Atheism just means I don't think any "god" exists, which seems most likely to me.

Now as far as thinking various organized religions have done a lot of bad, which I do, that's a different question.

'an erroneous belief system. It attempts to use the same tools as religion to destroy it. But that’s fighting fire with fire, and it doesn’t work. It makes grandiose claims that it can’t prove, it can be just as blindly self-serving as any other belief system, and it unsuccessfully tries to validate itself with science.' as it goes on to disparage: 'There are raging, God-hating atheists' Back at 'believers.'

some people just can't handle that some of us just don't really have some magical belief system so they make up something they think fits and claims it is wrong.

Religion uses observation, experimentation and verification plus common sense?

Since when?????

Backfires are set in front of a fire to burn out the fuel when possible.

Is where I stopped.

own without any preconceived notions. I also don't need group think. I guess I'm a "none."

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Been here for years.

(yeah, none of their business, and I knew that and that I was an atheist by age seven), I used to say "devout agnostic" just for fun. The adults hardly ever got it.

But, really, it's impossible to have a discussion about "god" unless you agree what that means. Organized religion definition, nope, can't buy it. So I call myself an atheist.

Almost all atheists are agnostics.

http://skepchick.org/2015/12/hemant-mehta-misses-the-point-atheism-is-full-of-assholes/

And at least it's not filled with child molesters.

You better have something or an apology lined up.

Or what, quinton?

You're the one that made the claim:

45/111.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=237824

Religion, religion as a lack of religion are scary dangerous things.

"Religion, religion as a lack of religion are scary dangerous things."

I can't understand that. The grammar looks wrong. I can't get a concept out of what you've typed.

What is the subject of the sentence?

Is "religion as a lack of religion" a phrase that is supposed to have a meaning? If so, what is it?

2., the second part of the compound subject is a more complicated expression referring to those who do not like atheism discussed as being a religion, and do like atheism described as a lack of belief in god. Thus ascribing a religion characterized by me as a lack of religion and further describing it as a scary subject. That is a subject prone to scary discussions. Discussions that devolve to look more like troll baiting pot shots on DU. My calling DU-discussions in the religion group is me being overly kind and generous.

My experience in this group finds that such banter is more based on what people like or don't like rather than why they like things a certain way or don't like things a certain way. It gets a little scary and even dangerous as to alerts, and other forms of trolling by angry posters on DU who often attack such post in a round robin of different posters answering posts in the middle of a discussion. Oft with little concern about what had been said upstream.

I can now see there was an 'and' I was missing after the first 'religion'. But you now seem to be saying just "religion and atheism are hard to discuss on DU", which was not the topic of the OP (that was "I find atheists just as annoying as fundamentalist Christians&quot .

But I'm not sure what you're saying about "a lack of belief in god". That is the dictionary definition of "atheism". I can't work out what the 'religion' you say you characterize as a lack of religion is. Are you saying you regard atheism as a religion? If so, are you saying that you're being scary when you claim that? I think you're wrong, but I wouldn't call what you're doing 'troll baiting'. You might be baiting people who use dictionaries, but not trolls.

I find that statements in a post such as "I think you're wrong..." speak to the person rather than speaking to the posting. I do not want to engage in that kind of discussion. My methods and thinking might be totally antithetical to yours.

Please feel free to put me on your list to ignore.

that has referred to things another poster has written "I think you're wrong", they're talking about those things, ie the posting, not the person. I was not saying that your existence is 'wrong', nor that you are always wrong. I was talking about your posts in this thread. But, if you insist that I make it explicitly clear that I am talking about your posts:

I think your post is wrong because you ignore the definition of atheism, which means your post is a waste of time in a thread about whether atheism makes sense. Your posts in this thread are also generally unclear, because you do things like write 'ascribing' when you should have written 'describing', or use a sentence like "my calling DU-discussions in the religion group is me being overly kind and generous", which makes no sense (though I suspect you just want to say "I don't like the Religion group&quot . Your posts refer to things being 'scary', but I can't see any sign of anyone else being 'scared' by anything, nor of you being 'scared', so I think you use that word to make yourself think you're having more of an effect than you really do.

Gertrude.... is that you?


Pigeons on the grass, alas!

He happily sidesteps the morass of defining "atheist", which even atheists fight about defining. If you are actively an atheist of any sort, you have made a decision to not believe, and that is not a decision that is entirely rational. There could well be a god out there that we don't see clearly. It could be simply a being in a higher dimension who is controlling our space in this one. Denying that possibility is silly. It is not silly to say you see no evidence of a god, but that's not the same as saying there is none.

