What is an 'atheist'?

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

That's a good example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

What defines an atheist?

I am not perfectly sure. I do not call myself an atheist anymore. When quizzed on the subject of my beliefs, I state that I adhere to Western philosophy. I have precisely as much of a right to call this a religion as the Chinese have to call their Taoism a "religion." Science is a very applied, methodical branch of Western philosophy that has been responsible for numerous miracles. If you don't think that you have ever practiced blind faith in science, then I assume that you have never ridden in an automobile. The modern automobile is really an impressive bit of thaumaturgy, and most people don't really understand perfectly how it works. Most of those who think they do are rather wrong, and a few who would have been correct forty or so years ago are now quite mistaken as well. Relatively few people really understand this particular bit of thaumaturgy, yet they faithfully trust their lives and the lives of their kin to the technology that runs it.

You see, Christian apologists claim that I can't be an atheist because I do not purport that I have special knowledge that the universe was not created by an all-powerful, mysterious entity that secretly dictates instructions to chief figures in their heirarchy. If I refer to myself as an atheist, they will inevitably insist that I must be an agnostic. However, if I refer to myself as an agnostic, they tend to assume that I consider there to be a 50:50 chance that God exists, which is not true at all, and they employ the reasoning that, if chances really are equal that God exists, then my "bets" are actually a lot better if I choose to believe that God exists. However, they are missing a very important point. If every possible scenario were being treated equally, then the chances that their particular god exists are somewhere around 1/infinity. Somewhere in that denominator is a god that we have not thought of who would be very angry if we were worshipping the wrong god. If the Christian god were treated absolutely equally, then the odds of this entity actually existing are a drop in the bucket, at best. This is why the appeal to ignorance is also called the "argument from lack of imagination."

As you can see, my views really don't fit into either of the categories that are offered by the Christian or Islamic apologist. This is because my views are actually correct, and Christian and Islamic apologists, because they are extremely immoral, prefer to try to pigeonhole a person into one out of two points of view that are obviously ridiculous. Well, since I am not really being given any acceptable options here, I might as well claim that my religion is actually a group of ideas that have had such an astronomical degree of success that there is not a single religion that will acknowledge its strict adherents as being members of a religion at all. Even so, it is effectively the de facto state religion of the United States of America, and Christianity is not.

However, if you judged Western philosophy, including science, by the same standards as any other religion, you would be forced to acknowledge that it actually has produced several billion miracles. We have made it possible for people who have been blind for their entire lives to see the world for the very first time. We have made it possible for a quadruple-amputee to run marathons, play ball, and type at a rate of 12 words/minute. Judging Western philosophy by the same standards as religion would be like entering J. K. Rowling in a writing contest against a group of third-graders.

I really deeply, passionately hate Christian and Islamic apologists who attempt to pigeonhole me by making irrational demands regarding what an atheist is supposed to be. An atheist is not required to have some kind of special knowledge that God does not exist. If I am "agnostic" in any respect, I am not entirely sure whether the Christian/Islamic God falls into the realm of 0 or 1/infinity. However, the latter is as close to zero as you can get. If I want to call myself an atheist, I am going to call myself an atheist.

 

[Bishadi]

I am not perfectly sure. I do not call myself an atheist anymore. When quizzed on the subject of my beliefs, I state that I adhere to Western philosophy. I have precisely as much of a right to call this a religion as the Chinese have to call their Taoism a "religion." Science is a very applied, methodical branch of Western philosophy that has been responsible for numerous miracles. If you don't think that you have ever practiced blind faith in science, then I assume that you have never ridden in an automobile. The modern automobile is really an impressive bit of thaumaturgy, and most people don't really understand perfectly how it works. Most of those who think they do are rather wrong, and a few who would have been correct forty or so years ago are now quite mistaken as well. Relatively few people really understand this particular bit of thaumaturgy, yet they faithfully trust their lives and the lives of their kin to the technology that runs it.

You see, Christian apologists claim that I can't be an atheist because I do not purport that I have special knowledge that the universe was not created by an all-powerful, mysterious entity that secretly dictates instructions to chief figures in their heirarchy. If I refer to myself as an atheist, they will inevitably insist that I must be an agnostic. However, if I refer to myself as an agnostic, they tend to assume that I consider there to be a 50:50 chance that God exists, which is not true at all, and they employ the reasoning that, if chances really are equal that God exists, then my "bets" are actually a lot better if I choose to believe that God exists. However, they are missing a very important point. If every possible scenario were being treated equally, then the chances that their particular god exists are somewhere around 1/infinity. Somewhere in that denominator is a god that we have not thought of who would be very angry if we were worshipping the wrong god. If the Christian god were treated absolutely equally, then the odds of this entity actually existing are a drop in the bucket, at best. This is why the appeal to ignorance is also called the "argument from lack of imagination."

