The "A" word: What does the term "atheist" mean to you?

When you hear that someone's an atheist, what goes through your mind? Do you make an automatic association with the word "communist"? Do you think of someone who hates religion or God? Do you think of someone who's ignorant or insensitive? Maybe you think of someone who is logical and reasonable, or egotisitical and mocking. What do you think of when the "A" word comes up?

That they don't think there's a higher power up there that created us, decides what will happen to us, when we'll die, etc.

Big deal; some people believe in many gods, some people believe in one god, and some people believe there's no god.

you say that they "believe" there is no god. I think that most of them would tell you that until somebody proves that god exists, it doesn't exist to them.

I'm even willing to say I believe there's no god; it's just that I still have this vague hope or maybe just a wish that consciousness continues after death. It's a vestigial thing that I don't want to let go of. I will say I'm utterly convinced that the man-god most people believe in does not exist.

The concept makes no more sense to me than the idea that there may be a 3-eyed invisible monster in my closet. I can't really see why I would choose to believe such a thing, and I am not waiting for somebody to jump out and "prove" it. I don't believe there is such thing as an afterlife either, not in the supernatural sense. To me, the closest thing to an afterlife is the effects you have upon the world. My equivalent of heaven would be the knowledge that after I leave, I've left some positive changes behind.

So yes, atheist to me means godless. It doesn't imply anything else about capitalist vs communist, moral vs immoral, or whatever. I do think there may be a correlation between the logical thinking that leads to atheism, and logical thinking about other questions and problems. Because of this logical way of looking at the world, atheists may on average lean more toward practical government policies with realistic expectations of their outcomes. But that might be just me. ;-)

I would tend to think "friend".

Sometimes I might think "Oh shit, how do I handle this; nod and smile, or flip my lid, you ignorant bigoted piece of crap?"

It does often suggest someone who is more brain-directed than heart-directed, but NOT ALWAYS, and I'm NOT suggesting that's good or bad either way.

As in "Communist, Atheist countries" or "Godless commies". The irony is that I'm an atheist, and I'm not a communist. But I did grow up at the tail end of the Cold War. Go figure.

Forty years ago, I would have thought "evil Communist" for the same reason. Now, however, I see that Communists were just trying to design a society that looked after itself, where homeless veterans didn't freeze to death under bridges.

If I'm an atheist, I became one 100 percent on November 3, 2004. Prior to that date, I was growing increasingly more dissatisfied with what I grew up believing. About ten years ago, in a discussion with a friend, he blurted out that I was an atheist. I was outraged (see above, as I envisioned "Communist")

But now I'm just tired. And defending beliefs takes a lot of energy, particularly beliefs that have been eroding away for decades. I'm tired of arguing with right-wing religious zealots, not necessarily in open debate, but in debate with myself over the "stupid fundie comment of the day" that appears in the corporate media (like the one about Intelligent Design being taught as a scientific theory in red-state high schools).

Like I say: I'm tired, and with maybe 25 years left in this life, I got too much to do without expending energy on the preservation of myth and superstition.

As for "evil godless Communist," I see more clearly now that we were all had... We were led to believe these creatures would overtake and rule us. Now, thanks to the BushJr Administration, I can see that this whole scare tactic was created and propagated for the benefit of a few: well-connected war mongers and profiteers who believed only in amassing wealth a power. I believe if creatures like the Bush Family believed Communism would have made them money, we'd all be celebrating May Day today, as well as Marx and Lenin's birthdays...

because there was never propaganda like that here. I suppose if someone said 'godless', I might think "commie" - but with an image of a ridiculous American general saying it, a la Dr. Strangelove. It's on a par with "running dog" - I can't avoid thinking of a Maoist, probably waving the little red book.

In fact, in Britain, if you describe someone as a Christian (without there having been a specific question about religion), the stereotype I, and I think a lot of people, will have in mind is an overearnest, possibly wimpish, but well-meaning person. Open toed sandals make an appearance. Not, I think, what many American atheists think of.

when I hear "godless." And thanks for reminding me about "running dog." You're right, I immediately thought of Mao specifically and our disaster in SE Asia generally.

If you have the chance, take a look at "The Atomic Cafe." It is a good (my opinion) overview of how anti-Communist hysteria was created and manipulated to control the American people. It's ironic that it wasn't the Communists who exercised complete control over us, but rather the anti-Communists! (I suppose one could argue that we wouldn't have anti-Communists without the Communists, but, as I said earlier, I'm tired...:))

THE ATOMIC CAFE
http://www.conelrad.com/atomic_cafe.html
(Check out some of the songs that came out of that era!)

SIDE ONE:
ATOM AND EVIL by the Golden Gate Quartet
Audio Clip: Maj. Thomas Ferebee, "Enola Gay" bombardier, 08/15/45
WHEN THE ATOMB FELL by Karl and Harty
Audio Clips: President Harry S Truman, 08/09/45; Capt. Kermit Beehan, "Great Artiste" bombardier, 08/15/45
WIN THE WAR BLUES by Sonny Boy Williamson
Audio Clip: David E. Lilienthal, the first Chairman of the A.E.C.
ATOMIC POWER by the Buchanan Brothers
Audio Clip: Winston Churchill, 03/31/49
JESUS HITS LIKE AN ATOM BOMB by Lowell Blanchard and the Valley Trio
Audio Clip: Rep. James E. Van Zandt (Republican), Penn., 05/08/53
WHEN THEY DROP THE ATOMIC BOMB by Jackie Doll and His Pickled Peppers
ATOMIC SERMON by Billy Hughes and his Rhythm Buckeroos
OLD MAN ATOM by Sons of Pioneers

SIDE TWO:
URANIUM by The Commodores
50 MEGATONS by Sonny Russell
ATOM BOMB BABY by The Five Stars
SATELLITE BABY by Skip Stanley
SPUTNIKS AND MUTNIKS by Ray Anderson and the Homefolks
ATOMIC COCKTAIL by Slim Gaillard Quartette
ATOMIC LOVE by Little Caesar with the Red Callendar Sextette
ATOMIC TELEPHONE by Spirits of Memphis Quartet
RED'S DREAM by Louisiana Red

also:

Atomic Cafe, The

Directed by Jayne Loader, Kevin Rafferty, & Pierce Rafferty
On its 20-year anniversary, and not a moment too soon, THE ATOMIC CAFE is back to provide us with a much-needed release of comic energy. A dark comedy in the truest sense, this timeless classic took the nation by storm when it first debuted in 1982. The film recounts a defining period of 20th century history and serves as a chilling and often hilarious reminder of cold-war era paranoia in the United States--artfully presented through a collage of newsreel footage, government archives, military training films, and fifties music. Profoundly shocking and perversely topical, THE ATOMIC CAFE craftily captures a panicked nation, offering a fascinating and witty account of life during the atomic age and resulting cold war, when fall-out shelters, duck-and-cover drills, and government propaganda were all a part of our social consciousness. Regarded by critics as “a nuclear Reefer Madness” and likened to Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, this profoundly shocking and highly amusing film is a stunner, a gripping account of an unforgettable era and an indisputable “must-see” for all Americans.
http://www.docurama.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-NVG-5560-NVG-9496

I remember the "duck and cover" drills in school. We would go to an assigned space and, on command of the teacher, duck curling up on our knees with our hands place on the backs of our heads. We would stay that way until the "all clear." I always thought, "What good is this? Like placing our hands on the backs of our heads is going to protect us from a 20mg ton A-bomb?" I thought the teachers wanted us to do this so we would be out of the way for when they scrambled out out of the building and not wanting to trip over us!

The nuns had us quickly file out (two by two, doncha know?) to the nearby stairwell and we sat on the steps to 'duck and cover'. The stairwells were in the very center of the building, and presumably the safest place, right? Not really, when you consider that the stairway walls were GLASS-covered chicken wire. Yeah, that'll keep us safe from the shock and heat of an atomic explosion. Way to go! Not.

Coming from a country where half of the population considers itself atheists/agnostic and with a pretty powerful left, I don't think it would cross them minds of many people..

"Now, however, I see that Communists were just trying to design a society that looked after itself, where homeless veterans didn't freeze to death under bridges."

the irony here is that far, far more people have died of hunger or frozen to death for lack of heat in communist countries than in capitalist countries. If you want to see some of the pitfalls of communism, I very good book on the subject is Wild Swans, by Jung Chang. Here's the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-6654802-0282355

but most university libraries should have it. Pick it up, and if you're not hooked after the first paragraph you can put it back down. It's a first-person account and very eye opening.

My own take on communism is that it was pushed by people who wanted absolute power over others. Communism gave them the vehicle to obtain that power. There were others who, like yourself, just wanted a society where vets didn't freeze under bridges, but those people were inevitably marginalized by the leaders and their lust for power.

People who sympathize with forced collectivization and property confiscation, and authoritarian socialism are dangerously poor students of history.

looks like we're in a minority here. scary.

Really all are the same thing: schemes by wealthy powerful people to subjugate the masses and hold on to wealth and power.

I grew up on the West coast and my parents are quite liberal, so I never thought of Communists (or atheists for that matter) as evil. But I do have a strong word association with the words "Communist" and "atheist", while I have the intellectual knowledge to realize that one doesn't require the other.

I do agree that "the Red Menace" was a put-on job designed to give the masses something to fear.

I do agree that "the Red Menace" was a put-on job designed to give the masses something to fear.

Tell that to millions of eastern europeans.

They got to see the red menace up close and I doubt they thought it was all a "put-up job".

And please stop associating "liberal" with tolerance for communism. You're playing into the hands of the right and making us look like we're all a bunch of "useful idiots".

Gee, that's news to me!

Back in the old days, the Commies were going to take over America and force everyone to stop worshipping God and start practicing free love and allowing Negroes to sit where they wanted to on public buses. When I was a kid, they were going to come up through Nicaragua and take over the oil fields of Texas. Still waiting for that one to happen.

I associate the term "liberal" with tolerance for all sorts of things that probably make the right wingers gibber and caper with joy. So fucking what? To change who I am in order to make myself more presentable to the Freakers is the ultimate "playing into their hands".

"Communist threat" was the more popular right-wing appellation. This was back during the 1980s, during the days of drills, alerts, "Protect and Survive" and all that shit because Ray-gun was deploying nukes to our soil.

All of the Communist countries are in gray. Cuba isn't even on the map. Just a big patch of blue 90 miles south of Key West.

I clearly remember the panic in the air, the TV maps of "blast radius", evac procedures, "Risk areas", the "Protect and Survive" documentation, the regular leaks about things like mass graves in public parks, all that. And yet the US/UK (Dr Evil and Mini Me) seem desperate to return to that level of fear FOR NO REASON.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

?

I don't think much more than that. Religious beliefs tend to have more to do with cultural upbringing than personality traits or egos, imo.

I was raised very Catholic: Sunday school, communion, and everything. Dad's an ex-monk. Mom & Dad are great and intelligent people; I just never quite understood why they believed the religious stuff. From childhood I never could quite believe the supernatural stuff, and I think that's a symptom of my logic/reality-based thinking.

You don't think all Hindus have the same personality, do you? Or all Muslims?

Why would you think all Catholics have the same personality, or all atheists? That's crazy.

"Religious beliefs tend to have more to do with cultural upbringing than personality traits or egos, imo."

I interpreted your comment to be a nature vs nurture argument, coming down 100% on the nurture side. I was trying to say that in addition to nurture, for some of us it is definitely nature, _not_ nurture. Hence my use of the word, "too." Not sure how I came across as making a sweeping generalization.

Sometimes crank.

...there's a crack in every pot! :P

that they are someone who believes in a unique philosophy, not unlike Christians, Jews, Muslims etc., that are just as deserving of respect and rights as anyone else.

As for Atheist I usually don't care one way or the other, unless they are trying to convert me to Atheism.

One of my friends in high school was an atheist--he was a college student / grad student working at the library I was working at. Good guy.

Individual atheists can be logical, reasonable, egotistical and mocking.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

And yes.. I do fit some of the characteristics you describe.. :-)

<<Individual atheists can be logical, reasonable, egotistical and mocking>>

labeling and stereotyping is always wasted effort and meaningless

being called an atheist like being called a liberal is just mind control from the right

KL

on in order to make themselves feel better about their illogical and senseless beliefs...

No offense, of course.

there are plenty of good atheists and plenty of not so good atheists... to me, it's just a label, like "christian" or "conservative" or "liberal."

Actions speak louder than labels. I'm an agnostic myself and while I'm described as "very liberal" there are a very very few issues where I am not liberal (immigration and bilingual education being two)... Again, it's just a label...

Ive known athiests of all stripes. Some rational, some irrational. Some educated, some not educated. Some intellectual, some plainspoken. Some liberal, some conservative. Old, young, men, women, rich, poor.

An Athiest is someone who doesnt believe in metaphysical beings, no more no less. They have existed in almost every culture and almost every time period. Generalizations and stereotypes are, as we have all seen, misleading.

ask me anything? :-)

I certainly don't make a connection between Atheism and Communism. One deals with "religion", one with "economics".

I don't hate religion or someone's belief in God at all.

I certainly don't think I'm ignorant or insensitive. Others might differ with that opinion.

I think I'm logical and reasonable, but I don't assume those that are religious are not those things.

People seem to ignore the role of liberation theology in the worker's movements of south america. So religion and communism can be fused as long as you don't take a few statements from Marx too seriously-the opiate thing for instance. It's a way of demonizing both by combining them.

I'm an atheist. It means to me: growing up in a church and instead of facing forward and bowing ritualistically I looked around and found it all amusing and sometimes scary. It meant sneaking out of confirmation class and reading a newspaper instead. But hey I grew up in the belly of the beast where being a christian meant being white and straight and most often male (except for when these men needed their wives to bring something to the pot-luck). It was okay to be a minority as long as they could monitor your time with the collection plate and didn't talk to them outside of church.

Atheism for me was salvation. Whatever works for others is fine with me as long as it doesn't include anything in the last two sentences in the above paragraph. The contradictions just rendered it completely empty of meaning for me. Meaning know lies elsewhere for me. that's about it.

If they don't shove it in my face, it's as irrelevant to me as what their favorite color is. Because of this feeling, I avoid trying to argue anybody into atheism. What would be the point? Might as well ask them to change their height.

(bible)

nt

in a debate about religion -- unavoidable, as we had had a guest speaker who was an evangelical Christian Green -- one of the two students self-identified as Christian said, "Atheists lead joyless lives."

I have the experience to attest that this is not so, since I am son and husband to atheists who did/do not be any means lead joyless lives. And I recall the Christian kids I grew up with, who lived in the constant belief that they would be tortured for eternity in hell -- could not be good enough to escape that fate. At least atheists don't have to worry about hell.

to hell. He made a lot of bad decisions since he believed he was already doomed.
I, on the other hand, don't believe in an afterlife. When I do a good deed it's because it's the right thing to do, not because I am afraid I'll go to hell if I don't or because I can use it to get into heaven.
note: not criticizing any theist beliefs about heaven and hell.

A very telling phrase. Too many do the "correct" thing knowing (or not caring) it isn't the "right" thing.

I'm jolly happy, thanks.

They seem pretty freaking joyless to me. Right now their power has never been greater and yet all they can do is freak out over people who don't share their opinion and worry about Sponge Bob's sexuality.

in Islam it is said that Allah does not ask more from any person than he is able to give.

I always thought my fundamentalist acquaintences led joyless lives. They seemed to view pleasure of almost any sort with suspicion.

It wasn't just sex that was suppressed- it was like that urge spread into all other things as well. If it felt good, tasted good, etc.- it was to be avoided. It was weird.

the athiests I know are very much grounded in the world of science and physics. If it cannot be proven, it cannot exist. Some I've encountered are quite conedscending about it, others I know and love and we have great discussions. Many are rightfully fed up with being the target of criticism and evangelism for their views.

There is no one stereotype that fits and I hate to generalize any more than I already have b/c it would not be accurate.

If they respect my belief in God, I'll respect their belief that there isn't one.

But typically also someone who hasn't done much research into alternative, non-western spiritualities.

spirtualities. I didn't find the answer there either. Bhudda was an interesting guy and may have been on the right track, but the way the religion is practiced now (my experience is mostly with Thai and Chinese Bhuddists) is as bizarre a corruption of his "words" as the religious right's is of Christ's.

I'm a thrid generation atheist. Maybe I just don't yearn for spirtualism as some others do.

Relax, alright?

*moved*

But typically also someone who hasn't done much research into alternative, non-western spiritualities.

What makes you say this?

someone who tried to grow a brain and leave behind childish stories and groupthink.

who are accepting of each other from both the atheist and non atheist posters. Then there are some ignorant, divisive remarks from some atheists.
This thread is pretty true to form for DU discussions of religion/no religion.

...on this thread. Maybe I've missed them?

And I haven't even read the whole thing yet.

#10 and #54, for starters. Flaming is another personality trait which neither side can claim as entirely their own (or claim as a trait of the 'other side').

Promoting *individual* liberties are a democratic value. The Republicans want to take away our individual liberties!

So atheist to me means: Someone I can sit and talk with, rational, healthy self-esteem, and somewhat humble.

Religion is many times self-love at it's most pure. Example, the Euro-Jesus is popular throughout the US, while a survey in the UK acknowledges that Jesus was the most widely recognized historic BLACK figure. They don't view him as a long-haired, blue eyed, tall Aryan figure.

Over the years, I've tended to go between agnostic and athiest. I think my parents never realized when I was a kid, that the more they crammed southern baptist down my throat, the more of an UN-believer I became.
To me, when I hear athiest, it's someone that doesn't buy into the whole religious fairytale--a rational, analytical person. What turns me off more than anything, is someone (like Bush) who is a bible thumping my way or the highway believer, and everybody else's religion is wrong. And yes--I think it's just hysterical when Jesus is pictured as this blonde blue eyed white man, considering the part of the world where he was supposedly born!
I have a family history that reads like this horrible soap opera that no one would believe if I wrote a book. In those circumstances, I think you either use religion as a crutch (not that there's anything wrong with that!), or you say, this is a load of hooey and take responsibility for your own life.

(not that anyone cares) LOL

Do you make an automatic association with the word "communist"?

I can't imagine why someone would associate atheism with communism. Based on what I've read and observed, under communism the state is god. that's what they worship, at the expense of personal freedoms. Maybe socialism is more of an atheist system.

Do you think of someone who hates religion or God?

An atheist can't hate god, because an atheist doesn't believe in god. My experience however, has been that atheists do tend to see only the bad side of religion. A more balanced view, in my opinion, is that in spite of the hatred and intollerance that religions have often promoted, I have to give them credit for a lot of good and order in the world.

Do you think of someone who's ignorant or insensitive?

Same answer as above. A person who chooses to only see the bad aspects of an oposing view is insensitive to that view. I doubt the majority of atheists fall into this category.

Maybe you think of someone who is logical and reasonable, or egotisitical and mocking.

Personally, I think that the most logical and reasonable people are the ones who can admit to themselves that they don't know everything. It's true, there is no overt evidence that I'm aware of in the universe that proves the existence of a god. But, it is entirely possible that this state of affairs is intentional and serves a purpose. My plan is to live my life as best I can, to be kind and caring toward my fellow man, and be moral and just. I'll do that because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afaid of going to hell. When I die, if I find that there is no afterlife, then I guess I wont care because I'll be dead. But at the same time, I'll have no possible regrets from having lived a good life. If I find that there is an afterlife and I'm being "judged" by a vengeful god, I'll be able to honestly say that I did what I thought was right, and that's all any of us can do.

Great post.

I've actually lurked here since before the election. When they locked non-members out I decided I'd better get an account in case that happens again. Part of me wishes I hadn't because right now I should be working. lol

What's more, I think it's sensible.

I can't imagine why someone would associate atheism with communism.

Cold War PR stuff. Americans of a certain age absorbed it with their milk.

League of Militant Atheists -- also translated as League of Militant Godless, I believe -- was mainly a Soviet organization.

But I did see a local of that group in a demo in Washington State in about '69. Their banner had a quote from Bakunin, the anarchist: "If God existed it would be necessary to abolish Him."

Hmm.

and I like your posts thus far; you seem to think much like I do, at least regarding communism and God. :)

come up empty.

Speaking of myself. I'm not anti-religion -- my best friends are religious -- but there's just nothing in religion for me. I wasn't raised to believe in God, and no God has come down and made himself plain to me, and the amazing (and at times horrific) world around me seems adequately explained by science.

I would like to be religious. I would like to think there's some meaning to life besides biological imperative. But... I'm unconvinced. On good days I look at the sun illuminating the world and I think of the sweep of history and I think: something's behind all this, but what?

On bad days I see pictures of rotting corpses of children in a lagoon, and I see B** strutting his egomaniac self around the world stage, and I think... nah.

when I was about 8-years-old. I related it to the devil and all sorts of fairy-tale nonsense. I think I may have even associated it with communism but I had no real idea what either of them were at that age.

Now that I'm a thinking adult, I have no negative association to the word at all even though I consider myself a Christian. Probably because I've considered myself an atheist or agnostic a few times over the years and realize it means nothing at all except a skepticism or rejection of the existence of a God. (For the record, my version of Christianity does not condemn atheists to hell.)

Actually, the way the so-called Christians act these days, I'm usually relieved to meet an atheist. At least I know I'm not going to have to deal with a bunch of hypocritical, judgmental garbage. So far the atheists I know are decent, caring and principled people.

Interestingly, there are all kinds of atheists including fundamentalist atheists who try to cram their beliefs down other people's throats as much as Jerry Falwell. There is a difference between a statement that an opinion is based on a core belief and a statement that anyone who has a different core belief is a fool. A lot of atheists are the best Christians around. As Jon Stewart said, faith without works is useless, works without faith, that's OK.

someone who doesnt believe in any form of God. Someone who I disagree with, but because I disagree with them they think I believe in superstition and fairy tales.

nt

It's a cold war era thing, I'm afraid. I'm an atheist who isn't a communist, yet there's an automatic word association in my head. Weird, huh?

:shrug:

nt

Just like thinking "light" or "sign" after someone says "stop" or thing "Stupid fucking monkey moron" whenever someone says Bush. :)

Seriously, it's not a conscious thing.

nt

we were talking about why your brain equates atheists with communists when you supposedly don't want it too.

:shrug:

after reading the full post I did not realize you were stating a fact. sorry.

I just sort of accept it as one of the mysteries of my mind, sort of like the way the smell of leather puts me in the mind of... never mind.

:P

who acknowledges that there is a remote possibility of a higher power, but realizes that our limited time on earth here is much too precious to be wasted on trying to figure out which religion is right, or bowing and scraping to a particular deity trying to get favors.


And any God who put us into an environment with SO MANY scientific clues that he DOES NOT exist, and so little evidence that he does, must surely have the capacity to forgive us for not believing in that which is almost completely implausible...

Sorry to all my athiest friends out there. Love ya, but atheism is too committed. Agnostics, I get.

Could people use imagination for other things besides religion?

Did John Lennon lack imagination?

I am an atheist which means I see the universe as not having a god. How is that "too committed?" None of the atheists I know claims absolute knowledge, which means they are also agnostic.

--IMM

and visualize that which you cannot see. Athiesm to me is an outgrowth of rationalism, which is to say, if I cannot see it, measure it, quantify it or account for it, it ain't there. Rationalists are hugely important in human development, don't get me wrong, but that ain't all there is.

Einstein said words to the effect that the more he studied the fundamental building blocks of the universe, the more he became convinced of the existence of God.

The ultimate rationalist. Stephen Hawking said approximately the same.

These guys were very very very very smart. And very imaginative. And deists.

If there's no god, what is it all about.

Your definition of imagination does not mention believing in god. Conceptualizing and visualizing the unseen is only imagination if the object is god?

You seem to exclude Einstein and Hawking from rationalism. I doubt if either would agree to that. Einstein was an atheist. Hint: His life's work was devoted to finding a rational scientific explanation that accounted for everything in the universe!

His frequently quoted statement, "God does not play dice with the universe," was metaphorical. Einstein does not think there is a god any more than he thinks that god plays dice to determine destiny.

Deists believe that god struck the match that started the universe, and let natural law take over from there. How would they be substantively different from atheists? They would agree on everything that followed the big bang. I think events preceding the big bang can only be wildly speculative, considering current knowledge.

I am an atheist because there is no concept of god that I have encountered that doesn't lead to some contradiction or paradox or just plain silliness. So that makes them not believable. It's not conceptualizing or visualizing that makes the difference, it's contradicting something that has more credibility.

What do these people have in common? Woody Allen, Voltaire, Isaac Asimov, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain, Randy Newman, Thomas Edison, Democritus, Epicurus, Freud, B. F. Skinner, Frank Zappa, George Carlin, Richard Feynman, John Lennon, etc.? According to you they are unimaginative. Are you sure that's the right word? What's your definition of gullible?

--IMM

From what I've read of him, he felt that God, if she/he/it existed, as a creator and nothing more. God expressed "itself" in creation but did not engage in the world of men. Which is a good description of deism.

Quotes taken from here http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein

I consider myself an atheist, but if proof were discovered that god/gods exist, I would certainly "believe" in god (if he's the god described by the bible I'd think he's a sadistic jackass, but that's a different story)

I think Einstein and Hawking say that sort of thing because the universe surpasses even their understanding, and it is comforting to believe that there is order when order is not readily apparent

I don't really understand what imagination has to do with it, frankly -- most products of imagination are fiction, after all, and the only difference between an atheist and a theist would be the difference between someone who sees fiction as fiction and someone who sees fiction as fact

Since there is no god, what is it all about? good question

<<Since there is no god, what is it all about? good question>>

I think it is a process.

Religion is about faith.

KL

"What is it all about?" It's about doing good in the world, it's about celebrating the joy of life, it's about raising a happy family, it's about creating something totally new....

As an imaginative person, have you also imagined the universe could be operated by 3 Hindu gods and 8 tiny reindeer? Or a vast mesh of meta-intelligent dark energy forces? Or my neighbor Stu? To me, any of these choices makes about as much sense and has about as much evidence going for it. Actually, Stu exists, so he's got a little more evidence going for him.

Not that there aren't theists that are intelligent and ethical. It's just that atheists in our society have already gone through a test that requires analysis, confidence, courage, commitment.

Our society confers no benefits on atheists, except maybe they don't have to sit through the bullshit in church. Religions offer many inducements, some of which are worthy, such as a social support system, and some of which are questionable, such as eternal life after death.

On ethics, religion is a powerful tool to persuade and control people. Why would amoral person give up the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, especially when it allows their sins to be forgiven? Might they be deeply cynical manipulators? Maybe, but could they admit it? So how would you know? BTW. I saw a statistic that .002 of the prison population claims to be atheist or agnostic.

Are there exceptions, of course. But this is about initial impressions. If they allude to being atheist, I generally count that as a point in their favor.

--IMM

and wear their lack of religion on their sleeve as smugly, with an air of superiority, as some wear their religion. As for myself, I'm not sure where I stand. I am a member of a Protestant denomination, which was one of the last I thought would ever be hijacked by fundamentalists, but it has, in many churches and locations. So at present, I do not attend church, and, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, something like the tsumani causes me to call into question the existence of any sort of deity.

That said, I resent the tone of some atheists who assume that if a person is religious, that person lacks intelligence, is uneducated, does not know how to think scientifically, or for himself or herself, and has no place in a liberal/progressive community. And, with that, I hope I have connected this discussion to the politically-based purpose I believed this board to be founded on.

Don't like smugness in either the religious or non-religious -- and I've seen it in both.

Is to increase the dialog between the sides. Exclusion and isolation merely add to the problem. Familiarity and exposure create trust over time. Bravado and aggression are symptoms of unfamiliarity and distrust.

I always refer to myself as either a Secular Humanist or Free Thinker. The term Atheist puts me on the defense personally because it is rarely used in a non-judgmental way. I've never associated it with "Communist" or with any form of hate toward religions, but that's just me.

Atheists come in as many forms as the religious do but rarely is that point ever acknowledged in our society. The same could obviously be said for Muslims and even Christians. I guess it's just easier for the brain to categorize groups of people we don't completely understand?

I've always thought of Free-Thinker as a catch-all term to anyone not hidebound by religious tradition- it could cover atheists, agnostics, New Agers, liberal Xians, pagans, and any other open-minded individual who just doesn't give a damn how they did it 4,000 years ago.

