Understand Atheism.

[Ixtab]

What is atheism to you?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." [Stephen F Roberts]

[Anima Eternae]

Love the quote.

[Joe McCarthy]

For many it seems akin to a nervous disorder. Most atheists I've met are more zealous than the most intense fundamentalists. They obsess over trying to disprove God's existence (often to the point of taking it personally if someone believes in God) and inevitably wind up falling back on claims of various historical figures being atheists; claims that are often bogus. Atheists, in this vein, remind me of homosexuals. They are in constant search of acceptance and self-justification, and falsely cite prominent personages to add weight to something that history's greatest thinkers have generally scoffed at. In sum, atheism is a cult-like belief and waste of energy.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Atheists, in this vein, remind me of homosexuals. They are in constant search of acceptance and self-justification,

Worthy of a rep point.

[Atlas]

I believe when we die, that's it, we are dead, nothing more, nothing less, and I'm 100% ok with that. I don't believe in ghosts and shit like that either, it's all bullshit to me. I believe people make their own way in life and they create their own situations for the most part and not a damn thing can be attributed to some fucked up higher power or some fucking dead jew with holes in his hands. It amazes me the amount of really smart people who actually believe in that shit. If by chances there was a heaven and a hell, I'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven but none of that shit is anyway real and there isn't one person on this earth that can prove any of this, there just isn't and that's because none of it is real. I challenge anyone to prove one ounce of any of that bullshit.

[Banat]

Atheism may be not an organized religion, but still is nothing more than a belief. And those proofs of God's existenece / non-existence are in a nutshell just word plays.

[Joe McCarthy]

The US Supreme Court has found secular humanism, a form of atheism, to be a religion in at least one ruling. It goes without saying that a deity isn't absolutely necessary for something to take on the accoutrements of a religion. Atheism meets the test, imho.

[jcs]

I believe when we die, that's it, we are dead, nothing more, nothing less, and I'm 100% ok with that. I don't believe in ghosts and shit like that either, it's all bullshit to me. I believe people make their own way in life and they create their own situations for the most part and not a damn thing can be attributed to some fucked up higher power or some fucking dead jew with holes in his hands. It amazes me the amount of really smart people who actually believe in that shit. If by chances there was a heaven and a hell, I'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven but none of that shit is anyway real and there isn't one person on this earth that can prove any of this, there just isn't and that's because none of it is real. I challenge anyone to prove one ounce of any of that bullshit.
I agree with just about everything you wrote, and yet still find the concepts of God, Heaven, Hell, etc. valid.
Wrap your head around that.

[Ixtab]

For many it seems akin to a nervous disorder. Most atheists I've met are more zealous than the most intense fundamentalists.I see nothing wrong with being extremely zealous, whether for religion or for irreligion.

They obsess over trying to disprove God's existenceNot in my experience.

and inevitably wind up falling back on claims of various historical figures being atheists; claims that are often bogus.Where? Can you give any examples of this?

In sum, atheism is a cult-like belief and waste of energy.Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

[Starr]

I believe when we die, that's it, we are dead, nothing more, nothing less, and I'm 100% ok with that. I don't believe in ghosts and shit like that either, it's all bullshit to me.

I don't know what I believe anymore, but as for what could be called "the supernatural" especially relating to "ghosts", I know too many people, especially in my family, who have experienced some weird shit to just totally discount it. Who knows.

Atheists, in this vein, remind me of homosexuals. They are in constant search of acceptance and self-justification

LOL. that is funny because it is all too correct a lot of the time.

[Excorcism]

I recommend reading William James's "Varities of Religious Experience" It's a good read and he basically says how we believe in Gods who are useful to us, no other reason.

[Billy Score]

I do not believe in a god, but more i do not care if i am wrong. I hate this trendy atheism where all pseudo intellectual liberal leftists have.

And infact, atheism is dangerous because it gives us excuses to behave in immoral and degenerate ways and engage in all sorts of vile behavior. In this, atheism concerns me. However, religion tends to hold back certain aspects of progress and is a threat in this sense.

