How does Atheism work?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Pretty much this.

(a)theism: (lack of) believe in god/gods.

Gold:

Frission:

Gold:
/snip

My opinion of the poster aside, I would suggest revising that. You're the only who will get in trouble and that would just make him happy.

That would be very strange indeed, considering he broke a rule and I did not.

I'm not really sure it matters. I've received warnings for rules I didn't break, and not received warnings for rules I did, and I've seen the same for others. The last warning I've gotten was for making a similar post to dozens of others I've seen that did not receive a warning.

Whether you incur moderator wrath seems more closely correlated with what mood they're in at that particular moment. Being as obvious as you are is likely to result, if history is any indication, in them ignoring him and suspending you.

Lilani:

Glasgow:
I think Methodism are an offshoot of an offshoot of Catholicism, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not that good with Protestant movements.

I wanted to break the monotonous rut of hearing a lot of atheists define what they think is atheism by stating that the sudden outburst of comments (just look at how many people responded in so little time to this thread) is funny. I don't think I'm better than them, I know I'm better than them I don't know them.

Methodism is a Protestant religion, and Protestantism broke off oc Catholocism, so yeah you're right there.

And I hate to break it to you, but there isn't anything you can say here to get people to stop being atheists. Yes this is the Internet, and yes religious people are a minority here. And nobody comes to forums like these to have their minds changed--if anything they come to have their beliefs confirmed and solidified. The best thing you can do is spare yourself the bitterness and just let them be. Lingering in threads like this and letting yourself become the bitter and antagonistic Christian (which is what always will happen if you spend too long discussing religion on the Internet) is not going to prove your case.

Also, I think I can shed some light on that Asian situation you shared in your first post. The big religions of Asia are Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. These religions are very different from Christianity at a fundamental level. They aren't strictly monotheistic, and they ask very different of from their followers. Japan is a very good example of why Christianity just hasn't caught on. Japan's most local religion is Shinto, and even calling it a "religion" is a bit of a stretch. Basically it's a belief in things that are sort of like guardian spirits, called kami. There aren't any specific dogmas to Shinto, and nor does it have much of a hierarchy of people (no bishops, no cardinals, nothing like a pope).

Buddhism eventually made its way over from China, and rather than just "switching over" to Buddhism they sort of took their favorite parts and made their own flavor of Buddhism, now called zhen Buddhism. Buddhism and Shinto coexist very nicely together in Japan. And even though most people in Japan say they're not religious, a lot of them still visit Shinto shrines and do little things, because it's more a part of their culture than a set religious establishment.

And that is why Christianity just hasn't been able to take off in Asia. Their cultures and histories are wrapped around religions very different from Christianity. So when we come over there with our strict rules and dogmas and absolute definition of God, it just doesn't jive well with them. It's not that they're born without the capability to believe in God, it's just they are a very different case from the people who have been successfully converted to Christianity in the past[1], and they need to be approached from a different angle. Unfortunately there aren't many denominations that are willing to change the way they do things and adapt to new situations, so that's why Christianity has a bad rep in many parts of Asia. Too many missionaries have come and gone trying to beat them with the "God" stick without stopping to get to know them or their culture.

That's an incredibly generous and informative post. Thanks for taking the time to typing it.

I should take up your advise.

[1] When Christianity began to take over Rome, many figures from Romany mythology were re-used in early Christian art to make the transition easier. Sculptures were renamed to be saints and disciples, Roman figures and symbology were repurposed into paintings of Jesus' stories, etc. Also, since Judaism was already around, they were already familiar with the concept of one, absolute God and religious dogmas.

Glasgow:
That's an incredibly generous and informative post. Thanks for taking the time to typing it.

I should take up your advise.

No problem :-) And I think quite a bit of that writing was just for me. It's not often I have a use for the stuff I learned in my art history classes, lol.

Gold:

Glasgow:

Do you feel clever now? I'm not going to bother, because this is clearly bait.

Moderators, I would like this poster banned, suspended or warned for this post, whatever the current rules state is an appropriate action against this heinous rule breaker.

"This is bait" is a popular way of saying "you are trolling" on various websites, and saying people are trolling or calling them trolls is against the rules. I thank you in advance for your divine intervention on this heathen who dares to break the rules.

Don't worry though Moderators, I'm not reporting him for posting in a way that comes off as sheer douchebaggery or being a snide fuckhead to everyone, it's just for the bait remark. Note I'm just talking about the way he's posting, I'm not insinuating he's a snide fuckhead or a douchebag. Just so we're all very clear this isn't a frivolous report, I only report VERY SERIOUS offences.

