Why do atheists...

Ronald Rodriguez73 · 2006-12-14T22:41:38+00:00

They don't have their own "Pope," their own "church," or anything like that... I’m just asking because I see these religious fanatics running around everywhere…

Taylor Campbell4 Regular

369 messages
joined Jul 2009

#41 · Jan 2, 2007

Taylor Campbell4, you took all of this much too personally, though there was really no need to go that far. I might circle back to this later.
(And if you feel like a discussion is turning into an ad hominem attack—or if you think it’s happening to anyone else—I truly believe it's best to just step away rather than engaging with it.)

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#42 · Jan 2, 2007

goranbo said:mistyscout2, you took all of that a bit too personally, and honestly, there was no reason to let it get to you like that. I might follow up on this later.
(And if you feel like an argument is turning into an "ad hominem" attack—or if anyone else feels that way—I really think it’s best just to step away rather than engaging in those kinds of back-and-forth exchanges.)

I did a little bit of editing on my post (nothing was taken out, I just added some context), specifically in the part where I quoted you saying that whether someone is an atheist or a theist doesn't matter as much as being open to new experiences. I just wanted to tweak it so the whole thought makes more sense.

I guess I did take it a little personally, mostly because you seemed to imply that knowing whether someone is an atheist or a theist is vital to the flow of the conversation. Personally, I don't see that as relevant unless someone starts making it their entire identity. Besides, I'm not even entirely sure how people define those terms these days, so... I suppose very few people actually fit perfectly into those boxes, even though everyone likes to act like they're absolutely certain about where they stand. 😬.
I felt like I had to say something, though, because one of my basic principles is that when someone tries to label you, you should probably speak up. 🙂
Best,

Taylor Campbell4 Regular

369 messages
joined Jul 2009

#43 · Jan 2, 2007

I don't really see any relevance in whether someone is an atheist or a believer when we're diving into these kinds of debates—it honestly hasn't crossed my mind as a factor at all, though I've been dwelling on why that is for the last hour or so.
I have this habit of using phrases like "what do I know?"—which, looking back, might have come off a bit too personal—so I often default to saying things like "you know" instead. Perhaps "one knows" would be more appropriate, but I suppose that’s just one of those communication quirks that remains a mystery to me; it all depends so much on how the other person perceives you. Anyway, tact isn't exactly my strongest suit. 😁
(I actually ended up deleting my first post from earlier today because it felt pretty redundant)

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#44 · Jan 2, 2007

Is it alright if I leave this in? I figured I should probably quote him just so it doesn't look like I'm just having a one-sided conversation with myself 😁. Just shoot me a DM if you’d really rather I just delete it, though honestly, I don't see much reason to scrub it...

Anyway, no big deal, let's just keep things moving along in a lighthearted way 😁.

Harold Doyle3 Active Member

216 messages
joined Aug 2006

#45 · Jan 2, 2007

All atheists of America, unite!😈

swiftcobra15 Regular

305 messages
joined Dec 2002

#46 · Jan 2, 2007

Emery said:Regarding the definition of 'atheist'—from where I'm standing, you haven't actually 'explained' it; you've just stated what you personally think it means.

I was explaining what the word means to me specifically.

It’s obvious that everyone views it differently, given that there are as many versions of "God" as there are people.
An atheist is either someone who denies (doesn't accept) the existence of one (or more) gods, or someone who fundamentally rejects the possibility of such a thing existing at all.
But since we're never going to agree on a single definition of God, that second interpretation becomes a moot point anyway.

As S. H. Roberts famously put it, he's only denying one fewer god (yours), while we generally agree that the others don't exist. The trouble is, those "others" number in the millions, if not billions.

As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...about-atheism1

Unfortunately, almost everyone today accepts the Dawkinsian paraphrase of this quote as if it were the original statement.

Emery said:That is just your private opinion, not the standard definition of atheism.
I don't see how you can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Well, that certainly was my "private opinion," just as this is yours. 😉
Are you perhaps willing to offer a scientific, philosophical, or theological definition of God? 😁

If you're an agnostic, then you are necessarily an atheist; conversely, a believer can place their faith in Science or some similar nonsense without necessarily being a theist.

Brenda Cook4 Regular

373 messages
joined Sep 2010

#47 · Jan 2, 2007

Believe it or not, pink unicorns actually exist!
The catch is, you won't lay eyes on them until you pass away.
Once you reach paradise, you get to ride them through the clouds.
But fair warning: if you're a skeptic, you might end up in a much darker place instead.

So, where do you stand on all this?
Are you a believer, an agnostic, or just a straight-up atheist?😁

Arthur Anderson49 Active Member

127 messages
joined Nov 2007

#48 · Jan 2, 2007

swiftcobra15 said:If you're an agnostic, then you're basically an atheist by default.

Khmmm... I've gotta disagree there.

See, if you identify as agnostic, it means you don't know whether Bog exists or not. But if you call yourself an atheist, you're claiming you know He doesn't exist.

To me, those two things are totally incompatible.

