Who are "no religion" people?

[midniterider]

Something else concerning the "babies are born atheists" idea as mentioned above is the 'natural state' and the implication that natural state = good, right, the way one ought to be.

 

A baby's natural state is without a belief in God...

But babys are also born naked and uneducated.

Babies are also born uncircumcised.

The natural state is good in some cases. In other cases, not so much.

In any case though, atheism certainly is an acceptable thing to call one's self and should be without stigma. Christian demonizing atheists is crap.

 

I'm mostly just (over) analyzing this for myself but I thought I'd write it down for discussion anyway.

 

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

The natural state is good in some cases. In other cases, not so much. 

 

 

Yes, absolutely.  Starting without something doesn't make this good or correct.  

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

We're not really talking about the history of Atheism.

 

We're talking about the modern current definition of Atheism.

 

Yes, in fact we are talking about the history and greek root meaning of atheism. Why? Because it's very relevant in this case. 

 

Which case would that be? 

 

The case of the current situation where what atheism has meant from about the age of enlightenment up until recent years has been altered by those seeking, for lack of a better term, historical revision of some type. And it's centered around christians trying to change the goal post in order to demand that atheist's provide a burden of proof for their positive belief that god does not exist. And it also has to do with some sort of allegation that "militant atheist's" themselves has also shared in this historical revision. 

 

Now, I know christians are guilty of this historical revision. But what I'm not so sure about is who exactly these militant atheist's are which have taken up the claim of a positive belief in the non-existence of god. I'm curious because all of the so called "hard atheist's" I've spoken to or have heard from don't seem to want to take up that claim. It's not a claim that can be established, any more than the claim that god does exist. Both claims are essentially untenable. I'm temped to think it's one big straw man promoted by christians. However I'm not putting my bet on the table just yet. With flat earther's and everything else, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this denying the existence of god group may exist. The glaring problem being assuming that there is such a god in order to deny, which, has the undertone of christian's making the whole thing up. So I await further evidence and demonstration on that point. 

 

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

The etymology of a word often has little to do with what its modern definition is, nor does how it was used "historically" matter much in how terms are used today.

 

I'm not saying that you're not making a good argument, Contra, you're doing a good job. I see that. But I'm trying to a good job here as well. And I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet. 

 

I'm speaking from the context of the position of the atheist organizations, none of which I am a member of. I only have membership in the world pantheism movement, to be honest. But I'm an atheist in the historical and root meaning sense of the word, not this modern historical revision. I'm spiritual minded naturalist, agnostic atheist. These hard nose atheists don't necessarily understand me. But many respect me nonetheless. And I respect them as well. 

 

And I'll take up the cross of their cause, so to speak, and try and do it some justice because I don't very well like the fact that everyone thinks they can just straw man and shit all over these folks. I don't think they deserve that treatment. And I'll fight on their behalf. Because I think I understand their position very well. 

 

Again, this boils down to an historical revision on the part of some modern day philosopher's and the general public, really. 

 

You're argument about how some words have changed through time, I deem, is completely a red herring to the point being made. None of that matters one bit to this issue of the modern historical revision, attempt, aimed at atheism. 

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

All of the people you quoted are directly admitting that I'm right, even if unintentionally. They want to change the definition to something that fits their views, but have not done so. It's partially wishful thinking, and partially an attempt to change public perception to make it happen, but they have not been successful. Maybe they will be in the future, but it hasn't happened. Until then, I'm correct. Actually, I will be even after that does happen regarding how it is how it is currently defined right now, the definition might change in the future, but it won't make me wrong regarding how it is defined now.

 

This is incorrect. It's not they who are changing anything. The entire point is that modern people have taken up an historical revision, the atheist groups have provided historical context reaching back through the 1900's, 1800's, and 1700's to prove their point. I quoted that very clearly. Because you keep insisting that it's the atheist groups themselves who have changed the definition, when that's completely backwards and incorrect, as they make plain and clear. It's modern people changing atheism to mean a "positive belief that gods don't exist." 

 

Try looking closer. I suspect that you merely browsed the info in a haste to try and pin me down with a response. 

 

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

The post you've submitted actually supports my position on this more than your own if you actually read it. It's basically a post made up of petitions and op-ed articles campaigning to go back to previous use of the term, and that's an admission that it is not the current definition of the term as it is used today. They are literally saying they want to change it, but why would it need to be changed in the first place if the current definition already fit what you're arguing it does?

 

Of course it's an admission that modern people are using the positive belief definition today. That's the whole point of the accusation of historical revision. Today, again, people like you are misusing atheism to try and set up this fallacious angle where theist's positively belief, agnostics are neutral, and atheists positively disbelieve. The point is that if anyone actually is taking the positive belief in no gods angle, then they had better set forward another terms besides "atheism," because they're off into something else entirely. They're off into a positive belief. 

 

That is the point of the quotations. 

 

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I fail to see why it matters either way whether the current usage or older outdated usage becomes common. I see no good reason why it should be changed, but wouldn't complain if it did, but that hasn't happened.

 

 

How about because believing positively that gods do not exist deserves a category of it's own because none of the atheist organization are stupid enough to want to take on that burden of proof, condone such a thing, or accept it as their position.

 

That represents the polar opposite of theistic belief. Both untenable. And as the point was made, it can't both be a lack of belief and a positive belief. And the word means a not belief, a lack of belief. Some other description is necessary for the new thing, with it's own name, that has something to do with a positive belief involved with it. 