OT:

Imperator_DK:
The same way not collecting model trains work. As for terminology:

Atheism = not subscribing to theistic religion (i.e. religions featuring living god(s), which can interact with the world if it/they so chooses).

Anti-theism = dislike of theistic religion.

Anti-religious = dislike of the concept of religion.

This has pretty much summed it up perfectly

That was incredibly rude. I did expect some people to treat me this way here, but that was fast.

I think you should apologize for calling me a snide fuckhead or a douchebag. It was uncalled for.

Casper Thostrup:
My question is if Atheism is that you hate religion, or that it is just a non believing group.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/gods. Some atheists are also rationalists, skeptics, or even antitheists, but certainly not all. That would be as inaccurate as saying "all Christians are creationists who hate gays".

Vegosiux:

What atheism requires is the lack of belief that there is a god. Some atheists subscribe to the belief that there is no god, that's gnostic athesim. Others, myself included, simply stay with the lack of belief, agnostic atheism isn't a religion to us, the same way as "not collecting stamps" isn't a hobby. It's not religion the same way not believing in unicorns isn't a religion.

Yeah, this. Atheism as a whole makes no claims. We can subdivide atheism into positive/strong/gnostic atheism (atheism that DOES make claims about the existence of God) and weak/agnostic atheism (atheism that says either we don't, or possibly even can't, know for sure whether God exists, but usually concludes that we should assume there's no God until we know otherwise).

Sometimes atheism and agnosticism are used as shorthand for strong/weak atheism. Other times agnosticism is used to describe people who still have deistic belief (they reject organised religion and religious authority, but are open to the idea that there was a Creator).

It's complicated, and not least due to the fact that there's no real consensus in terminology.

Tanis:
Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF.

Just think of all the GODS you don't believe in, and the minus one more.

But I don't believe in god because I want to be independent and a free thinker, with that I mean I am able to find own solutions to problems that are not yet understandable, and if they are never understandable I would not say that god made it or say something created it. (With that I mean the Big bang/Evolution theory)

Casper Thostrup:
My question is if Atheism is that you hate religion, or that it is just a non believing group.

Just non-believing. /thread.

Atheist is the super-label for all people who are not theists.

Some Atheists are what we might call, Antitheists, and they dislike religion, to varying degrees. Now, while most anti-theists are atheists (Although, most other religious people behave in similar ways towards other religions), atheist is by no means the correct label for such activity. You might as well attribute their actions to the fact that they're human.

Some humans believe in a god, some do not.
Some atheists attack religion, some do not.
Some theists, attack other religions, some do not.

You have to describe subgroups by their subgroup.

TheLion:

Casper Thostrup:
My question is if Atheism is that you hate religion, or that it is just a non believing group.

Most hardcore, "hateful" atheists are resent non-believes. Personally, I have no issue with religions unless:

A. Religion is used to slander science, especially biology and medicine.

B. Religion is used as a vehicle for racist, sexist, and homophobic ideas.

Yes that I understand (I am an atheist myself) but I was not sure about the fact of hating religion or just Non-believing,
as I was called: 'God hater!' and that sort of stuff, but thanks for the explanation.

Frission:

Gold:
/snip

My opinion of the poster aside, I would suggest revising that. You're the only who will get in trouble and that would just make him happy.

Sorry I am new on the forums and am not a 100% clear on the rules, did I break any?

Loonyyy:

Casper Thostrup:
My question is if Atheism is that you hate religion, or that it is just a non believing group.

Just non-believing. /thread.

Atheist is the super-label for all people who are not theists.

Some Atheists are what we might call, Antitheists, and they dislike religion, to varying degrees. Now, while most anti-theists are atheists (Although, most other religious people behave in similar ways towards other religions), atheist is by no means the correct label for such activity. You might as well attribute their actions to the fact that they're human.

Some humans believe in a god, some do not.
Some atheists attack religion, some do not.
Some theists, attack other religions, some do not.

You have to describe subgroups by their subgroup.

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief) has its extremist and 'normal' people in it. But thank you for your time!

Casper Thostrup:
Sorry I am new on the forums and am not a 100% clear on the rules, did I break any?

Nah, you're perfectly fine. At best, one could argue that you were asking an oft-posted question, which can get repetitive. But as you said, you're new. Plus, it's not like we had that many religious/non-religious threads recently; most of it was about gun control.

