Atheist? Agnostic? Humanist?

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
Currently waiting to hear the outcome of my lobbying to become both Archbishop of Canterbury and Chief Rabbi, so not technically (or remotely) atheist or agnostic.

I find it very interesting how sure atheists can be about the non-existence of God(s), which is actually pretty illogical given the burden of proof required to disprove the existence of anything. Agnostics I don't mind, as long as they don't pronounce the 'G'.

Atheists often go by the Scientific Method not allowing for the existence of a god because we can't define it with proof. So far we can't measure a soul or a life that goes on after physical death.

The Burden of Proof is on the person who says this higher power exists. Not on the people who say we have no proof of this higher power. You can't prove something doesn't exist if we have no proof at all it does exist.

No one can see it, no one can smell it, no one can hear it, no one can touch it. We have no proof of it in any way possible. As for life that goes on after death- all proof leads to well pretty much no proof at all. But hope people have that they will go on and that's all they have to stand on. I don't believe in things because it feels good or that I hope to believe a doctrine I've heard. I run things by the scientific method that proves all things we can understand.

We know that the brain can form split personalities- one atheist and one theist. And if someone has a certain brain injury all of their personality characteristics go away forever. If this is the case that our persona lives on in another dimension, how would one with split personas be judged? Do they both go to hell, only half go to hell, etc.

If I claimed a tooth fairy existed for real, the burden of proof is on me. Not the people who have never seen a tooth fairy past early childhood stories. How can I prove to someone who believes in the tooth fairy that she doesn't exist? I can prove so much more with the God theory based on answered prayers being at the same success rate as random chance.

I used to be an extreme conservative right wing bible thumping tithe paying Christian for 28 years. I know how Apologists think. I used to be one. In my studies to be a stronger more faithful Christian I only found it to contradict itself. Thus I had no choice but to look into what others who doubted all gods felt about the god I had worshiped for so long. Then I was like woah, I am not the only one who noticed this stuff. I was just afraid to admit it to myself.

Burden of proof is on the believer making claims for things science can't remotely find to be consistent across the board.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't get it...

Why do you want to find a label in order to classify yourself on the basis of something you don't think?

Because I'm on the search to find people who think similarly to what I think. I can do that by throwing this subject out there for others to cling to so they, too, can find camaraderie with like minded individuals as well. I don't mind some labels. Why should I limit my comfort levels to your comfort levels with the word.

It's like calling someone a "thingamajigist", that being someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns, or a "dodecahedrist", that being someone who doesn't believe in geometry.

Geometry is a science that works everytime it is applied. Pythagorean Theorem for example. Works everytime you work with a triangle to find the measures. It's one of many concrete equations that give us answers for life. A calculator never gets it wrong. If someone denies Geometry then they aren't educated in how it works and how it always works no matter who you are or who made the calculator. It makes a lot of sense. As for religious beliefs, the results are always varied and not much different than chance.

Do you even know what a Secular Humanist even is? If not, look it up because it's something that people have to label themselves by in order to explain what they do believe in and how they do about trying to make the world a better place sans religion and do what is right for the sake of the betterment of the community. Religion can be abolished and people will always be people. But I don't believe in helping people charitably and holding their sandwich hostage until they hear a sermon. I believe in just helping those who are in need with no religious conviction to do it. This is all a part of secular humanism. It says a lot about someone when they know how they fall in line with a particular group of people in every way and help others understand what it is they do in fact believe in for various reasons.

If you have a problem with my knowing I am a secular humanist and labeling myself. Don't call yourself anything you aren't comfortable with and I will do the same for myself.

If you don't believe something then that's all there is to it - you needn't have a contrary view - you can simply reject the belief.

Did I say I have the contrary view? I don't just reject believe. I'm not here to recruit people to my way of believing. I am here to talk about who I am and let those who feel inclined to do the same be able to find a platform to do it. I have zero interest arguing religion here at LPSG.

And you refer to family being "pretty tolerant", well do you imagine that's remarkable or unusual? Family's are supposed to be tolerant, if not actually encouraging and supportive; you make it sound like they're doing you a favour.

Well, I had a brother commit suicide for not being accepted for who he was, another brother has left the family 13 years ago, another brother won't live in the area for his own reasons. I stay because I have a lot of roots here. And if I can get along with my family that demanded we all went to church 3 times a week, get baptized or go to hell or learn to speak tongues to show your closeness to God (my dad was a pastor also and still an avid believer himself) THEN- YES IT'S A GINORMOUS THING to have my family continue to love me and want to be around me despite our differences in religious belief.