But, agnostic-- simply admitting "I don't know" is the way to go. Because we don't. We may freely go on refusing to admit Jesus is the Son of God, who we don't think is God anyway, but we can't really claim no God at all. We don't even know the extent of out own galaxy, much less the billions of others out there, and something of a God could easily be hiding in one of them.

To say "No God!" is as silly as saying there is no other life in the universe.

We just don't know.

We might not care, either, but that's another discussion.

You have just introduced one extremely complicated concept there - " a being in a higher dimension who is controlling our space in this one". That's far more complicated than saying, for instance, that no one else apart from you exists, and you are imagining the world you think you perceive. How do you define a dimension as 'higher'? How is a 'being' 'in' that dimension able to control things in our dimensions?

Are you agnostic about the universe being a computer simulation? Are you agnostic about you having come into existence 2 seconds ago, but with memories that make it seem like you've been alive for years? About whether the sun rose this morning? Is it irrational to say "the sun rose this morning"?

There are hundreds of different scenarios you can imagine to make this universe more complicated than the typical view of reality we all hold that don't involve gods, and even more if you use them in your stories. Are you agnostic about them all?

that dimension may not be. Of course, if there are higher dimensions, whatever lives in them considers them as "simple" as we do our three.

Don't confuse something as observable as the sun rising with something from science fiction. Even if it were to come out that our observations were false, we all share them so such observations are useful. When we thought the sun and stars revolved around the Earth, they were still handy for timekeeping and navigation. We were oh, so wrong, but it made little difference in our everyday lives.

Of course there are almost infinite scenarios for our existence, many of which can be ranked on a scale of possibilities. Myself, I'm rather fond of radical solipsism, which says I am the only thing in the universe, and you are all figments of my imagination-- you can't prove me wrong, since I would be arguing with myself. Ordinary solipsism is boring, but works better since it's closer to the shared observation/fantasy thing I mentioned above.

So, I don't understand your objections to what I said, which is simply that we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. And what we know changes.

How this relates to atheism is simply that none of us has met God, so we don't know for sure. There are a few who claim to, but in the old days it was the acid. I don't know what they're taking now.

that you think you can say "of course" about beings in those dimensions? Wow, you knock the people who say a god exists in our dimensions into a cocked hat. You've just come up with a new idea about reality, and are confidently dashing off pronouncements on life in it. You ought to lay out your knowledge of the dimensions to enlighten the world.

You seem remarkably unagnostic about the sun rising. Yes, our shared observations about it are indeed useful, and so are our shared observations about the lack of any gods. I'm not 'confusing' the sun rising with science fiction; I'm putting it in the same class as "no gods".

My main objection is to your claim that atheism is not rational. It's rational, in the same way that not believing in astrology is rational, or not believing in the creation of the universe 2 minutes ago. You seem to think we must not make up our mind about anything to do with the nature of the universe, just in case it's wrong.

when it claims absolutely that there is no god. The argument that saying "I just don't believe in any god" is atheism is merely using one definition for atheism, and one that is in all practical terms identical to agnosticism.

"Atheism" is a continuum from not caring to firmly believing there is no such thing as a god. It also depends upon one's definition of a god-- "god" is most often pictured in some sort of human form, or at least a recognizable one. But what if "God" is a geometric point? A unique element? An alien?

Long after I gave up on the Lutheran church I stumbled into a Quaker meeting where we worshiped God, but had no idea what God is. The worship was the point, not God, and it gave us a grounding closer to some Eastern religions than traditional Christianity. I also stumbled into a Unitarian church that had a similar attitude, although not as well thought out.

Spiritual experiences without bothering with unprovable theology. What a concept! And both groups have their loud voices of hard atheism where no one can mention God within their hearing. The whole thing is not that far off from what the Boy Scouts or the Rotary do-- rituals and identification with a group and a purpose. And service to the community is central to their missions.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist since I do not believe in the myths. But, all myths have some underlying truth to them, and that I do go along with.

And, there may yet be a god out there that we haven't met yet. Who knows...

Atheism claims there is no evidence of god.

Atheists have no god belief.

The not-so-simple part is the "being".

The first is just math, but the second sounds suspiciously like biology in it's level of complexity, a field that deals with much more complicated stuff than mere math.

The philosophical implications about time, cause and effect, and so on, for 'a being' in our dimensions and in others are very complicated.