They were talking about Glasgow's smug attitude and him insinuating trolling. Calling somebody a troll or insinuating they're trolling is sometimes punished quite harshly around here as it's considered a conversation stopper and not up to users to decide. Of course, that also somewhat stops calling people out for their behaviour. We're currently in a bit of a pickle regarding moderation standards and while things haven't been that bad lately, a clear solution hasn't been found, either.

Casper Thostrup:

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief)

Incorrect. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's it.

Vegosiux:

Orange12345:
atheism has one required belief

1. there is no god

and that's it you can be liberal or conservative or libertarian or communist it doesn't matter. You can hate religion or love it it doesn't matter. There is no doctrine, there is no "church" or "pope" of atheism

That's incorrect.

What atheism requires is the lack of belief that there is a god. Some atheists subscribe to the belief that there is no god, that's gnostic athesim. Others, myself included, simply stay with the lack of belief, agnostic atheism isn't a religion to us, the same way as "not collecting stamps" isn't a hobby. It's not religion the same way not believing in unicorns isn't a religion.

It's basically just not taking things at face value, and requesting evidence for claims. Or in other words, if a gnostic atheist tells me "I know there is no god", I'm going to ask him to back that statement up as well, how does he know it and all. I don't know whether or not there is a god, but among fact I do know, I see none that would make me inclined to believe there is one.

What facts do you 'know' with any more certainty than that there isn't a god? I don't totally buy this 'lack of belief' thing.

Outside of absolute philisophical statements like 'I think therefore I am.' the best way of understanding the world is the scientific method. Anything that can't be proven by the scientific method we can consider not true.

I would say that your gnostic and agnostic atheism are the same thing.

(Please note, I don't know much about philosophy, so this post might be nonsense, and feel free to correct me!)

Skeleon:

Casper Thostrup:
Sorry I am new on the forums and am not a 100% clear on the rules, did I break any?

Nah, you're perfectly fine. At best, one could argue that you were asking an oft-posted question, which can get repetitive. But as you said, you're new. Plus, it's not like we had that many religious/non-religious threads recently; most of it was about gun control.

They were talking about Glasgow's smug attitude and him insinuating trolling. Calling somebody a troll or insinuating they're trolling is sometimes punished quite harshly around here as it's considered a conversation stopper and not up to users to decide. Of course, that also somewhat stops calling people out for their behaviour. We're currently in a bit of a pickle regarding moderation standards and while things haven't been that bad lately, a clear solution hasn't been found, either.

I am the problem?
I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason. I am to blame for your general hostility towards me? I say I'll enjoy seeing you debate over small details (which is already under-way) and suddenly I'm bombarded with offensive posts. What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

ArnRand:
What facts do you 'know' with any more certainty than that there isn't a god? I don't totally buy this 'lack of belief' thing.

Outside of absolute philisophical statements like 'I think therefore I am.' the best way of understanding the world is the scientific method. Anything that can't be proven by the scientific method we can consider not true.

I liken the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods to the way you would discuss the existence or nonexistence of unicorns. There is no proof that unicorns exist. I think we'll all agree on that point. And the first time that you discuss unicorns with someone, you'll acknowledge that a lack of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence. You will agree that, yes, it is possible that there are unicorns out there, but without proof, you see no reason to believe it is so. That's the start of atheism.

Now spend five years surrounded by people who insist that unicorns are real. They have no proof, but "you have to take it on faith", they'll tell you. And when you insist that a lack of proof of something existing is sufficient reason to be skeptical, they'll simply redouble their efforts to convince you. Soon, you are sick of these unicorn people, and quite bluntly tell them that there are no unicorns.

In both cases, your lack of belief in unicorns doesn't mean much. Until you turn on the TV one day to find that the unicorn believers are petitioning to include the existence of unicorns in your childrens' text books. While out on the town that evening, you find more people from the congregation demanding that your government close down your favorite restaurant, as it serves food objectionable to unicorns. This is how "militant atheism" is born.

Atheism is not a belief system. You cannot believe in the lack of something. To illustrate the difference, consider two propositions:

1) There is a planet made of steak somewhere in the universe.
2) The planet X-54 in the Andromeda Galaxy is made of steak.

Right now, we cannot actually disprove either. However, we could eventually design and launch a probe that would tell us that 2 is wrong. Not because it would arrive and report back "Not a steak", but because it would tell us what it actually is. Even still, that wouldn't disprove 1. We could send probes to every planet we have discovered, and even if they all reported back that their planets were not, in fact, made of steak, in the time it takes those probes to travel to, sample, and report back to us, we'll have found many, many more. 1 is a textbook example of the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Until you know absolutely everything, the fallacy argues that what you do not know could be God. Or, in this case, steak. If you believe in unicorns or planets made of steak, that is your prerogative. However, you cannot claim that skepticism and rejection of your faith are just alternate beliefs. That paints a false equivalency. You need some sort of actual evidence on your side of the discussion before your "belief" means anything, scientifically.