And as for friends, do you mean to say that people in your area would reject you as a friend on the basis of your beliefs? If that's the case then I would say you're better off without them. Doesn't sound very "christian" to me.

There are a million things that Christians do to people who don't believe similarly. Wake up, look around, ask questions. Be willing to listen to stories. I was told my childhood toys such as Carebears were devilish and evil by the pastors kids. You have no idea what it has been for me and what sacrifices I've had to make in order to remain close or atleast a little to the ones who pushed religion the most on me. I live in the Bible Belt. In a town of about 10,000 people where a church is on every corner. You get asked by people which church you attend and if you say none, people will put their hand to their heart and gasp. Then proceed to push you to go to their church.

I try to hang out in places where I am likely to meet more people like myself. Sadly they are minimal and due to my health problems I am quite limited to what I can do physically by getting out and into stressful environments. Respect that. Respect that people who come here and have been coming here for years sometimes put threads up to find others like them.

That's what I have observed the ETC forum to be used for, among many off-penis-topics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
I'm pretty curious for why the atheists among us have chosen not to believe anymore.

I never believed...I haven't seen compelling reason for belief...so I don't. This applies to everything else I haven't seen compelling belief for. I don't see why it's framed as an active choice. It's the default position for everything else, and should be for this too.
 

Mushrhoom

Expert Member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Posts
270
Media
7
Likes
242
Points
188
Location
Laos
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd like to hear about your reasoning, your experience where you live, how your family dealt with your "coming out" as an Atheist.

I'm pretty curious for why the atheists among us have chosen not to believe anymore.

I've honestly NEVER believed it. I was raised as a lutheran and went along with it when I was a kid because - what else can you do when you're a kid? My mom made me get "confirmed" as a lutheran, but after that at age 16 I was free to choose. I did, and I haven't been to church since. My mom was probably a little disappointed, but generally upheld my right to choose my own beliefs.

There are a number of obvious logical problems with the Western concept of god, which I picked up on even in my early teens. When I was a little kid I felt like the little boy in the fable about the "Emperor's New Clothes"; surrounded by people oohing and aahing while it became increasingly clear that the theology was buck naked.

For many years I labeled myself Agnostic - mainly to spare the feelings of and avoid controversy with people of faith. As I have gotten older and have witnessed numerous outrages cloaked within the guise of "faith" (George W Bush comes immediately to mind), I have become less tolerant - especially of organized religion.

Science and religion, as alluded to by a previous poster, are NOT the same. The scientific method presumes that we don't know everything and provides a process for refining and improving our knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, generally invokes dogma - which pretty much obstructs any attempt to correct, or even question, our errors.

I grew up in southern California in the late-50's to early-60's. Later I moved to Alaska, and for the past 10 years I've been living in Laos.
 

smudgey

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Posts
351
Media
24
Likes
114
Points
188
Location
Australia
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm an atheist, and have been since I was 10 and started actually reading the bible. That's when the penny dropped... And I've never had a problem with ostracism as Australia is considered secular, and a vast majority of my friends do not believe.
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
non-theist interested in The Bible as literature..I love read His-story..History..The Crusades..Knight Templar's..all about the Popes and the Anti-Popes....Then there is John Calviin..whose ideas resonate. as Christian Fundamentalism today! No doubt though ..Joseph Smith..and the golden Plates?..Narvoo..Iowa?..Jesus. visiting the lost tribe in Both America?....I mean..Now that's wile stuff man..Dan Brown can make $$$ writing fictional conspiracies. about the Catholic Church..but ya gotta hand it to the Mormons..I mean..they even have their own special underwear..This stuff is fantastic!!
.I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth".."A myth is someone's misunderstood. religion ..Religion is misunderstood. Myth..".."Follow Your Bliss" he always said..
 

Mushrhoom

Expert Member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Posts
270
Media
7
Likes
242
Points
188
Location
Laos
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I never believed...I haven't seen compelling reason for belief...so I don't. This applies to everything else I haven't seen compelling belief for. I don't see why it's framed as an active choice. It's the default position for everything else, and should be for this too.

Absolutely right!!

For you besieged non-believers in need of a little uplift and reinforcement, check this guy out. He'll make your day.

Pat Condell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PAT CONDELL'S GODLESS COMEDY

Pat Condell's Godless Comedy
 

Cylon No1

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Posts
303
Media
21
Likes
308
Points
363
Location
South Africa
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Funny the guy who started this forgot to add RELIGIOUS to the title.

Make you think..............doesn't it.

Well at least there are a lot of us that don't need to justify why we are not any of the above three.