It's one thing for a biologist to believe in "beings", but something quite different for a mathematician or even a physicist to believe in "beings".

I've been told that I can prove my own existence as a "being" (whatever that might mean!) via an argument that goes something like this:

"Thought happens, therefore there must exist a thinker".

But I don't find such arguments very convincing.

He happily sidesteps the morass of defining "atheist", which even atheists fight about defining. If you are actively an atheist of any sort, you have made a decision to not believe, and that is not a decision that is entirely rational.

Why? Lack of belief is perfectly rational in the absence of evidence



There could well be a god out there that we don't see clearly. It could be simply a being in a higher dimension who is controlling our space in this one. Denying that possibility is silly. It is not silly to say you see no evidence of a god, but that's not the same as saying there is none.


There very well could be, but I don't believe there is. You seem to have fallen into the (intentional) modern redfining of atheism by the religious majority as entailing only the positive belief that there are no gods rather than the lack of belief that they exist. This is nonsense. Atheism is a position on belief, not knowledge. For example it is far far more likely that the Twins will win the World Series this year than that this higher dimension controller exists. I believe neither, but I do not believe either is utterly impossible. I lack belief in a Twins championship for 2016, and I lack belief in gods, while seeing the latter as even less probable, for exactly the same reason; there is no evidence either is probable. If you prefer a closer purely ontological analog, it's possible that there are bright orange 20' tall hermaphroditic pandas living on Pluto, but I don't believe there are any. These are not internally contradictory statements, and I again react to claims of gods in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason.

But, agnostic-- simply admitting "I don't know" is the way to go. Because we don't. We may freely go on refusing to admit Jesus is the Son of God, who we don't think is God anyway, but we can't really claim no God at all. We don't even know the extent of out own galaxy, much less the billions of others out there, and something of a God could easily be hiding in one of them.

Agnostic is a rare word in that we have the history of its origin written by its inventor, Thomas Huxley. We know that it is entirely epistemological, claiming to refute mystically revealed knowledge (gnosis) derived from nonempirical means. It does not speak to belief at all. A very small number of atheists are explicit atheists who claim no gods exist. This is an illogical stance which agnosticism rightly denies, since without universal knowledge none can make that claim. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. I am 100% both. Ontology and epistemology are different disciplines, so this is much like being, say, a Freudian Creationist. Two positions which describe different parts of a worldview.


To say "No God!" is as silly as saying there is no other life in the universe.

Sure - that's just not relevant to the vast majority of atheists. To be a bit more specific, it is perfectly rational to say that a specific claim about gods is impossible, but not that gods are impossible (the latter is a statement of faith, the former of logic). Married bachelors, as the words are normally used in modern English, are impossible because the meaning of the words contradict each other. So a pacifistl god of warmaking would be impossible. In more germane terms, so is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god, as such a god would not allow known malignity to continue, which it clearly does.

We just don't know.

We might not care, either, but that's another discussion.


All true. Hasten the day when not caring is an appropriate and ethical choice.

Of course it is!

What is rational about giving credence to ancient made up superstitions?

This is disingenuous in the extreme.

There is very much scientific evidence and statistical evidence for life elsewhere in the universe.


Not so gods and goddesses....notions made up in a time when profoundly ignorant people thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

The likelihood of life elsewhere is huge compared to the likelihood of magical beings made up by cavemen. Indeed, like with Russell's Teapot, the likelihood of gods is so very remote, it really not even worth worrying about.

Just pray for the huge miracles promised (John 14.13). Then observe the result.

"I am right because I am the infallible me."

That pretty much sums up our discussions here...

Thanks for posting this Rug - cheers...

That describes religion, not atheism. Religion is the most ego-driven thing ever made up!

Atheism doesn't say anything is infallible.


As usual this boils down to religious people's inability to not understand things in some kind of religious terms. There's always got to be some kind of "leader" thing, human or "spiritual" (another made up idea), and some kind of "belief system" with some kind of "right & wrong" thing going on (at least in the Abrahamic versions). None of that is in atheism.

The 3 cent money quote.... if that much.

a little self-deprecating humor.

Alas, some will find it difficult to see the humor in that statement...

He doesn't speak about what he knows to be true or begin to demonstrate why he has drawn those conclusions. He constructs a strawman and knocks it down. It's dishonest, even if not intentionally so.

It's their go to move, always ready to fire that blank.

Telling me what I think (inaccurately, by the way) simply doesn't illuminate anything. If the article speaks to your preconceptions, keep on keeping on, since you clearly have no interest in understanding what I really think. That is a bullet proof way to keep the faith, which is, I think, the point of the exercise.

