Guest Voice: Why I’m An Atheist And What That Means
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice posts from time to time by readers who don’t have their own websites, or people who have websites but would like to post something for TMV’s diverse and thoughtful readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. This is another post by Matt Pearl and is cross posted from his own blog.
Why I’m An Atheist And What That Means
by Matt Pearl
If there is something that the people who know me know, I am a real stickler for logic and reasoning. That is, I will generally not believe something unless there is necessary and sufficient evidence for that belief. For example, I am not going to believe in Russell’s Teapot because there is no evidence for its existence.
Then we have the question of God…
In our culture, when someone has a belief, it is generally up to that person to justify that belief. If you believe that I murdered someone, then you damn well better have evidence. If I believe that gnomes sneak in to my room and steal my underpants at night, then you would think that I was crazy unless you saw the little bastards for yourself.
However, there is generally one set of beliefs that not only go unquestioned, they are untouchable by criticism. Those are mainstream beliefs about God and mainstream religious beliefs.
Why is that? Because there is no evidence, despite theists’ claims, that either necessarily or sufficiently proves the existence of God. To try to hide this fact, theists put the burden of the proof on atheists; atheists have to prove that something does not exist, which is impossible.
In science and statistics, a hypothesis is said to be accepted if you can say that you can reject the null hypothesis. You don’t prove the null hypothesis, because you can’t prove nothingness.
I am an atheist because I have not seen any evidence that either necessarily or sufficiently shows that there is any sort of supernatural being. I cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no God, so I don’t. Now, if some such evidence were to come about, I would be open to it… I’m not closed minded.
Does this make me any less of a moral person? Nope… I have a clean criminal record, I don’t lie, and I don’t steal. I don’t visit unnecessary harm onto people or animals, and I believe that every person should have the right to their own autonomy.
For some reason, atheism is the one greatest obstacle to a candidate seeking political office. A black, Muslim lesbian probably has more of a chance of being elected, merely because there is a segment of the US population that thinks that atheists are fundamentally evil (even looking at spell check, it won’t accept non-capitalized “muslim” or “christian” but it will recognize “atheist”).
The long and short of it is that I don’t want to have to disprove your beliefs because I can’t. If you say that something is, you should have to give evidence for your claim, period.
I can’t prove the null hypothesis, so don’t ask me to.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “Guest Voice: Why I’m An Atheist And What That Means”
The most irksome and ridiculous occurrence springs up when an atheist tires to talk to a bliever in the supwenatural about these things. Immediately, the atheist is aked to explain and justify his nonbelief.
That’s turning logic upside down! The onus of proof lies with the believers, if proof be needed, since it is they who insist on the reality of the supwrnatural..
I simply don’t believe in the supernatural. Period.
I do believe there are natural phenomenon which are not yet understood by science, but I’m happy living with the unexplained. Unlike early man, who invented a thunder god upon hearing rumblings in the sky that he didn’t understand, I see no need for inventing a god. It suffices me to ackonwledge the various rumhlings of nature without understandint the why and the how of all of them. With passing time, more and more of the ununderstood is, in faci, explained in purely natural terms.
Yes, atheists are the ‘left out’ minoriy. That discrimination is not even worse is purely the result of us not being idenfiable as atheists by our appearnce. To speak openly, however, can be hazardous. Like you say, forget running for public office!
When we protest against the oppressive pervasiveness of religosity in public spaces, suddently we are accused of waging a War Against God! Demanding to be noticed is war?
All I can do is protect my spirit from becoming bitter. I read their texts to learn what I can from them, I enjoy that of their music which inpires me, and I applaud their works when they are good works.
One day, perhaps the religious will reurn the favor of respect.
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B310-DES250.htm#Update:%20An%20email%20exchange%20with%20Richard%20Carrier:
I am an agnostic, definitionally, but prefer the term irreligious.
Atheists come in two stripes- the cap A sort who are as Fundy as the religiots, and the lower case a’s, who are really agnostics.
The above is an argument I had w 2 devout Atheists, and I logically showed that agnosticism is the only real belief that works.
