Atheism = Farce!

[willow78]

I'm not a religious person. I don't ask any God to solve my problems for me because I think it's useless. I think finding power and strength within yourself, is far better than trying to find it from someone/somewhere else.

 

[Drifterwood]

The illogic of that thesis, and it's a huge, is this:

What nonsense.




p.s. "Well…Nancy," . . . . hmmm :squint:

Agreed, a perfect syllogism revolving around a self asserted premise.

I wish theists would fuck off and stop referring to me and others simply as non theists. Is that the scope of their descriptive comprehension?

What is a non animist? An Aanimist? Sounds like a Boston sect. :tongue:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Pfffhahahaha. Being atheist doesn't mean absolute knowledge that there is no god. It's belief that there is no god. I admit I have no real evidence that there is no god, but there is no evidence for god either, so based on how I feel, I believe there is no god.

Indeed - and other people come to assorted and varied other conclusions and we should all respect that in each other.

The reason there wont be any real outrage is because most people who call themselves atheist aren't over-reactive morons. And someone attacking my belief doesn't mean anything. Unlike other religions, when you attack that, you are attacking their mental crutch, at least in my opinion. Atheism is a luxury. It would be like if someone tried insulting for having a Lamborghini Miura. Ouch, I'm so hurt.

Atheism is a luxury? How so?

Another question: I feel it is a bit weird that you seem to be suggesting atheism, atheist beliefs, should be respected and yet in the next breath you describe any other belief (any theism) as a mental crutch - from which I infer you think of theists as weaker minded people. Am I reading you wrong or is that what you intend?

Finally, in your second paragraph, you talk about atheism and then refer to theist viewpoints as 'other religions'. Do you then think atheism is a religion? If you do I agree with you, but I'm wondering was that a slip of the keyboard.

I guess my point was that if this article were "The Farce of Religion" you would see Agnostics, and Atheists in this thread outraged by the attack on people's personal beliefs. There would be dire imprecations about militant atheism and the insult this kind of thing poses to people's right to believe what they want without being attacked.

Would you? Really? 'Outraged'? Are you sure?

It's just telling that people of faith, in the main, would be less likely to do Atheists the same courtesy.

I used to be an atheist - I was brought up as such. On a person to person level I was occassionally berated for my beliefs by theists, it did happen, but mostly when the subject arose I was engaged with respectfully by people who accepted my views and the validity of the argument I put forward supporting my views. In terms of what I was exposed to passively, in Catholic Ireland, it was clear I was in the minority but, in Dublin anyway, an accepted minority. True, some people were just horrified that I was unbaptised and therefore damned but even from those people there was no hostility or derision, just pity. Which I wasn't offended by because I considered it misguided pity - I still do actually, as the concept of being damned by default for not having performed the right ritual still seems ridiculous to me.

I'm now a theist. I'm regularly exposed to (passively as well as through person to person interaction) the view that I am stupid, weak, irrational, backward and deficient for being a theist. There are very few atheists in my personal acquaintances who simply accept the validity of my views, my right to those views, yes - but accepting the validity of my views the way I felt theists did when I was an atheist, no. Most of them just steer off the subject. The vast majority of those that don't don't seem to mind offending me by calling me stupid.

That is my personal experience.

We all have the battle-scars of various religion threads here and elsewhere. I seriously wonder every time the suggestion is made of establishing a "Spirituality Forum" here at LPSG if the proponent has any concept of how such a subforum would make the Politics Forum look like Funny Stuff: Jokes, Quizzes, Games & Pics

Jus' sayin'

Wise words - if it was created I would never visit, not to read nor to post. There's enough hate and misunderstanding in the world without creating a new place in to which it can spill forth.

The truth is it's all faith.

I agree and, these days, atheism is becoming as much of a Religion (with a capital R) as any of the others. And a Religion of opposition and denial, at that. Not a positive affirmation of anything.

