Atheism Examined

Interesting progress in your topic Straggler. It sounds as if you folks need to start an 'atheology' council. Who knows? Perhaps one day you will organize into different denominations or meet in groups with like-minded people. Necessity is the mother of invention, no? As you have seen, that depends on who you ask. Many of the atheists I have met are proclaiming their stance in a rather nonchalant way which means 'I haven't much considered the topic'. It is not pure ignorance of God/s as in a baby, but rather like the response I would give if someone asked me if I like France. I would say 'I don't know yet. I haven't been there'. To take it further, one could conclude that they would like France based on what they know, or conclude that they would not, based on what they know. Both are faith-based, but with some reasoning behind them.Is it correct to say that, based on what you have heard or experienced about God and religion, you have reasons to feel that you would not 'like' to believe? And lack of evidence is one reason? I think that it is fair to say that based on my experiences, I 'like' God ideas. I can't imagine that if I had never heard of God or of France, the default would be 'dislike'. It is only honest upon learning to say 'I don't know' and then to find reasons to 'believe' we might or might not like the same. If agnosticism is not knowing, how long can we remain unsure? We are likely along the way to pick up some kind of reasons to formulate a tentative conclusion. In that case, atheists have 'reasons' to believe there is no God, and they are equally untestable as the reasons to believe there is. I don't mean to sound preachy, but this is where my thoughts led. We don't live in a vacuum. We can all honestly say we don't know, but how long can we say 'I don't feel, based on what I have seen, anything at all concerning God?'If most/many atheists consider themselves soft or agnostic towards God, doesn't this make you guys more against belief than against God per se? You don't like the idea of blind faith, or even reasoned out faith, in God or against God. Maybe you are afideistic? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

If I knew where to start, I would be happy to oblige. It's the type of thing which would get laughed out of court. Yet, in a courtroom, one makes decisions based on things like motive, opportunity, lack of alibi. It does not take empirical evidence in every case. My best explanation is that, based on what I feel and what I see around me, men are at once living as if they are immortal, but talking about the one life they have to live. It is very strange, IMO, to be so hesitant to really embrace life to the fullest degree. There is some contradiction in what we proclaim and what we actually do. Even people of faith succomb to this contradictory way of life. Why is it so easy for men to act as if they will live forever? Does this mean anything? Maybe it is a throwback to the days when we were truly oblivious to our own mortality, as animals may be. To me, it is a vital clue for discovering our purpose, if indeed we have one. To sum up, I have had a nagging feeling that we are missing something in this life...it comes and goes with personal levels of fulfillment...but in general this is part of my reason for believing that there is 'more' to what we see. There are perhaps dozens of explanations I can put on this from a purely evolutionary point of view.A drive towards an unknown 'better' may be very advantageous in a species in terms of survival. It has its limits. It depends on who you ask. I don't so much not believe in these alternate dieties, as feel that those who did believe in them were seeing a precursor or a variety of the same God. If God makes revelations all over the world, and leaves the interpretation up to humans, in some way what we see of all religions may be a reflection of Who God is. It is not so much that I don't believe in other Gods, as that I don't believe the other gods are as accurate a representation of God. If you believe in the supernatural, you believe it. There are many variations and some don't involve gods at all. They may simply involve spirits of the once living. Once you start to think about what exactly is supernatural, you can narrow things down to how you perceive the concept. It's not that I don't believe in Loki, it is that I don't believe that the idea of Loki as a God is useful for me. Therefore, Loki is not my God. And I daresay that Phat's God and nj's God and Iano's God and Rob's God and jar's God, etc, etc, etc, are not my God either. They have similarities, perhaps, since we all follow the Bible, and they are not more than one God necessarily either. But the way I see God is as a Being that is more than Loki, or Thor, or Zeus, or Mercury, put together. Some of the earlier forms of religion had given different attributes to different beings. It is useful, but not necessary. You may find that many Christians are giving different attributes to God without even knowing it. I answered this above as well as I could. What is interesting is that nem_jug and others have been atheists before, whereas I have not. It might be neat to have a topic about levels of atheism. I don't know if nem for example ever called himself atheist, or if he did, what he meant by this. I do know personally that I have behaved as an atheist in my life. I did not proclaim atheism.Now, this is interesting. I say I behaved as an atheist. What the hell do I mean? What I really mean is that I behaved as a bad Catholic. I did immoral things, according to my religion. I went against my religion. This does NOT make me an atheist. But let's examine; if I act as though I believe there is no God...and believe me I have done it all, from promiscuity, to abortion, to drugs, to drink, to skipping church, does this make me an atheist? I think not. I think it is part of acting as though you are immortal. Acting as though you 'know' you have time to repent. When a Christian looks back on past bad behaviour, they feel that they have been atheist. They feel that they have denied their belief in God. I mean, if I really believed in God and His judgement, would I be able to depart from His rules? People are far less willing to depart from laws and secular rules because they obviously believe in policemen. Basically, in going aginst what I believe, I claimed that my beliefs were less than I was...that I could start beleiving them again at my own whim. But God is not subject to my whims...and I wonder, when people who are Chistian condemn atheism, if they are looking through their own goggles, and seeing the same hypocrisy that they felt when they denied God and yet believed in Him?We see ourselves as Peters. We have been with God and have known Him. Then, we suddenly act as if this never happened...and we imagine we are on the same page as those who never knew God. That is perhaps why polls may show distrust in atheists. It's really not like that, though, is it?