Glasgow:
I am the problem?
I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason. I am to blame for your general hostility towards me? I say I'll enjoy seeing you debate over small details (which is already under-way) and suddenly I'm bombarded with offensive posts. What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

Sheesh, calm down, dude. I said you displayed a smug attitude and that you insinuated trolling. In fact, you receiving a warning is probably due to your insinuating of trolling. As I explained in the post you quoted, it's against the rules and sometimes incurs quite harsh punishments to accuse others of trolling or, as in your case, to suggest it less directly. Also, let's not downplay how you said that you'll enjoy seeing debate over small details taking place.

Glasgow:

I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason. I am to blame for your general hostility towards me? I say I'll enjoy seeing you debate over small details (which is already under-way) and suddenly I'm bombarded with offensive posts. What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

Well I sure hope you're not pulling this one in that "Aha! I knew this subforum was filled with left-leaning atheists and how they act to me just confirms that they're terrible, terrible people!" sentiment because that would just be a waste of everyone's time. I mean, most of us will go "Well now. Who was that guy?" So I agree, calm down a bit and all.

I really hate using phrases I despise, but if you want to frequent R&P you kinda need to learn to deal with shit, both letting a remark slide now and then, and, more importantly, engaging in discussions here with facts, not with what you think about people and what your conjecture about whoever you're talking to or about is.

This isn't a forum where we discuss whether the MLP or the Halo fandom is worse, or why you think or don't think there should be an easy mode in Dark Souls. It's a bit of a different can o' worms, it's less light-hearted, it's often more venomous, and it does see its share of unstomachable people; but generally still a to-go place if you want to see a proper discussion; as long as you learn to separate the weed from the chaff.

Skeleon:

Glasgow:
I am the problem?
I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason. I am to blame for your general hostility towards me? I say I'll enjoy seeing you debate over small details (which is already under-way) and suddenly I'm bombarded with offensive posts. What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

Sheesh, calm down, dude. I said you displayed a smug attitude and that you insinuated trolling. In fact, you receiving a warning is probably due to your insinuating of trolling. As I explained in the post you quoted, it's against the rules and sometimes incurs quite harsh punishments to accuse others of trolling or, as in your case, to suggest it less directly. Also, let's not downplay how you said that you'll enjoy seeing debate over small details taking place.

How did I say it? I wrote "hahaha" before it, right? Just look at it! I'll be honest with you and tell you that people arguing over this is comedy gold for me. Nothing against you are your beliefs (or lack of), it's just me and my sense of humor.

Vegosiux:

Glasgow:

I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason. I am to blame for your general hostility towards me? I say I'll enjoy seeing you debate over small details (which is already under-way) and suddenly I'm bombarded with offensive posts. What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

Well I sure hope you're not pulling this one in that "Aha! I knew this subforum was filled with left-leaning atheists and how they act to me just confirms that they're terrible, terrible people!" sentiment because that would just be a waste of everyone's time. I mean, most of us will go "Well now. Who was that guy?" So I agree, calm down a bit and all.

I really hate using phrases I despise, but if you want to frequent R&P you kinda need to learn to deal with shit, both letting a remark slide now and then, and, more importantly, engaging in discussions here with facts, not with what you think about people and what your conjecture about whoever you're talking to or about is.

This isn't a forum where we discuss whether the MLP or the Halo fandom is worse, or why you think or don't think there should be an easy mode in Dark Souls. It's a bit of a different can o' worms, it's less light-hearted, it's often more venomous, and it does see its share of unstomachable people; but generally still a to-go place if you want to see a proper discussion; as long as you learn to separate the weed from the chaff.

Liberals aren't terrible people, they're just wrong. (Joke. Don't crucify me. *drum-roll*)
I didn't expect this backlash from a gaming forum, and I didn't expect to see so many atheists over here. I came here by request from a friend (not for the gaming reason) and I recently came (back) to this sub-forum.

Glasgow:

Liberals aren't terrible people, they're just wrong. (Joke. Don't crucify me. *drum-roll*)
I didn't expect this backlash from a gaming forum, and I didn't expect to see so many atheists over here. I came here by request from a friend (not for the gaming reason) and I recently came (back) to this sub-forum.