Think about it: anyone who claims to know something that's fundamentally unprovable—like whether Bog is out there or not—is essentially acting on faith. Which would mean an atheist is just a different flavor of believer, right?

How could a true skeptic possibly know? They can't! All they can do is make educated guesses and weigh the probabilities. So, in my book, a skeptic can't be an atheist. They have to be agnostic. In fact, being agnostic is the only way to stay truly skeptical!

swiftcobra15 Regular

305 messages
joined Dec 2002

#49 · Jan 2, 2007

Arthur Anderson49 said:If you're an atheist, then you know he doesn't exist.

😕 😁 😕 😬 😕

To me, that sounds like total nonsense—or maybe just a straw man argument.

HOW can anyone claim to know something that is inherently unknowable?

I personally KNOW that the concept of the Catholic God cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny. I feel the same way about Jewish or Muslim conceptions of deity (not to list them all), but I simply can't spend my life debunking every single possible iteration of a god or divinity.

That’s why I identify as a skeptic, an agnostic, or an atheist (which is actually what people called early Christians back when they refused to worship state gods), but I am certainly not a dogmatist.

It seems like you're trying to stigmatize the word "atheist" by painting every atheist as a closed-minded dogmatist.

I don't know what your angle is here, but I find that completely unacceptable.

In my view, atheists are people who didn't subscribe to the "official" gods of their time—think of minds like Epicurus, Spinoza, or Einstein. They were some of the greatest thinkers in history.
i, naturally, they didn't call themselves atheists (for perfectly understandable reasons: even John Locke believed that tolerance shouldn't extend to atheists), but in practice, they effectively were.

Brenda Cook4 Regular

373 messages
joined Sep 2010

#50 · Jan 2, 2007

Can we just look at it this way:

* Theist: Believes God exists without needing proof.
* Agnostic: Thinks we simply can't know if God exists or not.
* Atheist: Doesn't believe in God because there’s just no evidence.

Anything beyond that feels like splitting hairs...

Besides, the burden of proof always falls on whoever is making the positive claim—it’s just logic. And let's face it, all those various "-isms" only popped up as reactions to specific religious institutions and their whole "spiritual machinery."

Take this classic example of atheist reasoning from Isaac Asimov:
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

swiftcobra15 Regular

305 messages
joined Dec 2002

#51 · Jan 2, 2007

To all seems quite straightforward to me.

1. A believer simply believes.

2. A theist specifically believes in the existence of God, and so on...

3. As for me, I don't believe—nor do I spend much energy worrying about it—
but I certainly understand the distinctions I've laid out above.

Arthur Anderson49 Active Member

127 messages
joined Nov 2007

#52 · Jan 2, 2007

Brenda Cook4 said:Can we just simplify it like this:

* A theist believes God exists without needing proof.
* An agnostic thinks we can't actually know anything about whether God exists or not.
* An atheist thinks God doesn't exist because there’s just zero evidence for Him.

Everything else is honestly just splitting hairs...

Nope! Not quite. There's actually a massive difference between making an assumption and holding a deep-seated belief. This isn't just splitting hairs at all—in fact, even Isaac Asimov put it beautifully! He famously said that Emotionally I am an atheist, admitting that even if, rationally, that might not be the most technically accurate way to label himself. And that is exactly my point! An atheist is essentially acting like a believer; they're someone who has taken a leap of faith despite what reason tells them.

Look, I'm not trying to downplay anyone's position—which is what > seems to think I'm doing—I just want us to be precise about what we're talking about! It matters to me personally, too. I used to be an atheist, but today I identify as an agnostic. That shift wasn't small, and it certainly wasn't easy; it left a real mark on my entire intellectual journey, bit by bit.

To me, those two stances—agnosticism and atheism—feel just as far apart from each other as agnosticism and theism do!

Keith Lee2 Active Member

117 messages
joined Dec 2006

#53 · Jan 2, 2007

Why even put people in boxes?
I believe in God, but I don't really want the "theist" label.
I don't actually know what God is—but I'm definitely not an atheist.
I can't say for sure if God exists, yet I'm not feeling the whole agnostic thing either.
The three of us are cool as we are, so quit gambling over who belongs where.

mistyfox812 Regular

295 messages
joined Mar 2004

#54 · Jan 2, 2007

swiftcobra15 said:To me, atheists were just people who didn't buy into those "state gods" like... Spinoza, Einstein, and all that—basically the greatest minds ever.
And obviously, they wouldn't have called themselves atheists (totally makes sense, right? Even John Locke thought tolerance shouldn't extend to them), but they basically were.

Look, you can feel however you want about Spinoza (I mean, even someone like Keith Lee2 might have thoughts there), but his Ethics is pretty straightforward. The idea that Spinoza would intentionally misuse the word "God" is just wild, especially when you look at his life. When he says God, he means God. And I don't mean some "state God"—he's super clear on that, and he saw the Bible as just a human book. He’s talking about "God" in the context of the whole philosophical tradition. Pascal, being both a Christian and a philosopher, felt forced to reject that kind of God, basically saying something like, "The God of philosophers isn't the God Abraham and Isaac knew..."

