Atheist Club. Begin.

[Ar-Pharazon]

I was raised by atheists, am an atheist, despite going to a Catholic high school and a Quaker college. Being an atheist is Texas is not an easy thing. Just telling someone you don't (gasp!) go to church is enough to have people back away in horror.

No public schools there? Or is it different than a "catholic" school here that is part of an actual church?

the only god I believe in is this guy:

<------

[Cartman] Sweeeet [/Cartman]


Though I was made to go to church when I was young, along with the family, and forced to go to Sunday school as well, I am a confirmed atheist.

The laughable Sunday school they had, this church was a sort of neo-catholic place. They never talked about Jesus or anything really religious. We did the Saturday night mass.

I hated regular school enough, without having to waste a perfectly good Sunday morning.

Luckily my parents finally relented around the 4th grade to let me stop going.

 

[Pingfah]

I don't think I've misunderstood atheism, but I would disagree that there is nothing "active" about it. The nice thing about agnosticism is that it claims human ignorance one way or another and reserves judgment on the many peoples of the world who subscribe to some kind of faith or form of spirituality. Atheism, on the other hand, refuses to accept a world outside individual human observation (something I find equally as arrogant and downright depressing). Personally, I am an optimist, and while it can't be proven-- I have trouble believing the origin of life was as random as a stray fart. I have met people around the world whose spirituality guide them in daily life and give them a sense of peace and community. Just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I could presume to call it a "superstition" because I, personally, haven't experienced it.

Well, that is what I am saying, people have had to come up with different types of atheism to get around exactly the assumption you are making there, that everybody who calls themselves an atheist is making a rigid decision that specifically rejects any possibility of a deity.

In fact I doubt that many people who call themselves Atheists would make such a claim at all, as it isn't logically sound to do so. Refusal to accept something isn't outright rejection, and it isn't a rigid belief. Similarly, people shouldn't interpret my refusal to outright reject something as giving it credence.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

I am an atheist, but I would be suspicious of any club that had me as a member.

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system. I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

Secular Humanism was a big buzzword in the early 80's a sa a counter to the Moral majority, but I never cared for it as it is actually not a synonym for atheism. The operative word in that phrase is not secular it is humanism, there are in fact religious humanists. I believe it more properly refers to a set of ethical beliefs than religious ones. I never cared for humanism as a concept either as it always struck me as too general and ill-defined to be of much use.

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system. I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

I know it is sacrilege in the atheist community to say this these days, but I am not so sure I agree. I think the "absence of a belief" definition is overused and actually doesn't really address what most atheists really believe. Atheists are too worried about falling into a rhetorical trap where if they don't say the right things they'll be in a position where they have to "prove that God doesn't exist. The inability to prove God doesn't exist is a universal epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with the likelihood that God exists. I believe most people's Atheism does imply certain things, such as materialism, that allows them to reject rather than just dis-believe in God. I reject the existence of God not because I haven't been shown enough evidence for it, but that the concept as it is often formed is too meaningless to have any evidence for it.

P.S. Agnosticism is another word I think is unnecessary because again it actually refers to an epistemological stance not a religious one. There are agnostics who believe in God.

 

[Roger Wilco]

In fact I doubt that many people who call themselves Atheists would make such a claim at all, as it isn't logically sound to do so. Refusal to accept something isn't outright rejection, and it isn't a rigid belief. Similarly, people shouldn't interpret my refusal to outright reject something as giving it credence.

I don't understand this distinction.
I certainly do "ouright reject" the existence of gods (let alone Yahweh), just as I reject the existence of flying unicorns or hidden valleys full of dinosaurs in the African jungle.

 

[Pingfah]

I know it is sacrilege in the atheist community to say this these days, but I am not so sure I agree. I think the "absence of a belief" definition is overused and actually doesn't really address what most atheists really believe. Atheists are too worried about falling into a rhetorical trap where if they don't say the right things they'll be in a position where they have to "prove that God doesn't exist. The inability to prove God doesn't exist is a universal epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with the likelihood that God exists.

That's a much better written attempt at saying the same thing as I am trying to say.

 

[Pingfah]

In fact I doubt that many people who call themselves Atheists would make such a claim at all, as it isn't logically sound to do so. Refusal to accept something isn't outright rejection, and it isn't a rigid belief. Similarly, people shouldn't interpret my refusal to outright reject something as giving it credence.