That first paragraph of mine was just a remark about my past experience, really. But bottom line is, people from all walks of life are here, and as everywhere, there are some I agree with, some I can respectuflly disagree with, some I disagree with and are so obnoxious they are on my ignore list, and, finally, the ones I agree with in essence but really sometimes wish they weren't on my side, because they are so obnoxious *laughs*

But really, once you get past all the crud you need to put up with sometimes here, you kind of realize that you can learn a thing or two. Which is always a good thing.

Vegosiux:

Glasgow:

Liberals aren't terrible people, they're just wrong. (Joke. Don't crucify me. *drum-roll*)
I didn't expect this backlash from a gaming forum, and I didn't expect to see so many atheists over here. I came here by request from a friend (not for the gaming reason) and I recently came (back) to this sub-forum.

That first paragraph of mine was just a remark about my past experience, really. But bottom line is, people from all walks of life are here, and as everywhere, there are some I agree with, some I can respectuflly disagree with, some I disagree with and are so obnoxious they are on my ignore list, and, finally, the ones I agree with in essence but really sometimes wish they weren't on my side, because they are so obnoxious *laughs*

But really, once you get past all the crud you need to put up with sometimes here, you kind of realize that you can learn a thing or two. Which is always a good thing.

So far I learned... what did I learn? Not much. Nothing earth-shattering.

Glasgow:

What the hell is this community? Some of you have been acting rude and downright offensive towards me. I'm already regretting coming to this sub-forum with hateful people, I'll just stay away from this place.

That might be a good idea. However, in the event you wish to stay here, allow me to offer you a few tips for survival.

1. Explain your position. As you have already noted, this is not a Christian forum. This is not a particularly right-leaning forum. Your views are in the minority. You cannot take it as given that anyone will share your outlook on a particular subject. Therefore, you must explain yourself. This is actually a rule in any good debate, but goes doubly so when you argue against the general thought process of the majority.

2. Be civil. Quite a few of your posts come off as though you are infinitely more knowledgeable than those around you. You are not. That is not a slight against you, it is simply reality. Accept that we are equals here. Accept that no matter how much you disagree with someone's point of view, they may still make points that are valid. It isn't easy to do. I know I struggle with not writing off anything Gorfias posts out of hand. But you cannot start any discussion with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is less intelligent. Be mindful of the tone your posts make. Saying things like "I noticed that this sub-forum is filled with left leaning atheists. Sometimes I can't stop laughing while reading their thoughts. Brilliant entertainment." does you no favours.

3. Read the rules of this forum. They can be found here. Now, ignore them. The actual rules are immaterial. Read them again, but understand the spirit of the rules. This forum has a very liberal moderating staff. Not in the sense of red vs. blue, Democrat vs. Republican liberal, in the sense that the rules are not simply the individual rules that make up the code of conduct, but the spirit that those rules embody. They read these forums, and they can pick up on tone and undertone as well as any of us. You cannot toe the line in regards to the rules. You cannot offer snide insinuations and carefully worded insults freely. Take into heart the spirit of the rules, and you'll never get another warning. Poor attitudes are punished here, because the moderators do see that poor attitudes lead to aggressive responses.

4. Challenge your opinions. We're going to. If you can't defend those opinions, why hold them? If you can't articulate why you hold an opinion, figure out a way to do so. It is easy to go through the world echoing the things you were taught. This forum can be a place to embrace personal growth. "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." A quote by Socrates. Never hold the belief that you are right and your opponent is wrong. You will be wrong. You've been wrong before, and you will be again. That is part of being human. It is very easy to ignore points of view that do not correspond to yours. Don't let yourself do that. Challenge your views. Challenge our views. But do so civilly. Bring actual arguments to the table. Then discuss them. Cite sources.

You don't have to do all of these things. But life will be much easier for you here if you do. Contrary to popular belief, this forum is not an echo chamber. Many of us discuss things here to better ourselves and increase our knowledge. When I joined this forum, I was much further to the political right than I am today. Embrace the chance to change your mind. It is one of the most remarkable abilities than humans have.

Skeleon:

Casper Thostrup:
Sorry I am new on the forums and am not a 100% clear on the rules, did I break any?

Nah, you're perfectly fine. At best, one could argue that you were asking an oft-posted question, which can get repetitive. But as you said, you're new. Plus, it's not like we had that many religious/non-religious threads recently; most of it was about gun control.

They were talking about Glasgow's smug attitude and him insinuating trolling. Calling somebody a troll or insinuating they're trolling is sometimes punished quite harshly around here as it's considered a conversation stopper and not up to users to decide. Of course, that also somewhat stops calling people out for their behaviour. We're currently in a bit of a pickle regarding moderation standards and while things haven't been that bad lately, a clear solution hasn't been found, either.