People often forget that an argument has to be well framed- i.e.- if you state there is no God, you are positively stating a negative, and assuming the burden of proof which no non-believer should.
“That is, I will generally not believe something unless there is necessary and sufficient evidence for that belief. ”
If only life were so simple. I’m sure you remember the famous quote from the Ron Suskind article about “the reality based community”. The speaker, an anonymous source (as always) of the Bush Administration’s inner circle, mocked people in the reality-based community because they were destined to write history after the fact, rather than make it.
The problem, of course, is that however much that pronouncement is anaethema to a rational mind, it’s pretty well supported empirically and theoretically.
This is a bit of a caricature, but if you look at entrepreneurs, and the ventures they start, one can describe the process with about three stylized facts.
1. 90 percent of new ventures fail
2. 100 percent of entrepeneurs are optimists who believe their venture will succeed, and they believe that it is within the locus of their control to make it succeed.
3. 0 percent or realistic, pragmatic, pessimists start new businesses.
In science, you might ask the question, how does a new theory gain acceptance? You might want to say that the process dispassionately evaluates R-squares and t or F tests, but it is actually seldom if ever the case that statistical significance trumps a compelling explanation – i.e. an uncompelling theory with somewhat better r-squared essentially never trumps or even displaces a compelling theory with somewhat worse r-squared. Instead people continue searching for a more compelling theory with r-squared better than the exisiting theory.
Finally, on a more pragmatic level, the most important decisions like who you marry or whether or not to have children are made in the absence of any trail of evidence – you simply can’t know what your life with someone is going to be like 20 years from now when you say I do.
Of course, starting a business, doing science, or the much more common practice of attempting a successful marriage or raising children require tremendous energy and motivation, and even at the level of neurons, it appears as if we act to get a reward, e.g. dopamine, even if it is uncertain that reward will come.
So even an atheist, making decisions under limited information and uncertainty, has to act with a certain amount of “faith” to have a good life.
None of this is to suggest that religion is an answer to this quandary – I believe the notion of atheism is orthogonal to this whole discussion – merely that it is effectively impossible to live successfully if you do not pursue longer term goals *as if* you had faith.
This is precisely what I tried to point out over at another post the last couple of days.
Atheists in Christian America are on the outside looking in because this country is predominantly Christian/Religious.
Immediately, the atheist is aked to explain and justify his nonbelief.
The choice is always yours as an individual to be a believer or to be an atheist. The reason a debate exists is mankinds intrinsic need to PROVE that what they believe is Right. Christians have this need. Atheists have this need.
As surely as you believe their is NO god. I believe there is. I feel him in my heart and in my soul and if I die and there turns out to be NO god then what have I lost? Where has it hurt me? This life that I choose to live is my free expression as a human being.
Because you do not agree with the principals upon which I stand does not make my life any less significant in the eyes of those who truly care about my existence. Therefore give me Godlikeness because that is much better then Manlikeness because men on this planet suck.
If I can strive to a lie that is steeped in goodness and mercy then I would rather strive to those goals then strive to manlikeness which is steeped in self absorbed paranoia that strives to maximize the grandest of the “ME< ME
The life that an atheist chooses to live is his/her free expression of how one should live their lives. That is your choice. It is your choice as much as choosing to honor God is my choice.
Yes God is not always honored by the actions of men but those are mens choices and not God’s orders. This is something that many people have trouble with. If a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew does something bad….then that just proves to them that God is the problem, or that God does not exist. This only proves what we all know. Man is flawed thru to the core.
I would describe myself as an atheist with a little “a”. I try very hard not to convince or convert anyone. That being said, it make me shake my head with disbelief (no pun intended) when I see the mega-churches being built, but so little outreach work in the community being done by the congregation. Maybe I am a humanist, but I feel that we should concentrate on this world, not the next.
I too am very much a stickler for logic and reasoning (which I suspect is a property rampant in any out of the closet atheist) so I have a very mild objection to this statement. You can prove something does not exist, but only by proving positive existence of something mutually exclusive. That is, you can prove that it’s not sunny by proving it’s cloudy. It’s only a mild objection because we know of no positive mutually exclusive alternative to a god, and under that circumstance disproving the god hypothesis is impossible.