As you can see, my views really don't fit into either of the categories that are offered by the Christian or Islamic apologist. This is because my views are actually correct, and Christian and Islamic apologists, because they are extremely immoral, prefer to try to pigeonhole a person into one out of two points of view that are obviously ridiculous. Well, since I am not really being given any acceptable options here, I might as well claim that my religion is actually a group of ideas that have had such an astronomical degree of success that there is not a single religion that will acknowledge its strict adherents as being members of a religion at all. Even so, it is effectively the de facto state religion of the United States of America, and Christianity is not.

However, if you judged Western philosophy, including science, by the same standards as any other religion, you would be forced to acknowledge that it actually has produced several billion miracles. We have made it possible for people who have been blind for their entire lives to see the world for the very first time. We have made it possible for a quadruple-amputee to run marathons, play ball, and type at a rate of 12 words/minute. Judging Western philosophy by the same standards as religion would be like entering J. K. Rowling in a writing contest against a group of third-graders.

I really deeply, passionately hate Christian and Islamic apologists who attempt to pigeonhole me by making irrational demands regarding what an atheist is supposed to be. An atheist is not required to have some kind of special knowledge that God does not exist. If I am "agnostic" in any respect, I am not entirely sure whether the Christian/Islamic God falls into the realm of 0 or 1/infinity. However, the latter is as close to zero as you can get. If I want to call myself an atheist, I am going to call myself an atheist.

nice articulation

what's a western philosophy in comparison to an eastern in this regard?

meaning it seems you are suggesting the religious belief system has something to do with the advancements of science

that 'belief' is the 'invisible hand' (adam smith 1776)

them miracles of science were not observed by the beliefs but by the people who may observe them beliefs but are in fact chasing the buck for the self.

 

[phlogistician]

no, as in they're not difficult to understand.

I have an IQ of 147, and I found Quantum ElectroDynamics really fucking hard to understand.

that's the same thing i've observed going on with people's interactions with god. only it seems the scientific minded won't test such a thing because they've already decided it's nonsense.

I wasn't born with an opinion about God, I've developed that as I have weighed the evidence. It weighed in at zero.

well, with an interaction with god, it seems the evidence is actually tailored to the individual,

And that doesn't make you question that the thing you are experience is part of your own psyche at all?

you must admit as well, that even scientific results can be interpreted and put to use in different ways, depending on the human who's doing the interpretation and who's using the results for what purpose.

Exactly not. If I drop an object, and measure it's acceleration due to gravity, and record that, and somebody else follows the same steps, they will acheive the same results within experimental accuracy. There is now need to interpret the results, they just are results, they speak for themselves.

there is. you just aren't going to be able to fit it in a test tube. do you realize that listening to you talk about science is very much like listening to a religious person? not in subject matter, but in perspective.

I'm afraid talking to a scientists is not at all like talking to a religious person. If you see a similarity, you haven't been engaged in the sciences enough.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

nice articulation

what's a western philosophy in comparison to an eastern in this regard?

Mostly ideas stemming from the Scottish Enlightenment period, in my case.

meaning it seems you are suggesting the religious belief system has something to do with the advancements of science

Ah, not only that, but science is nothing more than the application of a multitude of ideas that were generated by Western philosophers.

them miracles of science were not observed by the beliefs but by the people who may observe them beliefs but are in fact chasing the buck for the self.

I think that sounds about right, assuming I interpret it correctly.

 

[S.A.M.]

science is nothing more than the application of a multitude of ideas that were generated by Western philosophers.

Quite. Like ijtehad, isnad, and the scientific method as developed by Ibn Haytham

 

[Sarkus]

If you don't think that you have ever practiced blind faith in science, then I assume that you have never ridden in an automobile. The modern automobile is really an impressive bit of thaumaturgy, and most people don't really understand perfectly how it works. Most of those who think they do are rather wrong, and a few who would have been correct forty or so years ago are now quite mistaken as well. Relatively few people really understand this particular bit of thaumaturgy, yet they faithfully trust their lives and the lives of their kin to the technology that runs it.

Flawed argument: most people trust the technology precisely because it has been demonstrated to work, and work effectively, and work relatively safely. This is not blind faith, but trust built on evidence.
Further, one does not need to understand the workings to know that it works. If one has an adequate understanding of what something does when it works, then when that thing displays those criteria it can be said to be working. At no point does one need to understand how it works.

 

[Bishadi]

Mostly ideas stemming from the Scottish Enlightenment period, in my case.

Great People; them seeking to know; "the enlightenment of knowledge."

kind of like; "here is the switch, this is how it works; see the light?"

Ah, not only that, but science is nothing more than the application of a multitude of ideas that were generated by Western philosophers.

all four corners (colors) of mankind have contributed; gotta love the seekers!

I think that sounds about right, assuming I interpret it correctly.

I tink a little fat guy said:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."