Ok, well thank you anyway!

itsthesheppy:

Casper Thostrup:

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief)

Incorrect. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's it.

Dint know that, well thanks anyway and happy Escaping!!

Aris Khandr:

Atheism is not a belief system. You cannot believe in the lack of something. To illustrate the difference, consider two propositions:

1) There is a planet made of steak somewhere in the universe.
2) The planet X-54 in the Andromeda Galaxy is made of steak.

Right now, we cannot actually disprove either. However, we could eventually design and launch a probe that would tell us that 2 is wrong. Not because it would arrive and report back "Not a steak", but because it would tell us what it actually is. Even still, that wouldn't disprove 1. We could send probes to every planet we have discovered, and even if they all reported back that their planets were not, in fact, made of steak, in the time it takes those probes to travel to, sample, and report back to us, we'll have found many, many more. 1 is a textbook example of the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Until you know absolutely everything, the fallacy argues that what you do not know could be God. Or, in this case, steak. If you believe in unicorns or planets made of steak, that is your prerogative. However, you cannot claim that skepticism and rejection of your faith are just alternate beliefs. That paints a false equivalency. You need some sort of actual evidence on your side of the discussion before your "belief" means anything, scientifically.

I am going to say that this illustrates my position on the gods I have encountered very well. I think that this misunderstanding by theists is where the "Atheism is a belief" comes from. The confusion comes because of the premises:

1) God(s) exist.
2) The God of Christianity exists.

With #1 I honestly don't know for sure and, without evidence, I don't believe in a god or gods. With premise #2 I reject it outright so, in that regard, I technically have an "active disbelief".

Where a lot of Christians (because they are the ones I deal with, but this goes for most religionists) get confused is that they do not see the difference between premise 1 and 2 as they see the intertwined. By rejecting their specific god it means that I, as an atheist, am actively disbelieving that all God(s) exist. That is also why a lot of Christian apologists end up using arguments to prove their god exists which lead to deism (premise 1) but don't bridge the gap to premise 2. This categorization error also results in misunderstanding the general atheist position in lots of discussions I have had with them.

Tanis:
Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF.

Just think of all the GODS you don't believe in, and the minus one more.

Best response ever, I got a chuckle out of this one.

But yeah, that's essentially it, it's not a hatred of anyone's religion, it's just not believing is all. I don't understand how it's so hard for some people to understand, but no one is perfect.

Glasgow:

I am the problem?

Yes, part of it. I'm the other part in this specific instance. The lack of self-awareness and victim complex is huge with you.

Since you started posting here literally the only posts I see from you are either condescending as shit, or contain the sentiment of

YOU:
*sigh* Liberals. What can you do?

I've seen at least three-four variations on this, when it's not even necessary. Also shit like "I can't stop laughing blah blah blah atheists".

It's almost as annoying as all the people who post what look like good arguments then finish with "but they're republican lol so I guess that's natural".

It is extremely annoying and needlessly dismissive

Glasgow:
I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason.

First off, I never said you were a dickhead, I even go to great lengths in my highly informative post to stress the fact I'm not calling you any names, just suggesting your posting style possesses some of those characteristics.

Second, you were warned because you just dismissed someones argument and accused them of trolling.

Wake up. I at least know calling people out like this is childish. I'm under no illusions about MY behavior, you should be under no illusions about yours.

There's 3 main camps with atheism.
Agnostic
Not a part of any religion but open to accepting one any time soon based either on belief or understanding.

Atheist
No different than anyone else, we just don't care about religion and are not a part. Most of us understand why someone would join one (community, solace, etc.), but just don't care.

Anti-theist
These are the anti-religion folks. Some can be as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church when it comes to forcing their own ideals on people.

mitchell271:
There's 3 main camps with atheism.
Agnostic
Not a part of any religion but open to accepting one any time soon based either on belief or understanding.

Atheist
No different than anyone else, we just don't care about religion and are not a part. Most of us understand why someone would join one (community, solace, etc.), but just don't care.

Anti-theist
These are the anti-religion folks. Some can be as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church when it comes to forcing their own ideals on people.

Would it throw you if I said I was all of those things? It should, because your definitions are wrong.

Agnostic
Not knowing for sure whether there is or is not a god(s).

Atheist
Not believing in any god(s).

Anti-Theist
Against belief in any god(s).

Casper Thostrup:

Loonyyy:

Casper Thostrup:
My question is if Atheism is that you hate religion, or that it is just a non believing group.

