Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism

[NMMNG]

David Gleeson
August 10, 2006



After watching Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" episode on FX last night, about an atheist mother who agrees to live with a wealthy Christian family for a month, it became painfully obvious to me that most people have glaring misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist, and about atheism in general. In this article, I'd like to highlight some of the most common errors and offer a level-headed response to these misunderstandings.





1. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist.
<snip>

2. Atheism requires just as much faith as theism.
<snip>

3. Atheists' lives are meaningless and devoid of hope and purpose.
<snip>

4. Atheists have no morals because they reject belief in an eternal moral-giver (i.e. God).
<snip>

5. Atheists must have had a bad childhood experience to cause them to give up on religion and hate God.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=12346

[catmother]

1. interesting article. i saw 30 days the other night. i'm not an

atheist. i'm an agnostic.

[NMMNG]

4. I'm looking forward to seeing the repeat on Sunday night

I never get to see it first-run due to my work schedule.

[MercutioATC]

7. Might I ask for your definition of agnosticism? They vary.

[catmother]

17. well someone on the colbert report a few weeks ago said that

he was an agnostic. colbert said "that means you don't have the balls to say there is no god". lol

okay i've been wondering for a while what i am. i don't believe in god as george carlin puts it "the invisible man in the sky". if there is a god or some kind of higher power i think it's far beyond our comprehension.

i believe in reincarnation -- atheists don't -- they say "when you're dead that's it". so that rules me out there as far as being an atheist. i had a spiritual teacher years ago who taught me about "the gods" -- the ones from mythology. we have a goddess who rules the sea, a god who rules mountains, a god who rules rain and thunder -- his female counterpart rules lightening and electricity, etc. i like that theory. i have a great respect for nature and the forces of the universe.

i was raised roman catholic but got away from that in my early 20s. organized religions make no sense to me. if anything i lean towards eastern thought, i.e., buddhism, hinduism.

:dilemma:

[godhatesrepublicans]

18. re:okay i've been wondering for a while what i am

It sounds like you're what I'd call "interesting to talk to." :-) Open minded people are rare, and I thank you for not being "sure." I'm not either. ;-)

Your post reminds me of something Lenny Bruce said way back when, that "more people are getting away from organized religion and back to God," or words to that effect.

Believing in a "Sky Father" or "Earth Mother" figure seems too limiting for whatever force created quasars and black holes, yet a purely materialistic word view doesn't do justice to how well it all hangs together. I think "ineffable" is as close as language gets.

[catmother]

19. well maybe we'll talk more sometime.

:toast:

[MercutioATC]

37. That sounds more deist to me...

I ask because I've heard many different definitions for agnosticism. Depending on the definition, I consider myself either atheist or agnostic (by Huxley's definition, I'm agnostic).

[trotsky]

43. Actually, atheists don't rule out reincarnation.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Lots of different people with lots of different beliefs are atheists. I personally don't believe in reincarnation, but atheism itself doesn't rule it out.

[banjoterror]

2. So what does that make me?

Am I an untheist, a detheist, an antitheist or a transtheist or something? Too many prefixes to choose from.

[NMMNG]

3. Pardon?

I didn't see anything about that in the article. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

15. Atheist is the label created by theists

to describe those with whom they disagree. It has been pointed out several times in this group that it is mildly offensive to be labeled by people based on their own disagreement, but to no avail.

If you wish to label yourself, feel free. But beware of the definers. This group is crawling with people who delight in defining the beliefs of others. But you never hear of flattering definitions.

[MtMan]

5. thanks

thanks. it was enlightening.

the good thing about belief systems is we can change back and forth. if you try on being an atheist, it doesn't mean you have to be an atheist forever. and vice versa.

i've come to a place where i do believe in God, but i believe he/she/it is quite remote - not as in your face as most believers in God believe.

i think God wishes for things to happen on Earth. but that he doesn't do anything on earth, other than of course providing whatever spark was necessary to start the original big bang that started the universe.

other that lighting that almighty lighter in the sky to start the firework show, i really think he/she/it just wants us to get along and live happily on a paradise planet, but that he/she/it doesn't do a thing no matter if we pray or go to church, are atheist or not. that we are essentially no different than the fish in my aquarium. if the fish decide to attack one another, i am not going to do anything about it.

"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle." ---Albert Einstein

[MercutioATC]

6. Great clarifications.

Perhaps the biggest misconception that I've faced as an atheist is that I believe that there is no god.

I don't actively disbelieve in a higher power, I just don't actively believe in one. It's an important distinction.

[NMMNG]

8. They are indeed

The ones I come across most are the "atheists claim there is no god" and the "atheists have no morals".

[MercutioATC]

9. It's funny when ultra-religious people get to know me.

They know I'm an atheist...but I'm decidedly not amoral.

The most they're usually able to say is "Your life is strange". They expect amorality, if not immorality, from me simply because of their preconceived notions of what an "Atheist" is.

[NMMNG]

10. It's sad, isn't it?

I work in human services and some people tell me, "God has a special place reserved for you in Heaven". I wonder what they'd say if I replied, "No he doesn't, I don't believe in him". :evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

11. I'd love to see the look on their face if you did.

I work with a few fundies who are constantly making low-profile attempts to "recruit" me.

They take their errant preconceptions of what an "Athiest" is supposed to be (and my deviation from those preconceptions) as indecision. It's entertaining, sometimes.