 

Trying to back peddle, and historically revise atheism to achieve that goal is ill founded, and ill advised per pretty much the whole of organized atheism. 

 

All I'm doing here is simply toeing the party line on behalf of the worlds atheist organizations. 

 

That's it. 

 

12 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Honestly, it seems like a strange thing to get up in arms about to me regardless of the historical origins of how it ended up that way. I don't really see how changing it benefits anyone and see no reason to support that it should be. It seems like a waste of energy better spent on other things to bother, and honestly the more specific definition simplifies things and eliminates confusion regarding who fits within the term.

 

As for all these people who want it to be defined differently for whatever reasons, wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first.

 

It's not that strange. I think I get why they don't want people misrepresenting atheism. It's a minority position. Do you know of any other minorities in the world who don't fancy being misrepresented all the time, demonized, slandered, and strawman'd constantly? 

 

I've always been one to stand up for and fight for an underdog. It's just in my nature. 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

Something else concerning the "babies are born atheists" idea as mentioned above is the 'natural state' and the implication that natural state = good, right, the way one ought to be.

 

A baby's natural state is without a belief in God...

But babys are also born naked and uneducated.

Babies are also born uncircumcised.

The natural state is good in some cases. In other cases, not so much.

In any case though, atheism certainly is an acceptable thing to call one's self and should be without stigma. Christian demonizing atheists is crap.

 

I'm mostly just (over) analyzing this for myself but I thought I'd write it down for discussion anyway.

 

 

This is a nice post. I'm glad that you understand the general points being made. This really is nothing more than me taking up the case of defending an under dog position. 

[ContraBardus]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, in fact we are talking about the history and greek root meaning of atheism. Why? Because it's very relevant in this case. 

 

Which case would that be? 

 

The case of the current situation where what atheism has meant from about the age of enlightenment up until recent years has been altered by those seeking, for lack of a better term, historical revision of some type. And it's centered around christians trying to change the goal post in order to demand that atheist's provide a burden of proof for their positive belief that god does not exist. And it also has to do with some sort of allegation that "militant atheist's" themselves has also shared in this historical revision. 

 

Now, I know christians are guilty of this historical revision. But what I'm not so sure about is who exactly these militant atheist's are which have taken up the claim of a positive belief in the non-existence of god. I'm curious because all of the so called "hard atheist's" I've spoken to or have heard from don't seem to want to take up that claim. It's not a claim that can be established, any more than the claim that god does exist. Both claims are essentially untenable. I'm temped to think it's one big straw man promoted by christians. However I'm not putting my bet on the table just yet. With flat earther's and everything else, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this denying the existence of god group may exist. The glaring problem being assuming that there is such a god in order to deny, which, has the undertone of christian's making the whole thing up. So I await further evidence and demonstration on that point. 

 

 

I'm not saying that you're not making a good argument, Contra, you're doing a good job. I see that. But I'm trying to a good job here as well. And I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet. 

 

I'm speaking from the context of the position of the atheist organizations, none of which I am a member of. I only have membership in the world pantheism movement, to be honest. But I'm an atheist in the historical and root meaning sense of the word, not this modern historical revision. I'm spiritual minded naturalist, agnostic atheist. These hard nose atheists don't necessarily understand me. But many respect me nonetheless. And I respect them as well. 

 

And I'll take up the cross of their cause, so to speak, and try and do it some justice because I don't very well like the fact that everyone thinks they can just straw man and shit all over these folks. I don't think they deserve that treatment. And I'll fight on their behalf. Because I think I understand their position very well. 

 

Again, this boils down to an historical revision on the part of some modern day philosopher's and the general public, really. 

 

You're argument about how some words have changed through time, I deem, is completely a red herring to the point being made. None of that matters one bit to this issue of the modern historical revision, attempt, aimed at atheism. 

 

This is incorrect. It's not they who are changing anything. The entire point is that modern people have taken up an historical revision, the atheist groups have provided historical context reaching back through the 1900's, 1800's, and 1700's to prove their point. I quoted that very clearly. Because you keep insisting that it's the atheist groups themselves who have changed the definition, when that's completely backwards and incorrect, as they make plain and clear. It's modern people changing atheism to mean a "positive belief that gods don't exist." 

 

Try looking closer. I suspect that you merely browsed the info in a haste to try and pin me down with a response. 

 

 

Of course it's an admission that modern people are using the positive belief definition today. That's the whole point of the accusation of historical revision. Today, again, people like you are misusing atheism to try and set up this fallacious angle where theist's positively belief, agnostics are neutral, and atheists positively disbelieve. The point is that if anyone actually is taking the positive belief in no gods angle, then they had better set forward another terms besides "atheism," because they're off into something else entirely. They're off into a positive belief. 

 

That is the point of the quotations. 

 

 

How about because believing positively that gods do not exist deserves a category of it's own because none of the atheist organization are stupid enough to want to take on that burden of proof, condone such a thing, or accept it as their position.

 

That represents the polar opposite of theistic belief. Both untenable. And as the point was made, it can't both be a lack of belief and a positive belief. And the word means a not belief, a lack of belief. Some other description is necessary for the new thing, with it's own name, that has something to do with a positive belief involved with it. 

 

Trying to back peddle, and historically revise atheism to achieve that goal is ill founded, and ill advised per pretty much the whole of organized atheism. 

 

All I'm doing here is simply toeing the party line on behalf of the worlds atheist organizations. 

 

That's it. 

 

 

It's not that strange. I think I get why they don't want people misrepresenting atheism. It's a minority position. Do you know of any other minorities in the world who don't fancy being misrepresented all the time, demonized, slandered, and strawman'd constantly? 

 

I've always been one to stand up for and fight for an underdog. It's just in my nature. 

 

 

I've already proved etymology and prior definitions are not relevant already. I've provided multiple easily verifiable examples that directly contradict that they are throughout this thread.

 

This is basically an emotional appeal, not a logical one. I don't see the value of bothering with it when it's ended up working perfectly fine. It isn't slanderous or derogatory anymore really. It's just more specific and that's fine.

 

The term's common usage and modern definition doesn't mean what you are claiming it does. You and others who subscribe to this can want it to mean something different, but that doesn't make it mean something different just because of that.

 

If you and the others arguing this can manage to muster enough support to change the definition, more power to you. I see no reason to think that's going to happen any time soon, or at all at this point to be honest. It's a fool's errand and doesn't really have any benefit anymore. I don't see why I should pretend it means something different than it does just because some people want it to mean something different.

 

Like I said, wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first. In this case, it's not really even shitty at all anymore. The hand has been filled and washed already. It might have been once, but the perception of Atheism has grown to be much less of a stigma than it used to be, and that image is improving all the time as far as the general population in the west. If anything, being a fundamentalist theist is the side that has a growing image problem.

 

At any rate, I don't really care about the history in the context of this as it doesn't matter in regard to how the word is perceived today. It's simpler and more specific now, which is actually better and less confusing.

 

I'm not getting mad about the fact that "naughty" became a negative derogatory term that painted poor people as evil and unruly and am not campaigning to have it go back to just meaning someone who has nothing. It would be pretty pointless, and so is what you're arguing.

 

I'm also not seeing how it provides any advantage to theistic arguments. You keep claiming that, but don't seem to understand that they will continue to make the same stupid and irrational arguments and claims regardless. Changing the definition won't change that. You sound as if going back to the old definition will somehow block that argument or make it not work as well, as if it has ever worked well to begin with.

 

It isn't really misrepresenting anything. It's just a word with a definition that has evolved. That isn't unusual and I see no reason to contest it at this point. It's more specific and clearer as it is defined now, and there is already another term that defines the group that it doesn't apply to anymore. There's no good reason to go back to the old definition anymore and whatever negative history the origins of the new definition has is water under the bridge at this point and is largely irrelevant.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

That represents the polar opposite of theistic belief. Both untenable. And as the point was made, it can't both be a lack of belief and a positive belief. And the word means a not belief, a lack of belief. Some other description is necessary for the new thing, with it's own name, that has something to do with a positive belief involved with it. 

 

Very nice post.  However I have to wonder is gnostic atheism really untenable?  Maybe you are thinking of it from the school of philosophy.  Let me put it a different way.  How many e-mails did you have to receive from the former president of Nigeria, the one where he offers to split $30m with you, before you were certain that it was a scam artist?  One looks suspicious.  Two makes it obvious.  I've had hundreds of those e-mails.

 

We don't learn about God from philosophy.  We learn about God because one of God's followers wants us to join a religion and pay tithes.  If the behavior of every religious leader in human history counts as a data point then that should be enough to use inductive reasoning.  It is in our best interest to realize God is a scam because every day there is another religious leader trying to scam people.  A prophet peddling his revelation has a lot of similarities to the psychic's act or the palm reader's routine.  You have to concentrate or have faith or become a follower.  In other words you have to lower your guard and stop thinking critically.  Every religious leader knows all about God but they tell completely different stories.  Everyone in our culture knows what God should look like but nobody has seen a photograph.  Doesn't that scream that the character is imaginary?  

[Joshpantera]

48 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

If you and the others arguing this can manage to muster enough support to change the definition, more power to you. I see no reason to think that's going to happen any time soon, or at all at this point to be honest. It's a fool's errand and doesn't really have any benefit anymore. I don't see why I should pretend it means something different than it does just because some people want it to mean something different.

 

Different? 

 

What do you mean by different? 

 

I'm saying that atheism means, "not theism." The definition, obviously, means "not god belief." Literally.

 

This isn't even what I'm saying, it's what the word atheist ITSELF says, it's what the atheist organizations are standing behind, and you'd be hard pressed to show that "not god belief," instead, means something else. It's you who are trying to change the meaning of atheism. That's the glaring point here. 

 

Linkage: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

 

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it. 

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

Not all non-religious people are atheists, but…

In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the “unaffiliated” into one category. The so-called “Nones” are the fastest growing “religious” demographic in the United States. Pew separates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.

A recent survey from University of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from “outing” themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science journal but a pre-print version is available here.

Even more people say that their definition of “god” is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they aren’t sure what they believe. If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist. 

Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.

Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.

 

Contra, you are completely out of tune with world atheism, basically. 

 

Agnostic is about knowing, you can't very well change that. Because you can't change the fact that agnostic means, literally, "not knowing," and answers only the question of knowledge. 

 

Atheism is about lacking belief, you can't very well change that either. Because you can't change the fact that atheism means, literally, "not god belief," and answers only the question of belief. 

 

If you can't find in yourself to just stand corrected at this point in time, perhaps it needs some more time to set in. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the whole of modern atheism, basically. I'm just relaying the message. Because I've read and studied the content. 

 

[ContraBardus]

38 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Different? 

 

What do you mean by different? 

