RubySoho
Winston
Post-Easter Musings on Atheism
March 24th 2008 21:41
I am an atheist.
This is a bold move for me. I'm generally not shy about admitting my atheism, and I've alluded to it plenty of times in posts and comments. However, I've always veered away from a declarative statement concerning my atheism, not wishing to offend anyone or attract any unwanted conflict through the "provocation" of such a post. With Easter having come and gone yesterday, the whole "religion" matter has been on my mind. In thinking about this, I've realized that I have no reason to avoid discussing my beliefs on Orble or anywhere else. One of the reasons we congregate here is for the free exchange of ideas. It is not necessary that we accept, or even respect, all of these ideas. It is only required that we respect each others' right to have diverging ideas, and that we engage each other with civility in debate. I have every right to expect that, as does everyone who puts forth a viewpoint in the public square. Having come to that conclusion, I felt that I might as well proceed with this post.
Still, I'm a bit sensitive to the fact that the lack of a belief in a god tends to make some people regard atheists as ranking somewhere between Hitler and smallpox. In America, atheists are the least trusted demographic.. I suppose that's understandable, considering that our prisons are filled to bursting with athei....oh, wait. Actually, the number of atheists in prison is much proportionately smaller than the number of theists. Either we're very good at not getting caught, or we're not the immoral hedonists that we are sometimes assumed to be.
And that is the real crux of the issue, isn't it? Misconceptions abound. I've had people genuinely puzzled by my atheism, and yet these people knew less about their religion than I do. At the core, much of the distrust of atheists is founded on the propagation of ignorance by bigoted theistic groups. A short list of the imagined traits of atheists includes:
-Atheists "hate" god/gods, because they had a bad experience with religion or did not get something they prayed for.
-Atheists know god/gods exists, but refuse to acknowledge him/them because then they wouldn't be able to do whatever they want. In short, atheists are selfish hedonists.
-Atheists want to strip everyone else of their rights to religion.
-Atheists, lacking a belief in god/gods or eternal reward/punishment, have no moral or ethical code.
-Atheists live empty, bitter lives of self-imposed exile from god's love.
-Atheists = Communists
-Atheists = Satanists.
There is more, much, much more, but you get the idea. If people ever actually TALKED to an atheist, they would probably see that none of the above is true. I, for one, have killed very few people and it's been weeks since I last attended one of our National Communistic Atheists meeting. (Just kidding. That's a little atheist humor for all you folks out there.) Let me address the above points:
-I can not speak for all atheists. I can only speak for myself, and attest to what I know about the other atheists I've met. But, keeping that in mind, I can say that I am not "mad" at god. I might as well be mad at the Easter Bunny for leaving me crappy chocolate instead of Godiva. One can't be mad at a non-existent entity. I can dislike what I see done in the name of religion, I can even be mad at theistic devotees, but mad at god? Never. Find me an atheist who gives you that as a reason, and I'll buy you a soda.
-I don't refuse to acknowledge god despite knowing he exists. Why in the hell would anyone do that? If I really believed that god was real (and that he would damn me to hell for not believing in him), I'd have to be an imbecile or a lunatic to defy him. Does anyone really find this idea to be valid? Not to mention the fact that atheists are NOT all selfish hedonists. Atheists raise families. Atheists give to charity. Atheists contribute to society. For example, Bill Gates is an atheist. He has donated billions of dollars to charity. Billions. Carl Sagan was an atheist. He spent his life expanding human knowledge and encouraging education. Lance Armstrong is an atheist. He has won the Tour de France seven times and beaten cancer, for which he has also raised millions of dollars for research through his foundation. These are just a few examples, using well-known people, to illustrate that atheism and selfishness, atheism and callousness, or atheism and hedonism do not go hand in hand.
-America is founded upon the freedom of expression, and the freedom of religion. We ALL have the rights to our beliefs. While I personally do not share in the belief in a deity, and while I may even find such a belief harmful in some instances, I do not intend nor wish to take the right to that belief away from anyone. The moment we try to take away ONE group's beliefs, all of our beliefs become vulnerable. Any group that attempts to do so, attempts it at their peril. Not wanting religion injected into politics, or not wanting religiously-motivated laws, is not the same thing as wishing to take away people's rights to worship as they see fit. Anyone who contends that it is the same thing is exhibiting either gross misunderstanding or intellectual dishonesty.
-As for atheists lacking a moral code, I will again cite the fact that atheists make up a proportionately minute percentage of the prison population. Positive morals and ethics have in no way ever been shown to require a belief in a deity. Some studies have actually demonstrated the opposite. In fact, I would argue that morals and ethics that derive from concern for our fellow man and out of a desire to live in harmony with our neighbors are superior to those derived from fear of punishment or the promise of eternal reward.