[varkam]

12. I hope those are the misconceptions....

and not the clarifications :D

[NMMNG]

13. Those are the misconceptions in my post

The clarifications are in the article. The four-paragraph limit made it impossible for me to post the clarifications so I only included the intro paragraph and the misconceptions. Perhaps I should have stated that in the OP.

[varkam]

14. Oh you think too little of me.

I knew those were the misconceptions, I just thought I would take the opportunity to try and make a funny...and fail miserably :)

[rasputin1952]

16. I do not agree w/4 of the five...but I agree w/#2:

"2. Atheism requires just as much faith as theism."...at least to an extent.

One must make decisions about such things, and they must do somewhat actively. Once a decision is made, it is made on the "faith" that one came to the proper conclusion. Since there is no empirical evidence either way on whether there is a deity(s) etc, nor is there any evidence there is not a deity(s), it is all based on individual faith that the correct 'path' has been taken.

The larger questions, beyond those of religious faith, is precisely what it is that atheist do believe in? Rather than argue about theism, what is the argument that justifies atheism?

Essentially, all sides argue simply because they are looking for a justification of their own beliefs. Rather than allow others to sit back and live the lives they have chosen, or walk the paths they have chosen, all sides seem to think it is imperative to assault one another.

As for those who think that atheists don't live a moral life, there are many of religious faith that fall into that broad category as well. Seems to me, that people should attempt to live a life based on forgiveness, empathy, compassion, love and common courtesy among other things that separate humanity from other life forms. Perhaps if we all learned just simple respect, we would be far better off as a species...:)

[Evoman]

20. No, there is no faith.

Lol..I'm sort of tired of argueing this so I'll keep it simple.

There is a huge difference between faith and reasonable probability. If I told you that the pimple on my left buttcheek talks to me and told me it created the universe, do you believe it? Would you call disbelief about the ominpotent cheek pimple faith? Or would you say, instead, that it is reasonable, because of the lack of evidence, that the god pimple does not exist?

Thats the point. Substitute god with Santa, or Zeus, or Mohammad, or Pimple-God. You don't have faith they don't exist. You definitly can't say your 100 percent sure they dont exist, but you can be reasonably sure, because of the absolute lack of evidence, that it doesnt exist. Its the same when people make the car argument. You have faith, after all, that your car will start, right? So atheist do have some faith! But we don't...we reasonably expect that the car will start, because it started the last hundred times we turned the key. If it doesn't, well...its possible.

Do you understand the distinction? Our "beliefs" about god are no different than your "beliefs" about my ass pimple god. In fact, if I didn't keep bringing it up, and trying to use tax money to put my god pimple into the goverment, you wouldn't even think twice about it, because its quite evident to you that it doesn't exist. Atheists...well, they are kind of like that.

[rasputin1952]

22. I do not agree...a decision was made on information available...

since there is no empirical evidence in either direction, the decision made, has to be made on the faith that the decision is the "right one".

If you do not have "faith" that you made the right decision, you have nothing, zero, zilch to enforce your decision.

Forget all of the allegories, they are meaningless in the scheme of things...a decision was made, w/o empirical evidence, therefore, by default, the upholding of that decision is an act of faith.

All decisions and holding to Pints of View, w/o empirical evidence is a faith based decision...one is placing their 'faith' in the possibility/probability they are correct.

[varkam]

29. It's not a matter of empirical evidence.

It's a matter of reasons, of which empirical evidence is a type of. All beliefs have, supporting them, individual reasons. Some reasons are better than others. For example, I have good reasons to believe that falling 20 stories to a concrete sidewalk would be hazardous to my health, even though I have never done it. I take that the numerous stories, and knowledge of physics and human anatomy, are all very good reasons to believe that it would result in my death.

Atheism is not about having "faith" that there is no god. It's a simple matter of reasons. For me, it's that the reasons for subscribing to a materialistic / naturalistic world-view far outweigh reasons for belief in some sort of deity. The minute that I find out ghosts are real, or if Jesus comes back and takes the faithful, I am open to a revision of things that I believe. But, so far, based upon the state of the world (and it's innumerable contradictions with religious tenets), the things we now know about ourselves and the universe, as well as the utter lack of any supporting evidence for the existence of a god or gods, I figure the most probable explanation is that there are none. In fact, I tend to think that the world looks exactly as we might expect if there are no divine powers.

But, to maintain intellectual integrity, I have to note that I don't know whether I am right or not. But then again, when it comes to god, I submit that no one can know whether they are right or not. If you're on your toes, you will probably be thinking that makes me an agnostic. Well, I pigeonhole myself as an agnostic/strong atheist/materialist. A mouthful, I know.

[rasputin1952]

32. Thank you...I can accept your rationale...

I contend by your statement that you believe there to be no deities, and I have no problem w/that whatsoever.

However, and this is my point of contention, "I have to note that I don't know whether I am right or not", that in itself shows that you are acting on faith, that up to this point, you believe yourself to be correct.

This is my point all along, you are acting on your personal faith that there is no deity(s). Many others maintain precisely as you do, and I am not here to attempt to change your mind in the least. I, like you, respect intellectual integrity.

[varkam]

33. I suppose it's a matter of what you want to call faith.

For instance, I also have to contend that I don't know whether or not evolution is a scientific fact, given the fashion in which science works (it operates on a principle of falsifiability - i.e. nothing can be proven, things can only fail to be falsified) even though I recognize the mountain of evidence that supports it. Across several different disciplines, evidence is seen for evolution. I take that evidence as very good reason to believe that evolution is a reality. However, to maintain personal and intellectual integrity, I am forced to admit that I don't know whether or not it is a reality, since one cannot know a falsehood and there is still a possibility (albeit incredibly small) that evolution is a falsehood - given the basic tenets of falsifiability. If you wish to call that belief "faith", then I suppose there's nothing I can say that will stop you from doing so.