Just non-believing. /thread.

Atheist is the super-label for all people who are not theists.

Some Atheists are what we might call, Antitheists, and they dislike religion, to varying degrees. Now, while most anti-theists are atheists (Although, most other religious people behave in similar ways towards other religions), atheist is by no means the correct label for such activity. You might as well attribute their actions to the fact that they're human.

Some humans believe in a god, some do not.
Some atheists attack religion, some do not.
Some theists, attack other religions, some do not.

You have to describe subgroups by their subgroup.

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief) has its extremist and 'normal' people in it. But thank you for your time!

Actually, you are mistaken. Atheism is not a belief, it's a position on a belief, but it's the position of non-belief. As the analogy goes "Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Off is not a television station. Atheism is not a belief." It would be like saying that for a Christian that not believing in Islam, Norse, Greek, Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc are all beliefs. Which is of course, nonsense. Their not believing in those things is not a belief. It's a position on belief, and that position is "not".

A Gnostic Atheist may have a belief that there is no god, and that would be a belief, but all atheism in general requires is to lack theism. Which can simply be remaining unconvinced by theistic arguments. Which is where most atheists will say they are, if you press them. "There is no god" theatrics aside, very few of us actually believe there is no possibility of a god (Which would be Gnostic Atheism), just that it must be proven to exist, and are unsatisfied with attempts so far to do so.

It's a common mistake, but a crucial one.

Arakasi:

Would it throw you if I said I was all of those things? It should, because your definitions are wrong.

Agnostic
Not knowing for sure whether there is or is not a god(s).

Atheist
Not believing in any god(s).

Anti-Theist
Against belief in any god(s).

A really good summary. There's a lot of language involved in describing the various positions. Such as the Gnostic/Agnostic, Strong/Weak etc, and it gets really messy trying to apply labels. The definitions Mitchel ascribed are almost completely incorrect, and fall strongly into the false-equivalency narrative that's so common.

How does Atheism work?

Pretty well so far, thanks for asking.

On a more serious note, there was an article in New Scientist a while back that went into some detail about the different classifications Agnostics, Atheists, Anti-Theists et. al. apply to ourselves and the reasoning behind those labels. If I could find it, I would recommend it.

Glasgow:

I was called a dickhead and then warned for no freaking reason.

You didnt bother to talk at all about the subject of the thread and instead managed to mock people for responding honestly and promptly to a question that directly relates to their lives to help another person. Im not even sure how you managed to spin that into a negative but you get points for trying super duper hard to laugh at other people i guess. Not to mention ending every damn post with "Lul liberalz" is super irksome.

The sad thing is that the poster who said these words:

"More often than not the source-material itself is abused by people who act as conduits between the believers and god or the religion it represents. Learning about the old testament and the new testament and the Qu'ran, the relative historical events and local cultures at the period of writing the text and the reasons for a,b and c are important to understanding religion as a cultural phenomenon. Instead of dismissing the texts entirely, you could instead familiarize yourself with it and then argue against others who use it for some goal using their own holy text. More often than not you will find yourself just and the opponent's interpretation lacking in any merit or just bad. The culture of yesterday is not the culture of today and reminding fanatics of the evolution of religion over the years could bring them out of their defensive state and start looking at religion critically."

Sounds pretty damn interesting and nice to talk to. I hate to see intelligent people lost to the "Super cool internet aloofness superiority misanthrope complex AWAY" crowd since that crowd tend to be so very very dull.

ANYWAY to avoid blatant hypocracy i will answer the thread:

Since people define atheism so broadly and differently to be fair i totally avoid becoming attached to the label. What i am is defined by many as "Agnostic" and by some as "Atheist" and be me usually as "Atheist". This is why when people ask about what i believe i usually answer with a short "I dont think God is real but im not gonna discount the fact that Gods or god might exist" which usually gets it out of the way. Then anyone can assign whatever label they wanna call that be it "Atheist", "Agnostic" or "Pants on head retarded" and thats fine by me. I find the huge attachment to labels a little disturbing especially when people argue super hard to prove their definition is correct when at the end of the day what the label is or isnt is totally irrelevant to what you believe. Id believe the same stuff no matter what you call it. if you wanna call it something i dont call it im not gonna try and convince you. It doesnt make a difference to the important content of what i think.

My question I should ask you is, do you hate Zeus? What about Thor, Allah, Vishnu, or Quetzcoatl? Probably not, you just don't believe in them. Same goes for us. The differences is that while a religious person believes in one faith out of the +/- 3000 that have been known to exist in world history, atheists believe in 0.