Where theist religions have been most damaging in the past, and present, is when they seek to oppose and deny - e.g the Crusades, militant Islamists taking action against the USA, forced conversions, witch trials, etc.. Atheism, as a cohesive school of thought with figureheads such as Dawkins, is now on the attack and many atheists with a small 'a' are becoming Atheists with a capital A, taking up the arguments of the figureheads and preaching them to the 'non-believers', seeking to undermine and convert.

Of course theist religions have been and continue to be guilty of that - and many atheists, and now Atheism (capital A), attack religions for that. Quite reasonably, I think. What I don't think is reasonable is the hypocrisy.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The truth is it's all faith. Speaking personally, I cannot fathom an existence without a spiritual base. What that spiritual base is and how it incarnates in my life is certainly not for this thread if for no other reason than I hate being preached to and hate espousing my beliefs on the unsuspecting (and generally unprepared) public.

That being said, I have tried to wrap my head around atheism. Truly I have. And I have had conversations with so-called "atheists" who when you talk to them and really listen to what they have to say they really just don't believe in the Christian God. And it's less of a mouthful to say they're atheist than to say they don't believe in the Christian God.

Please note:

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO EVERY ATHEIST ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!

Therefore there may indeed be people out there that truly don't believe in the existence of ANY God (or Goddess or Energy or whatever they're calling "IT" nowadays) outside of the human animal. I just haven't met them. But I would like to find what I would call a "true atheist" and pick his or her brain ad nauseum until the mere thought of explaining it "one more fucking time for the slow bunch" makes them want to bite down on the business end of a rifle. Not that I want to see anyone dead for their spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof). It's just that it's so foreign to me - and fascinating - I'm like a caveman discovering fire for the first time and alternately bowing down to worship it and poking it with a stick.

Well you've met one of these elusive beasts now. I do not believe in any god or higher power of any kind. I don't not believe in an afterlife or in the human soul. I do not believe in any spirituality or in the supernatural.

 

[Pendlum]

Indeed - and other people come to assorted and varied other conclusions and we should all respect that in each other.



Atheism is a luxury? How so?

Another question: I feel it is a bit weird that you seem to be suggesting atheism, atheist beliefs, should be respected and yet in the next breath you describe any other belief (any theism) as a mental crutch - from which I infer you think of theists as weaker minded people. Am I reading you wrong or is that what you intend?

Finally, in your second paragraph, you talk about atheism and then refer to theist viewpoints as 'other religions'. Do you then think atheism is a religion? If you do I agree with you, but I'm wondering was that a slip of the keyboard.

The mental crutch and being a luxury kind of play together. I consider it a luxury because many people, in my opinion, believe because it is comforting to them. Whether it is because they believe their suffering is part of a greater plan, and they will be rewarded for their faith, or just that there is something after death. Which is why I call it a crutch. Just like you use a crutch so you don't have to put weight on a broken leg, if you are really afraid of death, believing in an after life is a simple way to take the weight off. This isn't universally true obviously, but I think it is observable in people who often believe or reaffirm their faith when they have a near death experience. And again, with those who suffer from illness or poverty, etc. Thinking that it is part of a plan gives it a purpose. If you had to drag a heavy object across a field over and over again for no reason, it feels like torture, and seems hopeless. But if you suddenly turn that heavy object into a plow, you are cultivating that land in order to plant something. So if none of these problems plague you, I think it is easier to not believe. So it is a luxury in the sense that it is easy to be when you don't have many hardships.

I don't really think of atheism as a religion, but it is still a belief system, albeit it a simple one (which is another reason it appeals to me so much). But there is no real dogma, no rituals, no official ranks, no worship. It seems odd to categorize it as a religion. But at the same time, it is eternally linked with religion. Without religions, there wouldn't be atheism. It's almost like a pseudo-religion. Is saying something is like a pseudo something redundant? :tongue: It seems like it would be, but at the same time it makes perfect sense to me. Anyway..

