Atheist = Closet theist
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
- Status
It's interesting how the roles here have reversed from the common perception. I think there is a religion of sorts among the atheists at Sciforums - not to claim that atheism is a religion, but everyone is religious in some way or another, and the most vocal atheists here seem to have their own little clique. Maybe I'm projecting.
It's also interesting to question why so many Sciforums atheists, if they are so atheistic, spend so much time in the religion subforum. The obvious answer involves re-education and such, but why should it matter that much? Most of them, I posit, feel threatened by organized religion and theistic beliefs, and I further posit that it is at least partially due to insecurities with their own beliefs. A Sciforums atheist's refutation of the existence of God is often not so much for the theists, who will never listen anyway, as it is to himself, a sort of self-assurance that his logic is undeniable and he must be right, despite creeping doubts. I think this is what Tor is getting at when she says "closet theist."
Before I get accused of hypocrisy, I'm going to go ahead and say that you can call me a theist if you want to. After giving it some (probably too much) thought, I don't think the distinction between atheist and theist is actually very meaningful. When I asked both camps what their definition of God was, I was given two extremely different answers. The only real commonality between the two definitions was that they involved the word 'God', and I figure, God really is only just a word. Atheists and theists, for the most part, seem to believe in the same things and experience the world in similar ways, using different words to describe them. We are probably all wrong in our interpretations, and they are only as good as they are personally useful. I doubt anyone is justified for knocking someone else's beliefs, if that person finds them valuable.
I'm going to get fried for this - and it might derail the thread, so I apologize for that if it does - but I think that atheism in its most common, visible form is just an emotional reaction, a rebellion of sorts against the establishment of religion. You get the same thing with individuals who were brought up Christian and feel rebellious, but aren't usually as interested in science as the sort who would come here, and they turn to neopaganism or the New Age. Now, I'm an American, and I think it's great to be a rebel; but when you end up being the same kind of opinion bully you rebelled to escape, you're a hypocrite. And if you don't really understand the world any better for all that brouhaha, you haven't changed at all. You've just put on a new hat.
It's also interesting to question why so many Sciforums atheists, if they are so atheistic, spend so much time in the religion subforum. The obvious answer involves re-education and such, but why should it matter that much? Most of them, I posit, feel threatened by organized religion and theistic beliefs, and I further posit that it is at least partially due to insecurities with their own beliefs. A Sciforums atheist's refutation of the existence of God is often not so much for the theists, who will never listen anyway, as it is to himself, a sort of self-assurance that his logic is undeniable and he must be right, despite creeping doubts. I think this is what Tor is getting at when she says "closet theist."
Before I get accused of hypocrisy, I'm going to go ahead and say that you can call me a theist if you want to. After giving it some (probably too much) thought, I don't think the distinction between atheist and theist is actually very meaningful. When I asked both camps what their definition of God was, I was given two extremely different answers. The only real commonality between the two definitions was that they involved the word 'God', and I figure, God really is only just a word. Atheists and theists, for the most part, seem to believe in the same things and experience the world in similar ways, using different words to describe them. We are probably all wrong in our interpretations, and they are only as good as they are personally useful. I doubt anyone is justified for knocking someone else's beliefs, if that person finds them valuable.
I'm going to get fried for this - and it might derail the thread, so I apologize for that if it does - but I think that atheism in its most common, visible form is just an emotional reaction, a rebellion of sorts against the establishment of religion. You get the same thing with individuals who were brought up Christian and feel rebellious, but aren't usually as interested in science as the sort who would come here, and they turn to neopaganism or the New Age. Now, I'm an American, and I think it's great to be a rebel; but when you end up being the same kind of opinion bully you rebelled to escape, you're a hypocrite. And if you don't really understand the world any better for all that brouhaha, you haven't changed at all. You've just put on a new hat.
baumgarten said:
Because religion is controversial. If an atheist reads a book full of facts about the nature of the universe, and a group of theists so ignorantly refute it with fantasy and delusion as their proof... that is going to rub atheists the wrong way.
That's probably correct. Religion is dangerous for society as can be seen by the Middle East and the US. If my country was as religious as those two regions, I'd hate to think who we would elect to run the country, and for what reasons.