I think I can get into that. I don't beleive in Zeus because Zeus doesn't make enough sense to me. Zeus makes some sense, but not enough. I am sure you know that this is not a purely physical world...but I assume you mean purely natural. I believe as well that this is a natural world, but I have super-imposed a super-natural.We may have a painting that is black, all black, or one which is all white. I try to have a painting that uses all color, but is glossed over. In other words there is a medium which is imposed upon and binds the whole, as a painter will varnish his work...and there are also other mediums which are heavy and obscuring of the painter's intention. They muddle the details...leave them prey to discussion. It is the difference between a net and a sack. Even a net can be too binding. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Are you sure? Seems he was baptized and confirmed Catholic, and confessed himself to be Catholic when pressed, though not in agreement with the church altogether.

I have a question for you and for nator, and for any other ex-christian atheists.If nemesis or anyone else claims that they have been atheist, and you deny this, to say that they were simply lapsed Christians...have you ruled out the possibility that you are lapsed at this moment as well? What if you went back to christianity? Would you say that you have no idea what an atheist is? You may assume that you won't go back, but that is hardly critical. What is honest is to say that if you ever feel a reason to go back you will. Are you basing your judgement of others on the simple fact that you are STILL atheist? Does it even cross your mind that no one is made to be a certain way, and that anyone could 'become' whatever they wish?If you think not, you are a sort of hard determinist. If you acknowledge choice, you must acknowledge that there is nothing special about any of us. I can choose to be atheist if I want to at any time. If I can't, that means I really believe something. If you can't picture changing beliefs, you pretty much really believe there is no God. That takes a certain amount of faith. You have enough faith to believe that you will never experience God or any symptoms of religion.

Well, that is ok. I am not sure that Hitler himself knew. He got lost somewhere along the way in identifying himself with the Reich. He had no personal meaning, in a sense.

I can't say anything for nj. I can only imagine that he is like me. I have never NOT been a fan of God. To not be a fan is to not know God. The problem as I see it is in not knowing, versus not caring. I did at times not care. I thought I was better than that and self-enabled. What I ask is that, in the same way you tell him he was not an atheist...can you honestly say you were christian? If he didnt do what you feel atheists do, and you didnt do what he feels christians do, were any of us ever anything before? Are we predetermined to be what we are, in spite of what we proclaim or grow up with? I see that he does not think you understand theism, that you don't think he understands atheism, but both of you claim to have been on the other side. Is this not some arrogance? Is this true? Can you say you were christian? And if so, can't he say he was atheist, despite what that word means to you? I understand. If you dont believe you dont sweat the past, the mistakes, etc. I wish I could be that way, and not regret my past. It is weird. If I stopped believing in God, I wouldnt have regrets like I do. That is where people think atheists dont have morals. They think that life would be sweet and painfree without God. I understand in a way. I didnt choose to be Catholic per se. My mother chose for me, and I follow the evidence as it goes. This is a contradiction to you, I know. But believe me a long time ago I left off of my mother's catholicism and forged my own path. I would at times rather be Russian Orthodox, or naturalistic, or pantheistic, or other things which have appeal to my human nature. But I cant get a grip on them enough to change my life for the cute little benefits.What I dont like honestly is the moral high ground approach. To me, atheists seem to be lacking in so much of the beauty, tradition, culture, etc, of who they are and who their ancestors are. To you, theists lack the knowledge of who they are as a human being. But I see humans as diverse. I believe every culture has a definition. If you are as a culture which has no god in it, you need to make yourself known. Not as an anti-religion, but as am actual group that can be indentified with. A group that had no god figure, but has its own tradition, its own purpose. You don't need to identify with non belief in some gods, but to make a group of people who think as you do about all gods. Just forget about gods and atheism.

I apologize if there seemed to be some competition in my post.I don't want to make this about me and my, but just for the sake of clarity; I believe that you are talking about moving forward in life, and about how that is something we all have to do regardless of our moral system.I regret using the word 'regret' since I don't go in for melodrama and pity parties. I wouldn't describe myself as a baggage carrier.What I mean to say is that I make mistakes, and many of those mistakes would not be recognizable as such to someone who doesn't have my specific moral principals. Like church attendence. If I miss, who cares? Only me and people like me will judge that.I think that there can be a misunderstanding in those who don't 'trust' atheists. They can judge their own lives and say 'hey, how convenient it would be if I could just stop believing in God and get away with missing church and not feeling bad'. They can only loosely imagine a life where everything is sanctioned because you don't have to worry about hurting God or going to hell. They are picturing something like a child will think of when his parents go on vacation. Free for all. But for an atheist, there never were 'parents'. There is no free for all, because in order to survive, we all have to do certain things anyway.