I'm not telling you what you think but if what you write is not what you think then maybe you should re-examine what you write before you hit the post my reply button.

[IMG][/IMG]

Or perhaps if you're a Xian, your not believing in the Norse gods is actually a belief system.

Quite true

Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. The same way that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can say anthing but you can never be silent

not the other way around.

The idea that there are sentient, supernatural, entities who exist outside of time and space with the power to create and control the universe is an extraordinary claim.

It goes without saying that I can't prove it's NOT true. In the same way that I can never definitively prove that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim.

It's just a question without any consequence in my life. Nothing I have done or will do depends on the answer.

Your point is correct, cheapdate. Science doesn't say that gods don't exist. Science shows that the universe doesn't need supernatural power for its creations.

There is no objective evidence of supernatural powers. If a religious person can show that to me, I'll reconsider my point of view.

Just like religion doesn't make sense - for me.

Individuals can travel different paths...

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the heart and mind united in a single
Perfect
Sphere

- Rush, "Cygnus X-1, Book II: Hemispheres [V. The Sphere: A Kind Of Dream]"

He has a few decent points - what he says about science for instance, but the rest is complete hogwash.

Ever since I came to understand what I do regarding "God" and religion, it has always annoyed me to hear people say "You believe there is no God".

Bullshit.

Belief has NOTHING to do with it, as far as I am concerned. I KNOW all gods are mythical constructs because THEY ARE and the God of Abraham and Isaac is cut from the exact same cloth as Zeus, Apollo, Thor and all the rest.

Saying "I believe there is no God" is the same as saying "I believe there is no Paul Bunyon" or "I believe there are no Leprechauns". It's absurd on its face.

The word "Atheist" does not mean ""I don't believe any God exists" or any other similar stretch of the definition. It simply means "Without God(s)". A = without, "Theist or Theos" = God.

I call myself an atheist because I have no gods. I don't need them, as I find them to be intellectually primitive thinking. Even if the God of the bible exists, if he is anything like that book describes him, I want nothing to do with him. Love me or I'll torture you forever" is not something an all powerful, transcendent deity capable of breathing universes and life forms into existence would say.

It's what a human would say.

So in this regard, the author of the article frankly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

As for

That's often a prerequisite for the OP, but I guess I'm not saying anything new.

There are some out there who claim absolutely, positively that there is no God.

Is that not a belief?

Have fun redefining "atheist"-- throw out the concepts of hard and soft atheism because they don't fit into your argument.

And don't throw Paul Bunyon and leprechauns out there since they are known human tales. Gods as we describe them may also be fairy tales, but the concept of a god is a question. Besides, both are legendary characters invented to emphasize human characteristics. If we accept them for what they are, why not accept invented gods for what they are? That's how the Greeks looked at them.

So, not only do you have a very limited definition of "atheist" you also have a very limited definition of "god". Makes it easy to argue that your version of atheist knows your version of god doesn't exist. Can't possibly argue against that.

"Agnostic" solves all those problems and doesn't get you stuck into silly syllogisms.

Like the article said.

I have a very limited definition of Atheist?

Seriously... Who the fuck ARE YOU?

There is a very good reason why I don't post in this group very much.

It's because I have had all these arguments before with much better opponents than you and I find them tedious, particularly when the other party is smug enough to presume to know what I think. The constant dosy doe regarding how to define this or that bores the living fuck out of me.

You think I don't understand the ideas of hard and soft atheism?

Again, who the fuck are you? Because we clearly haven't met, nor have we had any in depth conversation.

I HAVE NO GODS.. OK? If it is discovered that an entity exists that fits the definition most would like to give it then it should be studied as a new life form, but I sure as hell won't fall to my knees in supplication. It is disingenuous in my opinion to say that "no gods exist" because I admit it is impossible to know that, but that doesn't make me agnostic. That question is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because I HAVE NO GODS.

One thing is clear, however; The god of Abraham, clearly an ancient, Hebrew desert war God, is just as mythical as all the rest and therefore deserves no more attention than any of the thousands that have fallen to the wayside.

Who the fuck are you to come at me like that when I simply point out your rather mild fallacies and mention my own experiences.

I don't give one diddly shit one way or the other whether you have any gods or not. I do, however, give a tiny little fart if you should imply that you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with your personal decisions has a problem.

And again you bring up the god of Abraham as if that's the be-all and end-all of religious discussion. It's not, and people have been having this discussion for at least 2,500 years. Other than that, you haven't even tried to define "god" so is that all you've got?

