Atheism Examined

Whatever meaning we give it. We have a purpose as soon as we give ourselves one. I do, I suspect you do to. We are heading in a direction chosen by ourselves given what directions we can imagine. Ourselves. Yes. Not one bit. You think that all intent has to originate with a supernatural deity. A specific one at that. I think that intent originates in living life on this earth and there is no evidence of any intent in our creation.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. This seems to be little more than a paranoid strawman on your part. Perhaps they are, but who's making utopian claims? Nobody here that I can see. Certainly not Dawkins.Have you ever considered, you know, actually reading his book? So that you might know what the hell you're talking about? At some point, though, a political philosophy is held accountable and its precepts judged according to reality.The most central feature of religion is that its tenants are based on lies, but those lies are almost never examined. In fact it's often held by religionists that to examine those lies would be a violation of their religious freedom.Unexamined falsehoods used to make decisions, I think we can both agree, are dangerous. The central feature of religion, compared to politics, is that the falsehoods of religion are never allowed to be confronted. I don't know what the meaning of your life is. I have somewhat of an idea of what the meaning of my life is, but that's personal, and I don't think it's relevant to the discussion. Us. Those who live. Gosh, NJ, from what I can see - where all the atheists at the board are lining up to tell you how full of purpose their lives are - I'd say, no, the common atheists appears not to be averse to purpose in the least.What I wonder is - why is the common theist so averse to listening to atheists? Again, no, I'm not. A positive claim claims that something exists. A negative claim claims that something does not exist. To assert that one is "making a positive claim of nonexistence" is a contradiction in terms.And, again, if you're arguing against something called "strong atheism", you're arguing against a strawman - in practice, no atheist is a strong atheist. "Strong/weak" atheism is a false dichotomy.

We're not alone. The rabbits are out there, and the ducks. If you seek companionship, why not go with what is there instead of what might be there? I'd be happy enough if your God just didn't throw me into the quicksand. I've been told I should expect a lake of quicksand, fire. If the End Times are coming, it makes more sense to rent.Ironic, ain't it? The more fundie you are, the more sense it makes to stop kowtowing and fight back.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We may be even less alone than you think: Wow! signal - Wikipedia

Okay, I will talk about myself personally, then. That is, anything seemingly claimed as a fact below is likely not (I'm not looking anything up). This is all only my personal opinion: Atheism is a term used (and created) by believers of any deity to identify those who do not believe in their deity. It is not a way of life, or a creed, or even a motto. Simply an identifier used by believers to signify others who do not believe as they do. Actually, less than that. The term doesn't take in all deities in any way. Only the deity(s) specifically put forth by those who believe in said deity(s). No. Not at all. It is not a position of any sort. No one goes to atheist-school to become an atheist. We are only labelled so by the people who believe in something else. Just because someone calls me something, has no bearing whatsoever on my philosophical position(s). Like this:-------------------------
*explains a God*
"Do you believe in my God?"
"No."
"You're an atheist, then."
"Okay."
-------------------------That's it. Just something other people call us because we don't accept what they believe in. Simply an identifier used by others. No. Just the ability to not believe in everything you hear, and the courage to proclaim such. Not at all. For an in-depth answer, feel free to browse the "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" forum. There are multiple threads defending atheist-related morality. [Shameless plug]Even one started by myself.[/Sp] I sat myself down one day. And considered my options. I considered what many other people believed. I considered what many others have told me. I considered the chances that they could all be right, the chances that one of them were right and the chances that none of them were right. I thought about history. I thought about how error-prone human thought is. I thought about being honest with myself. That's what it came down to for me. I'm honest with myself. If someone asks me "do you believe in God?" I ask them to explain the God they are inquiring about. I have yet to receive an answer that is fulfilling or convincing to me. So I get labelled as an atheist. After reading this thread, I think it's obviously "no"

Afraid not. Xians do good deeds because their wee book tells them too, and their wee book tells them of the glorius reward they will receive. Their wee book even tells them what will happen if they don't do good deeds.Atheists have no incentive to do good deeds, Xians have a huge incentive. Right thing in whose eyes?Why then do these groups have different notions of morality? As you have frequently pointed out, Xians are commanded to love others and to love God. You have also said that by loving others Xians are loving God. So they are obviously helping others for a reason, and that reason is eternal life with the big guy.Athiests are clearly on much higher moral ground as they specifically acknowledge that there is no reward at the end of time.Christians are selfish, they do NOTHING for NOTHING, it is really as simple as that.Brian.