 

I'm saying that atheism means, "not theism." The definition, obviously, means "not god belief." Literally. This isn't even what I'm saying, it's what the words says, it's what the atheist organizations are standing behind, and you'd be hard pressed to show that "not god belief," instead, means something else. It's you who are trying to change the meaning of atheism. That's the glaring point here. 

 

Linkage: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

 

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it. 

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

Not all non-religious people are atheists, but…

In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the “unaffiliated” into one category. The so-called “Nones” are the fastest growing “religious” demographic in the United States. Pew separates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.

A recent survey from University of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from “outing” themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science journal but a pre-print version is available here.

Even more people say that their definition of “god” is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they aren’t sure what they believe. If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist. 

Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.

Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.

 

Contra, you are completely out of tune with world atheism, basically. 

 

Agnostic is about knowing, you can't very well change that. Because you can't change the fact that agnostic means, literally, "not knowing," and answers only the question of knowledge. 

 

Atheism is about lacking belief, you can't very well change that either. Because you can't change the fact that atheism means, literally, "not god belief," and answers only the question of belief. 

 

If you can't find in yourself to just stand corrected at this point in time, perhaps it needs some more time to set in. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the whole of modern atheism, basically. I'm just relaying the message. Because I've read and studied the content. 

 

 

Not an objective source.

 

It also doesn't matter what any organization is standing behind. These organizations are made up of a minority at the end of the day. Their support could end up changing the definition down the line, but doesn't have anything to do with how it is commonly used and defined currently by the vast majority of people right now.

 

You could liken this phenomenon with the LGBT movement, an attempt at consolidation for solidarity and to boost the influence of each group politically. That's fine and I don't really have anything against it. Like I said, if it succeeds, good for them.

 

However, until the definition is generally accepted by the majority, the current definition remains the correct one. That actually is how definitions work, common usage is very important, and currently common usage does not support your side of this. Common usage within a language is what dictates the definition of terms. And right now, common usage for the term Atheist means an explicitly negative belief in the existence of God and active denial of it. Language is one of the things where the majority rules and dictates what is correct.

 

What you're posting about is politics. Propaganda basically. It is an active PR campaign. None of those things is inherently bad, but it hasn't impacted the common usage of the word in any real way yet. It could, but until it does it remains mere propaganda and political wrangling, and doesn't change the current commonly understood definition and use of the term as of right now.

 

Whether it has had the desired impact or not remains to be seen, but it doesn't really prove your point at all just due to the nature of what it is and will take time to see results in any meaningful manner regarding the common usage and definition of the term.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

Very nice post.  However I have to wonder is gnostic atheism really untenable?  Maybe you are thinking of it from the school of philosophy.  Let me put it a different way.  How many e-mails did you have to receive from the former president of Nigeria, the one where he offers to split $30m with you, before you were certain that it was a scam artist?  One looks suspicious.  Two makes it obvious.  I've had hundreds of those e-mails.

 

We don't learn about God from philosophy.  We learn about God because one of God's followers wants us to join a religion and pay tithes.  If the behavior of every religious leader in human history counts as a data point then that should be enough to use inductive reasoning.  It is in our best interest to realize God is a scam because every day there is another religious leader trying to scam people.  A prophet peddling his revelation has a lot of similarities to the psychic's act or the palm reader's routine.  You have to concentrate or have faith or become a follower.  In other words you have to lower your guard and stop thinking critically.  Every religious leader knows all about God but they tell completely different stories.  Everyone in our culture knows what God should look like but nobody has seen a photograph.  Doesn't that scream that the character is imaginary?  

 

I'll entertain this. 

 

And I agree that intuitively we can dismiss god as real. For reasons listed above and many, many others as well. Everything about it traces to man made ideas which clearly evolved over time. It has all the makings of a make believe story line character, and characters. For all intensive purposes, gods don't exist. Not the one's described in human mythology, anyways. 

 

What about the existence of some unknown god? 

 

That's where this untenable argument will lead. That's why it's a philosophical no, no to claim gods don't exist. Because we can't very well prove that something doesn't exist due to not being able to scour infinity gathering data of something's non existence. 

 

But, at the same time, that puts gods in the same boat as any other make believe assertion I could raise. I could make up the concept of anything I'd like and then claim that no one can prove that it doesn't exist. So let's put this technical, potential for existence in line with every other clearly make believe assertion which also can never be 100% disproven. 

 

The technically doesn't amount to much. 

 

Using your good sense should tell you that the concept of god is completely made up and imaginary. 

 

But that's all the more reason to simply be, "atheist." 

 

And by atheist, I mean to lack positive belief. 

 

This other thing, the thing that the atheist organizations won't stand behind, is more like, "opposite theism." 

 

It's not lacking belief, it's belief applied in the opposite direction. 

 

Again, I don't really know what harm there would be in such a belief, because of what I've listed above. It's just philosophically untenable due to the same exact technicalities that make believing that an intelligent, all powerful and all knowing Blue Marlin, clearly made up in my head, doesn't exist somewhere out to infinity beyond our ability to observe.  

[Joshpantera]

28 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

However, until the definition is generally accepted by the majority, the current definition remains the most correct one. That actually is how definitions work, common usage is very important, and currently common usage does not support your side of this. Common usage within a language is what dictates the definition of terms. And right now, common usage for the term Atheist means an explicitly negative belief in the existence of God and active denial of it.