I agree that atheists can be pretty bad about being rude and militant. Arrogance is practically built in. But then again, that is the same with religion, though there is a subtle difference. A religious person is 'given' the truth usually, so the arrogance is kind of like being in the cool kids group or something. Atheists tend to think that they've used their mental powers to come up with the correct answers (even though now people like Dawkins do the same for people I'm sure). I know that is how I feel, because that is exactly what I did. I just thought about it and came up with my own answer to what I believe. So to some the logical conclusion is my brain came up with this answer which I perceive as right, and your brain didn't, therefore my brain is better than your brain. Religious people don't take the credit for their enlightenment (except maybe Buddhism, but I don't know much about it), it's usually something like "Jesus showed me the way." It's almost hard not to feel mentally superior sometimes simply because of how loud the ignorant religious people are, compared to the smart ones. While the loudest atheists tend to be smart (that is my observation at least). Although they lack a lot tact it seems. I don't know much about Dawkins, except from what I've heard/read I don't really like him very much. Plus I consider his writing to be crappy, it's very dry (from what little I read, I couldn't get very far into whichever book of his I was reading. :tongue.

Disclaimer: These are my personal beliefs. :tongue:

 

[musclebare9]

Beside the reasoning the author uses to make his point, I have to agree with the concept. There are many out there who claim to be atheists but should really be calling themselves agnostic. I haven't met every atheist and discussed things deeply with them but the ones that I have known for a longer period of time eventually express some belief in God. I have heard statements relating to the hereafter, praying, eternal judgment. I have heard many state that they were previously religious but then had a change of mind. What I really saw was that these people had something traumatic happen in their lives and they held God accountable for it. Life didn't go as they had it planned and they are mad. That doesn't make a person an atheist.

The reasoning in the link that requires an absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist seems to be the stumbling point for many.

 

[Boobalaa]

Can one have faith and not be superstitious? or visa versa?:biggrin1:
Can one believe in something they can't understand?:biggrin1:
Is Truth arbitrarily defined depending on beliefs and understanding?:biggrin1:

Joseph Campbell said, "Myths are other peoples Religion. Religion is misunderstood Myth":biggrin1:

the wiki on Mythology

 

[B_subgirrl]

There are many out there who claim to be atheists but should really be calling themselves agnostic.

This is true. Many people have never even heard of the word agnostic so they don't even realise that there's another category they can belong to. Another problem is that if you choose to call yourself agnostic it means you will have to keep explaining yourself over and over again (because so many people have never heard of the word agnostic). It's less effort to just say you're an atheist.

 

[Notthe7]

Am I the only one who laughed out loud? Some asshat took a philosophy/theology 101 class and felt so enthralled with knowledge that he made a website.

Kudos.

Let me know when he/she takes an upper division writing class, Christ.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The reasoning in the link that requires an absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist seems to be the stumbling point for many.

This is because it's commonly thought that Atheism is a belief that there is no god. Such belief would require the conviction that there is no god as though one had knowledge that there was no god. However Atheism isn't (or at least does not have to be) a belief that there is no god, it is simply not-believing there is a god. The difference is that I do not have to have knowledge that there is no god in order to disbelieve in him.

I simply disbelieve in god until someone shows me absolute proof that he exists. I do not need absolute proof that god does not exist in order to maintain that position.

 

[Boobalaa]

This is true. Many people have never even heard of the word agnostic so they don't even realise that there's another category they can belong to. Another problem is that if you choose to call yourself agnostic it means you will have to keep explaining yourself over and over again (because so many people have never heard of the word agnostic). It's less effort to just say you're an atheist.

:biggrin1:..yes but what is very interesting is learning about what the word means and where it came from.."nosis" is Greek for knowledge.."ag" = without..in other words not knowing one way or the other..The really really cool stuff about this is, that there was a Jewish religious group called the "Essenes" who have been portrayed as being "Nostic". This dove-tails into another big story about the dead Sea Scrolls..fascinating stuff

 

[Cant_Stop]

This little essay ridiculous. Atheism is an absence in belief or rejection of belief in a god (no, not just the christian god). Agnosticism is just not knowing and usually a belief that there 'has to be something out there'. And of course atheists are not 'all knowing', neither are christians, mulsims, jews or anyone else, which is why there are such things as atheists and agnostics.

It is writings like this that turn people away from the arrogance of religion.



