Is there a downside to atheism?

[Adam]

So, let's hear it. What is bad about atheism, if anything? Please don't say "You're gonna burn in hell!" Give me some rational responses.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

You're gonna burn in hell!!!! (j/k, j/k)

But it all depends on the person's perspective and how they perceive the world/universe to be. But many are atheists emotionally because of how idiotic theists acted towards them.

Other than that, with the amount of knowledge mankind possess's, you outrule God, giving credit to chance. So you could possibly separate yourself from God by doing so.

I see nothing wrong with, atheism, theistism, agnosticism. It's the person.

 

[orthogonal]

I suppose the worst thing about Atheism is that people too often fixate upon it. In fact, there isn't very much at all to Atheism. To proclaim one's self an Atheist (as I do) is to say very little about one's self. All the title indicates is that one does not believe a tiny subset of human ideas. It's as if I had printed on my resume the single sentence, "I do not believe in purple cows."

Er...yes, very well, so you don't believe in purple cows. So what positive statements might you make about this world?

Some years ago I met a very bright Swiss graduate student of philosophy on the night-train from Venice to Vienna. At one point in our conversation I brought out my usual heavy weaponry against religion. He simply raised the front of his palm to me and said, please, none of that. I got the message very clearly.

To spend one's life forever honing one's tools for the purpose of discrediting religion is as much a waste of time as if I spent those same hours in prayer. Furthermore, those hours spent in prayer would have generally been hours of contentment, whereas those hours we spend sharpening our swords are tinged with anger and resentment towards the Theists.

Religion presents us with an easy punching bag. I still can't completely resist myself getting in a punch from time-to-time. The ultimate question we have to ask ourself is; is it possible using our primary weapon of reason to change the mind of even one Theist? Theists are very up-front about telling us that their belief is a result of their faith rather than their reason. It seems that we are using the wrong weapon. In fact, I can't think of a single weapon that we might use to combat blind-faith.

As long as they are not infringing on our right to believe in reason, or upon our rights generally, we really shouldn't mind even if they believe in purple cows. We should instead conserve our energy for the far more important issue of discovering solutions for the myriad of other philosophical problems that remain unresolved.

If we might create satisfying systems of thought based on Humanist notions, the descendents of the Theist might very well come around to our arguements. A better idea is a tempting enticement to abandon a good idea. Patience and steadfast reason, rather than heated and clever arguements might eventually win the fight against superstition.

Now, if only I can follow my own advice

Michael

 

[ilgwamh]

"""""What is bad about atheism, if anything?"""""

Atheists?

That was a joke

 

[Xenu]

The bonus about having a religion is that it takes the meaninglessness out of life. It gives a person something to latch onto. Something to look forward to. Something to work towards. Although this meaning can be something very twisted and outrageous at times.

The downside to atheism is that it's hard to look beyond the meaninglessness. To find something that is truly worthwhile, rather than "just something to do". To find a meaning in all of the almost random events in our lives. It's hard to look beyond the science and data and choose a reality. I'm not saying it's impossible, just harder for an atheist.

-Xenu

 

[Tiassa]

A few notes

The problem with problems of atheism is that few, if any of them have to be. A few points, observational, which I consider problematic:

• Reactionism: Atheism is reactionary. Specifically, in the West, what we refer to as atheism is a reaction against the Judeo-Christian experience and, largely, the "Newtonian" God. This would not be problematic if that reaction was broadly-based. But to base it broadly requires a certain amount of honest learning about religion in general. To wit, the frequency with which Sciforums' atheist posters react against "religion" while describing a God-phenomenon held by only one paradigm. Unfortunately, atheism rarely transcends this perspective.

• Not much to it: I have to say that I enjoyed reading that phrasing of it. And there's not much to atheism. But that in and of itself isn't problematic. Life should not be weighed down by stupid accretions such as we find in the modern institution of Christianity which presents multiple faces, speaks in forked tongues, and plays politics instead of humanity. However, at this point, that's all there is to atheism.

• Declaratory: The problem with declaratory atheism is that, since there's not much to it, the position becomes one declared in reaction to another. It's not possible to say, "I'm an atheist, and so should you be." That idea makes atheism into Atheism.

• Logic: This point derives from the presumption that atheism is logical. This presumption has been soundly rejected by atheists. The logical conclusion that God does not exist is hardly offensive. It is, in fact, a result of observation. But the logic ends there.

• Narrow range of atheism: Since there isn't a cohesive atheism, how can one discuss what is bad about atheism? It varies from person to person, and that's part of the point--

• Cacophony: Welcome to it. Take a look around Sciforums at the behavior of our atheists. In the absence of KB, T1, and other inflammatory Christian-advocate posters, some of our atheists resorted to a desperate bashing of whatever they could find, in order to have something to bash and, presumably, an identity.° At this point, any merit one might achieve, any advance one might accomplish, because of atheism, is challenged if not nullified. Atheism becomes "just another voice in the crowd", which babbles incoherently about stupid things.

• Anti-identification: This sort of goes along with the idea of atheism being reactionary. Having no deeper point to offer than the nonexistence of God means exactly that. Hence, atheism is constantly identifying itself publicly according to what it is not.

In the end, then, atheism is hardly offensive in and of itself. However, atheists tend to make a poor expression of the result of atheism. Think of it this way: what we see of atheism, for instance, at Sciforums, is a bunch of brats with nothing better to do than clutter up a religion board with their non-religion and childish humor. Put it in Free Thoughts, or Ethics & Morality, or World Affairs. But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

In the end, then, I would congratulate atheists for putting so much thought into such a narrow issue in order to achieve such a ridiculous end. And I'm not sarcastic in those congratulations. Someone had to try that avenue, and there's no shame in failing when attempting to pioneer an idea. Such a condition cannot necessarily be called failure, for the concept is thitherto untried, and at least now we have a result to examine.