This is total BS. My lack of belief is solid. Even if I wanted to believe, I couldn't. There is absolutely no way I could be religious and actually believe that these thousands of far-fetched claims with no proof are true.
Just an emotional reaction? That would indicate that it would be irrational in some way... which obviously isn't the case. It seems stupid to label atheists as being rebelious because they don't have a religion - people have very valid reasons for being atheist. Moreover, you say this as thought religion should be part of everyones life, and that anyone who isn't part of that is a rebel. How arrogant.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Your entire premise is utterly false, since you appear to be equating scientist (or pro-science person) with atheist. That is as meaningful as saying that all Republicans are mindless Texans.
Science and religion are not antithetical. Science does not disprove (or prove) the existence of God. Individuals who claim that science supports their atheist position are at best deluded, at worst a blight on the face of science, society and humanity in general.
Science and religion are not antithetical. Science does not disprove (or prove) the existence of God. Individuals who claim that science supports their atheist position are at best deluded, at worst a blight on the face of science, society and humanity in general.
Most theists and religions I know do not refute any science, so perhaps your anti-science demons are largely imaginary.
If you don't believe you're reacting emotionally, you obviously won't see anything irrational with your actions.
Within the context of this forum, one could show God to be a faulty concept merely by demonstrating its internal inconsistency, but there must first be a consensus on the definition of God, which, as I previously noted, there is none. Empirically speaking, we run into the same problem. How can we detect God if we cannot agree on what God is? How do you know that the "God" you do not believe exists is the same as the "God" that theists believe in? If they are not the same, it is all a moot point. I asked several atheists and theists on this forum what they meant when they used the word 'God', and lo, they were not nearly the same.
This is what I mean by an emotional reaction. Why is it "total BS?" Why can't it just be "incorrect" or "wrong?" You accuse me of bullshit, but I have only told you what I think with honesty and rationality. I have presented a case to back up my proposal that many atheists on this board are insecure in their beliefs. If they were, they would likely react much the same as they are. That's not to say that there couldn't be another impetus instead, but I have good reason to believe I could be right.
I speak of religion as a part of your personality, not as an organized group performing rituals. Everyone has a religion, whether it involves a god or not.
"The world is my country, science is my religion." -- Christiaan Huygens
baumgarten said:
It is inherent of all fundamentalist followers of religion to state that things are possible that science states is impossible. 72% of American's believe in angels, 24% accept the theory evolution. If that doesn't show a bias towards irrational superstition against rational science, then I don't know what other way to make my point. If you're talking about moderates on the other hand, then that is irrelevant as they try to skew scripture to make it sound rational. Which pretty much involves binning most of it.
God is a sentient being who created the universe. Anything else that is called God is irrelevant.
Firstly, emotion is not the foundation for atheism. However, when listening to theists spouting BS that has no foundation in reality, thats when an atheist will let emotions dictate the debate and hence, call it bullshit. Jesus came back to life after 3 days and ascended to heaven? BULLSHIT
Secondly, why would an atheist be insecure about their "beliefs"? Do you think they are threatened by the overwhelming evidence that theists present? Do you think the atheist deep down knows that there is merit behind religion? I need you to spell it out for me, because I personally don't know why an atheist would be insecure or in denial.
It sounds to me that you want a belief in God to hold such merit that even non-believers must feel threatened by it... Therefor making the theist feel that it is actually likely God exists.
Ok I have a religion. If that makes you happy. Guitar is not something I enjoy doing - It is my religion! Woo...
Fundamentalists are a minority. The general consensus outside of fundamentalist crowds is that fundamentalism is stupid. Do you concur?
It's pretty sad that only 24% of Americans accept the theory of evolution, but there's more at work there. The issue has been politicized because of the fundamentalist Christian lobby, not that this is news to you.
If you are a literalist, then yes, the Bible makes no sense whatsoever. But I don't know why you would choose to take the Bible literally, seeing as you're an atheist; surely history tells us that mythology is not intended for literal interpretation! Could it be because you do not want the Bible to make sense?
It's not a science book or a formal historical record, so stop trying to treat it like one. It's obviously not going to work, and it will only frustrate you.
Does it make sense to you that someone who does not believe in God should authoritatively define what God is?