While we’re here discussing pet-prejudices I’d like to roll out the matter of faith. More tolerant theists will insist that the only respectable form of non-theism is agnosticism, saying that atheism is “just another religion”. This is just another piece of the special kid-glove treatment religion gets. If you told people that they couldn’t say they didn’t believe in your underwear stealing gnomes, that they could at most say “I don’t know” they’d look at you as if you were stark raving mad, since non-belief in something that presents no evidence to speak of is considered natural….except in the case of god. Suddenly if it’s god you’re being insulting by not believing, you AT THE MOST, should claim ignorance and admit that there is at least a 50% chance. Put anything else in gods place: fairies, orbiting teapots, and the expectation becomes ridiculous.
As to atheism and morality, I still can’t fathom how people can hold the belief that atheists are somehow less moral than theists. Non-believers account for at least 10% of the US population, while accounting for only 0.3% of the prison population. The most civilized and prosperous countries in the world combine two elements: Democracy and secularism…but secularism is considered bad, terrible, degenerate! I can only assume that the more than 50% of Americans who say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate don’t realize that they know plenty of atheists, because so many atheists are closeted, so their only vision of atheists is what’s given by preachers and political leaders, who equate lack of religion with all things bad.
That’s funny, because I, as an atheist, think agnostics come in two stripes as well. There are those who are truly unsure about the god question, who I would call properly agnostic, and there are what I call “semantic agnostics” who don’t adopt atheism out of a misguided notion that atheism always claims positive knowledge about the non-existence of a god or gods, and who are really atheists. I’ve never EVER met an atheist (and I know quite a few) who claimed positive knowledge about the non-existence of a god. It’s common to confuse antitheism with atheism. When theists or many agnostics think of “devout atheists” they are really thinking of antitheists, who IN ADDITION to not having a religious faith, consider religion negative.
Still, I don’t think it’s productive for agnostics and atheists to bicker about our relative semantics, since I think the greater divide is between theism and non-theism, whatever form it takes.
I am a believer in the supernatural/paranormal. Yet I have a big issues with current doctrine concerning God in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. So while I believe a God(s) or Creator(s), I really can’t absorb religion. But I’ve NEVER and NEVER WILL disrespect anyone who is religious. Unless you’re trying to kill me. No brainer.
I believe that The Creator is infinitely more complicated and infinitely more nuanced than what is taught in religions. And to understand The Creator(s) is to say you understand the nature of the universe and dare I say multiverses. And we’re nowhere near that level of comprehension.
Oops. That’s the futurist philosopher in me rising to the forefront.
Rober Bell,
I think you misrepresent the meaning of the word ‘faith’. A person can have faith in his own abilitties, in man’s abilities to solve problems, in man’s ability to manage societies, and so on.
Having ‘faith’ does not need to involve faith in the supwenatural
Faith in the supernatual has zilch to do with iotimism/pessimism or an adventuous spitit.
On the contrary, I would say that atheists are more optimistic and daring because they dare to TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own choices and actions.
It’s ironic that the conxervatives, the personal responsibilty wing of our political spectrum, are the ones seeminglyy unable to make a move without a nod from another being.
.
Somebody-
“..self absorbed paranoia that strives to maximize the grandest of the “ME< ME ”
Actually, you’ve just described the ‘personal savipr’
branch of religious faith. There is no greater ego-massage than to imagine a god-of-all-creation devoting himself to the concerns of one insignificant being. That truly is making it all about ME, ME, ME.
For the umpteenth time, you’re not being asked to give up your personal beliefs, As an atheist believeing on the preotection granted in the Constitution, I would be on the front lines of defending your right to believe what you want.
I also acknowledge the role of Christianiy in our history, both the bad and the goos, and always the impotant role.
Asking believers to move over on the bench of power to make room for non-believers is NOT on you , the religious or on religion. It’s a large bench, with room for many different outlooks.
If we could just stop talking about wars and attacks, we might have time to fingure out how to share the space fairly and justly.
