• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Atheism

Surely that's the reason why churches host bingo nights and bake sales. Come for the mingling, stay for the praying.
 
Two years ago Shannon Morgan of New Jersey ordered a vanity license plate that read 8THEIST. State officials denied her order, explaining that it might be considered offensive. She sued and won. The state Motor Vehicle Commission will also have to pay Morgan $75,000 to resolve her claim. They don't give a damn, because it's taxpayer money that they'll use to pay for their foolishness. Everyone in the chain of command who rejected the license plate request should be fired and barred from working for the government ever again, and forced to wear a colander on their head for the term of their natural lives, if you ask me.

Bonus: as a result of the lawsuit, the DMV must also issue the following vanity plates or "combinations that are substantially similar": SECULAR, RATIONL, HUMANST, ATHEISM, GODLESS, HEATHEN, HERETIC, SKEPTIC, BLASFMR, REASON, EVOLVE, TRANS, LGBTR.TS, LGBTQ, PRIDE, QUEER, GAYPOWR, LGBTALY, FEMINISM, FEMINST, EQUALITY and 4WOMEN.

http://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/woman-wins-suit-against-new-je.html
 
A few week ago, the Pope visited Dachau.

And there was a headline worthy picture of him stood on a space amongst the buildings.

Almost glowing white amongst the drab misery of the place.

I wondered what was going through his head.

Maybe...

' Six million, God. Six Million.

Where the hell were you ?'

And I hope he had a moment of doubt.

INT21
 
Die hard Athiests on a mission are about as obnoxious as Jehova Witnesses. Unless you are Christopher Hitchens, who was most entertaining and witty. I consider his untimely demise to be a great loss to us all.
Most of the other prominent spokesmen like the scientist Dawkins I find to be quite boorish.
 
Die hard Athiests on a mission are about as obnoxious as Jehova Witnesses. Unless you are Christopher Hitchens, who was most entertaining and witty. I consider his untimely demise to be a great loss to us all.
Most of the other prominent spokesmen like the scientist Dawkins I find to be quite boorish.
I'm not so keen on Dawkins' approach to espousing atheism myself. Hitchens was a more intelligent and rational spokesman for modern atheism. But as a die hard atheist on a mission, I'd just like to say we'll crack on with it whether you find us obnoxious or not. Our mission is to raise awareness that atheists are out there, there are loads of us, and it's an acceptable and reasonable way to think. Simply because most people judge what's real and acceptable as much from what they perceive others believe as from anything else.
 
Yes, if atheists just keep quiet, there will be no 'atheist visibility'.
Atheists should carry on being obnoxious. :D
 
Oh by all means carry on. I consider it healthy for society. Just keep it witty, to the point, and humane. dont fall into the trap of sounding just like another preacher. Remember it's absence of belief. Once your rhetoric starts sounding like just another belief system you are not helping your cause.

Not saying that's you, but it's a common error of anti-theists IMO.
 
Oh by all means carry on. I consider it healthy for society. Just keep it witty, to the point, and humane. dont fall into the trap of sounding just like another preacher. Remember it's absence of belief. Once your rhetoric starts sounding like just another belief system you are not helping your cause.

Not saying that's you, but it's a common error of anti-theists IMO.
As it happens, I disagree with other modern atheists on the question of whether atheism is a belief. It's true, they usually refer to it as a absence of belief (they don't believe God doesn't exist, they just don't believe he does), but as far as I'm concerned I do believe God doesn't exist, in exactly the way I believe griffins don't exist, or that a subterranean civilisation of mole men who wear victorian style frock coats and ride giant ants doesn't exist. But I gave up arguing with the new atheist community about what a belief was and whether atheism was one. Still, I wouldn't call atheism a belief system, in that it requires no belief outside one concerning the existence of God.
 
My take on this is that atheism is not a belief system.

I am an atheist. And I have come to this position after going through the usual Sunday school, church upbringing. My conclusion is that organised religion is a people control scheme. Very much a pyramid scheme.

I thought long and hard and decided that I can see no evidence for there being a god in the accepted sense.

As for the idea of a 'creator' of everything. Well, I leave the door open on that one. But it goes back to the question of what was this creator, and where was it before the creation of the Universe. Unless the Universe has always been there.
And if there is 'something' that was capable of creating everything, why would it be even remotely interested if I was having thoughts about my neighbors wife, or his ass. Surely he/she/it has more interesting things to pas time with.