As for Einstein, I don't think his era was one where he would've been afraid to just come out and say he was an atheist. But he wasn't.

Arthur Anderson49 Active Member

127 messages
joined Nov 2007

#55 · Jan 2, 2007

Keith Lee2 said:Why even bother putting people in boxes?
I believe God exists, but I don't want to be called a theist.
I don't really know what God is, but I don't want to be an atheist.
I have no clue if God actually exists, but I refuse to be labeled an agnostic.
The three of us are doing just fine, so can we please stop gambling with who belongs where?

Look, those "labels" aren't really about what you feel like being—they’re about the actual beliefs you hold. If you say "God exists," then by any standard definition used in the US, you're a theist, whether you want the title or not.

swiftcobra15 Regular

305 messages
joined Dec 2002

#56 · Jan 3, 2007

mistyfox812 said:Regarding Einstein, I don't think his era was one where he would have felt comfortable explicitly calling himself an atheist. But he wasn't one.

I could say something similar regarding Albert:
I am deeply religious, yet I wouldn't call myself a believer—honestly, I can't stand organized religion. Instead, I consider myself an atheist (in the sense of being unaffiliated).

Setting aside any old-fashioned scholastic wisdom, I don't recognize anyone's right to label me, just as I respect everyone else's right to define themselves.

I don't align myself with any specific group of "atheists" or any other "-isms," and frankly, I find the title of this thread quite pointless. 😉

Taylor Campbell4 Regular

369 messages
joined Jul 2009

#57 · Jan 3, 2007

It seems pretty obvious that plenty of believers are still tied down by religious dogma, but honestly, it looks like a lot of people who claim to be atheists or agnostics aren't actually free from those same dogmas either...

That’s just my take, anyway—I was under the impression we were supposed to be speaking freely here.

Also, I’m struggling to wrap my head around how someone can be an "unaffiliated" atheist. If you’ve already placed yourself in the atheist category, how can you also be unaligned? 😕

swiftcobra15 Regular

305 messages
joined Dec 2002

#58 · Jan 3, 2007

Taylor Campbell4 said:I also don't quite get how someone can call themselves an unaffiliated atheist. You identify as an atheist, yet claim you aren't part of any group. 😕

I personally identify as an atheist, mainly because I want to clarify that I'm "unaffiliated." I say it so people don't mistake me for a Taoist, a Buddhist, or one of those folks who puts blind faith in Science, Diamat, technical progress, or some version of paradise here on Earth—honestly, that kind of stuff just doesn't sit right with me.

In American English, the closest term might be "unbeliever,"
essentially meaning someone who simply doesn't belong to a faith.

The term agnostic, however, refers strictly to our level of knowledge; it isn't necessarily tied to whether you believe or not.

I consider myself an agnostic because I truly believe humans can't provide rational answers to life's ultimate questions. Even if we somehow "possessed" that truth, there would be no way to communicate it to anyone else.

For an agnostic, the whole question of "God" is simply irrelevant.

Taylor Campbell4 Regular

369 messages
joined Jul 2009

#59 · Jan 3, 2007

It’s exactly as I laid it out. Their entire worldview—including their stance on God and the divine—is essentially filtered through religious dogma. Because those dogmas exist, and because they find certain parts of them distasteful, they let that color everything else.

To put it in the simplest terms possible: they are aware of these religious doctrines, and they might even harbor some resentment toward the people preaching them. Consequently, when they hear about God or spirituality, they're hearing it through the lens of these specific dogmas; they hear about Jesus Christ via these institutional rules. Since they find the dogmas themselves to be quite illogical, they jump to the flawed conclusion that the actual subject matter must also be false. In short... they're rejecting the core truths simply because they dislike the packaging those truths come in.

Just as believers accept things based on dogma, these folks reject them for the exact same reason. It would be much more productive if they leaned on their own lived experience instead—letting personal insight be their teacher rather than letting prejudices against doctrine dictate their reality.

I've come down with a bit of a fever, which makes explaining this all a little more difficult than usual.

mistyfox812 Regular

295 messages
joined Mar 2004

#60 · Jan 3, 2007

...let me try to break this down (assuming I’m actually following you here)... 😁

If someone thinks atheism works like Adriatica's version of non-confessional neutrality—instead of seeing it as this kind of anti-theism—then they're stuck in that classic trap all anti-isms fall into. See, that whole mindset is basically just defined by whatever it's pushing back against. Like, take anti-fascism. It's defined by fascism. Where one says "yes," the other says "no," right? One's black, the other's white. But the actual line in the sand, and what that shape even looks like, isn't set by the "anti-" part. It's set by the original ideology they're fighting. So, every anti-ism is essentially shaped by its enemy. All those anti-ists are always stuck in a position where they can only re-act, they never truly act on their own; they aren't driving the car, they're just reacting to someone else's moves.
(There's actually this killer Borges short story in Aleph called The Theologians.)
So, an anti-theist just takes the ready-made concept of God from the people they're fighting against and then just denies it. They don't have a concept of God that's actually their own.
But honestly, they probably feel like they don't even need one.

Why do atheists...

🔗 Similar threads