-My wife and I are both atheists. Our lives are anything but empty. We value our marriage above all else. We love our families dearly. We enjoy friends and music, and appreciate the good fortune we have had in life. We acknowledge the beauty inherent in nature, and find it all the more awe-inspiring precisely because it IS nature and not the grand scheme of a nebulous supernatural dictator. We value our lives very much because this one life, this one instance wherein matter has come together with the ability to acknowledge itself and its surrounding, is so very precious. Lack of a belief in heaven does not cheapen life; it makes it infinitely more worthwhile. Every color is more beautiful and every food is more rich, all because we have only a finite time to drink them in. How sad to gloss over the splendor of this life, focusing instead on the imagined promises of the next one! Countless is the number of people who have killed and been killed over the malicious fallacy of the gods. It is to our eternal shame that so many have lived and died in intellectual bondage.
Why do these ideas persist? Why do people act as though lacking a belief in an unseen, unknowable, omniscient, omnipotent superbeing, that leaves no physical traces and offers no verifiable evidence of any kind, is the highest act of lunacy? More importantly, why should it matter? Why does the very fact of our existence register as so offensive to so many people? Cultural and social norms are a large part of it, to be sure, but I still continue to find the tenacity with which people cling to these ideas (and with which they oppose those who do not share them) surprising.
Still, I do not have one moment of regret for my unbelief. I have seen all too clearly where it can lead. While most theists of all shades are generally good, honest, decent people, there are those who have twisted religion for their own ends. And there are those who are far too easily lead under its thrall. Religion can poison the mind of even the most well-intentioned among us, like a rotted carcass cast into a pool of fresh water. Any institution that can inspire such loathsome beliefs and behaviors, despite the good character of the adherents, is one that I cannot abide in good conscience. While it is not wholly evil, it can certainly never be wholly good.
I am an atheist because reason forces me to be. I have examined the claims for god and found them lacking. Were I to profess belief despite this, and were god to be real, he would find me to be a most egregious liar. Better an honest infidel than a hypocritical worshipper, it seems to me. If god exists, and decides to punish me for being the way he must have made me, then let that stand as a testament to his injustice.
I can only hope that some day, with time, people's distrust of those who do not share their belief in god will fade as they realize that we are their family, their friends, their co-workers and their neighbors. We are scientists and teachers and firemen and janitors. We are human beings with our own thoughts and feelings, no more or less worthy of respect than anyone else. Ask us what we believe and we'll tell you, I promise. Just ask nicely, please.
This is a bold move for me. I'm generally not shy about admitting my atheism, and I've alluded to it plenty of times in posts and comments. However, I've always veered away from a declarative statement concerning my atheism, not wishing to offend anyone or attract any unwanted conflict through the "provocation" of such a post. With Easter having come and gone yesterday, the whole "religion" matter has been on my mind. In thinking about this, I've realized that I have no reason to avoid discussing my beliefs on Orble or anywhere else. One of the reasons we congregate here is for the free exchange of ideas. It is not necessary that we accept, or even respect, all of these ideas. It is only required that we respect each others' right to have diverging ideas, and that we engage each other with civility in debate. I have every right to expect that, as does everyone who puts forth a viewpoint in the public square. Having come to that conclusion, I felt that I might as well proceed with this post.
Still, I'm a bit sensitive to the fact that the lack of a belief in a god tends to make some people regard atheists as ranking somewhere between Hitler and smallpox. In America, atheists are the least trusted demographic.. I suppose that's understandable, considering that our prisons are filled to bursting with athei....oh, wait. Actually, the number of atheists in prison is much proportionately smaller than the number of theists. Either we're very good at not getting caught, or we're not the immoral hedonists that we are sometimes assumed to be.
And that is the real crux of the issue, isn't it? Misconceptions abound. I've had people genuinely puzzled by my atheism, and yet these people knew less about their religion than I do. At the core, much of the distrust of atheists is founded on the propagation of ignorance by bigoted theistic groups. A short list of the imagined traits of atheists includes:
-Atheists "hate" god/gods, because they had a bad experience with religion or did not get something they prayed for.
-Atheists know god/gods exists, but refuse to acknowledge him/them because then they wouldn't be able to do whatever they want. In short, atheists are selfish hedonists.
-Atheists want to strip everyone else of their rights to religion.
-Atheists, lacking a belief in god/gods or eternal reward/punishment, have no moral or ethical code.
-Atheists live empty, bitter lives of self-imposed exile from god's love.
-Atheists = Communists
-Atheists = Satanists.