Somebody: ‘Because you do not agree with the principals (sic)’
You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.
Lynx: ‘I’ve never EVER met an atheist (and I know quite a few) who claimed positive knowledge about the non-existence of a god. It’s common to confuse antitheism with atheism.’
Read my exchange w the atheists- I link to a site I found where a person stated http://www.jomarpress.com/nagel/quotations/OHair1.html
which stated ’1. O’Hair did not “kill” any “god.” There never has been one in the first place.’
The claim of antitheist and atheist is semiotic BS. There are 2 strands of atheists, and to deny that is to deny the Sunni/Shia or Prot/Cath divides. 80% of so-called atheists I’ve met deny God exists, until, as in the exchange above, I get them to admit they logically cannot disprove an immaterial all-pervasive thing as a God, since, definitionally (and since religiots set it up that way) he/it is beyond material measure. In short, disproving god is not like disproving a Bigfoot.
‘Still, I don’t think it’s productive for agnostics and atheists to bicker about our relative semantics, since I think the greater divide is between theism and non-theism, whatever form it takes.’
That’s silly, unless one takes a hostile view of religion as an all-pervasive evil. It is always productive to define things and differences. It helps for a clearer and more realistic understanding of the cosmos.
T-Steel: There is the unexplained and the unexplainable. I believe in the former, not the latter, although I, as an individual, or we, as a species, may be stumped, does not mean the invocation of supernature is needed. Supernature is merely that we’ve yet to define and understand- see ‘ball lightning.’
Interesting Cosmo, I don’t often meet devout (ejem) agnostics, the ones I know tend to be rather soft in their philosophy overall. No problem with it, though I disagree with your stance and it’s underlying reasoning.
You say that the fact that there are two types of atheists is as clear as the Shia Sunni divide. I say thats utter hogwash. First of all, atheism is not a doctrine, neither is agnosticism. Within atheists and agnostics you will find a whole spectrum of ideas, and you’re likely to find that no two people have exactly the same view of the matter.
Disproving God and disproving BigFoot is in fact very much the same venture, something Matt explained far better than I. Disproving almost anything in the absence of a mutually exclusive alternative is impossible by definition, which is why I don’t see it as any big deal that I say I don’t believe there is a god the same way I don’t believe there is a bigfoot, and see no need to express uncertainty about one but not the other.
As to the theism/non-theism divide I meant to say that I believe there are more significant philosophical differences between belief in a god and non-belief of any sort than between different sorts of non-belief. That doesn’t necessarily mean belief is bad per se, though I have opinions about that as well, but that I find the agnostic vs. atheist debate to be more of a semantic and/or strategic one than a one that underscores deep differences in opinion.
Lynx.
Thank you.
You state the case about proof and atheism/agnosticism very clearly and completely.
,
Lynx: In the exchange with the Atheists, I mention a pal of mine named Joe, and he is par for the course with atheists I’ve known- a liberal, college educated wuss. He sneers at all religiots yet when I ask him to logically defend his belief system, like the Fundies he reviles, he cannot, and shrinks. I love him, but he’s a wuss. It’s like when I argue that the reason this country has tilted to the Right is because the Left are wusses. Look at the D’s in congress. The R’s may be evil but the D’s stand for nada.
Friends like Joe, or your friends, may be devout atheists, but they also tend to be wusses in other areas. They do not really stand up for anything, religious, political, etc. They are cowardly in not being able to admit their limits, and this sort of reverse hubris is what links them with their Fundy pals: choose your enemies well, and all that….
Lynx: ‘First of all, atheism is not a doctrine, neither is agnosticism.’
Correct on the latter, not the former. And that is my point. The Hard Atheists are mirror images of the Fundy religiots. The Soft atheists are really the agnostics, or, as I defined them to the atheist: ‘Atheists are really agnostics who don’t have the strength of intellect nor character to admit that they are finite beings who cannot know all that is needed to cope with reality.‘
Since the definition of God is immaterial and infinite and we are material and finite in reasoning and detective abilities, agnosticism is the only honest alternative.
Again, I am speaking of real world atheism, not hermetic dictionary definitions.