 

What you're posting about is politics. Propaganda basically. That isn't necessarily bad, but it hasn't impacted the common usage of the word in any real way yet. It could, but until it does it remains mere propaganda and political wrangling, and doesn't change the current commonly understood definition of the term.

 

 

Here's one definition: 

 

Definition of atheism

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

 

 

Here's another:

 

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[10][11][12]

 

 

And another: 

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Apparently the atheist organizations have been getting through, at least to the point where this notion of believing that there is no god usually always gets paired with the traditionally held simple lacking of belief. Both are represented most or a lot of the time, where ever you look. And the more this is known, the more I'd expect to see change in defining atheism. And the atheist organizations are making it known across the internet. The less things are defined according to a christian bias, the more things will change as well. 

 

But the big question is who exactly, if not any of the atheist organizations, and presumably those who read and follow what they're saying about atheism and it's root and history, does this doctrine or belief that there is no god refer to?

 

According to the more well defined definition, it's a very narrow sense of atheism. Why? 

 

Because apparently we hardly have any one to point to in order to establish who exactly this is even referring to. Who are these atheist's, operating completely outside of the world's atheist organizations, who are adhering to a doctrine or belief that there is no god? 

[midniterider]

So what is a Free Thinker?

 

One literal dictionary definition of free means 'without restriction'.

And a thinker is someone who thinks.

 

So a literal definition of the term Free Thinker could be 'one who practices unrestricted thinking.'

Therefore... (haha)... A Free Thinker could believe in a 3 legged Jesus.

 

Unfortunately, the dictionary does not agree with me. Oh well.

 

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Here's one definition: 

 

Definition of atheism

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

 

Here's another:

 

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[10][11][12]

 

And another: 

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Apparently the atheist organizations have been getting through, at least to the point where this notion of believing that there is no god usually always gets paired with lacking belief. And the more this is known the more I'd expect to see change in defining atheism.

 

But the big question is who exactly, if not any of the atheist organizations, this doctrine or belief that there is no god refers to? According the more well defined definition, calls it a very narrow sense. Why? 

 

Because apparently we hardly have any one to point to in order to establish who exactly this is even referring to. Who are these atheist's adhering to a doctrine or belief that there is no god? 

 

Sources would be nice. Doesn't have to be a link or anything, but identifying which dictionary sources these are with a name at least. Citations don't mean much if they can't be verified.

 

These all support my side of this as they all expressly posit a negative belief and disbelief in the existence of a God, that one does not exist. The usage of disbelief in the context of these definitions "disbelief in the existence of" implies a strong negative, and that the belief is expressly that a God does not exist, not uncertainty regarding whether one does or not.

 

Agnostics do not posit that a God "does not exist" necessarily or that "there is no God", or even that the existence of a God is not likely. Many Agnostics are uncertain whether one exists or not and do not believe in a specific God, but not that one doesn't exist either even if they don't feel strongly enough to expressly say they believe in one. That isn't a negative position. Many of them believe there possibly could be a God, even that it is likely, but are uncertain enough that they can't strictly say that one does. That's not disbelief, and it's not theism either.

 

"I don't know" does not mean "I don't believe it".

 

Also, the red synonyms you've emphasized specifically say "archaic" which is exactly what I said earlier in the thread in regard to that usage. I literally used the term archaic in reference to that, so again, this shows I'm correct.

[Joshpantera]

49 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

These basically support my side of this as they all expressly posit a negative belief and disbelief in the existence of a God, that one does not exist.

 

And the argument that I raised points out the question of how it can both be a lack of belief and a positive belief. Of the two, only the lack of belief has historical value. And is the one that the majority of atheists claim. At the end of this, the positive belief that god doesn't exist is shown to be the minority of atheist's position, that's considering that it even is a position at all, which, has yet to be substantiated. 

 

Which then answers your next assertion: 

 

49 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Agnostics do not posit that a god "does not exist" necessarily or that "there is no God".

 

Neither do the majority of atheist's in the world either, apparently. That's some sort of minority position among atheists, again, considering that it even exists. 

 

49 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Many Agnostics are uncertain whether one exists or not and do not believe in a specific God, but not that one doesn't exist either even if they don't feel strongly enough to say they believe in one. That isn't a negative position.

 

Negative just means not positive in this sense. It means lacking, for all intensive purposes. Again, who you're describing above are agnostic  atheists. Own it. Call it what it is. There's no reason to pussy around aside from shying away from the reality of the situation. People are resisting the atheist label, even when it squarely applies to their world view. Because it's been demonized by christians. We're here to encourage people leaving christianity. 

 

This is a major point to be made known to the people we are supposedly here to help and encourage. 

 

49 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Many of them believe there possibly could be a God, but are uncertain enough that they can't strictly say that one does. That's not disbelief, and it's not theism either.

 

There could also be a celestial, Blue Marlin in another dimension. So what? 

 

If someone believed my claim was possible, but they were uncertain enough that they can't strictly say that one does exist, is that not disbelief, or put more simply, a lack of belief in my claim? 

 

Everyone's on even ground in terms of not knowing. That goes all the way around, because my claim is beyond knowing 100% Even considering the fact that I just made it up, and told you that I just made it up. 

 

I may have guessed at, or made something up that turns out to be real somewhere out there. 

 

So everyone is necessarily agnostic about the celestial Blue Marlin. And then pair off in different directions according to whether they believe it on faith, or whether they don't believe it for whatever reason. 

 

There are only, technically, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists in the world by simple default. 