As far as i see it, an atheist ruling elite over a large religious populous is ideal. This way morals remain holding those who need them in place, and those who make important desicions are not clouded or biased by some jew on a stick

[Helios Panoptes]

Atheism is simply a lack of theism. Atheism is not necessarily dogmatic, although it can be. I am an atheist, for instance, and mine is not.

JoeMcCarthy has a limited understanding of atheism, much like 99% of people.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Correct.

[jcs]

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.
To be an atheist in a theo-centric society is to have a belief or opinion on the topic of theism. It's not as if your a-theism, lack of belief in god, stems from a lack of knowledge of the concept of god, as in some imaginary society that has never had theism of any form; instead, you have consciously chosen to adopt the title 'atheist,' and assume, consciously, that there is no god, contrary to the popular stance. This is a belief, though implications of fanatical faith do not necessarily follow.

Similarly, any form of nihilism is a 'belief in nothing,' a stance that stands opposed to the prevailing beliefs and declares, "Lo and Behold! All this is false!" It is inescapable that the opinion that such-and-such is wrong must still be an opinion, or belief about, such-and-such.

I recommend reading William James's "Varities of Religious Experience" It's a good read and he basically says how we believe in Gods who are useful to us, no other reason.
Pragmatism should be removed from all matters of faith. James was a true Christling, the modern man par excellence,--Jewish to the core...

As far as i see it, an atheist ruling elite over a large religious populous is ideal.
"Nothing exists: all is permitted!" But what is permitted has no bearing upon the minds of those liberated by some healthy degree of nihilism: they do what is right, independent of all possible repricussions and free from all inhibitions--adherence to faith included.
...but the liberated mind--is that not the most religious?--or, perhaps, most spiritual?

[Joe McCarthy]

Where? Can you give any examples of this?

Again, I base my remarks on my own discussions with atheists, not necessarily out of any texts. Still, it is certain that atheists are prone to cite dubious examples of historical figures being atheists. Sundry lists of 'famous atheists' on the net will wrongly cite people from Ben Franklin to David Hume as atheists. Here's one such list:http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

I once had an atheist tell me: "I believe that you should not believe." Atheism is a belief that one should not believe in God.

[Joe McCarthy]

As I'm new to this message board format I seem to be having difficulty 'quoting' certain parts of posts. I seem to handle the option where you quote the whole message ok but just posting bits and pieces is troubling me. Can anyone help?

[Helios Panoptes]

To be an atheist in a theo-centric society is to have a belief or opinion on the topic of theism. It's not as if your a-theism, lack of belief in god, stems from a lack of knowledge of the concept of god, as in some imaginary society that has never had theism of any form; instead, you have consciously chosen to adopt the title 'atheist,' and assume, consciously, that there is no god, contrary to the popular stance. This is a belief, though implications of fanatical faith do not necessarily follow.

We need not believe "there is no god" to be atheists. We can very well withhold judgment on the issue entirely, which makes us atheists or non-theists. There is a difference between believing there to be no god and the absence of theism. Atheism need not assert any definite position regarding the existence of god(s).

[Felix the Cat]

As I'm new to this message board format I seem to be having difficulty 'quoting' certain parts of posts.

You can put

I seem to handle the option where you quote the whole message ok but just posting bits and pieces is troubling me.

whatever you want

Can anyone help?

between the QUOTE and /QUOTE tags

[Vindex]

Atheism is the logical conclusion to a thousand plus years of rhp style religious dogma. I would think that athiests would have a greater understanding of Natural Law, but most are just as rigid believers in the same style "cultural marxism" swill that christianity spreads just in a secular vien.

[jcs]

We need not believe "there is no god" to be atheists. We can very well withhold judgment on the issue entirely, which makes us atheists or non-theists. There is a difference between believing there to be no god and the absence of theism. Atheism need not assert any definite position regarding the existence of god(s).
This 'withholding from judgement' is itself a judgement: a decision to refrain from believing--for some reason. If the question has ever entered the atheist's mind--which it of course has!--the atheist has made some sort of judgement. "I won't bother my mind with this question." Very well. But there's probably some reason for this 'withholding'--a judgement which precedes (in this case, inhibits) judgement.
The only way someone can be an atheist and claim to be innocent of belief is to have never heard of this god-concept.
--an obvious impossibility, at least in the instances of every atheist in the world today.