I don't understand this distinction.
I certainly do "ouright reject" the existence of gods (let alone Yahweh), just as I reject the existence of flying unicorns or hidden valleys full of dinosaurs in the African jungle.

You may outright reject it on a personal level, but if somebody said "do you know that for a FACT?" what would you say?

I would say, "no, I do not know it as a fact, but I don't see any reason to give the idea credence". That is what I mean when I say I cannot outright reject it. And it's an extension of what I was saying earlier, that it is the false construct of theism that demands these answers of us, otherwise they would not even be necessary.

 

[Roger Wilco]

You may outright reject it on a personal level, but if somebody said "do you know that for a FACT?" what would you say?

My answer would be "how do we know anything, we could just be in the Matrix too", after which I'd either walk away or fall asleep because I have no interest in that sort of meta-bullshit conversation.

 

[Pingfah]

^ Exactly, I don't think it is an important distinction either, but the impossibility of disproving god is too often wielded as a rhetorical weapon, leading to the need for these sort of irritating gymnastics. You must have seen it done on this very board, given where you like to hang out. Already in this thread somebody has framed Atheists as arrogant rigid people embroiled in their own belief system.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I don't think there is a God because he, if we accept him being like most Christians would define him, would have to be supernatural. I don't believe that anything can exist outside of nature so if the being that people refer to as God exists and if he can influence this universe he must be of this Universe and therefore of nature - hence he can't fit at least what I think the definition of God is.

If something exists, no matter how advance it is, no matter what powers it seems to have, it is natural.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

If something exists, no matter how advance it is, no matter what powers it seems to have, it is natural.

Prophets or aliens. The classic choice.

 

[thestrangequark]

Atheist is not a strong word; it's who I am. I don't need superstition, man-made myths and monsters to explain the world to me. I don't believe in any god, any invisible man in the clouds listening to everyone's prayers. I don't think religion has benefited mankind. I don't question that there's a God; I don't believe God exists. I believe people invented the idea of a God to make themselves feel better and keep other people "in line."

I believe in the natural world, and to understand the incredible world in which we live, I look to science. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. I don't find that rigid at all.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

I think this is why people have invented terms like Positive and Negative atheism. Many people would argue that if you don't specifically reject the possibility of a deity that you are not technically an atheist but an agnostic.

To me, not being able to reject the possibility outright is a simple matter of logic not of personal uncertainty. But if I were to call myself an agnostic people would assume that I give credence to the idea of a deity, which I absolutely do not.

Of course, we shouldn't really need a word for it at all, there's no actual need to reject an idea that has no empirical evidence to start with. I don't require a label to denote my lack of belief in God anymore than I need one to denote my lack of belief in anything else. If people hadn't fabricated belief systems in the first place, they wouldn't need a label to identify me as a person that rejects them. I prefer to think of myself as merely unhindered by superstition and I label myself purely as a favour to others.

I don't think I've misunderstood atheism, but I would disagree that there is nothing "active" about it. The nice thing about agnosticism is that it claims human ignorance one way or another and reserves judgment on the many peoples of the world who subscribe to some kind of faith or form of spirituality. Atheism, on the other hand, refuses to accept a world outside individual human observation (something I find equally as arrogant and downright depressing). This is untrue.

No, this is where you're missing the distinction. There is nothing active about Atheism, that's the point. You're describing some Atheists, but not Atheism itself. The word literally means absence of religion. It doesn't preclude curiosity or open-mindedness. Now, that's the literal meaning of the word, however, Atheism is a word people use to define themselves, which means in practicality it has as many definitions as there are Atheists. It is unwise to assume what some one does or doesn't believe based on a label -- people are too complex for that. I am Atheist in the literal sense of the word: there is no religion in my life.

Personally, I am an optimist, and while it can't be proven-- I have trouble believing the origin of life was as random as a stray fart. I have met people around the world whose spirituality guide them in daily life and give them a sense of peace and community. Just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I could presume to call it a "superstition" because I, personally, haven't experienced it.

And there's the difference. I can't prove it either, but I think far more reasonable to assume it was random than magical. And I feel the same as you about spirituality, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I completely dismiss it, still, it's not a part of my life, hence, I am an Atheist.