 

We're all, necessarily, agnostic due to the inherent lack of knowledge which is everyone's starting point. 

 

Again, not knowing and not believing fits. 

 

From there, we go our different ways for different reasons. But we always, necessarily, retain the agnostic position due the fact that none of this is 100% certain. 

 

This keeps coming back to how fallacious it is to claim only agnosticism (lack of knowledge) as if it stands alone by itself without being paired with either belief or not belief. Knowledge is knowledge, belief is belief. 

 

These are technicalities that the atheist organizations are right on top of, and which are up front and promoted. They aren't easily changed or dismissed, either. 

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Again, I don't really know what harm there would be in such a belief, because of what I've listed above. It's just philosophically untenable due to the same exact technicalities that make believing that an intelligent, all powerful and all knowing Blue Marlin, clearly made up in my head, doesn't exist somewhere out to infinity beyond our ability to observe.  

 

 

That is the way I remember it from Phil 101.  Let me admit right now that I am terrible at philosophy.  I'm sure it shows.

 

However the wealth of human knowledge is not fixed in stone.  Science is constantly laying out models that later on get overturned when we have new data.  When we say we know something that isn't a declaration that our knowledge won't change down the road.  Rather it is a working model that best fits the data we have now.  So if your Blue Marlin shows up tomorrow that will overturn our previous knowledge just like discovering the Higgs boson particle overturned some established models we had in physics.  To say that we know something is not an absolute claim.  It means we have a model that really fits the data well and we will adjust that model or discard it should new data overturn it.

 

Now in the case of God the data comes from cultural anthropology, where can track that humans have invented thousands of gods, and also behavioral science, where we can track how humans use religion to control each other.  Yes, theoretically it could be the Blue Marlin.  But not being able to rule something out does not give it a foundation.  Not only are God and the Blue Marlin unfounded but there is no observation that even suggests them as answers.  They deserve no more respect than a hypothesis.  However if either did exist then their powerful nature would overturn much of what we know about physics and that would require a great deal of evidence to establish.  So until the day we have that evidence these concepts are unreasonable.  Knowledge ignores unreasonable objections.

 

Now, I'm not asking you to take the plunge and become a gnostic atheist.  Rather I am just hoping that what I laid out looks a bit more solid than a religion.

 

[ContraBardus]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

And the argument that I raised points out the question of how it can both be a lack of belief and a positive belief. Of the two, only the lack of belief has historical value. And is the one that the majority of atheists claim. At the end of this, the positive belief that god doesn't exist is shown to be the minority of atheist's position, that's considering that it even is a position at all, which, has yet to be substantiated. 

 

Which then answers your next assertion: 

 

 

Neither do the majority of atheist's in the world either, apparently. That's some sort of minority position among atheists, again, considering that it even exists. 

 

 

Negative just means not positive in this sense. It means lacking, for all intensive purposes. Again, who you're describing above are agnostic  atheists. Own it. Call it what it is. There's no reason to pussy around aside from shying away from the reality of the situation. People are resisting the atheist label, even when it squarely applies to their world view. Because it's been demonized by christians. We're here to encourage people leaving christianity. 

 

This is a major point to be made known to the people we are supposedly here to help and encourage. 

 

 

There could also be a celestial, Blue Marlin in another dimension. So what? 

 

If someone believed my claim was possible, but they were uncertain enough that they can't strictly say that one does exist, is that not disbelief, or put more simply, a lack of belief in my claim? 

 

Everyone's on even ground in terms of not knowing. That goes all the way around, because my claim is beyond knowing 100% Even considering the fact that I just made it up, and told you that I just made it up. 

 

I may have guessed at, or made something up that turns out to be real somewhere out there. 

 

So everyone is necessarily agnostic about the celestial Blue Marlin. And then pair off in different directions according to whether they believe it on faith, or whether they don't believe it for whatever reason. 

 

There are only, technically, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists in the world by simple default. 

 

We're all, necessarily, agnostic due to the inherent lack of knowledge which is everyone's starting point. 

 

Again, not knowing and not believing fits. 

 

From there, we go our different ways for different reasons. But we always, necessarily, retain the agnostic position due the fact that none of this is 100% certain. 

 

This keeps coming back to how fallacious it is to claim only agnosticism (lack of knowledge) as if it stands alone by itself without being paired with either belief or not belief. Knowledge is knowledge, belief is belief. 

 

These are technicalities that the atheist organizations are right on top of, and which are up front and promoted. They aren't easily changed or dismissed, either. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's neither. The argument that it must be belief or non-belief is a false dichotomy.

 

"Negative just means not positive..." Bullshit.

 

The rest of your post relies on the idea that it must be one or the other, which is false.

 

Agnosticism can stand on its own. It can be null, which is exactly what the position I've laid out would be. It is not belief or disbelief, but a null position.

 

[florduh]

Okay, I don't believe in a god but please don't say that I'm not a theist. That would make me an atheist! 

[midniterider]

"Negative just means not positive in this sense. It means lacking, for all intensive purposes. Again, who you're describing above are agnostic  atheists. Own it. Call it what it is. There's no reason to pussy around aside from shying away from the reality of the situation. People are resisting the atheist label, even when it squarely applies to their world view. Because it's been demonized by christians. We're here to encourage people leaving christianity."

 

.......

 

How about if you want to call yourself an atheist, call yourself an atheist. And if you don't want to call yourself an atheist, then don't.

