insane.

Atheism is seen as insulting by people who believe the opposite. I am torn because I feel both convictions at once :D

 

[Journyman16]

Ah. This will likely betray my own arrogance

Maybe so...

But... there is an issue... we can argue across decades and more about what might be, but there are limits. We have... there IS a god, there is no god, or we are not sure.

Maybe you can offer an alternative?

Cos... as near as I can tell... you are Theist, Atheist or Agnostic. Any other version of Reality is fucking around with definitions.

Happy to hear of better versions... :D

 

[Ninae]

I don't really have any feelings about it. I just don't find it useful or like it's a way of denying us a form of awareness or knowledge. It's like saying "What aspect of science do you like or dislike?". Science tries to describe the material world and religion tries to describe the spiritual world. It's kind of crazy we're being told we have to choose one (and even worse fight between us about it).

 

[Psyduck]

Science tries to describe the material world and religion tries to describe the spiritual world. It's kind of crazy we're being told we have to choose one (and even worse fight between us about it).

This is your basic assumption. You cannot explain or claim something in such a naive way.

1) Either the universe is reducible to matter
2) Either it is reducible to Spiritual/consciousness
3) the opposition between both of them exists, but you need to explain how they interact

You need to make a compelling argument for either of the three options. There are thousand of scientists/philosophers (not necessarily materialists!) trying to explain the hard problem how consciousness and the body interact. They have not figured it out yet. You on the other hand are so sure that there is something as the Spiritual, yet you make zero argument for it.

How can we take beliefs of other people serious if they don't provide an argument for them?

Your slogan "the spiritual is different from the material, leave me alone now" seems to be just a shield to protect yourself from critique, but you cannot justify this claim. In reality, you don't have immunity.

(p.s. on a related note, I am inclined "to believe" that the universe is not just material; I am just showing the weakness of your usual defense)

 

[Ninae]

I meant why are we made to choose one like only one exists. It's like pulling the curtain over one side of reality.

But I don't think it's reductible to either matter or consciousness. There is obviously matter, but I can also sense spirit, so I think of it more like different densities of energy. Like sunlight is more subtle than stone, but still physical matter. Why can't there be anything more subtle than that, or who's to say. It's more like a false choice.

By the way, the spiritual can't be explained with reason, you need a direct experience of it to understand. Then you won't really doubt, even if you can't communicate it to others.