I don't think that. I was talking about how religious people might mis-conceive atheism by thinking about it from within their own set-up. And I don't mean all religious people, but maybe those who take part in these polls about trusting atheists.

I have noticed that there are two stances amoung atheists. One is that atheism is faith based, the other is that it is the absence of faith in gods. I still suggest coinage f a new term to denote these positions, rather than the all confusing 'agnostic'. And theists conclude the same, which is why this is not the place for competition, but definition. Maybe part of your def for atheism is 'someone who feels that theists are missing something' but that would be a silly way to characterize motives for theism, and it goes back to the major similarity. Both theists and atheists believe that they have 'found' something. It's about what works for the individual. Any other competitive debate of this nature is merely the same old 'is what we find true, and can we prove it?' argument. None of us can, so there is no reason for any uppity high-ground position. This is your favorite belief. It is just a messy as saying Christians are more moral. You want to be talking about motives, about who has better motives, and not about who is 'more moral'. You are misrepresenting the christian position on doing good, so honestly, you can't be atheist because you think its better than something else. It has to fit you, and it will be better FOR YOU, but you have no knowledge to say that any view is better because none of us do. We all have more in common than not.

I find myself wondering, and this is probably so not OT, whether the spirituality that you speak of is not based on some version of belief in the unseen. Many spiritualities could easily turn into pantheism, for example, or something similar.This is not an accusation. But from the word itself, spirit, there is a connotation of the unseen. There are spiritualities which don't require a higher power as in a god. It would be interesting to find out what spirituality means to other people, although not this thread.Maybe atheism is something to do with disillusionment in organized religion, or in the specific xian God. Not for everyone, but some. I can see that a certain representation of God is not for everyone, and that organized religion can hold one back in discovery of God. I don't think there is an intent to limit God, but somewhere along the way the concept of the Christian God became very fabricated in appearance.Anyway, I am sure that you are aware of alternatives in faith even if some are not. I merely speculate that some proclaimed atheists are latching onto a word that sounds to them like a good landing-place for people who have no denomination. Not in this forum I think, because all here are educated about alternatives. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I am just noticing that some atheists here don't agree with you. And for that reason they should invent a new term to describe themselves, despite how you would describe them.I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I think its get back into that stuff Rob always talk about where everyone has a belief even if its in nothing...but I am telling you that linking blind faith to their self-description is not going over well for some atheists. Yes, and I say that you are erring equally on the other side. Both of you too extreme. Ok, so according to you atheists are more moral than Christians. That is a fact as well as an opinion. Since I was trying to get you to steer away from competition in this thread, are you prepared to say that your description of being atheist, since the OP asks you to give one, is 'someone who is more moral than theists?' Because honestly I can't get any further into that conversation without a major derailment into things like 'do you want to be saved?' and C.S.Lewis books.

Hm, well, I can relate. But strange thing is these feelings seem to be what developed the sense of God in the first place; feeling insignificant, wanting to explain the emotions that grip us in very simple circumstances. I mean, what is it about us that wants to relate to nature? I don't think we get nearly as emotional when walking down a city street filled with our own human creations...we do get lost in grandeur and insignificance in comparison, but we can get as easily lost in the daily life of the tiniest ant.But yes, spirituality is a sense of connection to the universe at the least, and a way to find our place in it. It can easily run religious if it gets too orderly or planned out.For some reason I am afraid to stray too much from topics nowadays, so that's all for now. Thanks for responding though.

I won't quote you, because I understand the whole post. (Btw I know I didn't repsond yet to your last message to me, but I'm not ignoring it)I would say that I agree with you altogether, except I am shady on that last bit about studying the brain alone for the answer.But the reason I asked was because I think that some forms of Christianity don't emphasize spirituality, and may even work against it. Prayer is often talking to God, and not a meditation or a mystical state. Some Christians may even frown on being too spiritual rather than practical...sounds like a contradiction but I don't think they all go in for that woo-woo stuff. This could alienate a person who doesn't feel that their religion allows for personal spirituality and a God Who goes beyond the cut and paste version. I hate to say it, but Christianity especially, with a Jesus Who is a man and a God, all set up for us to take, can seem stifling to those whose idea of God is more encompassing.Then, alienation leads to disbelief, a sense of belonging to a set of disbelievers, and maybe eventually a reasoned out atheism. Sometimes, at least?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I had anticipated a long post here, but maybe I can ask in one sentence; What do you think are the actual differences in religious morals and society's morals? Isn't it fairly obvious that religious morals are the same as non-religious ones?Many theists here have agreed that atheists are moral. We would not be in any position to judge this if we did not see them using the same morality that we do. Therefore all morality is the same, all of it evolves, all of it comes from society's interactions. The only difference is in whether an individual believes that God 'helps out' or that it's all on us. The result is the same.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.