We know the truth .............don't we.

Peace,perfect peace!

:wink:
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
Funny the guy who started this forgot to add RELIGIOUS to the title.

Make you think..............doesn't it.

Well at least there are a lot of us that don't need to justify why we are not any of the above three.

We know the truth .............don't we.

Peace,perfect peace!

:wink:

I started the thread and I am a female. I was curious who here identified themselves as an Atheist, Agnostic or Humanist. Not who was religious OR Atheist.

I don't need to justify anything. I'm outing myself here and finding others that agree that I might not otherwise have known about if I didn't create this thread.

Peace, Perfect peace? Now there is a justification if I've ever heard one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
I also think it's a little funny that you'd consider "I don't have to justify myself" as a show of strength...if I can't explain something, or I'm not willing to, I consider it an indication that my rationale is probably weak.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
I also think it's a little funny that you'd consider "I don't have to justify myself" as a show of strength...if I can't explain something, or I'm not willing to, I consider it an indication that my rationale is probably weak.

Admitting you are likely under the spell of a placebo effect is hard to do. I've been there myself. I used to equate Atheists as Devil Worshipers. I really thought Atheists were just mad at God. And that they proved that God existed because Atheists only seemed to mention the Christian God. What I failed to realize is that I had never spoken to an Atheist before to know what it is to be an Atheist. I was sheltered. I also failed to realize that Atheists are going to talk about the religions that effect them the most and society the most in a negative way. We don't talk as much about Buddha because Buddha doesn't make law in our country. It hasn't been responsible for a lot of deaths or crimes that are allowed under the clause of religiosity.
 

D_Bubba_Butter

Account Disabled
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Posts
2,814
Media
0
Likes
95
Points
83
Yes, but when looking at the bible or q'uran, the words are supposedly directly from God.
So when Mozes split the ocean, it was not some trickery or unknown scientific occurence.
The Bible says it's the work of God, the bible and other religious works are the ultimate truth as it is Gods work.

It does not leave room for any other interpretation as doubting the books is doubting God.

So no it is not the same.

In science the gaps can be filled with new yet unseen discoveries, in religion all the answers are set because you cannot question the words of a god as questioning it, it would mean it was flawed and gods cannot not be flawed.
Mozes split the ocean, Jesus turned water into wine, budha slept under a tree for x amount of years all by divine power.

Sooo not the same thing but I do like the comparison.



Firstly, the Bible is not one book and not supposedly directly from God, unlike the Quran; the canon was developed over thousands of years and many additional texts were culled by the Church in the first millennium AD. Also, only the blinkered and brainwashed see the Bible as wholly literal; it's amazing how many people fail to understand that the Bible in English is a translation, let alone appreciate that aspects of the translation are best guess or incorrect. There is an element of historic record, but an awful lot of allegory etc. Miracles are an entirely different kettle of fish, as limited scientific understanding lowers the historical threshold for what could be considered a supernatural occurrence. However, there's still a belief in miracles, mostly of healing, and the Vatican in particular goes to considerable lengths to try and explain these away.

You say that the gaps in science may be filled with new yet unseen discoveries. If it can't be detected, it's just a hypothesis, or belief. There is faith that something fills that gap. However, we are limited to the known universe in the dimensions we can experience, although physics tells is there are probably more. For example, a stick man drawn on a piece of paper in two dimensions cannot perceive me watching him in three dimensions. However, if I put my finger on the paper, I have entered his world and he can see me until I remove it. He might think that was an unexplained apparition; I know it's very basic science. We're awfully sure about just how clever we are, but have no idea about anything beyond the observable universe. The universe is currently expanding into apparently nothing (i.e. not a vacuum or space, absolutely nothing), having started out as an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense mass of unknown origin that exploded for no apparent reason. If you can confidently believe that, I don't see why the existence of God(s) is so contentious. For all you know, you may be nothing more than part of a more advanced lifeform's computer game & I'm being instructed to write this by the software...
 

D_ Jack_Soffalotte

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Posts
128
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
@ Mademoiselle Rouge

How does one "learn" to speak in tongues? Isn't that just talking meaningless nonsense? Surely that is something anybody could do. If there is more to it than that please forgive the ignorance, it seems to be something that pentecostal churches do and I have no experience with pentecostals.
 

D_Bubba_Butter

Account Disabled
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Posts
2,814
Media
0
Likes
95
Points
83
Atheists often go by the Scientific Method not allowing for the existence of a god because we can't define it with proof. So far we can't measure a soul or a life that goes on after physical death.