The best theist reply I got when I asked for definitions of God, the one that basically summed up the position of almost every other theist, was this:
"I don't know."
I got many descriptions of God from theists, but none of them represented God as a discrete, definable entity. At least you know what you don't believe in, but it is apparently not the same as what theists do believe in.
Again with the emotion. Don't be so defensive, and read me again. I never said that emotion is the philosophical foundation of atheism.
Most atheists came to be atheists by questioning their own beliefs. Why would an atheist suddenly cease to do so?
Why would believers feel threatened by a belief in God? Or perhaps you mean "God Himself." I thought I had made it clear that God is nothing more than a word to me.
Baum; the more I read you, the more I like you. 
Then you say:
So these fundamentalists are not so stupid then, if they can "manipulate" politicians for their own agenda.
Why not?
At least is not full of rhetorical BS, and mythical crap. Our understanding of what god is explained by most religious is "the unknowable, the unseen force, the incomprehensible" yet it's treated with a "HE" and Him anthrophromising an entity. Thus in conclusion to the limited and vague defentions we get from some theists is that "god" is some kind of entity and suposedly scentient wiht a plathera of omnipowers.
In my experience they don't, that's why so many get so freaking inteligent cause we do tend to question the very science we hold as truth, and furthemore we tend to question every aspect of life.
The problem is that so many theists take the godamn thing literally. Some sects don't even believe in blood transfusion, cause it's against god's law, or the will of god if you survive a desease easily cured by todays medicine, they just let the child die, other than giving him/her medical care. I'm sure you read of some of these bastards winding up in jail, for shit like this.
Godless
Then you say:
So these fundamentalists are not so stupid then, if they can "manipulate" politicians for their own agenda.
Why not?
At least is not full of rhetorical BS, and mythical crap. Our understanding of what god is explained by most religious is "the unknowable, the unseen force, the incomprehensible" yet it's treated with a "HE" and Him anthrophromising an entity. Thus in conclusion to the limited and vague defentions we get from some theists is that "god" is some kind of entity and suposedly scentient wiht a plathera of omnipowers.
In my experience they don't, that's why so many get so freaking inteligent cause we do tend to question the very science we hold as truth, and furthemore we tend to question every aspect of life.
The problem is that so many theists take the godamn thing literally. Some sects don't even believe in blood transfusion, cause it's against god's law, or the will of god if you survive a desease easily cured by todays medicine, they just let the child die, other than giving him/her medical care. I'm sure you read of some of these bastards winding up in jail, for shit like this.
Godless
Theoryofrelativity said:
They are not closet theists, they ARE theists who prefer to remain silent, don't you know the difference?
But, it's funny they don't apply their so-called intelligence to their blind faith. I'm not aware that religion has some caveat that states it's ok to believe in fantasies and fairy tales, yet remain rational about everything else. If so, it would be a great relief if someone could explain that fine line to theists, who continually tread over it.
They are reminded of being a woo woo simply because they aren't able to substantiate anything they claim, which isn't debate in the first place, unless you feel that anything one conjures from their imagination is worthy of discussion. Actually, you do.
If I recall correctly, you went down fighting and screaming claiming that you WEREN'T a theist, although you were called on it long ago.
It is different, but I suspect that eludes you, too.
Stop bitching and go away. No one has a gun to your head.
I claim that fundamentalism is stupid, not necessarily its followers. I'm sure many a cunning Republican pushes a fundamentalist agenda regardless of his personal beliefs in order to satisfy his electoral base. Anyway, that's a bit off-topic...
That's just it - we never really get any sort of definition. Assuming theists know what they are talking about when they describe what they believe in, I surmise that God is necessarily as mysterious and undefined as many say. To place God as a sentient, physical being that literally caused the beginning of the world is somewhat arbitrary; there are several ways to interpret any aspect of God you wish to discuss, including the anthropomorphic "He," which is not necessarily anthropomorphic at all, but, for one example, could rather be used to imply life, either the life of the person observing God or the life of God as an entity. Perhaps part of the beauty of the concept is that it is so highly subject to interpretation. You can go with what works best for you. (This is a general philosophical issue, not scientific, so you *are* allowed to do that.)