As an example, I play the Orkz army of Warhammer 40k. And one day I meet someone who doesn't play Warhammer 40k. It would be like me assuming he doesn't play Warhammer 40k because he hates Ghazhgul.

Loonyyy:

Casper Thostrup:

Loonyyy:

Just non-believing. /thread.

Atheist is the super-label for all people who are not theists.

Some Atheists are what we might call, Antitheists, and they dislike religion, to varying degrees. Now, while most anti-theists are atheists (Although, most other religious people behave in similar ways towards other religions), atheist is by no means the correct label for such activity. You might as well attribute their actions to the fact that they're human.

Some humans believe in a god, some do not.
Some atheists attack religion, some do not.
Some theists, attack other religions, some do not.

You have to describe subgroups by their subgroup.

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief) has its extremist and 'normal' people in it. But thank you for your time!

Actually, you are mistaken. Atheism is not a belief, it's a position on a belief, but it's the position of non-belief. As the analogy goes "Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Off is not a television station. Atheism is not a belief." It would be like saying that for a Christian that not believing in Islam, Norse, Greek, Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc are all beliefs. Which is of course, nonsense. Their not believing in those things is not a belief. It's a position on belief, and that position is "not".

A Gnostic Atheist may have a belief that there is no god, and that would be a belief, but all atheism in general requires is to lack theism. Which can simply be remaining unconvinced by theistic arguments. Which is where most atheists will say they are, if you press them. "There is no god" theatrics aside, very few of us actually believe there is no possibility of a god (Which would be Gnostic Atheism), just that it must be proven to exist, and are unsatisfied with attempts so far to do so.

It's a common mistake, but a crucial one.

Arakasi:

Would it throw you if I said I was all of those things? It should, because your definitions are wrong.

Agnostic
Not knowing for sure whether there is or is not a god(s).

Atheist
Not believing in any god(s).

Anti-Theist
Against belief in any god(s).

A really good summary. There's a lot of language involved in describing the various positions. Such as the Gnostic/Agnostic, Strong/Weak etc, and it gets really messy trying to apply labels. The definitions Mitchel ascribed are almost completely incorrect, and fall strongly into the false-equivalency narrative that's so common.

Thanks you for taking your time in writhing me this, it has really given me a clear look into how Atheism works.
And that I can explain to people correctly how it works!

Casper Thostrup:

Loonyyy:

Casper Thostrup:

I understand what you are saying, and know about the subgroups as every belief (Yes Atheism is also a belief) has its extremist and 'normal' people in it. But thank you for your time!

Actually, you are mistaken. Atheism is not a belief, it's a position on a belief, but it's the position of non-belief. As the analogy goes "Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Off is not a television station. Atheism is not a belief." It would be like saying that for a Christian that not believing in Islam, Norse, Greek, Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc are all beliefs. Which is of course, nonsense. Their not believing in those things is not a belief. It's a position on belief, and that position is "not".

A Gnostic Atheist may have a belief that there is no god, and that would be a belief, but all atheism in general requires is to lack theism. Which can simply be remaining unconvinced by theistic arguments. Which is where most atheists will say they are, if you press them. "There is no god" theatrics aside, very few of us actually believe there is no possibility of a god (Which would be Gnostic Atheism), just that it must be proven to exist, and are unsatisfied with attempts so far to do so.

It's a common mistake, but a crucial one.

Arakasi:

Would it throw you if I said I was all of those things? It should, because your definitions are wrong.

Agnostic
Not knowing for sure whether there is or is not a god(s).

Atheist
Not believing in any god(s).

Anti-Theist
Against belief in any god(s).

A really good summary. There's a lot of language involved in describing the various positions. Such as the Gnostic/Agnostic, Strong/Weak etc, and it gets really messy trying to apply labels. The definitions Mitchel ascribed are almost completely incorrect, and fall strongly into the false-equivalency narrative that's so common.

Thanks you for taking your time in writhing me this, it has really given me a clear look into how Atheism works.
And that I can explain to people correctly how it works!

Thanks. It's really rare to find someone willing to adjust their definitions on the subject. I know I was a pain about it, when I deconverted. I called myself an "Agnostic" and explicitly avoided and denounced the Atheist label, thinking it meant some sort of definite position, or a hatred for religion, or the like. It took quite a long time for me to understand what it meant, and accept that it described my position, having been exposed to Christian diatribes about Richard Dawkins (Who actually tends to be far less harsh than he's painted), and realise that it was a supergroup.

I wish you all the best, and never stop wondering. It's a good trait.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked