Should I be an "Atheist"?

[Mr. Neil]

But I don't consider myself an atheist, particularly because I'd be a rather weak atheist if I started claiming to be one.

Well, ultimately we're talking about the claims of theists and how we mutually decide not to accept claims that have no substantiation.

 

It's skepticism, and there's nothing weak about that.

[Mythra]

Heh...has anyone actually witnessed Santa Claus squeezing down a chimney or flying through the air?  And if they did, I want to know what they were on at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's written down in lots of books that pretty much substantiate each other on this point. There were lots and lots of people who saw it (according to the things I've read).

 

Did anyone actually witness Jesus walking on the water? It's also written down in books. And there were not nearly as many witnesses.

 

Why believe one and not the other? Each defies the laws of physics.

 

The reason why is that there is a cultural, historical assumption that the Bible is truth and not a work of fiction. This assumption has been passed on from generation to generation. That assumption does not make it so.

[Amethyst]

Why believe one and not the other? Each defies the laws of physics.

 

So do Harry Potter and Superman, but no one believes either of them are real -- of course, their authors didn't claim "inspiration from God," either.

 

The reason why is that there is a cultural, historical assumption that the Bible is truth and not a work of fiction. This assumption has been passed on from generation to generation. That assumption does not make it so.

 

True. That's the main reason Christianity is still so popular. I realize there are others (i.e. brainwashing), but it's the main one.

 

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.

 

I agree with this as well, although I can be idealistic at times. But I don't think those categories are mutually exclusive.

 

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard or any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

 

This I agree wih completely.

 

It's skepticism, and there's nothing weak about that.

 

I will admit that my reluctance to take an atheist label is in part due to the discrimination that exists. That, and it would break my parents' hearts, and I'm also not willing to do that while they're still alive.

[Ouroboros]

That, and it would break my parents' hearts, and I'm also not willing to do that while they're still alive.

 

Your parents were Agnostic you said?

[Mike D]

For the most part I just tell people I don't believe in god(s) . When I say that people seem to react with sympathy, usually because I think they assume I still believe god exists but have just somehow felt wronged by him and refuse to acknowledge him. Of course that isn't the case, but if I don't feel like debating it at least gets them off my back.

 

If I say atheist, that's a different story. If the person is religious, most of the time I can tell the person's mind is busy associating me with words like "communist", "satanist", "anti-christ", "fornicator", "blasphemer", etc. Unfortunately (as someone else pointed out) I think most people get their definition of atheist from the dictionary, or even worse their pastor or priest. Which just perpetuates bad stereotypes. So to avoid the drama I just avoid saying I am an atheist.

[Mr. Neil]

which makes you an agnostic atheist.  agnostic has to do with what you KNOW or don't know.  Atheist has to do with belief.

 

Certainty deals with knowledge.

Eeeeh... not exactly.

 

Certainty has more to do with achieving a state of confidence through evidence, and evidence is not a synonym for knowledge.

 

For example, I could evidentially rule out another facetious mythical concept and claim unbelief with high certainty without having any knowledge of that being's existence. Let's take the magical invisible pink unicorn. No such thing could possibly exist, because two of its properties automatically contradict. The states of being pink and being invisible are incompatible, because they are both visual properties. It can't be both pink and invisible, therefore, there can be no such creature. Am I certain of this. Yes!

 

The generic non-religious god concept have several problems with it. For one thing, it's negatively defined as an unknown immaterial something that creates the universe in some mysterious, unknown way. The person making such a claim has no choice but to admit that he knows nothing about the god in which he believes, including whether or not this being even exists.

 

Immediately, the problem with this form of god should be obvious. If everything about this god is unknown, then what is the person even saying? This sort of claim is completely incoherent, and already warrants no further consideration.

 

The only positive attribute of this god is that it's a conscious creator, but there's no validity for such a claim, and there's at least some evidence that no such being could exist.

 

For one thing, the claim of the creator god is used to account for the existence of the universe. But if this unknown god precludes the universe, then he precludes space and time, which would make him inert. He'd need to exist in some sort of alternate state, dimension, or universe in order to do anything.

 

Basically, it cancels itself out, because you need a universe to account for God, and yet God is supposed to create the universe. That metallic scraping noise you hear is me sharpening Occam's razor.

 

Am I certain that there's no god, Christian or otherwise? Yes. Quite certain.

[Ouroboros]

Occam got a lot of shaving cuts, didn't he...

[imageownershipproblem]

I define myself to myself as an ex-Christian. No, I wouldn't have the term without this website, but it acknowledges and respects my past and "atheist" doesn't.

 

When I first deconverted, I called myself a "Recovering Christian", a term I pulled off a Tori Amos song, meaning as in a recovering alcoholic.

 

I stopped using it when people thought it meant as in fell away from the faith but saw the error of her ways and claims to have repented but shouldn't be trusted.

 

My son is an atheist as in thinks gods are a load of hooey, always has, and only pretended not to because he is a very social being and his only social outlet for awhile was a Southern Baptist Church.

 

It's nice not to have any more religious arguments in my house, but the kid and I are coming from two COMPLETELY different places and a one-size-fits-all label won't do; it trivializes both of us.

 

I don't have any friends, but I frequently hear "God bless you!" and the like when I give change to a panhandler, stop to talk about the weather with a stranger, etc.

 

I'm satisfied with the reception I get with comments like, "Actually, I don't believe in God, but thank you very much anyway. That was a nice thing for you to say."

[Amethyst]

Your parents were Agnostic you said?

 

Not exactly, my stepmom is a liberal Catholic and my dad is Lutheran, although he is a very liberal Christian and has admitted to not knowing whether god exists. But he still considers himself Christian, and I don't think he'll ever stop considering himself that because the rest of our family is very religious, except for one of my dad's two brothers and his other brother's ex-wife, who was the first non-Christian I had ever met.

 

If asked whether I'm religious, I usually just respond with "not very." Seems to work.

[Ouroboros]

Not exactly, my stepmom is a liberal Catholic and my dad is Lutheran, although he is a very liberal Christian and has admitted to not knowing whether god exists.  But he still considers himself Christian, and I don't think he'll ever stop considering himself that because the rest of our family is very religious, except for one of my dad's two brothers and his other brother's ex-wife, who was the first non-Christian I had ever met.

 

If asked whether I'm religious, I usually just respond with "not very."  Seems to work.

 

So that's why you rather tell them you're agnostic then atheist. I can truly understand that.

 

I'm not sure if I can tell my parents yet, and they are fundies, pretty much. And my siblings, uncles, aunts, cousines, everyone in my family too.

[Lunar Shadow]

So that's why you rather tell them you're agnostic then atheist. I can truly understand that.

 

I'm not sure if I can tell my parents yet, and they are fundies, pretty much. And my siblings, uncles, aunts, cousines, everyone in my family too.

 

I have told my parents that I have renounced xtianity but they don't know that I am an atheist...yet

 

 

yeah my whole family are fundies too (except my older bro)

[crazy-tiger]

You know what?  The popular definition of atheism is wrong.  Under definition 1 in the American Heritiage Dictionary, they blatantly define atheism as disbelief or denial of God, and even worse, definition 2 has it as "immorality".  They've left no room for the claim that atheists actualy make.  Another dictionary describes atheism as a doctrine.  Excuse me?  Doctrine?!  Since when does atheism have a doctrine?

 

See for yourself: Dictionary.com: atheism

 

Clearly the "popular" definitions of atheism are based on a Christian point of view, but it has nothing to do with the claims that atheists actually make.  An atheist is a person who does not believe in a diety.  Period.  Do not change this defintion, otherwise, you are creating a strawman of atheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, this is why I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines an Atheism as "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods"

That's it... no other definitions.

 

 

By the way... dis- is a prefix...

1. expressing negation: disadvantage.

2. denoting reversal or absence of an action or state: diseconomy.

3. denoting removal, separation, or expulsion: disbud | disbar.

4. expressing completeness or intensification of an action: disgruntled.

 

So disbelief ends up being the opposite of this... "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. • a firmly held opinion or conviction. • a religious conviction."

 

 

 

Have I mentioned how glad I am to be living in a country where religion DOESN'T rule?

[imageownershipproblem]

Have I mentioned how glad I am to be living in a country where religion DOESN'T rule?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can only speak for myself when I say that THIS is a warm fuzzy to get me through today.

 

I've said it before, but I hate reruns. I think what scares me most about the situation in my country is not the prospect of my own suffering and death or even the danger to the rest of humanity, and in fact the whole planet, but the terror that all of this will be for NOTHING and only repeat itself yet again in another 60-odd years.

 

Anywho, I prefer English to American too when it comes to language; it just flat out makes more sense.

 

Oxford rules. I have both the dictionary and thesaurus in print. iFinger makes it for Windoze and I'm still trying to figure out how to install dictionaries for offline use on my Slackware box.