All religions try to recruit followers. And once they have them they are very reluctant to let them think in any other way except the approved way. But the thing is they do try to impose the idea that there is a god and when you die you will be transported to some place where this god is. An afterlife.

Oddly, the Jews don't believe in an after life. I say oddly because you would thing a religion that is so involved in religious ceremony would do so. Apparently they leave it open to the individual to believe what they want on that point.

But atheist don't recruit. they don't have a view about the religious afterlife as it is either there or it isn't. Basically the existence of God is a non issue.

We get along fine without a god. and we won't try to make anyone give up their own belief. Just don't get ratty when we, usually politely, show no interest in joining you in your belief.

INT21
 
Seems to me part of the problem is Atheism with a capital A. It's easy to sound to a religious person like just another "ism"
"I remain unconvinced of your assertions" is a better way to say it, rather than I am an Atheist.
Just my opinion.
 
Patrick30,

..
"I remain unconvinced of your assertions" is a better way to say it, rather than I am an Atheist.
Just my opinion...

Fair comment.


I stated that I was an atheist simply to indicate where I stood in the discussion.

PeteByrdie mentions 'atheist community'. That does give the impression that people who see themselves as part of a community of atheist are verging on it being a form of belief system, maybe more a cult. And that they need the support of others of like mind to validate themselves.

Most just get on with their lives.

INT21
 
PeteByrdie mentions 'atheist community'. That does give the impression that people who see themselves as part of a community of atheist are verging on it being a form of belief system, maybe more a cult. And that they need the support of others of like mind to validate themselves.
There is an 'atheist community', but it's pretty small and poorly supported. What I mean is atheist organisations and secular societies. I think some atheists want to know other atheists, as part of a support network.
When I look for friends, I prefer to only have anything to do with atheists and secularists. Am I small minded? No, I just got tired of endless arguments with friends who were religious.
 
Patrick30,

..
"I remain unconvinced of your assertions" is a better way to say it, rather than I am an Atheist.
Just my opinion...

Fair comment.



I stated that I was an atheist simply to indicate where I stood in the discussion.

PeteByrdie mentions 'atheist community'. That does give the impression that people who see themselves as part of a community of atheist are verging on it being a form of belief system, maybe more a cult. And that they need the support of others of like mind to validate themselves.

Most just get on with their lives.

INT21

Unfortunately, 'I'm unconvinced of your assertions' is a bit of a mouthful for a bunch of folk who are identifying as having a certain perspective specifically to draw awareness to it. Besides, if people find me saying 'I am an atheist' a bit too aggressive, it may be they who have the problem.

There is a thriving online new atheist community. If the phrase 'such-and-such community' implies some kind of organised cult, I need to adjust my behaviour to avoid using it because I've never understood it that way and don't use it that way.

The comment about most atheists just getting on with their lives is interesting. Many new atheists/neo-atheists/militant atheists (a phrase that always made me chuckle) do talk as though they own the word 'atheist', to the extant, in my opinion, of conveniently redefining the word to mean 'a lack of belief'. Most of the people I know are atheists, not because I've sought them out but because most of the people with whom I am in contact find the whole god notion ridiculous, archaic and for gullible people. They know little or nothing of the atheist movement, would be surprised to be told that atheism isn't a belief since they believe there is no God, and people like them have been around since long before new atheism became a thing.
 
I suppose that in a way it is unavoidable.

I find no need in everyday life to express where I stand on the God/no God discussion. It very rarely crops up.

But if it did, and I was to say 'I have thought about this deeply and have to come to the conclusion that there is no God in the accepted meaning of the word' they would probably come back with 'So you're an atheist ?'.

Basically, it's a descriptive label.