The Burden of Proof is on the person who says this higher power exists. Not on the people who say we have no proof of this higher power. You can't prove something doesn't exist if we have no proof at all it does exist.

No one can see it, no one can smell it, no one can hear it, no one can touch it. We have no proof of it in any way possible. As for life that goes on after death- all proof leads to well pretty much no proof at all. But hope people have that they will go on and that's all they have to stand on. I don't believe in things because it feels good or that I hope to believe a doctrine I've heard. I run things by the scientific method that proves all things we can understand.

We know that the brain can form split personalities- one atheist and one theist. And if someone has a certain brain injury all of their personality characteristics go away forever. If this is the case that our persona lives on in another dimension, how would one with split personas be judged? Do they both go to hell, only half go to hell, etc.

If I claimed a tooth fairy existed for real, the burden of proof is on me. Not the people who have never seen a tooth fairy past early childhood stories. How can I prove to someone who believes in the tooth fairy that she doesn't exist? I can prove so much more with the God theory based on answered prayers being at the same success rate as random chance.

I used to be an extreme conservative right wing bible thumping tithe paying Christian for 28 years. I know how Apologists think. I used to be one. In my studies to be a stronger more faithful Christian I only found it to contradict itself. Thus I had no choice but to look into what others who doubted all gods felt about the god I had worshiped for so long. Then I was like woah, I am not the only one who noticed this stuff. I was just afraid to admit it to myself.

Burden of proof is on the believer making claims for things science can't remotely find to be consistent across the board.

Bollocks. This isn't the English legal system - the burden of proof is on no-one. It's a matter of belief. You have reasons why you don't believe in the existence of a higher power, other people have reasons why they do. Nobody can definitively prove their position, so all parties simply have to accept the others' points of view & get on with what they think is best for them.

The problem comes when one group wishes to force their ideas onto someone else, or to eradicate a rival ideology. And that very rarely has religious roots, and is usually guided by other motives, with deliberate misinterpretation of religious literature in order to manipulate the populus.

And what do mean the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?! She's starting to get pretty pissed off at always getting dragged into this argument!
 
Last edited:

Zeuhl34

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Posts
2,027
Media
19
Likes
144
Points
208
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I was raised Catholic, but it was a pretty liberal brand of Catholicism. Around 16 or 17, I just kinda stopped giving shit, and over the next few years, I eventually wound up at my current position of being extremely apathetic about religion, and effectively an atheist.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
Bollocks. This isn't the English legal system - the burden of proof is on no-one. It's a matter of belief. You have reasons why you don't believe in the existence of a higher power, other people have reasons why they do. Nobody can definitively prove their position, so all parties simply have to accept the others' points of view & get on with what they think is best for them.

The problem comes when one group wishes to force their ideas onto someone else, or to eradicate a rival ideology. And that very rarely has religious roots, and is usually guided by other motives, with deliberate misinterpretation of religious literature in order to manipulate the populus.

And what do mean the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?! She's starting to get pretty pissed off at always getting dragged into this argument!

If the burden of proof is on no one, why do Xtians constantly ask me to prove my position by disproving what is in their own mind that they believe. That which is not proven by evidence requires no evidence to disprove it.

Extreme religiosity does a lot of harm. You can't compare the two as rivals. They aren't. One is based solely on emotions, feelings, placebo effect, suspending belief in science to some degree and last of all fear of hell. None of that is what leads me to the conclusion I have came to. I don't believe in anything with out evidence. No god out of thousands has been proven to be more than a fairy tale. As for The Tooth Fairy, I will let her off the hook and bug good ol' Santa about it. He's on retirement for the summer anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D_ Jack_Soffalotte

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Posts
128
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Bollocks. This isn't the English legal system - the burden of proof is on no-one. It's a matter of belief. You have reasons why you don't believe in the existence of a higher power, other people have reasons why they do. Nobody can definitively prove their position, so all parties simply have to accept the others' points of view & get on with what they think is best for them.

The problem comes when one group wishes to force their ideas onto someone else, or to eradicate a rival ideology. And that very rarely has religious roots, and is usually guided by other motives, with deliberate misinterpretation of religious literature in order to manipulate the populus.

And what do mean the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?! She's starting to get pretty pissed off at always getting dragged into this argument!
She isn't saying that because there is no proof of god, her position is the correct one, but rather than non-belief is logical since there is no evidence to the contrary. There's a clear semantic difference there. It definitely is a burden of proof question since the theist is the one who makes the claim in the first place.

This is such an obvious truism; I cannot fathom why people aren't able to comprehend this.