I'm not sure you 'got' what I said. I didn't say that the atheist declares that there is no god. Man must make some sort of judgement about every problem before him--whether he affirms, negates, or doesn't give a damn.

.:lack of belief in god is still a belief about god, still a judgement or opinion, even if it isn't a belief in the non-existence of god.

[Joe McCarthy]

between the QUOTE and /QUOTE tags

Much obliged.

[Banat]

As I'm new to this message board format I seem to be having difficulty 'quoting' certain parts of posts. I seem to handle the option where you quote the whole message ok but just posting bits and pieces is troubling me. Can anyone help?

Check your PM.

[Ixtab]

This 'withholding from judgement' is itself a judgement:No, all babies are atheists.

... a decision to refrain from believing--for some reason. That could be called 'active' atheism. Atheism is not necessarily a belief, position or decision on which one bases everything else of one's world out-look. For me it is only a natural by-product of my ideology. Before that, atheism was a feature of my consciousness of which I was not aware (before the age of four, when I first knew something about theism).

.:lack of belief in god is still a belief about god, still a judgement or opinion, even if it isn't a belief in the non-existence of god.Evidence? Lack of belief in God can result from almost any philosophical point of view or be a feature of any philosophical point of view, and from about any gnoseological doctrine including agnosticism, or it can come from no philosophical point of view at all.

Most atheists I've met are more zealous than the most intense fundamentalists.That has nothing to do with the definition of religion, if that is what you are implying. Religion can (as well as not) be pursued with zeal, but so can almost anything.

[Helios Panoptes]

Perhaps, you missed my point, which was that atheist does not imply any belief about the existence of a diety. There can be little doubt that my atheism is cognitive. There is the possibility of noncognitivism in this case, also, but I happen not to be a proponent of it.

I didn't say that the atheist declares that there is no god.

I disagree.

you have consciously chosen to adopt the title 'atheist,' and assume, consciously, that there is no god

In fact, atheism is not "the conscious assumption that there is no god." As I said, it's more encompassing than that.

[jcs]

No, all babies are atheists.
They lack conscious belief in god, yes; but could they perhaps be closer to God, maybe...?
Anyway, if you read what I wrote, you'll understand that babies would fall into the category of 'atheists innocent of belief,' an innocence that is taken away immediately upon contact with the idea of God.
The atheist is not without belief, as much as he'd like to believe himself to be.

And don't fucking throw that conventional bullshit at me. I'm not presenting the conventional opinion that is given by every theist you've ever met, and would prefer that conventional atheist bullshit is used only against conventional theist bullshit.

That could be called 'active' atheism. Atheism is not necessarily a belief, position or decision on which one bases everything else of one's world out-look.
Oh, please, do quote something from infidels.org. I do so love their active/passive understanding of atheism.
No completely 'passive' atheist can exist in a theistic society. You have atheist-fanatics, the most active of atheists, who declare that god absolutely does not exist; then you have most atheists who just don't believe in god. But this lack of belief is still an opinion (though not necessarily one which declares, 'there is no god'). See previous posts.

before the age of four, when I first knew something about theism
Thus at the age of four, you were confronted with theism and became an 'active' atheist. Once introduced to a problem, one acquires an opinion or belief regarding the problem. This is impossible to avoid.

Evidence?
I conducted a study last week, and found that there is not only a statistical correlation...
'Evidence'? Read my post. I explained what I meant, which is something quite different from that which you argue against.

[jcs]

I disagree.
didn't mean, perhaps. :p
Though, actually, in the context of the quoted passage, I was refering to a type of atheist--certainly not the atheist who was never confronted with the concept of theism and was thus truly without belief.

[Helios Panoptes]

didn't mean, perhaps. :p
Though, actually, in the context of the quoted passage, I was refering to a type of atheist--certainly not the atheist who was never confronted with the concept of theism and was thus truly without belief.

I see. In my original post, I said atheism is not necessarily dogmatic(as opposed to denying it involves the cognitive faculties), so I thought what exactly I was referring to was implicit. On the internet, though, these things happen...

[Helios Panoptes]

I once had an atheist tell me: "I believe that you should not believe." Atheism is a belief that one should not believe in God.