Notes:

° Identity: That identity is prominently defined at Sciforums by its need to have something to fight against (e.g. to identify against--anti-identification) and its penchant for ridiculing the mentally ill. Congratulations on that. Again, someone had to try that route.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa, I seem to have misplaced my riding crop. Would you be so kind as to keep posting drivel for me to refute?

Thanks.

• Reactionism: Atheism is reactionary. Specifically, in the West, what we refer to as atheism is a reaction against the Judeo-Christian experience and, largely, the "Newtonian" God.

Evidence?

This would not be problematic if that reaction was broadly-based. But to base it broadly requires a certain amount of honest learning about religion in general. To wit, the frequency with which Sciforums' atheist posters react against "religion" while describing a God-phenomenon held by only one paradigm. Unfortunately, atheism rarely transcends this perspective.

Let's see, I've read the Bible, Q'ran, Tao Te Ching, BG, and extensively on other mythologies.

Hmm, I'd say my learning is superficial - if I was looking for poor insults.

• Not much to it:

Try, dear Tiassa, try to think logically, rather than letting your emotions rule.

Now, why is this a problem?

• Declaratory: The problem with declaratory atheism is that, since there's not much to it, the position becomes one declared in reaction to another. It's not possible to say, "I'm an atheist, and so should you be." That idea makes atheism into Atheism.

Athiesm as opposed to religion? What's wrong with that?

Athiesm as opposed to theism? What's wrong with that?

It's simply a choice, the logical choice.

• Logic: This point derives from the presumption that atheism is logical. This presumption has been soundly rejected by atheists. The logical conclusion that God does not exist is hardly offensive. It is, in fact, a result of observation. But the logic ends there.

Tiassa, are you ever going to tire of beating this strawman? It's truely pathetic to watch.

The proposition that "athiesm is logical" has NEVER been rejected, except in whatever fevered dream-world you seem to be living in.

I'm rather tired of this slur.

• Cacophony: Welcome to it. Take a look around Sciforums at the behavior of our atheists. In the absence of KB, T1, and other inflammatory Christian-advocate posters, some of our atheists resorted to a desperate bashing of whatever they could find, in order to have something to bash and, presumably, an identity.° At this point, any merit one might achieve, any advance one might accomplish, because of atheism, is challenged if not nullified. Atheism becomes "just another voice in the crowd", which babbles incoherently about stupid things.

Tiassa, do you have the hots for Adam or somthing? Did he break your heart when he dissed your religion?

Good fucking grief, get a life!

All:
Said "bashing" is the result of one thread - ONE thread started by ONE skeptic several months ago.

Tiassa seems to confuse athiesm and skepticism. I submit that he is easily confused.

In the end, then, atheism is hardly offensive in and of itself. However, atheists tend to make a poor expression of the result of atheism. Think of it this way: what we see of atheism, for instance, at Sciforums, is a bunch of brats with nothing better to do than clutter up a religion board with their non-religion and childish humor. Put it in Free Thoughts, or Ethics & Morality, or World Affairs. But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

If you do not like it, Tiassa, why don't you post somthing of substance other than "Athiests are mean"?

Tell the lunchroom monitor, Tiassa, or grow up.

If you paid attention, you would not that substantiative debate is occuring all around you. If some of us choose to giggle at Loone, or use BIG BLUE LETTERS, or ramble about the Great Cthulhu, well.....

Tough. Most humans are not by nature as dull and humorless as you.

In conclusion, your objections are laughable and illogical. Why don't you get back to spewing vitrolic babble at Adam and give us all a nice break?

 

[Congrats]

If you want to be recognized to have intelligent interchange with the religious, this does not fit:

Athiesm as opposed to religion? What's wrong with that?

You cannot argue a religious point, at all, if you consider your religion to be non-religious. I believe, and have for some time, that atheism must find a way to develop a religion with basic atheist truths at its core- bacially an atheist religion. I am trying to do that mysel, as an athesit, and think that a mix of paganistc-wiccan symboliam with solid atheistic truths maka a sound body for living, and have for me for the last several days.

Atheism today is a social movement, an idea that any basic foundation cannot be trusted if it cannot stand up to modern scientific scrutiny. That is only an underpinning for a new religion to evolve based on the faults of the old. A flawed religion predates a less flawed one, not the absence of one.

 

[Adam]

Atheism seems to me to come in two flavours. First there are people like me who were simply never introduced to religion except, maybe, as just one more thing to study now and then, a mild curiousity. Then there are those who are indeed walking reflexes, declaring themselves atheists as a means of severing their religious past. The second type seem to me more interested in a rebellion against authority rather than an attitude of trying to find some objective reality based on reason.

I don't think I've ever noticed anything here at sciforums which might indicate that any atheists might be rejecting logic. I see no basis for the claim. To me, what we call "atheism" is primarily a rejection of faith in things which have no reasonable support. This does not preclude suspicion and hope; suspicion that there is more to us than meat, and hope that things can get better or that there may indeed be something beyond death. That is not to say I believe in an afterlife at all, but maybe it would be nifty to be reincarnated or something.

Is someone like me, with no religious experience, devoid of hope and morality? I say not, of course. I live on hope, and I can only justify my hope by living to certain moral standards. For a specific example, I hope some day all guys will treat women better, and I can only justify that hope by maintaining certain standards of conduct toward women. Do I hope for an afterlife? I consider it a waste of time and energy to ponder it extensively. There's nothing I can do about it either way, whether there is or isn't one. I actually prefer to hope that our wonderful genetic engineers discover ways to make us immortal, or at least some of us; maybe just the smarter people, top 2% IQ or such (after all, making everyone immortal would result in overcrowding and starvation).

PS: I'm about to start another thread for the immortality question.