Ultimately it seems that most atheists deny the existence of a being never posited in the first place by most theist philosophies. I think, aside from all the mythology and cosmology, atheists and theists identify with the world in mostly the same way; and taking into account the mythology and cosmology, it is quite possible for atheists to coexist with both of these without believing in them per se. It is my personal opinion that they are intended to be simply used, rather than taken as historical fact, in the first place.
Religious law is often more a part of cultural tradition than theology. There's nothing inherent to the idea of God that forbids blood transfusions. That's only one (and in my opinion rather unfortunate) interpretation.
Yeah, people can be superstitious nutcases. I don't deny that in the least. But I don't think it's because they believe in God. It's more of a human nature thing.
So then it would stand to reason that an atheist would be more likely to have insecurities about his beliefs, no? There are quite a few theists who make very thoughtful, well-reasoned posts in the Religion forum, but they are more often than not shot down without consideration, ostensibly for being theists. This does not strike me as very rational, certainly not the level of rationality to which the atheists here aspire; so perhaps insecurity explains some of it.
Last edited:
baumgarten said:
No, they're not. Some have simply come to the conclusion that nothing in the universe shows gods to exist. Indoctrination passed along through the ages from those too ignorant to know any better.
Wrong on the latter, although you're quite correct in assuming organized religions are a threat, a serious threat. Decision making processes from those who are in power are controlled by the individuals religious beliefs, in which those decisions affect our lives. Funny how that could so easily explain why there is so much wrong in the world today.
Or, more likely, it is for other peeps who are reading the forums and are interested to read rational responses to irrational beliefs.
How in the heck is that not meaningful?
Yeah, it's a label given to the imaginary entity theists describe. Please note that theists will also give you different answers abouit their gods and will disagree with one another vehemently. I'm sure you've witnessed that here. The term 'god' appears to describe a great many things.
Yes, but it's interesting that although they do experience the world in similar ways, theists seem to find gods where no gods exist, at least none they are able to demonstrate.
Then, it would appear you don't understand atheism. I hope to have cleared that up for you, somewhat.
Are you going to demonstrate gods exist? If not, how do atheists not understand the world any better?
baumgarten said:
Agreed, very insightful
'He who shouts the loudest has the most to hide'
Come out the closet Q, you know you use that telescope to look for God
In fact this whole thread is childish. It reminds me of a bad American talk show were when confronted with rationality... they will yell "You're just jealous!"
It seems like a retort you use when you have nothing left to say, and there is no evidence behind the retort itself as it is just used to save face. I don't think an atheist would find much value in turning this argument against a theist, even though insecurity of belief would no doubt be more common amongst theists since they hold the claims in the first place.
It seems like a retort you use when you have nothing left to say, and there is no evidence behind the retort itself as it is just used to save face. I don't think an atheist would find much value in turning this argument against a theist, even though insecurity of belief would no doubt be more common amongst theists since they hold the claims in the first place.
KennyJC said:
This makes no sense.
A theist believes. So there is no insecurity.
An atheist, however, claims no belief without discrete evidence of a spiritual consciousness. Where is the security here? An atheist as much says "show me the money" before he will believe. That is he has no leanings either way, except those which can be proven/disproven to his satisfaction. Right?
Bearing in mind religion is forced on most people since birth by parents and through education, they will feel under pressure to be outwardly religious despite the fact they might not believe in it. Since atheism is not something that is taught, or forced (outside of communist nations, perhaps) there is no pressure to follow it.
That's correct. No evidence results in no belief.
KennyJC said:
This is a generalisation. Though people may follow a religion from birth, most people will at some time or the other in their lives, re-evaluate their beliefs. Some even leave their previous beliefs and convert to another belief. This is not uncommon. However what distinguishes a theist from an atheist is that they have a spiritual consciousness of God and do not seek to define or anthropomorphize him. I have yet to meet a theist who imagines God as a bearded man in a long flowing robe, which is the image propagated by most atheists (other than the FF and PFU). Theists usually do not have a definition of God per se and usually do not seek one.
Which is what I think defines the basic insecurity in atheism. i.e. that atheists refuse a belief in God but cannot claim to believe in no God either, lacking any evidence either way.
- Status