There is more, much, much more, but you get the idea. If people ever actually TALKED to an atheist, they would probably see that none of the above is true. I, for one, have killed very few people and it's been weeks since I last attended one of our National Communistic Atheists meeting. (Just kidding. That's a little atheist humor for all you folks out there.) Let me address the above points:
-I can not speak for all atheists. I can only speak for myself, and attest to what I know about the other atheists I've met. But, keeping that in mind, I can say that I am not "mad" at god. I might as well be mad at the Easter Bunny for leaving me crappy chocolate instead of Godiva. One can't be mad at a non-existent entity. I can dislike what I see done in the name of religion, I can even be mad at theistic devotees, but mad at god? Never. Find me an atheist who gives you that as a reason, and I'll buy you a soda.
-I don't refuse to acknowledge god despite knowing he exists. Why in the hell would anyone do that? If I really believed that god was real (and that he would damn me to hell for not believing in him), I'd have to be an imbecile or a lunatic to defy him. Does anyone really find this idea to be valid? Not to mention the fact that atheists are NOT all selfish hedonists. Atheists raise families. Atheists give to charity. Atheists contribute to society. For example, Bill Gates is an atheist. He has donated billions of dollars to charity. Billions. Carl Sagan was an atheist. He spent his life expanding human knowledge and encouraging education. Lance Armstrong is an atheist. He has won the Tour de France seven times and beaten cancer, for which he has also raised millions of dollars for research through his foundation. These are just a few examples, using well-known people, to illustrate that atheism and selfishness, atheism and callousness, or atheism and hedonism do not go hand in hand.
-America is founded upon the freedom of expression, and the freedom of religion. We ALL have the rights to our beliefs. While I personally do not share in the belief in a deity, and while I may even find such a belief harmful in some instances, I do not intend nor wish to take the right to that belief away from anyone. The moment we try to take away ONE group's beliefs, all of our beliefs become vulnerable. Any group that attempts to do so, attempts it at their peril. Not wanting religion injected into politics, or not wanting religiously-motivated laws, is not the same thing as wishing to take away people's rights to worship as they see fit. Anyone who contends that it is the same thing is exhibiting either gross misunderstanding or intellectual dishonesty.
-As for atheists lacking a moral code, I will again cite the fact that atheists make up a proportionately minute percentage of the prison population. Positive morals and ethics have in no way ever been shown to require a belief in a deity. Some studies have actually demonstrated the opposite. In fact, I would argue that morals and ethics that derive from concern for our fellow man and out of a desire to live in harmony with our neighbors are superior to those derived from fear of punishment or the promise of eternal reward.
-My wife and I are both atheists. Our lives are anything but empty. We value our marriage above all else. We love our families dearly. We enjoy friends and music, and appreciate the good fortune we have had in life. We acknowledge the beauty inherent in nature, and find it all the more awe-inspiring precisely because it IS nature and not the grand scheme of a nebulous supernatural dictator. We value our lives very much because this one life, this one instance wherein matter has come together with the ability to acknowledge itself and its surrounding, is so very precious. Lack of a belief in heaven does not cheapen life; it makes it infinitely more worthwhile. Every color is more beautiful and every food is more rich, all because we have only a finite time to drink them in. How sad to gloss over the splendor of this life, focusing instead on the imagined promises of the next one! Countless is the number of people who have killed and been killed over the malicious fallacy of the gods. It is to our eternal shame that so many have lived and died in intellectual bondage.
Why do these ideas persist? Why do people act as though lacking a belief in an unseen, unknowable, omniscient, omnipotent superbeing, that leaves no physical traces and offers no verifiable evidence of any kind, is the highest act of lunacy? More importantly, why should it matter? Why does the very fact of our existence register as so offensive to so many people? Cultural and social norms are a large part of it, to be sure, but I still continue to find the tenacity with which people cling to these ideas (and with which they oppose those who do not share them) surprising.
Still, I do not have one moment of regret for my unbelief. I have seen all too clearly where it can lead. While most theists of all shades are generally good, honest, decent people, there are those who have twisted religion for their own ends. And there are those who are far too easily lead under its thrall. Religion can poison the mind of even the most well-intentioned among us, like a rotted carcass cast into a pool of fresh water. Any institution that can inspire such loathsome beliefs and behaviors, despite the good character of the adherents, is one that I cannot abide in good conscience. While it is not wholly evil, it can certainly never be wholly good.
I am an atheist because reason forces me to be. I have examined the claims for god and found them lacking. Were I to profess belief despite this, and were god to be real, he would find me to be a most egregious liar. Better an honest infidel than a hypocritical worshipper, it seems to me. If god exists, and decides to punish me for being the way he must have made me, then let that stand as a testament to his injustice.
I can only hope that some day, with time, people's distrust of those who do not share their belief in god will fade as they realize that we are their family, their friends, their co-workers and their neighbors. We are scientists and teachers and firemen and janitors. We are human beings with our own thoughts and feelings, no more or less worthy of respect than anyone else. Ask us what we believe and we'll tell you, I promise. Just ask nicely, please.
| 196 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Great line...I may have to steal it one day.