 

[Congrats]

If basic athesim is a rejection of faith-

To me, what we call "atheism" is primarily a rejection of faith in things which have no reasonable support. This does not preclude suspicion and hope; suspicion that there is more to us than meat, and hope that things can get better or that there may indeed be something beyond death.

-and the presence of anythng else in the person is only defendable, you don't have a religion. You have a catalyst for one.

 

[fadingCaptain]

the only downside to atheism is the rejection and hatred you will receive from theists upon your declaration of belief and views.

hey congratulations - why are you so intent on creating a new religion based on atheism? have you checked out secular humanism or pantheism?

-fc

 

[Cris]

Yes the downside is that atheism isn’t a belief system, it is purely negative in nature. It is a disbelief in the claims made by others. One cannot usefully base a lifestyle on rejected ideas.

So while I am an atheist I also follow positive philosophies. The various questionnaires we have had show I come out on top as a secular humanist, and I’m fairly comfortable with that at the contemporary level. But I do see technology as a way forward for the human race and that firmly places me in the far less understood and new transhumanist camp.

So while atheism can establish the reasons for rejecting theism and does largely encourage logical thinking, it does also encompass all those other irrational people who are atheist because they; don’t understand the issues, reject theism because of other paranoid reasoning, or have never give theism any thought. This is hardly a group that inspires.

So atheism on it’s own is not sufficient for a complete and satisfying philosophical viewpoint, and remember atheism doesn’t necessarily imply materialism, which most of us atheists do assume.

I reject theism and the supernatural because they are based on created ideas that have no observational basis, in the same way as any other fictional fantasy. Religion is irrelevant and should not be given any great attention.

Of more value is what do we choose for a replacement of the widespread religious beliefs that surround us in this ‘so called’ modern world? And how do we proceed to convince others that their religious beliefs are of no long-term value? And here I will expect to be criticized for taking the same views as the Christian evangelists, who also try to impose their ideas on others. Well I don’t plan to go door-to-door, but as secularism becomes more acceptable and religions are rejected there is likely to be a void into which chaos is likely to fester. Or rather this void has been forming for sometime as people move away from religion and have not had any guidance on what to follow instead. If there is no positive philosophy for people to follow then we stand the risk of acquiring something worse than religion, perhaps a form of violent anarchy that no one will want.

Genetics and technology are progressing at a steadily increasing geometric rate. Our abilities to change ourselves are already growing and really we have only just begun. PBS last night here in Silicon Valley showed a program called ‘Beyond Human’; this was a very revealing view of a transhumanist future with robots becoming common but more importantly the inevitable transition from bio-human to robo-human. The changes that are coming will be immense and far-reaching and largely beyond our current imagination I suspect. And we are definitely not ready.

Religion is a waste of time and should now be safely ignored. We need to attend to and prepare for the changes to the human race that are approaching. We need a positive philosophy that’s sets guidelines and values for all people, that is based on what people need and not what some imaginary deity might want for us.

Objectivism by Ayn Rand is probably the most complete set of guidelines I have seen and I would love to see this explored and offered more fully. But this is perhaps fine for the more intellectual among us but what of the less fortunate? Those that are perhaps less intelligent or who have been the victims of poor education. These people are often the fodder for the religious evangelists. These vulnerable people can be easily duped into the tempting beliefs of a kind and fatherly deity who they think will one day release them from their torment. Any replacement set of guidelines must appeal to these people as well, and Objectivism is not the easiest perspective to introduce at a simple level.

1. Atheism is not sufficient on its own.
2. Secular humanism will be fine for a while.
3. Transhumanism will become all too apparent over the next few decades.

But none of these represent a workable set of philosophical guidelines that are easily understood by all. At least nothing as simple as the religious quest – “believe in God and he will solve all your problems, you don’t have to think when you accept religion”. How tempting for so many who already find life confusing and stressful and just want an easy way. To convince so many that life is worth some effort is a steep uphill struggle, and I don’t have any real answers.

Perhaps when the Islamic world finds it’s way out of its current ‘dark ages’ and takes on secular capitalism, and when China relinquishes its tight repressive role on its people then perhaps there will be a greater commonality in the world and a quest to find a unifying philosophy? But I suspect that when these cultural changes occur we will already have made enormous headway into the transhumanist realm of high technology. I’m not sure if there will be a conflict or not. Perhaps inequality in the world is inevitable and only the strongest and wealthiest will be the only ones to escape the limitations of our current physical forms.

Sorry to ramble.

Cris

 

[Raithere]

Re: A few notes

Originally posted by tiassa
Reactionism: Atheism is reactionary. Specifically, in the West, what we refer to as atheism is a reaction against the Judeo-Christian experience and, largely, the "Newtonian" God. This would not be problematic if that reaction was broadly-based. But to base it broadly requires a certain amount of honest learning about religion in general. To wit, the frequency with which Sciforums' atheist posters react against "religion" while describing a God-phenomenon held by only one paradigm. Unfortunately, atheism rarely transcends this perspective.

Atheism is the disbelief in God(s). It would make sense that any local dialogue between atheists and theists would focus upon the predominating regional religion. I find it amusing that you find it problematic that the atheists here are often focus upon the Judeo-Christian religions when the theists direct the focus. Be certain that were the predominating religion on the boards other than Christian the atheists would still respond. As it lies this is a non-issue.

• Not much to it: I have to say that I enjoyed reading that phrasing of it.
… However, at this point, that's all there is to atheism.

Why should there be? Atheism is a simple statement of disbelief. Anyone who tries to include any further philosophy is simply using a confused terminology.

• Declaratory: The problem with declaratory atheism is that, since there's not much to it, the position becomes one declared in reaction to another. It's not possible to say, "I'm an atheist, and so should you be." That idea makes atheism into Atheism.