Bigfoot and God are different, because no one claims Bigfoot as a deity. It is supposedly a form of ape or caveman. God, or any god, is fundamentally different, and by not recognizing this, you are playing into the Fundies’ hands, just like pro-abortionists play into the anti-ab’s hands by using pro-choice, since it makes it a euphemism, which are only used for negative things, which is implied by euphemizing abortion with choice.
I see these errors- both logical and semantic, all the time, be it on political, artistic, or even lesser issues.
W/o the the blogosphere cd not thrive, but it does display why so little productivity derives from them.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the matter I’m afraid, but I’ll just add one thing because I can’t let it stand alone:
I can’t speak for your friend Joe, but you can’t speak for my friends or for me. Maybe you don’t know atheists who aren’t wusses, that’s a funny lot of atheists you know. I know plenty, amongst them myself and my entire family going back several generations. The idea that atheists “don’t really stand up for anything” is utterly laughable. Atheists come in all shapes, sizes and opinions, if you’re too biased against them to realize that, it’s your problem, not theirs.
Somebody: ‘Because you do not agree with the principals (sic)’
You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.
No as usual you fail to even grasp the simplicity of what I wrote.
You have failed to even take this quote in the context in which it was written.
and if I die and there turns out to be NO god then what have I lost? Where has it hurt me? This life that I choose to live is my free expression as a human being.
Because you do not agree with the principals upon which I stand
My vaules are determined by my Faith in God and his writings, teaching and moral instructions. If it turns out their is no God I would still choose to ascribe to these values, morals and teachings because I believe in their intrinsic value.
I believe. And If Im wrong I want the nothingness of eternity to tell me Im wrong. Not Cosmo or Matt Pearl.
Lynx: You are using the ‘I have many friends who are black’ tack in the argument, and it shows. It’s funny, as I type I’m watching Taxi Driver on tv, and it’s a film that deals with the issues of folk who say one thing yet do another.
Enter Somebody (Travis Bickle: I wanna become Somebody.):
Lynx: ‘Atheists come in all shapes, sizes and opinions, if you’re too biased against them to realize that, it’s your problem, not theirs.’
So do plumbers, but there are only a limited number of tools they use, just as an atheist is either weak or strong. It’s of no use to the argument whether or not they are tax cheats, since that’s not the issue, only the strands of their atheism. The rest of your claim is utterly superfluous. As the politicos say, ‘Keep on point.’
I did grasp what you said, but you ignored what I typed: ‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’
I did not say a word on the principles (the correct spelling) you hold, merely your conflation of a belief in something and an ethical principle.
Thus, as usual, you are arguing w yourself, not anything I stated.
TYPO above:
Lynx: You are using the ‘I have many friends who are black’ tack in the argument, and it shows. It’s funny, as I type I’m watching Taxi Driver on tv, and it’s a film that deals with the issues of folk who say one thing yet do another.
Enter Somebody (Travis Bickle: I wanna become Somebody.):
I did grasp what you said, but you ignored what I typed: ‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’
I did not say a word on the principles (the correct spelling) you hold, merely your conflation of a belief in something and an ethical principle.
Thus, as usual, you are arguing w yourself, not anything I stated.
Lynx: ‘Atheists come in all shapes, sizes and opinions, if you’re too biased against them to realize that, it’s your problem, not theirs.’
So do plumbers, but there are only a limited number of tools they use, just as an atheist is either weak or strong. It’s of no use to the argument whether or not they are tax cheats, since that’s not the issue, only the strands of their atheism. The rest of your claim is utterly superfluous. As the politicos say, ‘Keep on point.’
just a very .02, There’s sometimes a lot of ill feeling/thought aimed toward people who are either atheists, agnostics or believers. My experience is most are good people. Regardless. Meaning they try just as others do to live a workable life that knits rather than destroys others and themselves.
I like to hear others’ points of views about these matters because I like to learn. Cosmo is accurate in his beginning of a psychological profile for those who think something ‘decidedly.’ There are many sub-genres to such a profile.