[mymistake]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 How about if you want to call yourself an atheist, call yourself an atheist. And if you don't want to call yourself an atheist, then don't.

 

 

Ding ding ding!  We have a winner!

 

 

Sage level advise.

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

It's neither. The argument that it must be belief or non-belief is a false dichotomy.

 

"Negative just means not positive..." Bullshit.

 

I don't know, this sounds a bit like an emotion response. 

 

The simple answer is what the atheist organizations have clearly outlined, agnostic is about knowledge, theism is about belief. 

 

7 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

The rest of your post relies on the idea that it must be one or the other, which is false.

 

In terms of knowledge, there is knowing and not knowing. One or the other. 

 

In terms of belief, there is belief and not belief. 

 

Which of the two are false? Are both false? 

 

7 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Agnosticism can stand on its own. It can be null, which is exactly what the position I've laid out would be. It is not belief or disbelief, but a null position.

 

I don't disagree that you and many other people think of it that way. You obviously do, and you're obviously invested in trying to keep that interpretation of the word alive. In fact, many people are drawn to the idea of not taking either side when it comes to belief and not belief. Which is understandable because some people don't want to commit to either left or right wing politics either. It's really the same difference. They want a null, centered, or middle ground. I often feel that way about politics. 

 

But we're arguing technicalities here. 

 

And I'm siding with the atheist organizations interpretation of the very words themselves, one dealing with belief, the other dealing with not belief. One dealing with knowledge, the other dealing with not knowledge. That's very straight forward. 

 

Positive belief that gods do not exist, they say, deserves it's own label they say. It doesn't reflect a simple lack of belief. 

 

And perhaps a null position, deserves it's own label too, seeing as how agnostic has to do with knowledge and not belief. 

 

Shouldn't the people who want to side with null make a label the literally describes a position of null belief? So that it's squarely aimed at belief, and not using a word about knowledge to describe a claim about belief? 

 

Something to the tune of "null-theism?" 

 

Because the people you are describing are literally agnostic-null theist's. 

 

That's very literal, very to the point when describing both the areas of (1) knowledge and (2) belief. 

 

I couldn't mistake that label for anything other than what the two combined terms literally mean. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

"Negative just means not positive in this sense. It means lacking, for all intensive purposes. Again, who you're describing above are agnostic  atheists. Own it. Call it what it is. There's no reason to pussy around aside from shying away from the reality of the situation. People are resisting the atheist label, even when it squarely applies to their world view. Because it's been demonized by christians. We're here to encourage people leaving christianity."

 

.......

 

How about if you want to call yourself an atheist, call yourself an atheist. And if you don't want to call yourself an atheist, then don't.

 

I do call myself an atheist. Because I don't believe in the existence of mythological gods. 

 

Do you believe in the existence of mythological gods? 

[plastivore]

Quote

During my time with christianity I became extremely disillusioned by what people called themselves. Many people say they're 'christian' but are extremely unrepentant, unforgiving, and unethical. Given that actions speak louder than words, sometimes I think atheists who live in accordance to Jesus' teachings can be argued as being 'christian' even though they don't identify as such. Besides, different people mean different things by various, abstract words and concepts like 'God'. Over time, instead of figuring out what to label myself and instead of playing no-true-scotsman about a particular definition of an identification, I tended to adjust my language to the particular person I am speaking to. For example, if I was speaking to a christian-identifying person whose life and actions I admire, I might say "I believe in God" meaning "I identify and agree with the personification and abstraction of goodness that I suspect you mean when you say the word 'God'." Meanwhile, if I was talking to a hellfire-and-brimstone control-freak, I might say "I don't believe in God," as in "I'm not falling for your threatening, intimidating narrative that is clearly designed for your self-elevation and control." To a third person watching me in the two conversations I might look like I'm simply being inconsistent. If you, megasamurai, read all this and believe that I'm an agnostic in denial, then I respect that and don't mind it. When there's no specific person I'm speaking to, words like 'God' have ambiguous meaning to me, and so I would click 'no religion'.

 

Hmmm.  I would guess a fair number of nones might relate to this.  I'm a none in the sense of not belonging to a congregation, but being a believer in God/god, and I think the spirit of this way of relating to people is honest and consistent.  But your comment on hypocrisy really hits the nail on the head in an important way for this conversation.  The interesting thing about nones to me is the uptick in nones.  I've read lots of reasons, access to more information about other religions and scientific phenomena seems to be chief among them.  I also think it's the 'christian' right's doing, which the quote above brings to mind (for me).  I don't consider the 'christian' right to be Christian in the first place.  But I do think for generally altruistic, tolerant people, they have caused incalculable damage to the reputation of Christianity's brand by being the loudest and vilest voice in the room for the past three decades.  You see it in the way people on this forum were abused in fundy churches, all the scandals surrounding supposedly pious "men of god."  (I'm not saying any religious group is perfect - they're only as good as the people in them - but I have little respect for the fundy right's 'christianity' and I know I am not alone on this) There's a big disconnect in the social policies the loud right wing republican church advocates and what I believe to be the generally tolerant and progressive attitudes of people under 40.  It would be hard for anyone not to want to dissociate themselves from it on some level - either by not affiliating with a congregation or not believing.  Given that more progressive denominations don't do much recruitment and tend to stay out of the limelight, it's easy for me to see how public perception of Christianity has been shaped by its worst practitioners.  I can see that being a big reason for the gap in the number of nones versus people that don't believe.

[ContraBardus]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I do call myself an atheist. Because I don't believe in the existence of mythological gods. 