Well given the nature of the subject heading of this post I was assuming in both cases that we were talking about the Christian God and in particular NJs interpretation of what it means to believe in that god.In general I think that the majority of Christians would find believing in other gods as logically incompatible with believing in the Christian view of God (i.e. the one true God).However I suspect you are not most Christians in this respect which is fine but I am not sure how relevant that will be tothe question of atheism??

If he were simply just trying to sell books then he could choose any topic he wanted. Instead there is a consistent theme with Dawkins-- atheism. Many of the atheists, here on EvC and elsewhere, say he is a bit extreme with his ideologies. I'm not sure why you have a problem with my using him as a prime example for what I'm talking about.Secondly, if his desire is just to sell books, then what exactly sets himself apart from, say, Ann Coulter? Is she just out to make a buck? Is Dawkins just in it for the money? Or are they interested in selling a mindset? I prefer the latter explanation. Well, some of us were discussing it in chat and Phat made a good point. Some people wouldn't make blanket statements about atheists or any other group, for that matter, until they are somewhat forced to by taking a multiple choice poll. For instance, I might have voted the same way, but that doesn't mean that I would necessarily distrust someone simply because they are an atheist. Given their mild nature, I have immense respect for such atheists as Modulous, Chiroptera, Quetzal, Sidelined, etc. I unfortunately cannot say that for all of our resident atheists.The point I'm trying to make about the poll is that people know a few things about the atheistic view. And that information they know about is coming from prominent atheists by how they have marketed their ideals. When the bulk if humanists stop with the self-congratulatory attitude and begin feeding the poor, like many theists have been doing since, forever, perhaps that generalization will be no more. I think the single greatest problem with the negative view for atheism is that it reeks of arrogance. There is something very smug and condescending about it. But they aren't the only ones to hold that title. When somebody sees the Ted Haggards of the world, they see that same smugness, and what's worse, that he's also a raging hypocrite. Yeah, that's so silly. Oh, right, I almost forgot how every morning at the same time, I blast apologetic tracks in front of Dawkins' house. Not all atheists are as fervent as somebody as Dawkins. Some people just don't believe God exists. That's fine. Can't really fault them for being honest. But when irrational loathing and a bizarre fixation enters in to the picture, I have to question those motivations. Do you have any specific people in mind? For the vast majority people that have ever lived on earth, God is science. What television are you watching? I'm more accustomed to the television where in public policy it is either taboo or criminal to mention God. Why? Why are we better off assuming that God does not exist? What changes could we expect if we were to abandon the notion of God? You mentioned theists that kill others as part of some policy for God. You couldn't possibly be talking about me. That does sound, however, sound akin to Wahhabi Islam.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

I have never understood when atheists are accused of being arrogant by christians.After all, the christians go on and on about how the world was made just for them by an all mighty god, and how anyone not on their team will burn for ever in hell.I think that if all atheists where twice as arrogant as you imagine us to be, we wouldn't be more than a drop in the ocean of theist arrogance.

No your questions have been perfectly relevant but I do want to focus on the main questions of the OP. Namely -1) Is atheism (as I have described it) a logically consistent and rational viewpoint in your opinion? If not why not exactly??
2) Does it take faith to be an atheist?
2) Why must atheists be less moral than theists?The first of these questions you initially answered in terms of your own atheist experience and how you overcame this to eventually reach your current theistic position.
I really do not think this applies to me. I really really do not have an unconscious loathing and subsequent denial of a god that I secretly know exists.
I don't loathe your God anymore than I loathe Zeus or Thor. If I am more vocal in my non-loathing disbelief of your god than I am Zeus it is purely in reaction to the prevelance and impact on the world of those who do have faith in the Christian God as compared to that in Zeus.
In the unlikely event that Zeusism were to overtake Christianity in terms of effect on the present world I can honestly say I would shift the strength of my objections accordingly.The second of these questions you initially answered in terms of absolute certainty of God's non-existence but myself and the other atheist posters in this thread have hopefully refuted that as a mistaken description of our thinking. BUT the evidence is available to analyse. There is nothing to stop me, you or anyone else from becoming the expert on whose testimony others depend (except laziness, lack of talent and possibly intellect on my part at least). No one is divinely chosen to the inner sanctum of scientific thinking. We choose our own path!The scientific method has an unchallenged record in determining the nature of the real world in numerous fields most of which all of us fully accept as self evident. Unless one has serious doubts that this has been applied properly to the theory of evolution, or one believes the massive amount of physical evidence to have all been invented why would anyone seriously doubt evolution unless they have religiously dogmatic reasons for doing so?Thirdly morality - My personal morals are not relative to me. They are highly consistent and deeply felt. Nor is my existence meaningless. The fact neither have fixed external arbiters does not detract from that.In fact I would argue that the morals I choose mean more to me because they have been thought out and rationalised. Something is not just wrong because God says so. Something is wrong because it opposes the the reasoned beliefs I have about how we should treat each other. Not at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quite the opposite in fact!!!
I marvel at the wonder of nature and how such simple mechanisms can result in the vast and rich tapestry of existence that my son and I wiil share all too briefly and I yearn to understand more about how all this came to be!!! I think that is the driving force for many scientists (amateur and professional).
For me faith in God removes some of that wonder.Anyway - Whether we need an arbiter of absolute morality or not and whether we need an external creator to give our lives meaning or not is actually irrelevent. Our psychological and moral needs in no way prove or disprove that there is a god.
All it tells us is that some people need to believe in gods to make these choices.