But, I also wince over my lifetime whenever I’ve been told I or anyone else is going to vajra hell or otherwise sewn into a bag for drowning because I or they don’t measure up to another persons’ sure idea of smart enough, aware enough, rational enough, or other.
What interests me isn’t what people believe/know/sense, think exactly, but how they’ve constructed that, and whether they consider they have ‘arrived,’ or is this endeavor…this sense of knowing where one stands in relation to all else in the universe, an ongoing journey?
For me, it’s the latter most days. And there is as much bewilderment, and puzzling to thence be done, as there are, not absolutes, but rather, experiences that I understand as different than, and beyond ego alone.
I hope I have not gone too far off course from our Guest’s essay, which I think is a brave one, and gives information not only about some of the frustrations encountered as an Atheist, but also a trace of path for making a bridge of understanding.
dr.e
Dr E said: ” our Guest’s essay, which I think is a brave one…”
The word BRAVE says it all. That it should require bravery to openly avow not believing in the supernatural describes the sad state of the ‘all men are created equal’ notion in this coutnry.
Say what you will, but this is about political power.
Those who are enjoying it, (the religious) don’t want to cede an inch to those who don’t (atheists).
It might take the ateists a civil rights movement of their own to achieve eaual status.
People who define themselves as nonreligious usually don’t have to go into convoluted explanations to explain why they believe as they do, whereas religion seems to require more of those gymnastics. I think Occams razor applies there. Yet so-called atheists (a term that has been misunderstood and abused if ever a term was) are called on to defend their beliefs more than non-atheists.
As has been mentioned often, a traditional belief in god or association with a church is hardly necessary in order to be a good person with a healthy spiritual life. Funny thing, I’ve never met any of the capitol A sort in my 55 years, and while I don’t doubt they exist, I suspect they are in many cases props for debate as often as they are real people.
Actually the only one here trying to stir up ill will is Cosmo as he once again enters the fray with his holier then thou attitude.
Everyone here from what I could see were politely trying to say its okay to be an atheist but enter Cosmo.
Your wrong…….Your wrong……you can’t speel……your wrong.
I’m right. Oh my stars the burden I must bear to have a discussion with such mindless dolts.
Forgive me while I frantically search for a rerun of Taxi so I can gather the wisdom that you possess Cosmo.
Somebody: I clearly showed that you took issue with a point that I did not make, that you more than once misspelled or conflated two homonyms, and when shown your errors, you try to cast blame elsewhere and call names. Such an intellect.
But your words are in black and white- but Taxi Driver’s in color, like Taxi- a sitcom, which has no bearing on the film.
JSpencer: Yes, Occam’s Razor- i.e.- the simplest answer that best fits the known facts is usually the correct one, is a good principle to hew to; which is why when even strong atheists misuse it, it frustrates. They are their own worst enemies, not the religiots.
It was more Cosmo that you took issue with a point I did not make.
‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’
No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.
What I said is even if there is NO GOD that I would still embrace the morality that Christianity brings to the table because I support the values it suggests. I do not ascribe those values to God. Therefore in my post I am not even arguing the existence of God but rather the existence of a set of Moral values, some of which comes from the bible and some of which comes from man.
For example Christian values teach that it is wrong to murder. Atheists believe this too. Does that mean Atheists have morals? Yes. Their morals come from no godly source while the values I learned were before I ever embraced God. Before I was a Christian I believed also that it was wrong to murder. My morals also came from no Godly source. Therefore the logical conclusion is that morality is a man made attempt at reaching out to be Godlike for Christians and for atheists it is the need and desire to be morally acceptable to society. It is not God reaching out to man.
When I say I ascribe to the Values that a Christian religion espouses I am not defending God, or confusing those morals with God but rather I am ascribing to man, all men, Universal values that strives to bring some closer to god and others closer to being a moral entity.
Therefore Morality and God are not even in this equation. Morality more defines an Atheist then it does a Christian. Because while an Atheist strives to be Moral a Christian strives to be Godlike. The differences are striking yet similar. They arrive at the same moral equivalency while taking diverging paths.