If you wish to call that faith, then I think you would do well to note the following: that sort of faith is separate from faith in Santa Claus or faith in little green elephants in that it is supported by rather sound reasons from several different sources. I do not mean to imply that belief in god is analogous to the previous examples, just to be clear.

[rasputin1952]

35. Defining faith is the all important situation here...

faith is belief that something is, (or is not), a reality w/o empirical evidence.

As to theories, such as that of evolution, there is empirical evidence that evolution has happened/is happening. The contention is the order in which some things happened, and precisely what happened to bring those changes about.

In evolution, there are gaps, and since it is difficult to be precise about the distant past, it remains a theory. IMHO, I believe that evolution is a fact of nature, and occurs throughout earths history.
There is nothing that says it doesn't, and the evidence is so powerful, if gaps are filled, it will come down as fact, and become a Law. When Darwin first produced the "theory" there were no known scientific orders that could be followed; over the past 75 years, great strides have been made, and recently, with DNA testing/sorting it is becoming more evident than ever that evolution is the norm as opposed to any other form of selection.

One thing I do not adhere to, is the Creationists POV, I think it is absurd, and a literal interpretation of the Genesis story alludes that we do not exist, Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel; Cain kills Abel, we do not exist. End of lineage...:shrug: Makes me wonder why people accept that as "fact" in the first place.

[varkam]

42. But I take it, then, than you agree...

belief in evolution is not a matter of "faith", but rather a judgment based upon the evidence available to us?

[rasputin1952]

44. Precisely. There is a mountain of evidence, almost all of it essentially

empirical, that evolution is the reality of the situation. I cannot ignore mountains of evidence, and in the case of evolution, I am a believer that evolution is fact as opposed to theory. But under the scientific rule, the results must be reproducible, in this case, many of the items involved simply cannot be reproduced because some of them no longer exist.

I am not a fundie by any sense of the imagination, I believe that there are aspects of science, history and religion that make the whole. Even if every religion were proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt as far as the theist aspect, there is still history that can be gleaned from the baselines. Science has shown, through archeology that there are things in ancient books ascribed to religions that come up as have happened, albeit not as how they may be described in those texts. For instance, I do not believe in a global flood, but I would be remiss to discount off hand local floods that were catastrophic, and perhaps seen as worldwide in the context of the time in question. I have heard individuals state emphatically that the Grand Canyon is a result of a Global flood, basically "Noah's Flood", I find this absurd.

The evidence is in as far as evolution goes, that DNA is only off by an extremely small percentage point
that we all came from a common ancestor. I have no problem w/that, and as time goes by, and other aspects are found, I believe that evolution will dominate more than it does now. But there will always be "Flat Earthers", those too blind to see the minefield the dance in....:(

[varkam]

45. So then, if that is the case...

we are in agreement then, that some things, though "unproven" entitle adherents to a greater epistemological certainty than say, faith in Santa Claus or faith in Unicorns on the basis of evidence and reasons. Would you agree with that statement?

I know that the existence of God can neither be proven, nor disproven. So, naturally, there is some element of uncertainty in my conclusions (hence the agnostic bit). I also think, however, that there should naturally be some element of uncertainty in the minds of theists (but that's another argument). However, the reason I disbelieve is not so much a matter of faith for me, and more a matter of what the evidence points to. It is my assertion that there is a good deal of evidence that points to the nonexistence of god (or, at the very least, a god in the J-C sense - but again, that's another argument). Which, of course, accounts for the strong atheist / materialist bit. But, alas, it can never be proven either way, theist smarty-pants will always have an answer to counter what I would take as damning to the faith (A good example is the recent rise of intelligent design to reconcile religious dogma with secular world knowledge).

I agree that religious scriptures offer an account of history, however I think it is not a very reliable account. Within the bible there are multiple descriptions of events that contradict one another. People often explain that this is like multiple witnesses to a car accident (as each one gives their own account that differ from another), but that does not change the fact that there are still contradictions. Further, while there is evidence to support some of the historical claims, there is also a complete absence of evidence to support other claims (e.g. wandering around in the desert for 40 years). It is true that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, but it doesn't look good for the person who makes the claim that it did happen (as the burden of proof falls squarely on their doorstep).

[rasputin1952]

47. I think that literalists, regardless of the religion are blind, and live

in a world of exalted ignorance.

Having read the Bible, one of the first things I noticed was that Genesis I and II appear to be written by two different people, in fact, it almost seems feminine in nature. But I digress...there are plenty of things in the Bible that are contradictory, and there are serious questions as to just how many errors in transcription there are, as well as content. This is not to say that the entire tome should be discarded...there are plenty of good things in the Bible, and one would be hard pressed to find better words of wisdom that, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", (which is found in many cultures and religions).

The odds state that there are grains of truth behind every story. It behooves people to seek out the truth, and when found, accept it. Many of the things in the Bible might not be true, but that does not denigrate a good story. The point is to find what is true, and expound upon that with scientific/historical evidence. Do I think Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out by nukes from God...no. But the cities may well have existed, in fact, archaeologically, sites have been found where catastrophic events occurred. Geologically speaking, these sites appear to be in an area affected by a volcanic explosion in the Mediterranean, that may well have destroyed the two cities, and others, (if they existed). While in the eyes of ancients, these events might have been seem to be divinely inspired, it is more likely that natural geological forces were at work.