I am an atheist, but I would be suspicious of any club that had me as a member.

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system. I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

Secular Humanism was a big buzzword in the early 80's a sa a counter to the Moral majority, but I never cared for it as it is actually not a synonym for atheism. The operative word in that phrase is not secular it is humanism, there are in fact religious humanists. I believe it more properly refers to a set of ethical beliefs than religious ones. I never cared for humanism as a concept either as it always struck me as too general and ill-defined to be of much use.

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system. I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

I know it is sacrilege in the atheist community to say this these days, but I am not so sure I agree. I think the "absence of a belief" definition is overused and actually doesn't really address what most atheists really believe. Atheists are too worried about falling into a rhetorical trap where if they don't say the right things they'll be in a position where they have to "prove that God doesn't exist. The inability to prove God doesn't exist is a universal epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with the likelihood that God exists. I believe most people's Atheism does imply certain things, such as materialism, that allows them to reject rather than just dis-believe in God. I reject the existence of God not because I haven't been shown enough evidence for it, but that the concept as it is often formed is too meaningless to have any evidence for it.

P.S. Agnosticism is another word I think is unnecessary because again it actually refers to an epistemological stance not a religious one. There are agnostics who believe in God.

I don't know about you, but I'm not part of any "Atheist Community," nor do I give a shit what others think of my lack of belief.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Come let of steam about issues you can't talk about else-where.

Well thankfully, I can talk about it by the marvellous power of not giving a damn.

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

Heh. I guess by now everybody who was interested in understanding the difference already had, so I don't really see the point in arguing with people who still don't.

 

[scotpens]

I grew up in a secular Jewish family where the subject of religion was hardly ever mentioned; it simply wasn’t relevant. By the age of nine, I knew I was an atheist. I simply came to the realization that God was a fictional character. Nothing’s happened since then to change my mind.

Atheist is not a strong word; it's who I am. I don't need superstition, man-made myths and monsters to explain the world to me. I don't believe in any god, any invisible man in the clouds listening to everyone's prayers. I don't think religion has benefited mankind. I don't question that there's a God; I don't believe God exists. I believe people invented the idea of a God to make themselves feel better and keep other people “in line.”

And also to try to make sense and order of a frequently chaotic world. As rational beings, we like to think everything happens for a purpose — especially when bad stuff happens to good people. We want to be able to say “It’s all part of God’s mysterious plan” when, in fact, a lot of random shit just happens.

The other big reason for believing in religion is fear of death. Personally, I have no problem accepting the fact that, when I die and my brain activity ceases, my consciousness will cease to exist. There’s no compelling evidence otherwise.

. . . Of course, we shouldn't really need a word for it at all, there's no actual need to reject an idea that has no empirical evidence to start with. I don't require a label to denote my lack of belief in God anymore than I need one to denote my lack of belief in anything else. If people hadn't fabricated belief systems in the first place, they wouldn't need a label to identify me as a person that rejects them.

Exactly. If I categorically reject the existence of leprechauns, does that make me an “anti-leprechaunist”?

 

[Shazam!]

I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

There's always one who just has to be different...

 

[Pingfah]

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

Heh. I guess by now everybody who was interested in understanding the difference already had, so I don't really see the point in arguing with people who still don't.

I'll probably draw fire for this, but I think the problem with some people is that they view the entire universe through god tinted glasses. They actually are fundamentally incapable of understanding the difference because they cannot perceive a state of lacking belief. It's intrinsic to them as though they were born with it, except of course, they weren't.

It's not a question of smarts, but of conditioning.

 

[SG-17]

Atheist is kind of a strong word, isn't it? Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system. I had a professor who called himself a "secular humanist," which made a little more sense.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what Atheism means. There is nothing active about Atheism: there is no believing involved, including believing that god does not exist. There is a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god -- it's subtle, and I've met people who aren't smart enough to distinguish that difference, but it's there.

Don't capitalize atheism/ist (unless it begins a sentence of course) because to do so makes it appear to be a proper noun, and as such a system of belief, which it is not.

Just telling someone you don't (gasp!) go to church is enough to have people back away in horror.