Who am I? I'm the guy you presumed to know how I think, that's who. How dare you assume I am ignorant of these semantic arguments. "rather mild fallacies"? I am expressing how I look at the question of whether or not I should call myself Atheist or Agnostic and whether or not the author of the piece in the OP has any ability to speak to that opinion. He doesn't because he has it wrong. It is not fallacious to use the proper definition of a word.

From the online Oxford dictionary;
Definition of atheism in English:
atheism
noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.



Where the hell do you get that from? I implied I have all the answers? Reading comprehension suffering a bit this AM, is it? Nowhere did I say or imply that I have all the answers and those who disagree have a problem. I don't give one diddly shit one way or the other, to use your rather elementary turn of phrase, whether or not others agree with my position. I said it "annoys me" that people say "You believe there is no God". There are some opinions I hold on certain subjects however, that I AM right about and contrary opinions are stupid and those that cling to them are idiots, but that realm is mostly in my profession, not matters of religion. **



Yes, but that is the subject and you know it. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. The author of the piece is from Utah, for fucks sake. You think he is talking about being agnostic regarding Ganesha?



Since when was that something I was supposed to do in this thread? Neither have you, for that matter. I know what "god" is, in the context of the Judeo/Christian/Islam mindset. It is undeniable that the god revered by the 3 dominant faiths on this planet, if the books written about him are to be believed, expresses rather human qualities, as opposed to god-like ones.



LOL...Oh, no. Not by a long stretch! "Is that all you've got?" OOOOH! Tough guy! Man..that's some funny shit, right there. What's next? You gonna throw your beer in my face?

I just got home this morning from a 5600 mile coast to coast round trip and as a result, I really have no interest in engaging you or anyone else on this subject any further. I'll bow out now, but as I said, I have had all these arguments YEARS AGO and you bring ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new to the table. Nothing. Nada. Zero, Zip. Zilch. Diddly. Bupkiss. Bugger all.

So...asking you "is that all you've got?" would be superfluous, because I know the answer already.

Yes. Yes it is.

(** that is what is known as "tongue in cheek&quot

I drove across country. See? You don't know me.

I would tell you to go you know what about the "Trumpian" remark, but it's hard to type on this phone while I'm giggling.

Yes...bow down. Good for you.

Have a great day, Chuckles

Atheism is simply the absence of theism, with no defined beliefs at all.

All it says to claims of gods is "we don't believe you."

The more someone "defines" 'god' - atheist.
If some does not define 'god' - agnostic.

just so long as they don't try to share that information with me.

He tries to make atheism parallel to religious faith but it's not. It's exactly the opposite. Bill Maher put it well:

Thanks for the post, rug. It's an interesting discussion thread. Enjoy your weekend.

for religion 'to be offended at every opportunity' and figured, if it's good for the goose... and it is clearly working for him.

... is all we see in this article (excerpt?).

It just says, over and over, that atheism makes no sense to the author. Atheism it says, is just bad, bad, bad.

No proof, no specifics.

So it's just name calling.

Or actually, it is psychological projection. It is guilty of the same exact thing it accuses others of: it contains no logical argument at all.

Was this really a serious post?

Very little light and a lot of heat.

to everyone in the Religion group who makes these FUBARs possible.

That's the way we like it. And we go to car races to see the wrecks.

You'd think there would be dead babies killed by praying mothers (TM) littering the grounds near churches, but I've yet to run across that.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home

Also don't forget a thousand pietas. Mary with dead son.

1.
Neither side has convincingly proven one way or another whether God exists, so picking either side is ultimately an arbitrary choice.
It's not.
One side won't stop believing until God is disproven.
The other side won't start believing until God is proven.
Believers demand that atheists disprove all possible versions of God. Atheists demand that believers prove ONE possible version of God.


2.
To believe that there is no God is just as outrageous as to believe that there is a God. They are equally hubristic outlooks that have everything to do with feeling right and nothing to do with reality itself.
Demonstrably wrong.
Religion has cultural implications. Religion decides who lives and who dies. That is very, very real.
Atheism's morals are derived from experience, not dogma, and are therefore different from religious morals.
It doesn't make a difference in theory, but for the person at the business-end of a spear, having the wrong language, the wrong skin-color, the wrong kind of dress, the wrong kind of sexual orientation can mean death in a religious environment. Atheism is different, because atheism is pan-cultural: Atheism does not contain cultural traditions and prejudices.