For the umpteenth time, you’re not being asked to give up your personal beliefs, As an atheist believeing on the preotection granted in the Constitution, I would be on the front lines of defending your right to believe what you want.
I never for one second assumed the poster was asking or demanding me to give up my beliefs. It never ceases to amaze me how you folks can turn around what I say simply because Im one of two or three Conservatives here, and Christian to boot.
If I can strive to a lie that is steeped in goodness and mercy then I would rather strive to those goals then strive to manlikeness which is steeped in self absorbed paranoia that strives to maximize the grandest of the “ME< ME
This simply means that all men have one common goal. Taking care of number one. Self preservation. There is nothing inflamatory here. Im ascribing this to agnostics, Atheists and even those who think they believe but just dont have time for God right now. Man is a selfish being.
Read my lips. I do not care if Jews are in power. If Atheists are in the White House. I do not care if my boss does not believe in God. I do not care if My Governor is a Muslim or Mormon.
What I do care about is this incessant screaming that “Christians only want x or y or z.” This is false. Christians want a man in office that ascribes to their values. Just as you want a man in office that ascribes to YOURS.
The question I ask is Why are we wrong to want people in office that share our values? Why is that so wrong?
The fact is…….its not. Only the loon left screaming it over and over has somehow attempted to portray Christianity as a Fascist state looking for a good country to destroy.
I stand up and challenge this lunacy.
I’ve excepted that I couldn’t be president due to my futurist angle (transhumanism, etc). I will be destroyed in the public space since my beliefs would be considered anti-God, anti-religion. Even though I’m a good husband and father. Even though I’ve never committed a felony or misdemeanor. Even though I love America. Even though I would never put MY FUTURIST ANGLE first as President of the United States.
So while I respect those that follow a faith, I would never be respected in that way if I ran for office since I’m an agnostic and “silly future thinker with all the Star Trek stuff in the brain”. That’s the country we live in. Seems a little different from the original.
The problem here is that everyone is defining atheists and agnostics as if they were homogenious groups. The truth is far from that.
Pleople like Cosmo, who assume that their own definitions are, or should be, universal just muddy the waters and start unnecessary fights.
The ways atheism is experienced by actual atheists are varied in the exteme. It can be seen as a positive life-guiding philosophy, or a negative rejection of religious beliefs. Free thinkiers, humnaists and even some esoteric religions all claim an atheist wing.
I think we’re an interesting bunch, repesenting as many types of personalities as there are on earth.
About the only thing that is common to all is the rejection of the major organized religions and the rejection of a god or other spirit as an acutal being, separate from humans and the natural world or having a finiite form of its own.
While I’m sure there is a contingent of the apathetic,
I find most to be seekers of understanding and the guiding principles of life. Rejecting a spitit as separate form the naural world, does not al all mean a rejection of spiritual experience. Contrary to what most textbooks say, even a transcendental experience is available to atheists, quite unrelated to the world of the supernatural.
Rather than telling atheists what they are, or trying to squuze them into someone’s classification system (as scholars do) , the best tool for atheists to gain acceptance would be a book/blog/ymposium comprised of the many ways atheism is experienced by atheists. It shouldn’t be a contest seeking the best definition, but a quiltwork of the many different expressions of atheism in real lives.
T-Steel,
Let me admit right at the start that I have no idea what a FUTURIST is.
Especially when you mention the supernatural and paranormal, I tend to draw back. I disturst anything that bypasses the ordinary and natural in order to jump to the extraordinary and supernatural.
Are you referring to forces outside all laws of nature or just outside the laws of nature that we know about?
You posted once about some aspects, and I found that post quite interesting.
Have you considered posting a very basic primer on Fururism, so we would know the basis for it?
I warn you that I don’t expect to be a convert, but I’m always delighted to find out what other people are thinking about. The world of ‘what if’ always fascinates.
And ill-behaved, all too often. [scowl]
Somebody: ‘It was more Cosmo that you took issue with a point I did not make.
‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’’
I know you did not make a point; you simply confused the definitions of things. That was my point.
‘No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.’
I am a) not an atheist, and b) did not state anything you state in this paragraph above, nor in the rest of your reply.