[Druid]

Heh...has anyone actually witnessed Santa Claus squeezing down a chimney or flying through the air?  And if they did, I want to know what they were on at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My sister swears to this day she saw Santa. I shit you not. She's 18 now and obviously doesn't believe in him anymore.

 

On the other hand I also have a mate who beliefs he talked to God. He was at the Berlin love parade (very suspect, me thinks).

[Mythra]

You know what?  The popular definition of atheism is wrong.  Under definition 1 in the American Heritiage Dictionary, they blatantly define atheism as disbelief or denial of God, and even worse, definition 2 has it as "immorality".  They've left no room for the claim that atheists actualy make.  Another dictionary describes atheism as a doctrine.  Excuse me?  Doctrine?!  Since when does atheism have a doctrine?

 

See for yourself: Dictionary.com: atheism

 

Clearly the "popular" definitions of atheism are based on a Christian point of view, but it has nothing to do with the claims that atheists actually make.  An atheist is a person who does not believe in a diety.  Period.  Do not change this defintion, otherwise, you are creating a strawman of atheism.

 

I've demonstrated that by trying to claim uncertainty, you are actually claiming nonbelief anyway, except that you're telling me why you don't believe.

Actually, I wasn't speaking specifically about Christianity.  Actually, it's fairly easy to prove that Yahwey doesn't exist.  He violates the law of non-contradiction.  Therefore, there can't be such a being.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dr. Neil: I'm not sure I quite follow what you are saying here. What is the difference between atheism being defined as "disbelief or denial of God" and "a person who doesn't believe in a diety"?

 

I understand, of course, that atheism has no doctrine, and has nothing whatsoever to do with immorality.

 

Also, is it possible for you to explain why YHWH violates the law of non-contradiction in layman's terms? The invisible pink unicorn concept I get. I just am not sure how we get from that to YHWH.

 

Apologies if this is painfully redundant for you. If you want to refer me to an already established thread, that's fine.

[Mythra]

WRONG!

 

 

Atheism has nothing to do with certainty.  Either you believe, or you don't.  There is no middle position.  Certainty is not an attribute of belief.  Never has been.

If I ask you if you're a theist (i.e., one who believes in a supernatural entity), and you say, "I can't be certain that gods exist" then the answer is no.  It's an open-minded "no", since you're withholding final judgement barring further evidence, but it's a "no" nonetheless, because by withholding judgement, you are withholding belief, and therefore not believing.

 

When you say that you withhold belief due to uncertainty, you are telling me...

 

A. That you do not believe, and

 

B. The reason you don't believe is because of uncertainty.

Belief is the action here, and belief in gods is the subject.  Atheism is the nonbelief in a god, and you don't have to do anything to not believe in a god.  It's the claim that "I am not performing this action (belief)."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Neil: nevermind the first part of my question - I went through the thread more closely, and I believe that you answered it here.

 

But, about the non-contradiction thing........

[Ouroboros]

There is a difference between:

 

- I don't believe there is a God (an position of uncertainty)

 

and

 

- I deny there is a God (active refuting the existence)

[Guest Loki]

I remember ages ago watching this program "the atheism tapes" on the BBC. It was presented by this guy called Jonathan Miller. He basically discussed disbelief in god with various people (I think the most well known being the late Arthur Miller).

 

Anyway in it he said he really disliked the word "atheist". His reasoning was that we don't have a word (or at least don't use them) for disbelief in things like witches. This is because they obivously don't exist. Therefore using a word for disbelief in god in some ways validates the opposite position.

 

What do you think? Should someone who doesn't belief in god use the label "atheist" to describe themselves or just say "I don't belief in god"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I usually call myself a "Godless Heathen" or an Atheist. I have no problem with the word atheist; because I don't believe in any supernatural beings or gods and I find that the term atheist best fits what I believe.

[Guest Hannibal]

You know what?  The popular definition of atheism is wrong.  Under definition 1 in the American Heritiage Dictionary, they blatantly define atheism as disbelief or denial of God, and even worse, definition 2 has it as "immorality".  They've left no room for the claim that atheists actualy make.  Another dictionary describes atheism as a doctrine.  Excuse me?  Doctrine?!  Since when does atheism have a doctrine?

 

See for yourself: Dictionary.com: atheism

 

Clearly the "popular" definitions of atheism are based on a Christian point of view, but it has nothing to do with the claims that atheists actually make. 

Very well said.