 

Do you believe in the existence of mythological gods? 

 

Is there another kind?

[ContraBardus]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I don't know, this sounds a bit like an emotion response. 

 

The simple answer is what the atheist organizations have clearly outlined, agnostic is about knowledge, theism is about belief. 

 

 

In terms of knowledge, there is knowing and not knowing. One or the other. 

 

In terms of belief, there is belief and not belief. 

 

Which of the two are false? Are both false? 

 

 

I don't disagree that you and many other people think of it that way. You obviously do, and you're obviously invested in trying to keep that interpretation of the word alive. In fact, many people are drawn to the idea of not taking either side when it comes to belief and not belief. Which is understandable because some people don't want to commit to either left or right wing politics either. It's really the same difference. They want a null, centered, or middle ground. I often feel that way about politics. 

 

But we're arguing technicalities here. 

 

And I'm siding with the atheist organizations interpretation of the very words themselves, one dealing with belief, the other dealing with not belief. One dealing with knowledge, the other dealing with not knowledge. That's very straight forward. 

 

Positive belief that gods do not exist, they say, deserves it's own label they say. It doesn't reflect a simple lack of belief. 

 

And perhaps a null position, deserves it's own label too, seeing as how agnostic has to do with knowledge and not belief. 

 

Shouldn't the people who want to side with null make a label the literally describes a position of null belief? So that it's squarely aimed at belief, and not using a word about knowledge to describe a claim about belief? 

 

Something to the tune of "null-theism?" 

 

Because the people you are describing are literally agnostic-null theist's. 

 

That's very literal, very to the point when describing both the areas of (1) knowledge and (2) belief. 

 

I couldn't mistake that label for anything other than what the two combined terms literally mean. 

 

 

 

I don't have an emotional attachment to it. I'm just arguing common current usage, which is what a definition is. It's commonly defined by most people as an explicitly negative position that states that "there is no God" to varying degrees of certainty.

 

This isn't civil rights where a minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, in regard to language and it's use, the majority rules. It kind of has to be that way for language to function.

 

That doesn't mean it doesn't evolve and change, but it's not something that happens quickly.

 

I also see no reason to think that positive and negative are the only two options. Null is a viable one and neither.

 

I don't really care what an "organization" says. I kind of got out of that mess a while back and have no interest in revisiting it. I'm not arguing it's the same, but just that I have no loyalty to "Atheist organizations" and I see no reason why I should accept their word for it over how the term is commonly defined. I don't really have a problem with it as it is as it's clearer anyway.

 

That all seems very propaganda-ish with political motivations behind it. That's not necessarily bad, but it does make me cautious regarding accepting it. I really don't see why I should accept it on face value just because some "official organization" said so.

 

If they can manage to change the common definition, I don't have a problem with that. It's not like it would be unusual, but trying to hurry the process if it does happen doesn't make their definition the correct one now. They haven't managed it yet, and until they do their definition isn't really the commonly accepted one, and I see no reason to consider it correct.

 

You are right that we're arguing technicalities. It's not a huge deal really, but I'm on the side of the majority here for the simple reason that it is how language works. If what you're arguing for becomes the common usage, I won't have a problem with it. I don't see any reason to think that it has though.

[mymistake]

Right now, all across our country, religious fanatic parents are being cruel to their own children because of vicious lies that Christianity has spread about atheism.  It causes great suffering.  And the victims are in a vulnerable position, economically and emotionally.  And the abuse is coming from the people someone should be able to trust.  Secular children have to hide their thoughts because their parents' minds have been brainwashed to hate. 

 

Go ahead and stubbornly pretend you can't see the point.  Make up false accusations.  Pat yourself of the back for winning.  Throw together a loose collection of ideas and call it a "proof".  But this stuff isn't a game.  It's real.

 

[midniterider]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I do call myself an atheist. Because I don't believe in the existence of mythological gods. 

 

Do you believe in the existence of mythological gods? 

 

Mythical gods? No. Other gods, possibly. I don't necessarily believe that I am a humanoid walking around in a universe, either. I might actually be the whole universe itself. I'm not sure and it's probably not that important because I am not really pursuing truth.  Just enjoying interesting ideas. So I like to be able to openly consider a possibility without some nagging in the back of my mind saying, "You're an atheist so that can't be possible." I've already dealt with the nagging in the back of my mind saying, "Jesus would not approve of that thought." I own my thoughts, my thoughts don't own me (That's my hope, at least). At times I do commune with beings of my own design (read 'imaginary' to atheists - haha). Whether they are gods or simply immaterial entities or just make believe, I enjoy it from time to time. Emotion and imagination are as valuable as science and facts to me.

 

I would rather not dedicate my life to a label, or for the purpose of furthering a label. I appreciate that you want to see atheism flourish and lose the stigma and be respected by people. That is a noble pursuit. People ought to live and let live regarding religion (or non-religion) But the atheist label just isn't for me. I discovered this after reading a good portion of Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I do understand that I don't have to live life like Dawkins does to be an atheist, but it just seems that for me, atheism is limiting. Perhaps for you, atheism is liberating.

 

I'm not on the fence about Gods, I just choose to embrace whatever I want to embrace. Some feel a decision MUST BE MADE with regard to one's belief or non-belief. I disagree.

 

It's just fun to banter back and forth and point out each other's seeming contradictions in their beliefs and world views. I'm sure I provide lots of contradictory material here. on Ex-c.