I’m an atheist, and so should you be; it’s a rational conclusion based upon logic and evidence (or lack thereof).

• Logic: This point derives from the presumption that atheism is logical. This presumption has been soundly rejected by atheists.

Tiassa, you simply didn’t understand the argument. A child may conclude that 5*5=25 because there are 2 fives; this conclusion, although correct, was obviously arrived at through incorrect means. This does not mean that 5*5 does not equal 25 through the proper calculation. Similarly, one may be atheist for non-logical reasons but this does not mean that there is not a valid, logical argument for atheism. By your reasoning 5*5 does not equal 25 because not everyone arrived at it in the proper manner.

The logical conclusion that God does not exist is hardly offensive. It is, in fact, a result of observation. But the logic ends there.

That’s all that atheism states so why should it go on?

• Narrow range of atheism: Since there isn't a cohesive atheism, how can one discuss what is bad about atheism? It varies from person to person, and that's part of the point—

Show me any two theists who have completely identical beliefs regarding everything. If this is a problem with atheism then it’s a problem with every other belief as well.

Cacophony: Welcome to it. Take a look around Sciforums at the behavior of our atheists. In the absence of KB, T1, and other inflammatory Christian-advocate posters, some of our atheists resorted to a desperate bashing of whatever they could find, in order to have something to bash and, presumably, an identity

Bashing is what some people are here for, dialogue and debate is what other people are here for. If you want peace and agreement you need to go elsewhere Tiassa; this is a discussion forum.

At this point, any merit one might achieve, any advance one might accomplish, because of atheism, is challenged if not nullified. Atheism becomes "just another voice in the crowd", which babbles incoherently about stupid things.

Tiassa, as the master of the tertiary argument here at Sciforums I hardly think you should be critiquing.

Anti-identification

You've mentioned this before and I've yet to actually see the problem(s) that this causes outlined.

However, atheists tend to make a poor expression of the result of atheism. Think of it this way: what we see of atheism, for instance, at Sciforums, is a bunch of brats with nothing better to do than clutter up a religion board with their non-religion and childish humor.

And the theists here are largely populated by idiots that can do nothing but spout scripture in lieu of an actual argument… your point?

But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

I beg to differ; Adam, Cris, Xev, me, and many others jump just as quickly into arguments with other religions as with Christianity. Bring on the topics.

In the end, then, I would congratulate atheists for putting so much thought into such a narrow issue in order to achieve such a ridiculous end.

Sorry, but I don't find arguing against idiocy, psuedo-science, and ignorance (particularly as it pertains to government and education) to be a ridiculous end. You might think the world should be ruled by such things but I don’t.

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

Xev,

Cris: Oh yes one can! I build the temple of my philosophy on crushed lies.

Riiiiight! Whatever! But is it usefully positive?

Stay away from the N guy, you are beginnng to drift in the ether.

Cris

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Raithere:

It would make sense that any local dialogue between atheists and theists would focus upon the predominating regional religion

Actually, what makes more sense is to speak of the God at hand. If you must retreat to a "predominating regional religion", take it up with members of that religion. In the meantime, the rest of us are laughing at such broad argumentative weakness. To wit: if an atheist does not understand the God s/he is disbelieving, the atheist should just select a broad paradigm to reject? This would tend to point toward the atheist's need to identify and reject, and speaks nothing of an honest examination of the issues at question.

I find it amusing that you find it problematic that the atheists here are often focus upon the Judeo-Christian religions when the theists direct the focus.

Or we could look at this thread. Would you like to tell me which theist directed the focus? See my response to Neutrino Albatross, as well as his own post. And get back to me when you figure out which theist directed the focus to a being with infite power that sees everything.

Why should there be? Atheism is a simple statement of disbelief. Anyone who tries to include any further philosophy is simply using a confused terminology.

And that's fair enough.

I’m an atheist, and so should you be; it’s a rational conclusion based upon logic and evidence (or lack thereof).

So you've arrived at a "conclusion". Now, what are you going to do with it? I prefer a more functional mode than mere anti-identification.

Tiassa, you simply didn’t understand the argument. A child may conclude that 5*5=25 because there are 2 fives; this conclusion, although correct, was obviously arrived at through incorrect means. This does not mean that 5*5 does not equal 25 through the proper calculation. Similarly, one may be atheist for non-logical reasons but this does not mean that there is not a valid, logical argument for atheism. By your reasoning 5*5 does not equal 25 because not everyone arrived at it in the proper manner.

This is quite funny. But it works as an example. The atheistic conclusion, when left simply at that, means nothing. But in the presented atheism we see that the child who concludes that 5x5=25 (by whatever means he arrives at that question) believes he ought to be a PhD mathematician.

That’s all that atheism states so why should it go on?

I can only hope that someday an atheist will explain that.

Show me any two theists who have completely identical beliefs regarding everything. If this is a problem with atheism then it’s a problem with every other belief as well.

Actually, it's a response to the idiocy of the question. There is nothing that one can say bad about atheism because, as we see, atheism is merely a miniscule idea compared to its application. I mean, atheists have a tendency to tell other people that those others don't know what atheism is, but atheists by and large don't care to fill anyone in. They simply choose to tell us what is wrong with other people and have no actual self to examine. It's not so much hypocritical, since there's nothing to examine in the atheist, but we see that atheists extending their atheism to guide their interactions with other people are basing their conclusions on something that they refuse to describe.

ashing is what some people are here for, dialogue and debate is what other people are here for. If you want peace and agreement you need to go elsewhere Tiassa; this is a discussion forum.

Well, one can always hope that one of the atheists actually has a point to discuss. Is atheism a religion? Am I not the one that recommended atheism be taken to the Free Thoughts or Ethics & Morality or the World Affairs forums in order to accommodate the fact that it is not a religion?