A major point of conjecture is that many people will simply toss out the baby w/the bathwater because they don't think ANY of it could be true...I find that foolish at best, downright ignorant at worst.
The goal should be to get to the truth...not an easy task quite often. Once truth is established, we can rid ourselves of the over indulgence of some of the extrapolations.

I have always thought that, "Seek and you shall find", was not Biblically exclusive...it encompasses all of our faculties, and everything we can use to come to conclusions that are based on truth and scientifically provable. All things, at least to this point, are not scientifically provable, so the search goes on...:)

[varkam]

52. I don't wish to be taken as meaning that...

We should completely disregard the bible. I think there are many interesting stories within the bible, but I tend to regard them as just that - stories. Some are, in my mind, completely fictional (for example, being an atheist gets in the way of thinking god created the universe). Others, however, have substance to them such as the great flood (but I tend to think Noah's Ark is a total pantload). On the matter of Genesis, I find the phrase "we have made him in our image" to be most intriguing. Some have said that refers to the holy trinity - but that is a concept that was introduced at the Council of Nicea (sp?), which was well before those words were penned. But, I digress as well. Even though I think there are stories within the bible which have substance, and even though I think there are worthy moral edicts within the bible, I don't see how that means we must regard it as a morally superior tome or one, for that matter, of historical record - as such edicts and records, if worthy of consideration, will be found elsewhere as well.

Further, many of the moral edicts that are contained within the bible are, indeed, not unique to it. For instance, it is my understanding that the so-called "golden rule" predates Christ and, in fact, originated from Buddhist thought.

The following is a fallacious argument:

P1: The bible contains within it a cosmology for the earth and the universe.
P2: Astronomers, topographers, and geologists have refuted what the bible says regarding our physical world.
P3: The bible is incorrect when it comes to a cosmology for the earth and the universe.
--
C: Therefore, the bible must be wrong about everything.

It is a bad argument, and not one that I am trying to make. However, such facts do not to wonders for the bible's track record. For the sake of argument, say that for everything there could be evidence for, the bible has been mistaken on (this, of course, excludes the metaphysical realm). Would it then inspire great confidence to subscribe to the notion of a god or an afterlife for which it is the sole evidence? Not in my opinion. But of course, that's why I think as well that fundamentalists and literalists are quite scary folks (save for the amazing feat they have of being able to hold two contradictory views in mind at once - if they are true fundamentalists).

[rasputin1952]

58. The Golden Rule goes back to Confucius, well before Buddah...

One of the intriguing things is where was Jesus for some 20 years?

I think he made a trek to the Far East, and picked up many thoughts and processes from that area. There is no way to prove that of course, but it seems incredible that he would not have heard of the Far East as a child/teen. Many of the tenets for many societies, as well as religions come from the Far East.

Regardless, there are many things in the Bible that are good, in Leviticus, there are what we now consider common sense approaches to fighting disease, such as edicts to wash ones hands, make sure food is edible, and cleaning the dishes, just to name a few. it seems astounding that a religion had to come up with hygiene as an edict, but such as it is, it is.

There are some things that fundies and literalists fortunately no longer follow. There is an edict that states, if a child offends the father, he is to be stoned to death. The notion that shellfish are all poison is also something that has been tossed aside. But the Kosher laws make a great deal of sense, especially considering the lack of clean water and refrigeration. Organ meats, because of the high spoilage rate are considered classical taboos.

There is a great deal of misinformation in all religious texts, and to make matters worse, many people just up and cherry-pick what they want, and then add new meanings to the original. "An eye for an eye" goes back to Hammurabi, but that is considered the limit, not the norm. A person could ot demand a life because of the loss of an eye, the most they could get was another eye, and that was rare. In most cases, just as today, things were settled out of court for much less that the maximum that could be leveled. Today, many take "an eye for an eye" literally, hence the death penalty. In Ecclesiastes, it is noted that mercy far outweighs vengeance, but no one ever seems to read about that.

And then we come to The Beatitudes....when was the last time you heard a fundie bring them up? Also, the NT comes up with quite a few mentions of hypocrisy, and it being one of the worst of "sins"; sex is hardly mentioned at all, and in the famous story about the adulteress about to be stoned, where is the male through all of this?

I could go on, but I'd rather look to the positive points, compassion, empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, love, healing the sick, feeding and clothing the poor, and being generally someone who preforms random acts of kindness because they feel it is simply the right thing to do, no rewards are involved.

There are great lessons to be learned from all of the religious tomes, there are also things that should be avoided. An educated person is an effective person, there are many places one can get an education from, the Bible is one, so is Darwin and his successors, as well as scientists that look deeply into questions of our very existence. Keeping an open mind is a great asset.

[immoderate]

76. Let me take a shot.

I generally agree with the atheists you hear from the most. Atheism (from the Greek) for "without god" is a condition that we are born into. So why is religion so prominent? It is a system, that once formulated, has the main purpose of being self-propagating. It seeks adherents, recruits believers, shuns heretics, and has as a main activity promoting its dogma. Atheism has no such parallel. Atheism, even as you see it, cannot exist without religion. If nobody had ever heard of god, would somebody be inclined to get up and shout, "There is no God!"? We just don't subscribe to the beliefs of theists. That in itself is not a belief.