Here's the dictionary's definition:

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

This could definately be a catch all term. I'm fond of it because it stimulates actual conversation instead of judgement when discussing it with others. At the end of the day, I'm ok with not pretending to have all the answers. :)

He's a fugitive from seminary school, artistic, yet more on the compassionless logical side, and I'm the collapsed Catholic, musical, sensitive, compassionate type. He's a Bush supporter; I'm most definitely not. (We don't discuss politics; it's the only way we survive as friends.)

Atheists come in all flavors, colors and political persuasions.

Oh, how to describe what that means without pissing-off the Uber-sensitive Believers...

Let's just say I don't keep a Bible on my "non-fiction" shelves....

fiction and non-fiction shelves?

I feel so inadequate!

;)

I have all the Sagan books in one section, Cookbooks in another bookcase (yes, CASE) Photography seperate, Bonsai in it's own lil' workd, Radio books here, Maritime collection there, "Titanic" books all on their own shelf, Fiction in the bookcase in the bedroom, bicycle books EVERYWHERE...

It ain't exactly Dewey Decimal, but it serves....

Okay, I got that out of my system. Oh, oh...no I didn't!

ARRRRGGGGHHHH!

I just think of someone who doesn't believe in any sort of god (believe it or not, there's atheists who do follow non-organized religions. I know quite a few in the Pagan community). I leave the value judgments out of the equation and treat each person on their own merits.

I've met atheists who were more kind and thoughtful than a lot of so-called religious folk I know, and respectful of others' beliefs even if they vehemently disagreed with them (many of my friends are atheists). I've also met atheists who were totally arrogant, insensitive douchebags who almost took glee in their childish antics (an ex of mine, for one).

There's good and bad in every group. People should be treated as individuals and not judged on the basis of a single word.

When I was younger they might have seemed a little 'weird' (no offense meant, that's the best word I could think of), but now I'm more neutral towards them. For the most part, I think of them more as the logical/reasonable type. However, IMO someone like Newdow does seem egotistical.

and resists accepting that a reality beyond reason might be the Ultimate Truth. I claimed to be an atheist some years ago, and had a pretty good basis worked out for it in my own life. Now I very much believe in God, due in my case to additional study and experience over the past decade or so. I believe that intelligent and curious people often go through a time of life when they reject "supernatural" explanations and hold strictly to reason for all answers.

Someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God. It doesn't mean anything else to me. The person may be a wonderful, principled, moral person or not. They may be giving and generous or not.

I really don't associate it with any other "characteristic." I know atheists who are Republican, Democratic, Independent.

People have the right to practice religion, or not. Very simple :)

Just like bible beaters. They come in all forms too.

Word didn't even occur to me.

often it means someone very against christians - ie can't handle me having a god and being very insulting to all people who are religious.

Then there are some who are calm and fine to be around.

I've always thought it interesting that the biggotry of some christians who can't handle people out of their line of belief, is the exact same kind of biggotry I see with athiests who can't handle someone out of their line of belief. Luckly there are plenty of people that are not like these two extremes.

...where he offended his hosts by saying something like "you're as bad as the Christians -- they insist that there's a God and an afterlife, you insist there isn't, and there's no way either of you can prove it one way or the other."

non-delusional

as opposed to an agnostic, who holds no fixed belief one way or the other.

KamaAina, your friendly mid-Pacific agnostic/deist

As in not with theism, or without theism.

That's it.

And yes, I'm a Socialist too.

that's their own f#$@ing business!

I really believe that self proclaimed athiests are really people that are looking for a way to set themselves apart from the masses. As soon as we get a bunch of athiests together everyone will start turning to religion again. It seems to be a common cultural swing in our country.

which is what I consider myself to be. I equate God with Nature, and since I don't believe anything can be above "God", then I don't believe anything can be "super"natural.

It says what I am, not what I'm not.

but I think of someone who does not believe there is a divine power. That's all. I don't consider atheists to be Christian hating pagans. That's all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After all I am apparrently a dumbshit. No need to listen to anything I have to say.

you were referring to as am Summa Cum Laude graduate...pooopdeedoop!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It isn't "atheist", either.

ever one should note it didn't come from an atheist.

name calling is not helpful

KL

I am a deist. Spirituality is still important to me, personally. I used to believe that spiritual strength of mine was something everyone needed, including "atheists",...and I tended to encourage them to gain a sense of their own spirit.

Now, I feel somewhat ashamed for assuming on others' behalf even though my intentions were positive.

Now, the term "atheist" brings no assumption to mind. An "atheist" is as human as the rest of this diverse race which I try to evaluate based upon individual actions rather than broad assumptions.

I believe that the universe developed from the time of the big bang to the present without the need for intervention by some outside intelligence. Would a deist believe differently?

--IMM

where only your ideas of Atheism were allowed to reside? Why do you keep posting here?

IE asking what the general social attitude towards atheist is. Not exactly something we can ascertain in our little club house.

ascertain

You certainly seem to be angry about something. Care to talk about it rationally. Or is flamebate your modus operandi?

on another thread insinuated that I was projecting stupidity... Never replied to Summa cum laude response....you flamebaiter projectionist... I was having a good time so FYIYCTAJ and I don't fall for bait!:smoke: :7 :evilgrin:

Can't get much more insulting than that. And yes I did not reply to your summa cum laude response. I didn't think it deserved one nor did I think anything of value would be gained by it.

Lets see if we can diagram this situation. You initiated with a truly rude post. I responded with a post that suggested you look to yourself as your demeanor was suggestive of someone that had issues and no understanding of social discourse. You then followed up with a post that indicated you had no intention of any form of civilized communication. And now you accuse me of starting a flame war..... um.. not sure how to tell you this as its not likely you will react reasonably. But you are presenting a very bad example for believers (if you happen to be one) and are demonstrating exactly the reason this threat was started. That there is a lot of unwarranted hatred directed towards atheists.

don't have a clue about my first post unless you are referring to the "dumbshit" post which is my first post to this thread. And if you are practicing for "framing a debate" you're on. "No understanding of social discourse" LOL You sound like a bushit... My communication is very clear and concise...You indicate hatred for atheists...I did NOT say I hated atheists, but merely produced my reaction as the poster had requested in the original post. I hate NO ONE with the exception of maybe Bushitler and I can't even call that hate...I more pity him. Everyone is free to believe or disbelieve whatever it is they choose to believe or not believe. I am not on a soap box and DUrs are inclusive or should be, and do not waste time labeling as you did me. :7

You can twist things all you want but your short little post is clearly a direct insinuation that atheists are dumbshits. I never raised the issue of hatred. But I suspect that most would agree that accusing someone of being a dumbshit is not exactly a positive attribute. You may not believe you hate atheists but you are clearly exhibiting aspects of intolerance. And that is much more in keeping with the attitudes of a Bushitler as you put it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I feel real pity for you. I really would like to reach out to you and find out what has angered you so. But I sincerely doubt that you would be open to such a conversation. You have made me sad. You have shifted the balance of tolerance and understanding in the wrong direction and many will have to struggle all the more to correct the imbalance.

Sweet dreams manipulation doesn't work here. I'm the master!:boring:

Its clear there is no chance of communication here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I enjoy studying mindsets that I do not understand. The bulk of them seem to be protests of anger against something or other. It seems to be his means of communication. There appears to be a deliberate bent to it. As if he was attempting to present a specific image to mask something. Or it could well be the result of other factors.