One would hope that an atheist in a religious discussion forum might have a point to discuss about religion. But atheism isn't a religion, so I don't know why it appears in this forum at all. After all, if, as you've pointed out, anyone who tries to include any further philosophy is simply using a confused terminology. Why compare atheism to religion? After all, if atheism is a simple disbelief in God, then why bother with the religion? It seems you're tacking extra philosophy onto it.

In the meantime, the only problem with bashing for the sake of bashing is that it shows how stupid and desperate the bashing poster is. It has little to do with the argument, but much to do with the credibility of the poster. As many atheists have shown, the only reason they tie their atheism to religion whatsoever is to have something to criticize. After a while, I would think the advantages one gains from atheism would compel atheists to do something better with their time than simply prove themselves intolerant and intolerable whiners.

Really ... the problem with atheism is atheists. They are, largely, laughable.

Raithere, have you ever heard a Christian assert that atheism licenses immorality? It's a dumb claim, isn't it. Atheism need not result solely in moral numbness, nor sheer hedonism.

However, idiocy and moral disregard seem to be the frequent results of atheism. If you would like the facts to reflect a different result, I might suggest a re-evaluation of conduct among atheists. The big problem is, though, that you all claim your atheism to be logically based while disclaiming any further link beyond label. It seems that any time someone draws a conclusion about the nature of atheism based on observations of atheists, there is always an atheist there to complain that the critic has no basis. Gee, we're watching ... it would seem to me that if atheists don't want to be viewed as petty, anti-authoritarian brats, they ought to try acting like grown-ups sometime.

You've mentioned this before and I've yet to actually see the problem(s) that this causes outlined.

Well, what is an atheist? The term has diverse manifestations, and is effectively meaningless beyond its initial definition. Given the diversity of atheists, it's rather pathetic to watch atheists attempt to claim a collective, uniform logic in their conclusion.

The problem with anti-identification is that your excuse for being what you are is merely, "I ain't as bad as the other guy." That's what it comes down to. I mean, look at the recent, worthless contributions of atheism to these discussions. It's just a bunch of people bitching with no real academic support, no real intent of seeking better answers, and pursuing the pleasure of attacking ideas that they quite demonstrably--by their own words--have little or no clue regarding. At this point, you might as well be born-again Christians.

If there was any positive identification associated with atheism, I'm sure the atheists would have held it up by now.

See, you're welcome to be atheist, and I won't challenge that. And you're welcome to imagine that it gets you whatever you want. But, as you've pointed out, Raithere, this is a discussion board. So why won't atheists have an actual discussion about, for instance, religion, according to the forum they choose to post in?

Watch other people you come across in life in the throes of anti-identification. If you can't see the problem with basing your life on what you're not, then you're welcome to it.

I beg to differ; Adam, Cris, Xev, me, and many others jump just as quickly into arguments with other religions as with Christianity. Bring on the topics.

See the prior example noted above, regarding Neutrino's post.

Furthermore, you may jump into arguments just as quickly, but of your list, Cris is the only one who consistently recognizes when it's not merely the Judeo-Christian godhead he's considering.

And, beyond that is the mode of argument, Raithere. The topic asked for problems with atheism. Chief among the problems with atheism is the attitude problem of our atheists. There's a sense of moral superiority evident among a good many of them, an identifiable and presently prevailing trend (remember that word, Raithere?) toward arrogance. They're welcome to it so long as that superiority is demonstrative, but the rational, objective, logical power of a paradigm developed according to the atheist standard has been rejected. Atheism is merely another personal preference, an arrogance, a greed, a way of living that suits one's most limited considerations of the self.

Sorry, but I don't find arguing against idiocy, psuedo-science, and ignorance (particularly as it pertains to government and education) to be a ridiculous end. You might think the world should be ruled by such things but I don’t.

This is one of the saddest idiocies of atheism. It's part of the problem of anti-identification. Why do atheists always try to change the subject for the purposes of sloganeering? Xev and I are having a bit of a tiff that is functionally related to this need to change the subject. After all, you, Raithere, may not find your atheism cause to ridicule the mentally ill, but it's dishonest of you to pretend that such a result (A) does not exist, and (B) is not observable among our atheist posters.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Xev, if you don't understand, don't speak. Easy enough?

Xev

That sounds fun. Let me know when you're capable of refuting anything.

• Reactionism: Atheism is reactionary. Specifically, in the West, what we refer to as atheism is a reaction against the Judeo-Christian experience and, largely, the "Newtonian" God.


Evidence?

Well, if you follow the intellectual and philosophical course of Christianity, atheism arrives with Spinoza, Diderot, and others, in reaction to Newtonian Christianity. The continuing reaction of atheism against Christianity is seen in contemporary atheists. When an atheist declares that there is no God, and bases that wholly on the image descended from the Judeo-Christian tradition (I made a point of this in response to a poster in one of your threads), the only God it's declaring against is the God of the Judeo-Christian experience in the Western mode.

Furthermore, would you like to document the "manifesto" of official atheism? I thought there was none.

Let's see, I've read the Bible, Q'ran, Tao Te Ching, BG, and extensively on other mythologies.

Hmm, I'd say my learning is superficial - if I was looking for poor insults.

Your superficial learning? Like I said, Xev, let me know when you're capable of refuting anything. All you've refuted there is something you've invented for the purpose of refuting.

In the meantime, remember that the Christianity you're arguing against is that lowest echelon of the faith. You never do take on the higher concepts except to scratch the surface and have something to ridicule. Like I noted: But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

Well, Xev, if all you can do is ridicule Loone in absentia and worry, or, as some atheists do, worry about childish bullshit in the Bible, that's all it's worth. I had an interesting couple of minutes yesterday.  I was reading a literary history and as I came to a bit about John Dos Passos, I found myself having an interesting moment. I could hear Sciforums' skeptical/atheist crowd arguing with the narrator: You can't prove that the dogtag is at the bottom of the river, dammit .... It was amusing in that sense. It's like rejecting e.e. cummings because it doesn't rhyme. Sure, whatever. But it's superficial. I don't care if you have a PhD in literature and poetry; if that's as good as one can do, it's superficial.