Now, speaking for myself, I'll allow that I have beliefs. As you say, you have to start from some assumptions, things that cannot be proved. For instance, I believe that I am not a disembodied brain, floating in a tank, dreaming my existence in the "matrix." Can't prove that, but I am not a solipsist. And I generally go by the basic logical postulate that something cannot be both true and false. Not everything can be judged that way, but once something is false, then it cannot be true. That's what I believe.

Here's another couple of assumptions that I use to form my cosmology:

1. Everything in the universe follows the same rules of nature.
   
2. Anything that can be observed can be understood.
   
3. All phenomena involve the physical world.

That pretty much sums up my belief system. It has nothing to do with god at all. If you want to charge me with having faith, you could do so, but it only involves acceptance of these assumptions. Indeed, if faith is acceptance without evidence, then that would obviate the faith notion as these assumptions are self evident.

So now to the problems of theism. If there is a god he/she must have some aspect or nature that has some demonstrable effect on the world. People have devoted much time and energy over thousands of years to demonstrating just that with zero success. There is your empirical evidence. People have tried to demonstrate the existence of god millions of times, and have succeeded zero times. What does that data tell you? (Validity and evidence is something that could be argued and we could go into books about methodology but I'm sure you'll have some questions.)

So maybe I'm not looking to validate the "real" god, who is so mysterious and subtle in his ways, that his effect on the universe cannot be detected. So what does he do around here? He is so subtle that he cannot be differentiated from no god at all. It's up to the person asserting the claim to define the entity sought. If you are claiming the existence of a being whose existence, in principle, cannot be detected, then your ass is certainly covered. If there are actual things performed by this being, let's measure them and test them. But first a story:

When I was very young, my mother (who enjoyed good credibility with me) told me that thunder was a manifestation of god expressing his anger. The bible also attests to this. Later on, I learned that thunder is a disturbance resulting from an electrical discharge caused by static from convection currents. A perfectly natural event that could be observed and replicated, and is consistent with all the observed laws of nature. So how is one to know when thunder is a random weather event and when it's god being pissed off? Maybe god used to do the thunder and then he let nature take it over, and now the people at the Weather Channel handle it.

The problem here is to ascribe to god properties that don't contradict what we already know about the universe or aren't redundant. No self respecting lord of the universe would want to be redundant. All that we see, can be explained by natural phenomena, resulting from the aftermath of the singularity. So what does god do? If he intercedes in daily events, how do you explain the New York Yankees? Why are they so favored by god? It appears to me that people who believe in god believe that he takes an interest in sports. Now that I think about it, sports are big; some are world wide. Lots of people, money, giant events, bigger than any other worship. You would think that god would notice that -- if he'd notice anything. If he does get, um, intercessory, than where better? But seriously, that's the result of extending any of the assumptions that you would have to make in defining the nature, or should I say super-nature of the supreme being.

You keep talking about "empirical evidence," which isn't really "proof" of anything strictly speaking. It's statistically inferring trends from matching aspects of data points. It may be very compelling evidence, but it's not absolute. Many controlled experiments have been done to prove the existence of god. In every case, the results have been negative. What do you think that means? Rhetorical question. Everybody has their unique way of interpreting what that means to their world view.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a result of what I believe. I just don't have a god thing. I don't think about it, unless somebody brings it up. It can only be triggered by a theistic event. The opposite is not true. See, there is no symmetry.

Uh oh, I just heard some thunder.:hide:

Just kidding.

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

46. There is no emperical evidence that there is a god

Period. It stops there. I have no "faith" about my "beliefs" in there being no god. There is no emperical evidence for that fact that there is a god. I don't have to prove the negative. You think there is a god? Then the burden is on you.

Another way to look at it. Don't define my position based on yours. Your position takes faith to believe (i.e. that something exists when there is absolutely ZERO proof that thing really does exist). My position does not. Don't confuse atheism with a "disbelief" in god. That is just defining atheists from the theist position and, falsely, assumes that the existence of god is the given.

One more if you are statistically inclined. I am the null hypothesis. I don't have to have faith in the null hypothesis. Someone trying to disprove the null is the one that is taking a position.

[varkam]

55. LOL!

"I am the null hypothesis" :rofl: I want that on a bumper sticker.

[Goblinmonger]

67. That would be good.

I might have to check out one of those "make your own bumpesticker" sites.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Ditto what varkam said, your whole post is quote worthy!

Don't confuse atheism with a "disbelief" in god. That is just defining atheists from the theist position and, falsely, assumes that the existence of god is the given.

[Goblinmonger]

66. I've been gone for a while

Seems the good stuff is what has built up and not the crap. At least the same old BS keeps coming up again, again, and again.

[charlie]

57. Sounds sinister

Pat Robertson raises his battered head.

"Who... who ARE you???"

He hears a terse whisper from the silhouette.

"I am......... the NULL HYPOTHESIS."

An explosive kick sends Robertson flying from the rooftop.

[Evoman]

61. Dude, you made me wake up my girlfriend!

Its 3 am and I laughed out loud!

[charlie]

62. 3am? Girlfriend?

The Reverend Creech wants a word with you, little mister :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1899389

[Goblinmonger]

68. Even better than the bumper sticker

Somebody with artistic talent should design the logo for our new super hero. I would DEFINITELY have that printed up on a t-shirt.