Just kidding! And I agree that there's an important distinction that people don't make when it comes to atheism. Lack of belief isn't "strong" in that sense, it's more of a default position.

Indeed. You aren't born believing in a god, you are indoctrinated with age.


Anyway for the first 15 years of my life I was forced to go to church and Sunday school at a Lutheran Church (which is ironically the most logical form of Christianity with predestination and all) and even before I was confirmed I had atheist leanings. By the end of my Sophomore year of High School I was a full fledged atheist.
Most of my friends don't care (actually if they did they wouldn't be my friends anymore), a few of my teachers were aghast, at first, but got over it. My parents don't know because my mom is devout and they agreed to pay off my college loans in full and I don't want to mess that up.

Have any of you seen QualiaSoup's videos on YouTube, many of them can explain the logic behind atheism and the lack of belief much better than a person can on the fly.

 

[CmdrAJD]

My only real exposure to religion growing up was two years of going to a Unitarian church when I was in 5th and 6th grade. Honestly the existence of any kind of god just wasn't something I ever thought about. I didn't believe in a god because it never occurred to me to believe. It wasn't until high school that it became an issue, since my friends were either Catholics or Southern Baptists and they gave me a lot of grief about it. Somehow their argument about church (Which was that it didn't matter if I believed or not, I just had to go.) didn't hold any water with me.

The issue vanished in college and really didn't come up again until I started working with a couple of fundamentalists. Their argument that I couldn't say I didn't believe in something that I didn't know anything about got me to read Dawkins and several other books. I also really started thinking through why I did or did not believe in any kind of deities, spiritual forces, etc. After lots of reading and reflection, I came to the same conclusion: I'm a non-believer.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Atheism, on the other hand, refuses to accept a world outside individual human observation (something I find equally as arrogant and downright depressing). Personally, I am an optimist, and while it can't be proven-- I have trouble believing the origin of life was as random as a stray fart. I have met people around the world whose spirituality guide them in daily life and give them a sense of peace and community. Just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I could presume to call it a "superstition" because I, personally, haven't experienced it.

So, believing in something there is no evidence for is not arrogant, but choosing not to believe in something there is no evidence for is? How does that make sense, exactly?

For the record, neither stance is arrogant in and of itself, it's how you behave as a result. For instance, if I went around harassing and belittling people of faith who have not harmed anyone it would absolutely be arrogant, but just choosing not to believe in a higher power without evidence is not arrogant in the slightest.

 

[Goliath]

The inability to prove God doesn't exist is a universal epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with the likelihood that God exists.

You know--I hear this a lot. And in my opinion, that's just not the case.

A lot of people seem to have convinced themselves that "you can't prove a negative," or "you can't prove that something doesn't exist."

Neither of these claims is true. You most certainly can prove a negative. In fact, proving negatives is fun and easy.

The simplest way to prove a negative is by denying the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

If there was an elephant in this room, I would see it.
I don't see it.
Therefore, there is no elephant in this room.

This type of argument is called a modus tollens. And two of the most convincing arguments against the existence of God--the problem of evil, and the problem of disbelief--can be boiled down to simple syllogisms like these. Namely:

If God existed, then everyone would be good. (Or: if God, then universal goodness)
But not everyone is good. (Not universal goodness)
Therefore, God does not exist. (Therefore, not God)

And:

If God existed, then everyone would believe in Him. (Or: if God, then universal belief)
But not everyone believes in Him. (Not universal belief)
Therefore, God does not exist. (Therefore, not God)

These are both valid arguments. If both of their premises are true, then their shared conclusion must follow. And since, in both cases, the second premise is obviously true, they can only be unsound if the first premise is false.

Personally, I'm convinced that, in both cases, the first premise is true, and that the God described in the Bible does not exist--indeed, cannot exist. I've read and heard numerous counterarguments from religious apologists, and I haven't found any of them persuasive.

I don't know what other people are experiencing when they claim to experience "God." I don't think anyone knows for sure. But I'm pretty sure I know what it's not.

 

[Pingfah]

^ That''s very interesting, but I'm not sure I understand the original premise of either argument. Why would everybody be good if god existed? Surely that only works if you assume god has a vested interest in making us so?

I'm not sure that's a valid assumption in its own right. Perhaps god isn't even aware of us, or we weren't his endgame in the first place?