INT21
 
I've used agnostic as my yardstick since college....and I think Thomas Huxley explains it well:

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[15][16][17]"
— Thomas Henry Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
"Being a scientist, above all else, Huxley presented agnosticism as a form of demarcation. A hypothesis with no supporting objective, testable evidence is not an objective, scientific claim. As such, there would be no way to test said hypotheses, leaving the results inconclusive. His agnosticism was not compatible with forming a belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim at hand. Karl Popper would also describe himself as an agnostic.[18] According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[2]"
 
I've used agnostic as my yardstick since college....and I think Thomas Huxley explains it well:

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[15][16][17]"
— Thomas Henry Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
"Being a scientist, above all else, Huxley presented agnosticism as a form of demarcation. A hypothesis with no supporting objective, testable evidence is not an objective, scientific claim. As such, there would be no way to test said hypotheses, leaving the results inconclusive. His agnosticism was not compatible with forming a belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim at hand. Karl Popper would also describe himself as an agnostic.[18] According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[2]"
I've a lot of sympathy with Agnosticism. Many new atheists refer to themselves as agnostic-atheists precisely to emphasise their acceptance that proving God's non-existence is impossible, and I can understand that. But, realistically, some things that can't be proven to be unreal are so astoundingly unlikely that to say one wouldn't rule it out just because it can't be proven is stretching an intellectual exercise pretty far. I could, as many atheists do, claim to be a de facto atheist, who doesn't rule out the existence of God but considers it so unlikely that in every practical sense I live my life assuming He doesn't exist. That's fine, but really, I'd be lying if I said I thought there was even a remote chance that this particular piece of mythology was true.

Many atheists claim atheism isn't a belief because they don't believe in God's non-existence, they just don't belive in his existence. This is a useful way of batting away the frequent claim from theists that atheism is just another belief, as though all beliefs have equal likelihood, and it also makes atheists feel sanctimoniously rational and scientific, which they seem to get a buzz from. They frequently differentiate between a 'belief' and atheism by saying that a person doesn't change a belief according to new evidence, it remains fixed, while atheists, being such rational beings, would accept the possibility of God if corroborating evidence emerged.

This makes intuitive sense, but I don't think it's actually true in real life. I don't think people really believe things in that way. Some people might think their faith is unshakeable. Many of the most vocal on-line atheists who now claim a belief is something that doesn't change ironically also talk of their own past with religion, when they cried for the unbelievers among their families and friends who were destined for Hell if they didn't listen to sense and embrace their saviour. They were sure of their faith and that nothing would shake it, yet they now celebrate their atheism. People do change their beliefs, and they do so because of evidence, or because they're no longer getting whatever emotional benefits they once enjoyed from those beliefs. Some people will ignore or explain away evidence which is contrary to their beliefs, cognitive bias being a curse we all bear as humans, and others will tweak their beliefs to incorporate new evidence. But if something is utterly ridiculous, as the God hypothesis is, there is no shame in saying 'I believe God isn't real,' just as there is no shame in saying, 'I believe there are no microscopic kangaroos fighting gun toting panda bears for dominance of hummus deposits beneath the surface of Mars.' If a shining angelic being appears before the world and proclaims God's existence, I would certainly accept the possibility that he's being truthful, and will no longer be able to talk of believing God isn't real. That won't happen, though, because God isn't real.

Incidentally, the above argument about the nature of belief and that atheism is a belief is either utterly wrong or I frequently fail to present it coherently. I don't bother any more, but on various atheist website I used to have constant discussions with other atheists about this, but they remained adamant that a belief is unchangeable and that atheism wasn't one. There were fallings out over this. Sometimes, there was simply no response to the argument at all. I suspect that many new atheists haven't really delved too deep into this particular piece of atheist dogma and are just parroting the words of their comrades because on social media they will still confidently respond to the accusation that atheism is just another belief with something like, 'Atheism is a lack of belief. Look it up!' I've looked it up. Some dictionaries refer to it clearly as a belief, some as a lack of belief, and some give both options. Perhaps atheists need to tell their critics in which dictionary they are to use when looking up the word.

Anyone who reads this whole post gets a gold star.
 
I'm not sure everyone means the same thing when they call themselves agnostic.

The root of the word lies in gnosis, or knowledge. As I understand it, the Greek meaning of the term is much broader than our own. Gnosis is experiential rather than merely theoretical.

You don't have gnosis of wrestling, for example, simply by reading about it on Wikipedia or by talking to wrestlers. You have to actually climb into the ring and wrestle an opponent.

For me agnosticism isn't simply stating that the existence of God is unproven. It's stating that a God, by it's very nature, is beyond human understanding, or gnosis.

Or in short, God may exist, but it's fundamentally impossible for us to understand what God is or to explain God to each other.

