I believe in Atheism...

[Evandril]

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem.

Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong

In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not? And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

[Pedersen]

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Slyt, this has been bothering me for a couple of days, and I'm hoping that I've misunderstood. But my understanding of what you've said is, basically, this: Since the universe makes sense, there is some sort of deific entity out there.

Which, if we extrapolate the whole rational/makes sense bit, we eventually come down to a statement like "Since cause precedes effect, there's a deity of some sort."

I know I've misunderstood, but that's what I've understood. Please tell me what I got wrong.

[Boozy]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?

The subject of unicorn-belief comes up so seldomly and has such little bearing in modern culture and philosophy that there's no need for a term to desribe people who believe/don't believe in them.

I was being a bit pedantic there. I do understand what your point is, but I think you can also recognize that religion is a major force in the world, so we need words to describe how people feel about it.

[Flyndaran]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?
All we are a-leprechaun-ites a-X-ites ad infinitum for not believing in all the impossible but also linguistically impossible to prove nonsense?

[AFPheonix]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

[Jadedcarguy]

OK, after my last post I've been kicking around some thoughts that I think I need to put down here, mainly the misconceptions about what atheism is and what it isn't.

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.


"But Jaded, that makes you agnostic LOL!!1!"

No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem.

The believer in a god or religion is going to do one of two or possibly three things:

1)Continue to believe until the day they die, shunning all information that refutes their faith.

2)Start to investigate their faith when they come across inconsistencies in the doctrine, realize that their holy texts are in fact fallible, and lose their faith. This is what I did.

3)Realize that the texts aren't ironclad and contain errors, yet continue in the faith anyway, because it makes them 'feel good'. I think this represents the majority of Christians.


In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

[Jadedcarguy]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

It would help if you would quote the sentence in question, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly. If something is theoretically possible but yet unproven, it isn't necessarily 'stupid' to believe it could happen someday, similar to the work done with the Large Hadron Collider. They are looking for something that hasn't been seen but should exist. That's not stupid, it's called exploration and experimentation. So far nothing has been found to imply a deity, no matter how much someone wants to believe that the universe was 'made'.

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

I have never said it is impossible. Never, not once, ever. A deity could exist without any evidence in out testable world if it is outside of our plane of existence. If, however it has influence of any kind in our plane, that would have to leave some kind of mark or clue or evidence. There isn't any.

It is unlikely that such a being exists. I never said it couldn't exist. As I said earlier, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, I am under no pressure to disprove any god. You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming to have evidence against gods. I don't. I am saying that evidence for their existence is seriously lacking. Big difference.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit. Nothing has been observed, detected, recorded, or otherwise to indicate anything else. God-belief is about emotion and faith, which is belief without evidence, not about facts and proof.

I don't believe in Unicorns, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, The Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra or any other cryptozoological critters either, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence for them than there is for any kind of god. Deities have come and gone countless times since humanity climbed out of the trees. Like belief in a flat earth, a pillar of turtles, an earth-centric universe, and so on, myths about gods are slowly being replaced with proven facts.

If you want to believe, have fun with it. I won't tell you not to. Just understand where I'm coming from when I say it isn't something I'd put stock in. I lack belief in deities because it is something that I can't reconcile with what I know is true and real. If something comes along to change that, so be it. I'll modify my stance at that time.

[Slytovhand]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

[Jadedcarguy]

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

It's loony if it involves making up a deity to explain things. I don't care how long a go it was, even if it was the "science" of the time.

Seeing an animal take flight and wondering how you could do it is not loony.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).

It equates a completely different kind of belief and faith than religion is based on with calling someone stupid for having it. Two very different things.

[Slytovhand]

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).

They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.

No, you won't.. but I'm reminded of a joke that fits in perfectly here:

One day in the not too distant future, the worlds scientists have worked out completely the human genome, and also all the physics that prove evolution. They approach God, to say that since they've proven such things, they've also proven God doesn't exist. God says "Fine, please demonstrate this for me". The scientists say "Sure, I'll just grab this handful of dirt...". God intervenes and says "Hang on - you get your own dirt!"

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Now, the word 'god' doesn't sit comfortably with me, but I have no problem with thinking this universe (and, theoretically, any others) were 'made'.

Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now.

Yes, I know... just mentioning it, tis all

[Jadedcarguy]

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.

2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now.

[Jadedcarguy]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

In the definition of divine that I was using, it does mean 'good'. Divine can also mean 'in reference' to a god'. That is not the definition I was using. Don't blame me, blame the English language for assigning multiple meanings to one word.

[Slytovhand]

okies... just 2 things immediately came to mind skimming through.

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

[Rapscallion]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

[Jadedcarguy]

Actually, it was in response to someone saying why are people who believe in various dieties concidered sane, but others who have *NON-RELIGIOUS* ideas, ie, having nothing to do with deities, are concidered insane. I was saying that people who *were* concidered insane at the time...Have been proven right.

Seems like an odd thing to be directing towards me then. I consider deity belief to be a little childlike myself.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, and to some extent the early 20th, polite society considered themselves to be at the absolute pinnacle of achievement. Therefore anyone trying to improve on that was considered loopy. Once it was realized how much else was truly possible, the ridicule of the dreamers subsided quite a bit.

So if a god is not a nice deity, they are not worthy of worship, and therefore not divine? I've very rarely heard of a god that didn't have the manners of a spoiled child, in *my* opinion, but lots of people worship them...It seems a different definition of 'divine' than most is being used here...Could you please clarify?

It depends on the definition of divine that you want to apply to it. I used divine in this instance as being "perfectly or supremely good", which most gods fall well short of. If you simply want to say that divine is in reference to a god, then no, my use of the word will not work. When I said that the god of the Bible was not divine, I was using the first definition.