[beam me up scottie]

21. How many times do we have to explain this to you? Are you

a.) Willfully ignorant

b.) Purposely obtuse

c.) Incapable of learning the correct meaning of words

d.) All of the above



Is your personal belief system so fragile that it is threatened by our existence?

The absence of tolerance in this forum never ceases to amaze me.

[rasputin1952]

23. I see an absence of toleration from all sides...you asked me if I am

"willfully ignorant", hardly a priceless speculation to tolerance.

What do you have to enforce the belief you have that there is no deity?

It is easy to say there is no deity, but for someone to come to that conclusion, absent empirical evidence is an act of faith.

Tell me what you believe...not why others should believe in something you cannot empirically prove/disprove. I am not asking you to accept any deity or anything else...tell me specifically, w/o allegories why you believe as you do...:)

You have the right to believe whatever you wish, as do others...that is why I am adamant about this issue. Since it cannot be proven there is/is no deity, the argument is moot except for the faith one has that they made a decision that is the "correct" one.

May I ask why it is so difficult to allow others to believe what they want w/o be harangued? This is not my issue, it appears to be yours.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Unless you have a learning disability, you obviously have tolerance issues

I would post the definition of tolerance but you'd just ignore it.

Oh, what the hell, I'll do it anyway:

tol·er·ance (tŏl'ər-əns)
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2. Leeway for variation from a standard.

3. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.

4. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

Your refusal to accept the definition of atheism is a perfect example of intolerance.

Looks like my question about the fragility of your faith was right on target.

May I ask why it is so difficult to allow others to believe what they want w/o be harangued?

[rasputin1952]

26. But I do allow others to believe in what they want to...just look at your

2 posts, neither of them address the question, and both are merely sideswipe attacks at not just my intelligence, but my character and dignity as well.

When one asks for tolerance, and the response is anything but, I feel that you are the one that is a little "too fragile" in your system of belief.

Define, precisely and w/o allegory, ie: "skypilot", "Santa Claus", "cloud being" etc, why you take your stance. Can you prove to me that there is no deity, of course not, just as no one can prove there is. With this being the criteria, you have no alternative but to come to grips with the fact that since there is no empirical evidence either way, decisions must be adhered to by faith alone. In the case of the atheist, as well as the theist, that faith is based individually on the context that they are correct. W/O empirical evidence, there is no other alternative.

If you know of one, explain it to me w/o remarks based on an intelligence level or tolerance level you don't know. I am willing to accept a reasonable explanation; no one is going to accept spurious declarations as 'facts'. I am more than open to any information that comes through with clarity. Heck, in fact, I even look at things that are somewhat clouded and try to see clarity. But baseline, "I said so" doesn't cut it.

Once again, tell me what you believe and why you take that position....:)

[beam me up scottie]

28. I refuse to use your incorrect/ignorant definition of atheism.

DU atheists have repeatedly posted definitions and explanations in previous threads, including one where you claimed "The definition atheists themselves use, is a wrong definition. Because they use it, does not make it a right definition.


There can be no discussion with people who are intolerant.

Let me know when you're ready to learn about atheism and we'll talk.

[rasputin1952]

34. That is your impression....I know I am tolerant.

I see that you have yet to answer the base question, intolerance is your court, not mine. You are intolerant of me, not I you.

Look at it from my POV, I ask qusetions, I receive no answers, yet I am called intolerant. It appears to me, you are the one who is being intolerant here, not I. I am open to any logical definition, always have been, always will be.

On the other hand, all you have done is attempt to snub me at every turn. You can believe whatever you like, but if you bring it to a public forum, you should at least ensure the courtesy of addressing the question rather than skirt the issue with spurious remarks that add nothing to understanding.

[beam me up scottie]

36. How is defending my atheism against ignorance "intolerant" of you?

You have been given the correct definitions repeatedly by DU atheists and you chose to ignore them.

I "snub" everyone who believes they have the right to misrepresent what I think.

Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the lack of it.

[rasputin1952]

38. I never said that atheism is a religious belief, and I never would...

My statement is that in order for someone to make a decision w/o empirical evidence, and to maintain that decision, it is an act of faith. There is no other way to describe beliving in something that cannot be proven/disproven.

You do not have to defend your atheism to me or anyone else, my entire contention is that people can believe what they want to, I will not contest that in any form...but as I have said, to take such a position, regardless of the side of the fence, is an act of personal faith that the individual is correct.

edited for a spelling error...:)

[beam me up scottie]

39. Bullshit semantics and denial, just what I expected.

People like you are the reason why I need to defend my atheism, both in the bible belt and on DU.

You have posted over and over again, in this forum, against the strenuous objections of DU atheists, that we claim there is no god.

Here are some of your responses to our protests:

Atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

This is my point all along, you are acting on your personal faith that there is no deity(s).

Faith is belief that something is, (or is not), a reality w/o empirical evidence.

What do you have to enforce the belief you have that there is no deity?

Can you prove to me that there is no deity, of course not, just as no one can prove there is. With this being the criteria, you have no alternative but to come to grips with the fact that since there is no empirical evidence either way, decisions must be adhered to by faith alone. In the case of the atheist, as well as the theist, that faith is based individually on the context that they are correct.

[rasputin1952]

40. ad hominum attacks will not preserve you from the fact that you are

not defending your atheism, you are just attacking me.

In order for you to believe you are correct in your summation there is no deity, you have to act on the faith that you personally have in your judgment. This is not semantics, it is an exercise in reality.

You made a call based on what you have seen, heard, read etc. Since there is no way to prove or disprove a deity, your conclusion remains valid only as long as you have faith that your decision is the correct one.