Hence anyone standing behind a pulpit claiming to know how God wants us to behave should be treated with extreme scepticism. They claim to have gnosis of something it is impossible for them to truly have gnosis of.
 
I'm not sure everyone means the same thing when they call themselves agnostic.

The root of the word lies in gnosis, or knowledge. As I understand it, the Greek meaning of the term is much broader than our own. Gnosis is experiential rather than merely theoretical.

You don't have gnosis of wrestling, for example, simply by reading about it on Wikipedia or by talking to wrestlers. You have to actually climb into the ring and wrestle an opponent.

For me agnosticism isn't simply stating that the existence of God is unproven. It's stating that a God, by it's very nature, is beyond human understanding, or gnosis.

Or in short, God may exist, but it's fundamentally impossible for us to understand what God is or to explain God to each other.

Hence anyone standing behind a pulpit claiming to know how God wants us to behave should be treated with extreme scepticism. They claim to have gnosis of something it is impossible for them to truly have gnosis of.
Interesting post and I agree that one can certainly understand agnosticism/gnosticism on both a 'mystical'
level which harkens back to the ancient times and just a materialist one as it is interpreted today.
 
PeteByrdie,

Slightly off topic , but re:

...If a shining angelic being appears before the world and proclaims God's existence, I would certainly accept the possibility that he's being truthful,..

I don't know it you have read 'Eon' and 'Infinity' by Gregg Bear. But at the end of these there is a scene where a member of some totally alien race was returned to it's home. And the aliens (Jarts) referred to what they called 'The Final Mind'. Something above and beyond everything else. Something unknowable.


As an aside, I see that they have made a film of A C Clarke's 'Childhood's End'. I liked the book (a little dated) and just hope that they stay true to the story.

INT21
 
As an aside, I see that they have made a film of A C Clarke's 'Childhood's End'. I liked the book (a little dated) and just hope that they stay true to the story.

INT21
Yes, spotted that this evening. It's a mini-series on Pick channel.
 
PeteByrdie,

Slightly off topic , but re:

...If a shining angelic being appears before the world and proclaims God's existence, I would certainly accept the possibility that he's being truthful,..

I don't know it you have read 'Eon' and 'Infinity' by Gregg Bear. But at the end of these there is a scene where a member of some totally alien race was returned to it's home. And the aliens (Jarts) referred to what they called 'The Final Mind'. Something above and beyond everything else. Something unknowable.
I haven't read it. I rarely read fiction these days.
 
All these conversations about God presuppose our definitions of God are at least similar. Fore example, Christian scriptures at some point describe God with the term"The Ancient of Days" which implies the aging process which implies death. Doesn't that rule out God as being immortal?
 
PeteByrdie,

Slightly off topic , but re:

...If a shining angelic being appears before the world and proclaims God's existence, I would certainly accept the possibility that he's being truthful,..

I don't know it you have read 'Eon' and 'Infinity' by Gregg Bear. But at the end of these there is a scene where a member of some totally alien race was returned to it's home. And the aliens (Jarts) referred to what they called 'The Final Mind'. Something above and beyond everything else. Something unknowable.


As an aside, I see that they have made a film of A C Clarke's 'Childhood's End'. I liked the book (a little dated) and just hope that they stay true to the story.

INT21

I've read Eon but the second book, Eternity beat me. Tried to read it twice and I'm a big Bear fan.
 
Well the current consensus seems to be that the Universe will eventually wind down to a state of exhausted and disordered stasis.

Whether God is eternal would depend on whether God exists apart from the Universe, or is simply a condition/property of the Universe and subject to decay along with it.
 
That's not the only metaphysical possibility that is consistent with current cosmological thinking. Other ideas include the Big Crunch, which is unlikely, but could lead to Tipler's intriguing Omega Point;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point#Tipler
The so-called Linde Scenario, eternal chaotic inflation leading to the production of innumerable and infinitely variable big-bang events, a history that need never end;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde#Inflationary_multiverse_and_eternal_chaotic_inflation
and the mathematical universe of Tegmark, where every possible mathematical relationship (and therefore every possible universe) already exists implicitly and eternally, just as 1+1 will always equal 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

God could fit into these various scenarios in any number of possible ways, and maybe in all possible ways; but a God that exists in an infinite number of possible forms is ultimately indefinable, and there is just a short step from indefinable to irrelevant.
 
Back
Top