There are all manner of people in this world. Its not just for ourselves that we struggle to make this a better world. If we don't try to understand to some extent the motives and positions of those we disagree with then we will never be able to fully understand the society.

I'd much rather "learn" and "understand" dipshits in person.

Seriously. They're always, at least in my experiance, more civilized in person.

The mask gives them strength. No worries though. Not expending too much energy on him. Just a glance. I was curious about his motivation.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=26954

"Operator, gimme the number to 911!"

LOL

not meant to poke fun at the mentally imbalanced, but you are seriously whacked out! Unless this is just some dreary exercise in post-modernism :yawn:

Since I pretty much stand alone most of the time, there is no clubhouse assuming a clubhouse would have a membership?

Our ie atheists clubhouse. Checked. It was a typo. Corrected. Sorry for the confusion.

It explains where I am coming from.

That's all I think, I don't make any other assumptions. I'm an agnostic myself. I don't see any way to know whether there is or is not a god.

I even agreed that we should have an atheist and agnostic forum, a place to discuss religion and philosophy or scientific ideas bordering on religious thought openly and without the restraints of dogma. Lo and behold I found out the atheists were as dogmatic as the the strictest religious fundamentalists. See, I think ideas should be openly explored, no matter how outside the box they are.

I have found the Spirituality and Astrology Forum much more open to free thinking and different ideas than the atheist forum. Sorry.

We all walk our own path. Some have seen enough to narrow their search in some areas. Others still wish to explore those. If you value it then it means something to you. My suggestion that you may be barking up the wrong tree should not on its own change or define your personal path.

Peace.

There is a difference.

A person who believes "there is no god", is asserting something - that there is not a god. The burden of proof is on a person making an assertion to prove that assertion.

An atheist is someone without a belief in a god or gods.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.

The atheist points out that the burden of proof is on the theist to prove his assertion that there is a god. Absent that proof (which has never been presented despite many elaborate attempts to do so), the assertion is unproven and it is reasonable to reject it.

So atheists believe many things and theists believe many things, but atheists have (at least) one less belief than theists (the belief that there is a god).

except when I think of those hysterical 1950s educational films and newsreels that I keep on my hard drive.

Honestly, all that comes to mind is a disbelief in the existence of God and an absence of religion. I honestly can't think of any significant preconceived notions I have of atheism, because I've been around such a broad spectrum of belief systems. I have met many good and highly educated atheists and orthodox Christians, and similarly I have encountered very ignorant and cruel people of all religious persuasions or lack thereof. I find that religion manifests itself differently in individual personalities, often with little room for generalization.

Actually...I have to admit, due to past experiences and ideology, that I do carry a certain view of Pentacostals, Southern Baptists, etc., but I really do try to reserve judgment.

then I think Everyone has Free will to choose to believe or not.

And that's all it means to me. Well, that and I won't be hearing how I'm going to hell.

Means that someone's using their brain to think with and not just to keep their ears apart.

That's pretty much it. There may be a greater tendency to rationalism, and to analytical as opposed to intuitive thinking, among atheists, but that's a pretty broad generalisation which it would be pretty foolish to assume holds true across the board.

Belief and not thinking scares me.

know too broad a range of folks who are atheists to have the word conjur up any image.

But heck - no fun if one doesn't take the bait (one side or the other) and set up for some kind of grudge match...

n/t

Most people are either believe in a supreme God, or don't believe in the existence any form of supernatural or metaphyical.

In non-western contexts, though, it's less clear. Is a Buddhist who believes in reincarnation and Nirvana, but not in a god (as I believe some Buddhists do) an atheist? Or a Confucian (I'm ashamed to say I don't know what Confucians believe, but I would not be surprised if it wasn't clear whether they were atheists or not).

Assuming they're not an asshole or anything.

I don't go down the road of unproven assumptions with regard to whether people believe in a supernatural component to the universe or not.

I don't, but it's not like it's a religion to me. I don't believe, and I don't particularly care.

Now, if you want to get into a discussion of the effects (good and bad) of religious (or supernatural) institutions/beliefs on societies and peoples, that's a very big subject indeed.

Main Entry: the·ism

Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m

Function: noun

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

**************************************************************************

Then... Atheism means, without that belief. Like asexual means, without sexuality. Or A-Hole means, without Hole.

:evilgrin:

Sorry... in a weird mood today.

But you'll notice I capitalize the word because I respect the beliefs of others. There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good believers and bad believers. I'm completely puzzled about Dubya and his so-called religion. He favors the rich over the poor, doesn't seem terribly distressed about being the cause of tens of thousands (or more) deaths of innocent people, can't trash the environment fast enough. How can a person like that claim to be a Christian? In any case, I find the idea UFOs exist easier to believe than the existence of "God."

it refers to the concept of gods. A god would not be capitalised. God as in the god or Abraham would be a name and thus capitalised.

I'm in the habit of always capitalizing the "God" word - in any context - when chatting about atheism to avoid pissing off those who believe I (and all atheists) sacrifice hamsters at a living room altar. The message is: I respect you, you respect me.

God only knows.................

My best friend recently told me, "I am agonostic, not an atheist." I asked him why and she said, "because I don't like making affirming beliefs for things that are logically impossible to prove. Affirming the existence of god is just as impossible to objectively prove as affirming the non-existence of God is impossible to objectively prove, and atheists are too often just as guilty as christian fundamentalists when it comes to blind dogma in absolutists assersions about things no one can be absolute about."

If you don't agree with that sentiment, explain to me the difference between an atheists and an agnostic?

Sel

To my mind, an agnostic is more like a deist- they think something is possibly, even probably out there, but they don't know what it/she/he/they is/are. An atheist is someone who remains skeptical, having seen no evidence. In other words, if you told me you had an anti-gravity ray, I wouldn't say, "I believe you don't have an anti-gravity ray," but instead, "Without any proof, I don't believe you have an anti-gravity ray,".

Websters dictionary:

Agnostic
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So please note that the "kind of a deists" or "believes something's out there" defintion is not accurate or appropriate to the term "agnostic."

Also your definition of atheism would seem to be actually the correct definition of agnosticism, not atheism.

EOM

...professing lovers of reason.

By the way, I suppose I should add, the definition of "atheist" is: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

If you don't agree with that sentiment, explain to me the difference between an atheists and an agnostic?

If all you wanted were someone else's words, you yourself should have been more accurate.

-- and you should too.

It isn't just "someone" else's words. Words have meaning, and we should attempt to be accurate with the choices of words we use. If you want to use the word "tree" to refer to your toilet, you can do that. But you stand outside the realm of agreement and make yourself a deliberate obstacle to healthy and clear communication between parties.

In other words, I don't recognize the legitimacy of an "opinion" that directly contradicts the objective meaning of a word, or otherwise goes against reason or logical deduction.

Unless you have no problem in me calling you a Christian - oh but wait, I personally define Christian to mean "someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods."

Look, if you are to be taken seriously as a person interesting in intellectual honestly, critical thinking and reason - then please let's not go this way. You and I can go tit for tat for five pages in which case you were continue to look wrong because you are. We're all wrong sometimes. I think I'm wrong a little more frequently than the average person, but what can I do? :)

In this case, just say "look, you're right - I realize now that my take on the meaning of the word "agnostic" really isn't supported by the literal meaning of the term." It isn't that its a "shade" different. Your definition is the exact opposite of what the word actually means.