These replies are in black and white- show me, in any response above, where I stated any of that. If you cannot, then do not conflate my reply with others. You are simply 100% wrong.
Doma: ‘The problem here is that everyone is defining atheists and agnostics as if they were homogenious groups. The truth is far from that.
Pleople like Cosmo, who assume that their own definitions are, or should be, universal just muddy the waters and start unnecessary fights.’
BS! I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period. I made no other assumptions about them, only the two strands. You are strawmanning because you cannot argue the premise.
It is the strawmanning, and the ascription of things to others, which are definitively not so, that cause arguments. If one reads only what another types, there wd be no argument.
As I stated earlier, keep on point!
DLS: ‘And ill-behaved, all too often.’
So, behave!
Not quite so “period”
I’m going to assume you apply this to your definition (which clearly differs from mine) of a “strong atheist”. Do correct me if I’m wrong. It’s a very insulting and generalizing statement to make about a very VERY diverse group of people, hence mine and doma’s complaint.
Cosmo-
“I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period. I made no other assumptions about them, only the two strands. You are strawmanning because you cannot argue the premise.”
The above is simply irrelevenat.
You define one way, by divintg atheists into two groups of your choosing and ,again, your definition
and someone else divides another way.
Get over it, Cosmo, it’s not about you or your definitions or classifications.
You can scream and holler and insult all you want.
Your classifications are irrelevant to all those atheists who belong in neither of your groups or choose to describe themselve in ohter ways.
It is not about you.
Lynx: ‘Not quite so “period”
riends like Joe, or your friends, may be devout atheists, but they also tend to be wusses in other areas. They do not really stand up for anything, religious, political, etc. They are cowardly in not being able to admit their limits’
Look at what you quoted from me. Did you really miss the word ‘tend’? Or are you willfully ignoring it. There is a fundamental difference between stating something definitive- like the weak and strong posit, and then stating something in a general vein.
Main Entry:
2tend
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, to stretch, direct oneself, from Anglo-French tendre — more at tender
Date:
14th century
1 : to move, direct, or develop one’s course in a particular direction 2 : to exhibit an inclination or tendency : conduce
So, when I state ‘BS! I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period.’ that’s exactly what I did. I defined the difference. The addendum was just that, not part of the definition.
So, like Somebody, who pulls things out of his hat, and Doma, who was strawmanning, you two are having a difficult time reading what people say.
I suspect 99.8% or more of online threads devolve down to people who simply refuse to actually read what others say.
Doma: ‘The above is simply irrelevenat.’
No, it’s not, when Somebody types ‘No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.’
Thus, I replied, ‘“I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period. I made no other assumptions about them, only the two strands. You are strawmanning because you cannot argue the premise.”’
If Somebody says I said A, when I said B, then C, my refutation of A is very relevant. Your comment, however, is irrelevant, as well as wrong.
And, you are the one strawmanning, and misquoting, as well as not following simple discourse. So, you get over it, for it’s not about your inability to follow a conversation, esp. if you are not the one being addressed.
As for, ‘Your classifications are irrelevant to all those atheists who belong in neither of your groups or choose to describe themselve in ohter ways.’
An atheist can call themselves an aardvark, but if they ascribe to a denial of God, then they are a strong atheist, and if they merely believe a god cannot be, then they are a weak one, better known as an agnostic. Definitions do not transmogrify to fit your limitations.
Again, get over it.
‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’’
My entire response is to this. I pointed out that I am not confusing the two. In fact I went to great lengths to point out that I do not even equate God to Morality. You keep insisting that I did. I did not say you were an atheist, I said you are using the tired atheist argument to prove your point.
Get over it, Cosmo, it’s not about you or your definitions or classifications.
Well Said Doma. Cosmo always trys to bully a conversation by making the definitions and therefore defining the ground rules for the proceeding debate.
Somebody: Do you even know what I stated? You conflated so many things that I don’t think you even know what I stated. Take a look at all the things you claimed I stated which I did not.
Bully? That’s rich, since several of you cannot even read what is typed. And if you do, you cannot understand fundamental definitions.