If you respect your learning so highly, Xev, you ought to try using it.

Likewise, while everybody's arguing about whether or not God created the world in X days, nobody's really paying attention to the way the Book of Genesis affects the foundations of western thought. Merely discrediting its narrative speaks nothing toward the effect. It's not quite tilting windmills, but it's pretty close.

Try, dear Tiassa, try to think logically, rather than letting your emotions rule.

Now, why is this a problem?

I'm sure that first sentence has some point in the Universe. Let me know if you ever discover what that is.

To the other, what is problematic about it is when atheists pretend there's more to it without attempting to either understand, know, or declare that more. Think of it this way: what more is there to it, Xev? You've rejected logical atheism--that is, the idea that the benefit of atheism comes from looking at the world logically--you've rejected codified atheism (and that's well and fine, I'm right there with you), and you've proposed hedonism as a logical moral propriety.

In the end, what else is there but that core of atheism, that God does not exist?

If you would like to document what more there is to it, I would be happy to read it and give it consideration. However, I'm curious what you'll offer up that won't fly in the face of your prior posts.

Athiesm as opposed to religion? What's wrong with that?

Athiesm as opposed to theism? What's wrong with that?

It's simply a choice, the logical choice.

What makes it logical?

Why raise atheism to the status of religion? It serves the atheistic notion poorly.

Tiassa, are you ever going to tire of beating this strawman? It's truely pathetic to watch.

Here, Xev, let's see if you remember this thread, and perhaps you can clarify the source of our disagreement. Well, for my purposes, it is a source of our disagreement.

You might recall that I called people out on other myths, and that we had a few words about them. But I pointed out that:

What I'm after is that if you look around, laws of society are as arbitrary as any other human convention. What objective principle gives the law authority? Perhaps the coercion of enforcement devices? What gives those devices the right? (See, it overlaps with the myth of rights.)

To which you responded:

Since when were athiests necessarily Objectivists?

Now, here's where you can help me clear this whole thing up.

• Were you changing subjects and invoking doctrinal objectivism? I'll accept that idea except that it seems useless to the debate in which you brought it up.

• Or were you rejecting the idea of objective, logical principles that support conceptual assertions such as rule of law?

I had, admittedly, taken you to mean the second, because it is the most obvious application of the response. I chose that because the other option was to ask you why you were changing the subject. Because at that point, doctrinal objectivism had nothing to do with the discussion. I can only wonder why you bothered inserting it if you're invoking doctrinal objectivism.

That's why I find your position at present so anemic. If you'd like to be careless with your words, then don't complain if you're not perceived as you'd like to be. But you're welcome to revisit the older topic and clarify, or to do so here. But when you say the idea of logical atheism has not been rejected, I'm curious what the fuck your problem with it is, then? You have, in the past, referred to my defense of logical atheism (even against theists) as "my error". Why is it "my error"? After all, if you claim logical atheism has not been rejected by atheists (such as yourself), then please enlighten us all as to what error I made in defending logical atheism despite its inability to function properly in my life.

We're waiting.

Actually, no, we're not. I'm not even waiting. I'm interested to know if you even have an answer for it, Xev, but at some point, it would be nice if you would get to know the concept of communication.

I'm rather tired of this slur.

And I'm getting tired of your self-righteous double-speak. Were you invoking doctrinal objectivism or were you countering the point at hand? Or would you like to mold your words into something else? The floor's yours, Xev. I can't apply your words to doctrinal objectivism, despite your capitalization, because it has nothing to do with the topic to which you introduced it. Of course, I could always accuse you of waving red herrings in an attempt to conceal the weakness of your position, but I'd rather know what you actually meant since it apparently isn't clear.

Tiassa, do you have the hots for Adam or somthing? Did he break your heart when he dissed your religion?

Good fucking grief, get a life!

I'm quite sure that if you had a substantial response, you would have given it. Actually, Xev, it's worth asking if you have the hots for Adam. Are you standing up for your man, or has he finally paid you a retainer?

All:
Said "bashing" is the result of one thread - ONE thread started by ONE skeptic several months ago.

Ah, the desperate appeal to the masses. It is, however, documented behavior.

Tiassa seems to confuse athiesm and skepticism. I submit that he is easily confused.

So is this about me or the topic? It's up to you, Xev. Are you out to bag a Tiassa or are you out to discuss the difficulties of atheism? Or are you out to pretend the perfection and unquestionable conclusiveness of atheism? I mean, do you have the hots for me? Why pursue the personal quarry unless it's all you have left?

If you do not like it, Tiassa, why don't you post somthing of substance other than "Athiests are mean"?

If only you were here, Xev, you could hear the beautiful sound of the two tiny violins playing, "Cry Me a River (Stereo Mix)".

Funny, that ... when I do post other topics, atheists (since we're considering them directly) seem to prefer to continue bouncing their egos off the superficial concepts of religion.

Think of it this way, Xev ... if an atheist contests the literalism of Genesis ... congratulations, you have just defeated the literalism of Genesis in an argument. Whoopee, Xev, it means that you're capable of arguing against the literalists, in other words, the least educated and most superstitious bunch in the flock.

Tell the lunchroom monitor, Tiassa, or grow up.

Wow, now you and Adam are both using schoolyard metaphors when you run out of things to say. Now, do you have anything to say to the grown-ups, or do you wish to remain in your schoolyard metaphors?

If you paid attention, you would not that substantiative debate is occuring all around you. If some of us choose to giggle at Loone, or use BIG BLUE LETTERS, or ramble about the Great Cthulhu, well.....