So no big deal -- do you have any idea how many times I've had to say "damn, your right, I was wrong on that" here on these boards?

Opinions can still be subject to what's called reasoned judgment. We all know that dogmatic absolutists are logically incoherent. But critical thinkers and rationalists also know that subjective relativism is also logically unsupportable. Not all arguments are the same, not all opinions are equally valid, and all opinions can be brought under the examining lens of intellectual curiosity and rational scrutiny.

I do want to hear other opinions - but I also want those opinions to stand up to scrutiny before I accept them as valid. It's nothing personal. :)

Sel

It isn't just "someone" else's words. Words have meaning, and we should attempt to be accurate with the choices of words we use.

Okay. So if American Heritage has a different definition than Websters, we're SOL?

In other words, I don't recognize the legitimacy of an "opinion" that directly contradicts the objective meaning of a word, or otherwise goes against reason or logical deduction.

Webster said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Look, if you are to be taken seriously as a person interesting in intellectual honestly, critical thinking and reason - then please let's not go this way.

That's quite a threat. Agree with me or else you're intellectually dishonest and an idiot to boot.

In this case, just say "look, you're right - I realize now that my take on the meaning of the word "agnostic" really isn't supported by the literal meaning of the term."

Or, you could just admit that you asked for an individual opinion when you really wanted a dictionary definition.

No. It doesn't work that way, does it?

I do want to hear other opinions - but I also want those opinions to stand up to scrutiny before I accept this as valid. It's nothing personal. :)

You have got to be kidding me.

I don't have time to waste on people no willing to admit mistakes or have reasoned discourse.

Every definition of the word "agnostic" disagrees with your own personal invention of a defintion for the term. This is not in any serious dispute by anyone.

Unless you have no problem with me calling you a Christian, becuase I personally choose to ignore whta the word actually means and give my "opinion" that the word means lack of believe in the existence of God - then I guess that would be fair.

But of course we know that words do in fact have meanings, and we also know that it is possible to correctly use words and incorrectly use words. Part of how we determine that is by understanding what the actual technical definition of the word actually is.

Of course as we all know, "websters" doesn't disagree with American Heritage or anyone else. The definition of Agnostic, comes from pretty clear etimology and its definition is agreed upon. When you choose to use the word "tree" to refer to your "toilet" obviously no one can stop you from doing that. But you are certainly frustrating communication, and hindering understanding by taking a word that has an agreed upon definition in english and choosen to re-write the rules for english speaking and communciation. Again, you can do that -- but you frustrate communication and breakdown barriers of understanding when you do.

Likewise, "agnostic" has an agreed upon definition in english - english has rules, languages are in fact rule systesms. Communication is in part built on an agreement to certain definitions for words. Certianly there is always room for interpretation and "nuance" in the interpreation of a word or words - but not for definitions that are fundamentally polar opposites from the established meaning of the word.

You defining "agnostic" by your own personal invented definition that has diametically opposed to the actual agreed upon definition of the term -- agreed upon in lingistics, agreed upon across every dictionary, agreed upon by those who study etymology -- is no different than me deciding that from now on I will call atheists "Christians" becuase I choose from now on to define the word "Christina" as meaning believing that God does not exist.

It's absurd - what's more you know its absurd. And you are just being too stubborn to simply acknolwedge that fact.

So like I said, forget it. I don't have time to waste on people who are so stubbornly unwilling to be reflective on their own thinking that the categorically refuse to acknolwedge an error no matter how obvious it is. I got enough of that from christian fundamentalits in my home town. I don't need to voluntarily deal with the same attitude here.

Every definition of the word "agnostic" disagrees with your own personal invention of a defintion for the term. This is not in any serious dispute by anyone.

I wasn't aware it ever was.

Unless you have no problem with me calling you a Christian,

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I've been called worse. Without having solicited it, I would normally ask you how you come to hold it. However, since that courtesy has not been extended to me, I am feeling rather uncharitable.

I don't have time to waste on people who are so stubbornly unwilling to be reflective on their own thinking that the categorically refuse to acknolwedge an error no matter how obvious it is.

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Synonyms: opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion

here's my position, and I'll try to justify why I think it means I'm an atheist.

I do not believe in any kind of active god in this universe. I see no significant evidence for one, and plenty for a universe without a controlling being (or beings), and for an earth without any design or control by any being.

I cannot rule out a god or gods who set the initial conditions of the universe. However, I do not believe they have had any further effect on the universe, nor do I believe we can know whether they can observe the universe. So on this point you might say I am agnostic.

Since someone who believes in gods present in this universe is called a 'theist', it seems reasonable to call someone who denies that concept an 'atheist'. However, I realise this might also imply a denial of the 'deist' position. Perhaps this is a 'weak atheist' position.

My partner, Will, is what he calls a "positive atheist". He is certain there's no god. Of course, he also characterizes atheism as a religion, which makes my left eye twitch.

But the way I have had it explained to me makes the "weak" atheism synonymous with the formal definition of agnosticism, so it seems to have little point beyond semantics.

However, your description doesn't quite fit that concepualization - so its interesting. Perahps we should call it atheist-lite :silly:

"believe there is no god". It's a subtle distinction.

An agnostic is skeptical about the existence of god. For an atheist, it's not even an issue. They have no belief in the existence of any personal god whatsoever. That's different from asserting that no god exists. No one can know such a thing.

Look at a more in-depth definition of agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

You say that for an atheist, its not even an issue. But it does not seem to be an issue for the agnostic either - so what's the difference?

Conversely look at a definition of atheism: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

The statement "a disbelief in the existence of deity" has the exact same semantic value as "belief in the nonexistence of deity" By that definition, it isn't a lack of believe - its a committed position. It is an affirmative statement that says I do not believe God(s) exist.

Agnosticism on the other hand, says "no one can know if God(s) exists, and since the entire discussion is therefore pointless and arbitrary, it is irrelevant"

For me to better understand you position, I'd have to know how you are using the word "believe."

Taken one way, I could see you as meaning "an atheist has no faith, does not worship, does not hold doctrinal claims or make value judgments based on any commitment to a god or gods." Certainly that is implied in both Atheism and Agnosticism, but I don't think that is sufficient as a core definition of the word - I certainly can't reconcile that with the formal/technical definitions of "atheism" we all have access to - it alone is insufficient, because it applies to both the atheist and the agnostic.

On the other hand, if you are using "believe" to mean "believe in the existence of" that's something different all together. The statement "An atheists has no belief in the existence of god. They do not believe no God exist" is a meaningless contradiction.

So do you mean "believe" as a statement of value, or do you mean "believe" as in believe that god's existence is a factual reality?

It doesn't have any odd connotations to me, just that someone refers to himself or herself that way. If someone chooses not to believe in a higher being, that's his or her choice. I usually find atheists interesting people to talk to, so I might look forward to some good converstation.

I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. What goes through your mind when you hear that? ;)

Someone who decides for himself or herself what to believe in, rather than clinging to a hive mentality.