Friend, I am an atheist and I am telling you that I do not believe that no one should believe in God. Proper theism is good for the herd.

[Banat]

No, all babies are atheists.

Are we talking about the same 'atheism' here? Does atheism include negative attitude towards religion, or no attitude at all? Does it actively deny existence of something that is best described as 'God', or is indifferent about the idea? In a nutshell: does it deny God / gods, or is just simply 'Godless'?

[Helios Panoptes]

Are we talking about the same 'atheism' here? Does atheism include negative attitude towards religion, or no attitude at all? Does it actively deny existence of something that is best described as 'God', or is indifferent about the idea? In a nutshell: does it deny God / gods, or is just simply 'Godless'?

Atheism is the absence of theism in all its forms.

[Ixtab]

They lack conscious belief in god, yes;I agree.

[quote]The atheist is not without belief, as much as he'd like to believe himself to be.What is his belief, exactly?

And don't fucking throw that conventional bullshit at me.I don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, please, do quote something from infidels.org.What have I quoted from infidels.org?

I do so love their active/passive understanding of atheism.If you agree with it, then why do you say in the next paragraph:No completely 'passive' atheist can exist in a theistic society.Why?

You have atheist-fanatics, ...Calling them names won't help.

But this lack of belief is still an opinion (though not necessarily one which declares, 'there is no god'). See previous posts.Your previous post does not precisely define this 'opinion'.

Thus at the age of four, you were confronted with theism and became an 'active' atheist.No, because an active atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.

[jcs]

What is his belief, exactly?
See above, where I discuss how one, when introduced to the concept of theism, develops some belief/opinion/judgement regarding theism. Disbelief, in any form, is a belief, whether it is 'active' or 'passive' (though, as said, one cannot be completely 'passive' once introduced to theism).

I don't know what you are talking about.
"Babies are atheists"--this has been used in every atheist vs. theist argument ever, or at least since the dawn of the internet age.

What have I quoted from infidels.org?
They have an article (or multiple articles) about active/passive atheism. You basically paraphrased the website.

If you agree with it, then why do you say in the next paragraph
that which I 'agreed' with I obviously do not. Sarcasm.

Why?
Once confronted with theism, one forms an opinion.

Calling them names won't help.
I'm differentiating Dawkins-type atheists, the anti-theists, from non-bulldog-type atheists. Because the active/passive differentiation doesn't work--for passive atheism demands complete ignorance of theism.

Your previous post does not precisely define this 'opinion'.
My previous posts do. As repeated before, I repeat again: when confronted with an idea, one forms an opinion of that idea. (but it would seem this is only the case if one actually understands the idea...)
Thus there can be no completely passive atheists in a theistic society.

No, because an active atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.
Upon learning of theism, you were no longer a passive theist. This 'active'/'passive' dichotomy implies that one is either:
-passive: ignorant of theism
or:
-active: forms an opinion on theism

At four, you came into contact with theism and, no longer ignorant, necessarily formed an opinion. I assume that you retained your atheistic stance, so you became an active atheist.

[Ixtab]

See above, where I discuss how one, when introduced to the concept of theism, develops some belief/opinion/judgement regarding theism.You asserted that, and you did not proceed to define precisely this 'belief/opinion/judgement'.

Disbelief, in any form, is a belief, ...Proof? You cannot make up your own personal definition for a word.

"Babies are atheists"--this has been used in every atheist vs. theist argument ever,I don't remembering seeing it anywhere, can you give me an example?

Once confronted with theism, one forms an opinion.Herein is the flaw of your argument. Theism is not God. One may form any number of opinions on theism -- that it is untenable, e.g. -- but one doesn't (necessarily) form an opinion on God simply by being introduced to the concept. I think it perfectly possible that one can lack a belief in it, in a neutral and objective manner.

Or take an analogy. There may exist a lump of gold in the bottom of an ocean on a particular planet in the solar system of a distant galaxy. I have now been introduced to that 'concept', yet I am sure you wouldn't deny that it is perfectly possible to lack a belief in its existence and not form an opinion/judgement/position on the object itself, whether it exists or no.