Substantive debate? Would you care to provide an example while highlighting the atheistic contribution to the debate?

Tough. Most humans are not by nature as dull and humorless as you.

True, but most humans are as petty and obsessive as you.

Shall we keep it up?

Note on edit: It has occurred to me that it is worth it to put my humor in front of you. Xev, can you tell me the basis of fourth-frame philosophy? It's a very simple basis for humor, and can even be elevated to a life goal. Go on, give it your best shot. It really is that easy. I submit, Xev, that if you find me humorless, you have much to learn about humor.

In conclusion, your objections are laughable and illogical. Why don't you get back to spewing vitrolic babble at Adam and give us all a nice break?

Aw, Xev, giving up so soon? Just because you can't escape your own words without putting a little thought into them does not mean you should stick your lip out so far. Cheer up, kiddo. You can learn from it or not. It's up to you.

But don't get pissy just because I give such ideas more thought than you do. Neither piss nor envy are your colors, dear.

I can only hope that when you grow up, Xev, you'll learn to examine and explore religion, and not make it your outlet for frustration. Just because you want it one way doesn't mean you're going to get it. And if you can't say what you mean, and if you can't debate honestly, and if you can't remember what you actually wrote, I'm hardly disturbed by the conclusions you have reached. They were predictable, Xev. So much for diversity.

--Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

A long post

Originally posted by tiassa
To wit: if an atheist does not understand the God s/he is disbelieving, the atheist should just select a broad paradigm to reject? This would tend to point toward the atheist's need to identify and reject, and speaks nothing of an honest examination of the issues at question.

I would indeed welcome an "honest examination of the issues at hand" and I'd be more than happy to discuss my personal philosophies beyond my simple "anti-identification" of atheism if you like. I cannot, however, claim that anyone but myself shares my set of beliefs.

And that's fair enough.So you've arrived at a "conclusion". Now, what are you going to do with it? I prefer a more functional mode than mere anti-identification.

There is a common problem amongst atheists and that is terminology. Atheists will often define themselves as such without recognizing that the term atheist does not entail the whole of their philosophy or reasoning, if indeed they have an overriding philosophy. You'd have the same problem regarding Theists, in general; of the entire category labeled theist there is no overriding philosophy, it's simply a statement of belief. I definitely agree with you that one needs something more functional than a simple statement of belief or disbelief to direct one's life.

The atheistic conclusion, when left simply at that, means nothing.

Disbelief in God(s) does not mean nothing.

I can only hope that someday an atheist will explain that.

I think that I've begun to above

There is nothing that one can say bad about atheism because, as we see, atheism is merely a miniscule idea compared to its application.

Other than forums, such as this, almost the only time I declare myself Atheist is when some Theist (usually a Christian) asks me if I believe in God. This is usually done in a ham-handed attempt to foist their own opinion upon me as "The Truth" and drag me to a Church to listen to the "Good News" lectured by some half-wit preacher who's only higher-education was from a Theological Seminary where any rational thoughts they originally had were pounded out of their heads with more of the same tripe. Surely, as a Wiccan, you receive much of the same threatening speech about how you're going to hell as I do as an Atheist. I find the initial question valid. It may be a bit limited in scope but this is necessary in order to exact some type of coherent response.

They simply choose to tell us what is wrong with other people and have no actual self to examine.

Please, you know this isn’t so; it’s a ridiculous comment. If you wish to examine a particular Atheistic set of beliefs that are clearly defined try Secular Humanism. Just realize that this category does not represent all atheists; just as Pentecostal beliefs do not represent all Theists.

but we see that atheists extending their atheism to guide their interactions with other people are basing their conclusions on something that they refuse to describe.

Try asking. Just don't call it Atheism when it's not. Atheism is simple and declarative. If you want to examine a deeper philosophy you'll need to name it or inquire about it.

One would hope that an atheist in a religious discussion forum might have a point to discuss about religion.

I always do. So do many other atheists here.

But atheism isn't a religion, so I don't know why it appears in this forum at all.

No, it's not a religion but it is a statement regarding a particular and predominant tenet of most religions. Surely you can see the connection.

In the meantime, the only problem with bashing for the sake of bashing is that it shows how stupid and desperate the bashing poster is. It has little to do with the argument, but much to do with the credibility of the poster.

It depends upon how you define bashing. Personally, what I consider bashing is simplistic, rude, and uninformed put-downs or slander. Contrast this with a rational, if critical, examination of a religion (or any set of beliefs) which is often regarded as bashing by the receiving end. The latter I do not consider bashing.

As many atheists have shown, the only reason they tie their atheism to religion whatsoever is to have something to criticize.

Atheism is inherently tied to religion in a predominantly religious world. Consider that if there were no Theists there would be no need of the term atheist.

Really ... the problem with atheism is atheists. They are, largely, laughable.

That's okay. I feel the same way about most Wiccans and other Theists.

However, idiocy and moral disregard seem to be the frequent results of atheism.

Idiocy and moral disregard are the frequent results of being human. I see little behavioral difference in either the Theistic or Atheistic camps. The main difference I note is that at least the Atheists aren't being hypocritical in the process.

If you would like the facts to reflect a different result, I might suggest a re-evaluation of conduct among atheists.

Please don't play with statistics you don't understand. Consider that most of the prison population in the entire world is comprised of Theists. Consider that most wars were started, lead, and fought by theists. Consider the crusades, the inquisition, human sacrifice, and the witch trials. If you want to debate the facts and statistical behavior of Theists vs Atheists I have a shit-load more ammo than you do.

Well, what is an atheist?

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God(s), or supreme intelligent Being.

The term has diverse manifestations, and is effectively meaningless beyond its initial definition.

Very good. In this way it is similar to the term Theist; no?