I was offered Christianity as a child, and decided it didn't fit with my own personal world view. I believe religion provides valuable guidance for many people, but I'm able to live a good life and be a good person without it.

I was also raised post-war in the "duck and cover" scare. Communists were called "godless" at the time--it was a surprise many years later to find how many had kept the Russian Orthodox faith behind the Iron Curtain.

Marx and Liberation Theology ended up a perfect fit--Marx DID study in Lutheran grade school as a child. His teachings are economic renderings of Christian principles.

Many were traumatized by WWII and the Holocaust. More than our recent tsunami, it really challenged or destroyed people's faith. Thus the 1950's, coupled with all the scientific and psychological study was a time of professed atheism, sort of the tip of the Enlightenment mountain.

But in the Age of Aquarius, the need for spiritual connection is once again becoming obvious--even Harvard tells us so. The irony is that so many of the so-called "Christian" right, or even other heedless folks who might call themselves Christian, rarely go to church or study the Bibles they wave.

Rather than "atheism" reigning today as in the 1950's and 60's, I see the great swath of "secularism" across America. And what secularism seems to me to be is really "materialism" without any moral compass whatsoever.

The rule-bound faith many were handed as children is NOT the faith of the Gospels, of St. Paul's letters, of the transformed disciples. Read the real Bible, dear friends. The God who so loves us gives our lives true love and meaning.

This atheist is quite happy, healthy and well adjusted, thank you very much. It's only those who declare there must be something wrong with us (we're sad, lonely etc.) that make me angry.

Is that what they're teaching in churches these days?

liberation theology, the Holocaust, materialism, etc. But why do you mention 'the Age of Aquarius'? What has astronomical geometry got to do with spiritual connection?

atheism = lack of belief in a god. That is the most general version, although there are strong and weak types of atheism.

The last census showed around 15-20% of americans are atheists, not counting atheistic religions like buddhism. Most atheists arent vocal about their beliefs unless provoked by a theist, because its simply not worth the time arguing about. Any atheist who tries to rationally argue against the existance of god with a theist is in for a frustrating experience, because religion is by nature not rational.

The most absurd statement by a theist is always, "you cant disprove god's existance, so he must exist." Well, you cant disprove my invisible friend Ralphie exists, so he must exist as well. In fact, i believe in dragons and unicorns too, because no one has disproved them yet.

They started camping out in front of our church (Catholic) a few months ago. Every they're there for every 10am Sunday mass about an hour early and leave an hour after it's done. They own a small piece of property across the street where they had a sign made claiming that the founder of our church (Prince Gallitzin) was a phedophile. The sign has been driven over 2 times...and its not anywhere close to a road. They finally put up a make-shift plywood sign and drove steel pipes into the ground to hang it from. Someone came along with some gas and flares and torched it. I haven't been home lately but last I checked they hadn't replaced it yet. I did hear from my parents that someone slashed their tires while they were protesting and one of the protesters was "paintballed". I find it pretty amusing... My hometown is very Catholic and they don't tolerate this sort of thing well. I can just walk by and ignore them but some of the older ladies really take it personal. Picture a 80 some year old lady clenching her fists and being held back by her 80 year old husband...

I'm sure it was covered by the media.

Could you give us a link?

searched "Prince Gallitzin protest"

also "Prince Gallitzin church"

"Prince Gallitzin child"

"Prince Gallitzin molest"

Nothing.

Loretto, Pennsylvania...less than 700 people...that's how I know they're atheists.

Prince Gallitzin founded what is now St. Michaels Basilica and what later became the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. There was something in the news about either the paintballing or the sign back in December...try WTAJ TV10 news out of Altoona.

How do I really know they are atheists?....well the original owner of the property across the street from the church died... her sister inherited the land. He sister is also active in the Atheist station in the next town over. It all started with a sign...which was driven over, and it took off from there. As for the rumor of Prince Gallitzin being a rapist, its just a bunch of bullshit they started by connecting the founder of our diocese and the "priest child molesting" scandle thats been going on.

I'm not saying that all atheists are like this, but my experience with them has been bad. I respect anyones right to believe in whatever they want, or nothing at all for that matter...just don't try to impose your lack of belief onto me. I'm sure most atheists are just normal people....but these ones are wacked out...must be a special breed of them or something... :P

How do you know they're atheists?

"condescending" and "superiority complex" ...the whole "I'm smarter and more rational/logical than you" attitude...come to mind.

I know these attitudes aren't representative of all atheists, however this has been my personal experience.

And their lack of religion has nothing to do with it.

I'm glad the the Christians you know are kinder....

in conversation much more frequently than I, the Christian, do, then the condescending attitude comes into play. Not in any other topic do they display this kind of attitude.

Thanks for you comment, though. Perhaps the people of which I speak are smarter and more logical than I, however, one would think people would not express such thinking in a civilized conversation.

Again, this is based on my personal experience.

Logical base: "I cannot perceive it, therefore, it does not exist."

Whatever "it" is to you personally, the word "god" has a lot of social baggage. Maybe you just don't believe in what other people call god.

I don't believe in what many people mean when they say "god", so I am an atheist to them.

.........................................

Don't mistake a word for the thing the word is supposed, only, to refer/point to.

Hare Krsna! Hare Rama!

I'm an atheist myself and I always considered myself simply non-spiritual. But in recent years, I've come to see spirituality as more of a philosophy or world view than anything dogmatic.

I've come to see the world- the good and the bad,- as beautiful, and I have a natural place in it.

I consider myself very spiritual now, though I don't believe in a personal god or after-life of any sort.

I have often wondered about the relationship of 'spirit', as the term is used by theism to denote some externally imbued force within a human 'soul', versus the animal 'spirit', which seems to inhabit and animate EVERY live being on earth .....

As an atheist, I believe that one is used to imply the other ....

I believe that theists use the fact of the animal 'spirit', IE that which animates all beings, including human beings: that which defines a person in all there conscious and uncounscious thoughts and actions, that which inspires the poet, which forms the hand of the sculptor, which fills the mind of the composer, which lies behind the smile and the frown .... THAT 'spirit' is real ..... and is mistaken as divine by most all ....

Animal spirit exists ..... It roughly approximates all of our self and personality .... and ALL animals, not only humans, possess an animate 'self' which propels them through their day to day life ....

THAT 'spirit' appears to spring from the mind of the animal, a hard wired set of processes tied to sensory and cerebral functionality ... Even the slightest and smallest insect possesses a sense organ, and a brain to processes that sense ... and the insect will behave accordingly, seeking the prey as food, seeking the mate for propagation, seeking a rival to destroy .... ALL behaviors seemingly driven by 'purpose' and 'ideal' ....

Theism simply uses THAT 'real' spirituality, and attempts to explain it's origin as divine .... as if it were received by some man-god-force ..... as if a result of the impulse of an omnipotent being or thing ....

Yet, there is no evidence that such a thing really exists, or that human animation is provided through a divine source, even as there is ample evidence of the true existence of animated, 'spiritual' life on earth .....

One is used to confuse the other ..... an ignorant men, not knowing any better, readily accept the thesis ....

Less and less so, but still the confusion reigns as 'accepted knowledge' amongst the greater portion of society ....

I respect and appreciate our 'animated spirit' as human beings, even as I reject the notion of a divinely instilled 'spirit', or of a specific spiritual 'force' ....