There is nothing of religion to it, it is your personal faith in your summation of all things non-provable that upholds what you see as the truth.

To me, it is fine whether you choose to be an atheist, I have no qualms w/that. There are plenty of things I question and am not sure of, I accept that as part of the quest for knowledge. There is nothing of religion in the notion that I believe my heart will beat for another 10 years, I have faith that it will. there is nothing of religion in that faith, it is just there. But I believe it will happen, even if I drop dead in ten minutes. Just as I have faith that when I go out into traffic, I won't get hit by some poor driver, there is nothing religious in that, in fact, I increase my chances of not being hit if I stay alert to danger. But I still have the faith that I will go on my journey safely, otherwise, I'd never drive.

Indeed, atheism is not a religion, and I never said it was. I am saying you, and everyone else, including me, has faith their judgment calls are the correct ones.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Random_Australian]

63. See this post please:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84224&mesg_id=84402

[Random_Australian]

60. Yo! Rassy! Read it and weep!

BMUS IS SAYING THOSE THINGS BECAUSE YOU FILL EACH AND EVERY POST WITH THIS IDEA THAT ATHEISTS DO NOT SIMPLY LACK BELIEF IN GOD, BUT THEY POSITIVELY ASSERT THERE IS NO GOD.

Or like this, simply put:

1) Bmus takes a position with an absence of belief in God.

2) Person A comes along and says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

3) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

4) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

5) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

6) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

7) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

8) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

9) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

10) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

11) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

12) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

13) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

14) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

15) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

16) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

17) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

18) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

19) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

20) Then Person A says "No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

21) Bmus tells them that she only has an absence of belief in God.

22) ************************Then Rasputin comes along, and says


(wait for it)



(wait for it)



"No, that is not what you believe, you believe that there is not a God and that there cannot be a God"

TA-DAAAA!

One complete recipe for a pissed off Bmus!
Why the hell should she take the time and effort to defend herself (from someone as antagonistic as you especially) against this crap for the umpteenth time?

Here are your choices:

A) Take on an air of uncalled for hurt while telling people what they believe, and just keeping telling people what they believe, don't stop, you musn't ever stop, evaluate, just keep telling people what they believe, just keep (I think you get the picture)

OR

B) Take your own freaking advice about understanding and go back to that first time you brought that crap up, and have a look at what people tell you about what they believe. Don't ignore them, people are telling you what they believe. You are telling them they aren't.

I said "I can't believe I heard a moderator say that" for a reason. (Yes, I know you are no mod when you are here - well, I do now)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=77896&mesg_id=78682

OR

C) Ignore me, because atheists don't know anything. And the majority of their posts attack Christians. (That was from one of your posts earlier, in case you did not notice)

[beam me up scottie]

72. Thanks, RA.

Too bad the self appointed experts of what goes on in this forum spend so little time here.

It's like asking *'s opinion on current events.

[cosmik debris]

27. Allow me to give this a try

Atheism requires no faith because it requires no belief. It is not based on a decision to believe something. It is based on the refusal to decide to believe something. Atheism is not a "faith that the correct 'path' has been taken" but rather a refusal to take a path.

It is not true that "One must make decisions about such things". I don't have a need to decide about the existence of god. So I don't have to have faith that my decision is correct.

It is not a binary decision of god or no god. Only theists see it that way and you can't expect atheists to fit into your mold.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Great points, Buffy. Too bad they're ignored/rejected by some believers.

Have you read his essay "Why I'm An Atheist" ?

Some excerpts:

I am an atheist because there is not one shred of independent, verifiable evidence to support the existence of a God or gods.

I usually refer to myself as a skeptic, not because I'm afraid of the atheist label but because it is far too restricting. "Atheist" implies that I only reject belief in gods, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a whole load of things that I do not believe in, and I don't believe in them for the exact same reason: lack of evidence. In fact, I reject the supernatural in any form. So in addition to being an a-theist, I'm an a-leprechaunist, an a-fairyist, an a-ghostist, an a-Satanist, and so on.

There is a ton of baggage that comes with rejecting god #3000, because when you reject all gods, what you are really saying is that you reject all claims of the supernatural. And that is not an easy thing to do for most people. When that last god gets tossed aside, so does Heaven, Hell, the power of prayer, faith healing, eternal salvation(for us), eternal damnation(for our enemies), the possibility of everlasting life, answers to all of life's difficult questions, the hope for an eventual cosmic balancing of the scales - and on and on and on. Many of us simply have no desire to make that leap. It's unfortunate, because the universe is so much grander and magnificent on the other side.

http://web.mac.com/coskeptic/iWeb/blog/Essays/EB396A01-D4BD-408F-9288-8178C57F34C4.html#comment_layer



Not surprisingly, one of his childhood heroes was Carl Sagan.

[NMMNG]

48. I haven't read that yet

I've bookmarked it so I can do so when I have the opportunity. :thumbsup:




And I think the points presented are rejected/ignored mainly due to preconceived notions people don't want to let go of. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

49. Yep. Willful ignorance.

I see it all the time where I work and live.

Too bad I have to see it on DU too.

I chalk it up to fear.

[Odin2005]

30. I think people are mixing up different definitions of "belief"

There are 2 often-used definitions of beleif

1. acceptance of a religion
2. acceptance of a fact, idea, or concept

Atheism is not belief by #1 and a belief by #2.