Given the diversity of atheists, it's rather pathetic to watch atheists attempt to claim a collective, uniform logic in their conclusion.

Not at all. Atheism is properly derived at from: 1) A lack of evidence otherwise. 2) Logical reasoning. I arrived at Atheism the same way I arrived at my disbelief in Santa Claus.

The problem with anti-identification is that your excuse for being what you are is merely, "I ain't as bad as the other guy." That's what it comes down to.

Hardly.

I mean, look at the recent, worthless contributions of atheism to these discussions. It's just a bunch of people bitching with no real academic support, no real intent of seeking better answers, and pursuing the pleasure of attacking ideas that they quite demonstrably--by their own words--have little or no clue regarding.

Speak for yourself. I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time simply correcting your misconceptions of what atheism is when you could have simply looked it up in a dictionary. You initially presented Atheism to me with a definition that was actually a materialistic/deterministic philosophy and set of related behaviors. Dissuading you of that misconception you jumped to your current conclusion that since the atheistic declaration can be arrived at irrationally and that the logic presented in the proper atheist argument is not necessarily applied to every unrelated belief an atheist may possess that atheism is entirely unfounded and irrational.

As a whole, I have found the atheists here to have provided much more in the way of rational, logical, evidentially supported contributions and criticisms than the unfounded, psuedo-scientific, psuedo-logical, postings of most of the theists.

Watch other people you come across in life in the throes of anti-identification. If you can't see the problem with basing your life on what you're not, then you're welcome to it.

I do see the problems. Personally, I hold the weak argument towards atheism and it is hardly the basis for my life. In fact, it's a rather small portion of my philosophy but when I'm taking a stance in religious discussion atheism is my position.

Cris is the only one who consistently recognizes when it's not merely the Judeo-Christian godhead he's considering.

When I type God(s), I mean any God not Yahweh. I can't help your assumption.

Chief among the problems with atheism is the attitude problem of our atheists. There's a sense of moral superiority evident among a good many of them, an identifiable and presently prevailing trend (remember that word, Raithere?) toward arrogance.

Very well. You actually have a point here. Of course, I'll posit that these behaviors and attitudes are just as prevalent amongst the Theists, yourself included. I've noted few instances where people here are even willing to concede a point, much less the argument.

The rational, objective, logical power of a paradigm developed according to the atheist standard has been rejected

The paradigm you're referring to is not atheism; atheism is not a paradigm. It sounded as if you were referring to objectivistic, materialistic, or deterministic philosophy.

Atheism is merely another personal preference, an arrogance, a greed, a way of living that suits one's most limited considerations of the self.

If you don't get it by now, please re-read my above comments.

After all, you, Raithere, may not find your atheism cause to ridicule the mentally ill, but it's dishonest of you to pretend that such a result (A) does not exist, and (B) is not observable among our atheist posters.

Are you referring to Sr.Loone? Please.

~Raithere

 

[A4Ever]

Surely, as a Wiccan, you receive much of the same threatening speech about how you're going to hell as I do as an Atheist

This is no longer the case here in Belgium, and I suppose in most of Europe.

Consider that most wars were started, lead, and fought by theists

Consider that there were no other than religious people in those times. Massive secularisation is quite recent.

Hiroshima, Irak, Afgahanistan,... are 'done' by secularised people, although they still ask God to bless America. (European politicians don't seem to do that, now that I think about it.)

 

[A4Ever]

Give me some rational responses

That will be a problem for ever and ever. Until you atheists die and find out how it really works of course

(that was a joke, please do not take it serious)

What I wanted to say is that religion is not rational. So stop trying to root it there, theists. And stop asking for rational arguments, atheists, cause there aren't any. Believe in God requires an 'irrational'* leap of faith.

The problem is that the scientific point of view is very respected. Most theists feel the need to be recognized by this discipline. I would call that lack of faith.

When you escape from the cave and see the sunlight, try to explain it to the ones still tied up inside. Impossible. Even more impossible: try to prove to the one who saw the sun that he is dillusional

edit 2: shouldn't most of you atheists be called agnostic? I bet most of you would say: we can't know if there's a God. It is a possiblity.



* it depends on your definition of irrational of course. For some people it is the same thing as 'stupid'. This is of course not what I mean.

Edit: about the arrogance of scientists: arrogance is always one step to far, but they did invent and create things that make our lives better. What do theists have to show? Nothing tangible by definition. And they don't have to either.

 

[Adam]

Tiassa

Well, if you follow the intellectual and philosophical course of Christianity, atheism arrives with Spinoza, Diderot, and others, in reaction to Newtonian Christianity.

I'd say you are referring only to modern formal atheist philosophy. The concept of being without religion, however, obviously predates religion. As I have said many times, we are born without it.

Actually, Xev, it's worth asking if you have the hots for Adam. Are you standing up for your man, or has he finally paid you a retainer?

She's not on my payroll. I give you my word as a liar, a cheat, and a scoundrel.

Wow, now you and Adam are both using schoolyard metaphors when you run out of things to say. Now, do you have anything to say to the grown-ups, or do you wish to remain in your schoolyard metaphors?

Dude, don't bring me into your tiff with Xev. I'm just an innocent friggin bystander. Now, I know I'm not as all-growed-up as you two, but please avoid these references and just stick to the topic.

Raithere

There is a common problem amongst atheists and that is terminology. Atheists will often define themselves as such without recognizing that the term atheist does not entail the whole of their philosophy or reasoning, if indeed they have an overriding philosophy.

I can't possibly describe the whole of my beliefs with the term "atheist". However, I do use the term when the matter under discussion is religion. It seems appropriate.

Atheism is properly derived at from: 1) A lack of evidence otherwise. 2) Logical reasoning. I arrived at Atheism the same way I arrived at my disbelief in Santa Claus.

Couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.