--for passive atheism demands complete ignorance of theism.To pursue the analogy farther, I lack a belief in the existence of a lump of gold in the bottom of an ocean on a particular planet in the solar system of galaxy HCG 87, neither do I deny its existence, and I am not ignorant of the 'concept' that such an object exists.

[Joe McCarthy]

Friend, I am an atheist and I am telling you that I do not believe that no one should believe in God. Proper theism is good for the herd.

I think you may misunderstand me. I'm aware that many atheists, in their sense of snooty superiority, think the ignorant "herd" should adhere to theistic formulas so as to promote docility. But that is not the point. The question before us is more epistemological, and whether the notion of God's existence is intrinsically true.

[Joe McCarthy]

This remark also merits attention:

JoeMcCarthy has a limited understanding of atheism, much like 99% of people.

This verges on an argumentum ad hominem but I feel compelled to point out that as atheists make up well over 1% of the population at this point, you are inferring (however unintentionally) that the large majority of atheists have little understanding of their own thinking; i.e. they don't know what they're talking about.

[Ixtab]

I disagree. I am an atheist, and I believe there is a certain truth to monotheism. The religions of Christianity and Mohammedanism impress me and I agree with many of their tenets, including their theological tenets, which to me have more than mere allegorical truth.

[Joe McCarthy]

This is kind of off topic, but what about Islam impresses you? Having studied it a great deal, I can only marvel that such a large number of people can adhere to such a primitive system.

[jcs]

You asserted that, and you did not proceed to define precisely this 'belief/opinion/judgement'.
Proof? You cannot make up your own personal definition for a word.
You know, you can open up a dictionary if you don't understand a word. I think 'belief' is probably understood pretty easily, though.

I don't remembering seeing it anywhere, can you give me an example?
Go into a Christian chatroom and start to argue with an atheist troll, and lead the conversation in that general direction.

Theism is not God. One may form any number of opinions on theism -- that it is untenable, e.g. -- but one doesn't (necessarily) form an opinion on God simply by being introduced to the concept.
Theism is the God-concept. One may form a number of opinions on theism, and in doing so one forms an opinion on the God-concept.

I think it perfectly possible that one can lack a belief in it, in a neutral and objective manner.
I sincerely doubt that you're object-ive.

Or take an analogy. There may exist a lump of gold in the bottom of an ocean on a particular planet in the solar system of a distant galaxy. I have now been introduced to that 'concept', yet I am sure you wouldn't deny that it is perfectly possible to lack a belief in its existence and not form an opinion/judgement/position on the object itself, whether it exists or no.
See, I'm pretty sure that any doubting of the existence of this object--is a doubting the existence of this object, which is a belief regarding the object. You may not believe it exists nor that it does not exist, but in questioning its existence, you have formed some attitude toward the object--a flexible attitude, but an attitude nonetheless.

To pursue the analogy farther, I lack a belief in the existence of a lump of gold in the bottom of an ocean on a particular planet in the solar system of galaxy HCG 87, neither do I deny its existence, and I am not ignorant of the 'concept' that such an object exists.
Passive disbelief in the far-away lump of gold demands complete ignorance of the possibility of its existence. Whispers and tales add up to a possibility of existence.

[Helios Panoptes]

This remark also merits attention:



This verges on an argumentum ad hominem but I feel compelled to point out that as atheists make up well over 1% of the population at this point, you are inferring (however unintentionally) that the large majority of atheists have little understanding of their own thinking; i.e. they don't know what they're talking about.

This doesn't concern me in the least. Who said that atheists, in general, are somehow above theists?

By the way, I wouldn't take my comment as an ad hominem. I have attempted to give you the proper definition, which includes noncognitivism, agnosticism, etc., as opposed to "atheism is the denial of the existence of god(s)." Why you've decided to bristle and not go along with the program is beyond me.

I think you may misunderstand me. I'm aware that many atheists, in their sense of snooty superiority, think the ignorant "herd" should adhere to theistic formulas so as to promote docility. But that is not the point. The question before us is more epistemological, and whether the notion of God's existence is intrinsically true.

I was being jocular. I knew that probably wasn't what you meant, but your post was easily interpreted that way.

[Banat]

I just stumbled upon this quote of Voltaire's. I must say I agree with it.

I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.