And in another note:

Q: What does a dyslexic insomniac agnostic like to do?
A: Stay up all night wondering if there is a Dog.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

:biggrin1:..yes but what is very interesting is learning about what the word means and where it came from.."nosis" is Greek for knowledge.."ag" = without..in other words not knowing one way or the other..The really really cool stuff about this is, that there was a Jewish religious group called the "Essenes" who have been portrayed as being "Nostic". This dove-tails into another big story about the dead Sea Scrolls..fascinating stuff

It's actually "a" and "gnosis" the "a" is a prefix meaning something like "without" or "absent" in this case. "gnosis" means knowlegde, the Gnosts or Gnostics were a very interesting early Christian sect whose influence on later Christianity is being gradually rediscovered.

 

[Calboner]

Am I the only one who laughed out loud? Some asshat took a philosophy/theology 101 class and felt so enthralled with knowledge that he made a website.

If he took philosophy 101, he can't have gotten a good grade. He's repeating the cant that amateur religious apologists have been repeating for a long time. Like this rubbish:

It’s because in order to state emphatically that God does not exist, you would have to be omniscient, which means you would possess complete knowledge of the entire universe and of every dimension and all parallel universes known and unknown.

By parity of reasoning, it follows that no one can be an a-fairy-ist, an a-leprechaun-ist, an a-Zeus-ist, an a-hypogriff-ist, and so on ad infinitum, since there is no limit to the number of imaginary beings that can be posited as existing somewhere or somehow.

As Richard Dawkins (for whom I usually don't have much time, but on this point his arguments are good enough to dispose of clowns like this one) likes to say, everyone is an atheist about the vast majority of gods.

 

[B_subgirrl]

:biggrin1:..yes but what is very interesting is learning about what the word means and where it came from.."nosis" is Greek for knowledge.."ag" = without..in other words not knowing one way or the other..The really really cool stuff about this is, that there was a Jewish religious group called the "Essenes" who have been portrayed as being "Nostic". This dove-tails into another big story about the dead Sea Scrolls..fascinating stuff

It's actually "a" and "gnosis" the "a" is a prefix meaning something like "without" or "absent" in this case. "gnosis" means knowlegde, the Gnosts or Gnostics were a very interesting early Christian sect whose influence on later Christianity is being gradually rediscovered.

Am I a nerd for loving word roots and their meanings? :tongue:

 

[Cant_Stop]

Am I a nerd for loving word roots and their meanings? :tongue:

Yes, but in a good way.:biggrin1:

 

[mitchymo]

Had me disagreeing from the first paragraph too.

"It really grates on my nerves when I hear people call themselves atheists, because it reveals the two dimensional nature of their thinking processes. It’s along the same lines as those who state emphatically that there is absolutely no absolute truth. By making the remark, they establish an absolute truth, thereby negating their own statement."

They don't, if the statement is incorrect then it can't possibly be an absolute truth. Any hypocricy in the statement exists because, as a thinking man would know, the statement isn't meant to be literal, it is philosophical.

I do believe however, that there are probably more agnostics out there calling themselves athiest but who just haven't really explored their spirituality.

 

[DevonTexas]

Apparently

The Farce of Atheism

The writer sounds a bit bitter... and has little knowledge on how to properly format a webpage.

 

[Jason]

Agnosticism is the easiest intellectual position to hold.

Theists can and do argue that they know God through a direct, personal experience, or through philosophical proofs of the existence of God. The idea is coherent. Both routes can offer what the theist regards as certainty.

Atheism is problematic. In order to be an atheist you have to be sure that the views of the theists are wrong (if you think they might be correct you are an agnostic). In effect atheists are regarding personal experience of God as some form of psychological condition, and have looked at and rejected the philosophical arguments. These rejections require a lot of academic knowledge in both psychology and philosophy.

The article at the start of this thread is (in my view) not arguing its point very well. But it does have a point. It is very, very difficult to be an atheist. Most people who call themselves atheists are realy agnostics.

 

[DevonTexas]

I'm agnostic. I cannot prove to you the Great Pumpkin exists and you cannot prove to me that it does. And yeah, Atheism is kind of a religion in its own right.