[cosmik debris]

31. Speak for yourself

I don't know where you get that idea, but I don't believe it.

[SPKrazy]

50. A Rational Post

without anything deprecating what atheists do or don't believe

just stating a factual definition

and what do you get?

[beam me up scottie]

51. An incorrect definition, actually.

Atheism is not an "acceptance of a fact, idea, or concept", it's the absence of belief in gods.

As for pointing that out, I would expect nothing less from DUers, especially the ones who are force fed wrong definitions about atheism constantly in this forum.

It would be a pleasant surprise to see a theist pointing out the error instead of repeating it.

[SPKrazy]

53. So It Isn't A "Fact idea or concept"?

I understand it is the absence of belief in god(s)

but isn't it often stated here that there is no proof of god, so god doesn't exist?

isn't that a fact, idea, or concept that is believed?

otherwise, what is it to have no belief? (other than acceptance of a fact, idea, or concept)

I don't think this is saying anything other than along with an atheist having an absence of belief in god, that they in fact have a "belief" which is acceptance of the fact, idea, or concept of there being no god.

does this not make sense?

if not, then while I respect the statement that atheism is non-belief, I would have to say I don't understand it then and never will by that standard-even the "null theory" is acceptance of a fact, idea or concept

[beam me up scottie]

54. No, it's not, it's the lack of belief.

Do you really need to have this explained again?

I'm seriously fighting back an urge to use the Santa/Easter Bunny analogy here, but it's the only thing I haven't tried yet and quite possibly the only thing that will penetrate the thick skulls of people who think nothing is something.


And please show me examples of the many posts claiming "there is no proof of god, so god doesn't exist", I must have missed all of them.

[SPKrazy]

65. Okay, I've Let It Go

See post #59

the post makes sense to me

your view doesn't

that doesn't mean I won't go on and respect your view

as for the "there is no proof of god, so god doesn't exist"

maybe that's my interp of some posts

I'll (maybe) start keeping a file so that I can show it to you

otherwise, in the grand big picture, it really doesn't matter

[cosmik debris]

69. Don't fight the urge.

At least two people in this thread have already told you that you are a believer. And they have even been gracious enough to tell you what you believe. What could it possibly hurt to return the favor and tell them what they believe? You don't need to back it up with facts, just make up some self-serving definitions and declare that you are right and they are wrong. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and guidance a lot more than you appreciate theirs. What could possibly go wrong?:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

71. heh, heh

post 69 said "don't fight the urge" heh, heh.

Sorry, just getting ready to teach freshmen again in a couple weeks.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Yeah, and then we'd have the obligatory dozen or so whining threads

by the i-wanna-be-persecuted club.

Maybe we should charge them for indulging their fantasies?

[Goblinmonger]

70. O come on

I have yet to see one theist on this site, or anywhere, honestly admit that they have a belief or faith in the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, dragons, Evoman's ass-god, Zeus, Mothra, Godzilla, Darth Vader, or any one of a million other fictional things. Sorry to go there, but none of the other examples are working. Do you really go around saying that the you have faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Do you really go around saying that you "believe" Santa Claus isn't real? I'm sure not.

Have you taken any statistics classes? Have you conducted statistical research? If so, how can you say that the null hypothesis is a belief? It isn't. It is the "steady state" if you want another synonym. It is what happens if that which you are researching has no effect. My master's thesis was regarding whether children learn environmental information from Captain Planet. My null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in acquisition of environmental knowldege between the group that watched the show and the control group that didn't. Please explain to me how that is a "belief." It isn't. The null hypothesis is the natural state. And, just cause I want to open another can of worms, it is the natural state just like babies are atheist. It takes indoctrination and society to learn the faith of theism.

[Evoman]

77. Please do not equate my Ass-Pimple god with the tooth fairy

and Santa Claus. Santa and the tooth fairy are things kids believe, and by equating APG with them, you are saying that I am being childish.

[Random_Australian]

78. Now now, play nice Evoman.

:)

[cosmik debris]

79. A theological question

If I don't reject the argument that Santa is mentally ill and that the tooth fairy is a unicorn, will APG light farts in my face for all eternity?

[Odin2005]

59. I am an Athiest fed up with this silly game of semantics.

I have a lack of belief in a higher power because of a philosphical belief I hold, two different meaning's of "belief".

[SPKrazy]

64. It Does Seem Silly

after reading through this thread I don't understand the semantical argument at all

your view makes sense, although, in the scheme of things, I could care less what you call it really.

[Zebedeo]

74. The dude defines himself by his atheism

I don't define myself by my lack of belief in the existence of leprechauns.

This guy's website is centered entirely on his atheism. Why so much effort to deny the existence of a deity that (supposedly) doesn't exist? Very strange.

In his essay on Novak on his website (linked from the article), he says:

"I choose not to believe in hypotheses for which there is no supporting evidence."

In the same essay, he says:

"I get chills when I think about an alien race of beings, perhaps somewhat like me, perhaps nothing like me, gazing in my direction from another galaxy and wondering, as I do, if someone is looking back."

Somehow, he doesn't see his own hypocrisy in believing in this alien race (for which there is not one scintilla of evidence) while proclaiming that he is so "rational" because he does not believe in hypotheses for which there is no supporting evidence.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Good grief, Zeb, he doesn't state that he "believes" in an "alien race".

Read your own cut and paste.

He wonders about what form life might take on other planets and whether it's contemplating the same thing.

Carl Sagan was not a hypocrite and neither am I for wondering the same thing.