Amen to that

He has. Dawkins has books on a number of subjects. This is a falsehood. Dawkins is a prolific writer, having written texts on ethology, ecology, and evolutionary biology. He's the author of at least 9 books, only one of which - the most recent - is focused on religion. I have a problem any time you set out to misrepresent the facts. You do it a lot, so I have a lot of problems with you. It's not uncommon for theists to distrust all atheists but the silent ones. Your ignorance disgusts me. There are hundreds of secular and atheist charities and philanthropic organizations - except that you don;t hear about them. Unlike religious philanthropy, they don't go around proclaiming how great they are.Maybe you've heard of the richest man in the world, Bill Gates? He's an atheist. He's done so much philanthropy - both personally and through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - that most people consider him personally responsible for a "fad" of philanthropy among the super-rich.But, you know, whatever. Just keep pretending like atheists never "feed the poor." I wonder how many more poor people your religion could feed if it wasn't spending all that money on churches and cathedrals? It amazes me how ignorant you can be, sometimes. Arrogance is the theist, loudly proclaiming that the doings of a few insignificant microbes on a tiny blue planet in a completely undistinguished galaxy among a billion billion such galaxies is of the utmost interest to the guy who created it all.That's nonsense. There's nothing more arrogant than theism, than the ridiculous assertion that an infinite deity is deeply concerned about whether or not you're eating shellfish, wearing clothes of multiple fibers, having sex outside of marriage, or sleeping in on Sunday.Do I know something you don't know? Sure. Does that make me arrogant? I don't see how - it just makes me better informed. That's great, but where is that entering the picture? The people you're describing don't sound like atheists to me. In fact, they sound like the way theists treat atheists.So that's a good question. Where does all that irrational loathing come from, NJ? Why do you loathe atheists so much? The mouthy ones, anyway? Stuff you'd probably hate because you think your God is against it, I guess. Specific policies aren't the subject of this thread but, are you honestly trying to tell me that you've never seen a situation where the religious have been on one side and the secularists and the scientists have been on another?Stem cell research doesn't ring any bells? I really wonder how you can be so ignorant on these issues, NJ, but still apparently think yourself an expert. Indeed. Is it your assertion that Christians have never taken part in religious warfare? Maybe you'd like to ask some Jews about that?

I have been away for a day or so and am glad to see the topic has caught on!!I am also very grateful for your synopsis as there are some long posts and a lot to read. Synopsis useful This surely is the key to it all. I cannot believe your personal God by definition and have been given no reason to believe in my own.Given that I "desire facts rather than fantasies" isn't atheism the only sensible option available to me in your opinion???

God forbid!!! (pardon the pun )To me - as stated elsewhere - an atheist is someone who has consciously concluded that there are no gods. I guess the reasosns for that are as potentially varied as those for believing but MOST (certainly those at EVC - where are all the Buddhists and Jedis )would claim evidence based rational thought of some kind as the basis.Agnostics - As I se it. Don't know or don't care or whetever other reason there is for neither accepting or rejecting the god hypothesis. Yes to an extent. Blind faith is almost inevitably a product of cultural indoctrination (would you be Christian if born and raised in a Muslim country by Muslim parents??)
You would not blindly believe me if I told you a series of unprovable and implausable tales. Why should I subscribe to a faith view just because some other people choose to abandon reason?
I would say I am pro rational thought rather than anti faith as such (just to be positive ) but in practice they probably amount to the same thing.

How interesting. I wasn't aware that the vast majority of people that have ever lived on earth were monotheists, let alone that they equated their God with science, or even had a word for science in their languages. We now have a definition of the "God" that you've been talking about throughout this thread. I think we can all agree that such systems exist.So should the atheists participating in this thread renounce their atheism?