Yeah, atheists get a raw deal over there , huh? But I have read or heard somewhere (it may have been on Bill Maher's show actually), that atheism is growing fast in the States.
Personally, I think there have always been large numbers of us out there but they have just been to scared to speak up.
Thanks for speaking up.
Comment by dQuarters
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Nice to see you Winston, sorry about the controversial first post ( rather than the last post)
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
Great post, and yep, I'll be stealing that "I am an atheist because reason forces me to be" line as well. Silly Christians - myths are for kids!
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
im an atheist, my family are atheists, almost all of my friends are atheists. i consider atheism to be the default belief system in australia, maybe someone has some statistics to prove otherwise, but my experience of australian culture is that atheism is the norm and church-going folk are the minority. we are a multi-cultural country and it often seems that people with strong ties to a foreign heritage (eg: greeks, italians, south american, lebanese, indian, pakistani, or even americans) are more likely to also have religious ties and be involved in a faith-based community. so basically no i have never felt marginalised by being an atheist.
morgan
oh and sidebar: atheist is not believing in god, agnostic is being unsure as to whether god exists, is there a term for not caring if god exists?
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
"A woman was in Ireland, talking religion. There was a bit of debete going on over who was right, and she was asked what religion she was. She replied, ateist. Somebody asked what she meant and she told them 'I don't belive in God'.
To which another womasn asked, "But is it the God of the Protestents or of the Catholics that you don't believe in?"
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Not willing to the risk the 50% chance of providing the religion which will not get him killed, the quick thinking driver answered "Neither- I am an atheist", to which the gunman replied "But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
aah religion what a waste of time.
Nomad (proud not to care)
"who is this god person anyway"? douglas adams
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Still, I can't claim much first hand persecution or distress. I live near Boston, not in the deep south. Big difference. Mostly what I encounter is some benign cluelessness. I don't mind that too much, although it annoys me when people don't take the time to learn any of the history of their own faith (as they often clearly don't, surprised as they may be when I point certain aspects out to them).
Thanks very much for the comment. Speaking up is important. Silence only condones intolerance.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As for your comment, much like I said to dQuarters, I'm not sure how to respond. You don't believe in atheists? Could you please clarify what you mean by that?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks very much for the comment
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
i consider atheism to be the default belief system in australia
Atheism is the default belief system for all of us. No one is born a Baptist. If only more people were allowed to maintain that default position, rather than having mythology pasted over it from infancy!
Re: your sidebar, I'm not sure. Ambivalent atheist, perhaps? Agnosticism IS atheism, really, just a different shade of it. Anytime someone cannot answer the question of "Do you believe god exists" with a yes, they are an atheist. Atheism is what you believe to be true, agnosticism is what you know to be true. As no one can know much of anything to a 100% degree of certainty, it's somewhat of a moot point. What matters is what you believe, and why.
Thanks for the comment!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
In America we have a similar semantic problem. Not believing in god is OK, but being an atheist is terrible.
Thanks for stopping by.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I couldn't agree more with your second statement.
Thanks for the input.
Comment by dQuarters
I am not a religious person. I do not believe in a holy... much. I just have yet to hear a discussion on the existence of God (or lack thereof) that clears all mention of...
-religion
-easter bunny
-santa clause
-delinquency
I believe in God. And my "proof" is everything around me. Somehow that proof seems limited though. My God is not a man in the sky, nor a damning force defined by any texts written by man.
I don't believe in Atheist because my belief in YOU knows you're part of God, no matter how strong the rejection. No label can change that.
I respect your belief because I know that you not believing in God, or a heaven does not mean you are a "bad" person. To me it just means that you are an incomplete person... but who isn't?... Aside from the dead that is.
1! <- (short answer)
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I realize that it is not meant to be at all. For that reason I am not angry. I know that you are simply sincerely expressing your opinion, and I commend you for that. However, please understand that the phrase "I don't believe in atheists" indicates that I am somehow dishonest with myself or others. To imply that you know better than I what I believe is condescending.
Your "proof" of God, being limited only to your surroundings, is simply proof of your surroundings. Nothing else is proved by them save their existence. How you choose to interpret that is entirely up to you. But please do not endeavor to tell me that such "proof" is sufficient to demonstrate god, or that it in any way invalidates my belief. You will need to supply much greater evidence than that to persuade me.
You say that you respect my beliefs. Well, firstly, thank you, but I do not require your respect of my beliefs. I merely require you to respect my right to have them, which you seemingly do. I will point out that respecting someone's belief's, as you claim to, does not generally entail telling that person that they don't really believe what they say. To disagree with my beliefs is fine, and it is through such a discussion that we learn. To question my integrity or conviction is perhaps a less productive approach.
Regarding my incompleteness....did you read my post? Did I indicate, in any sense, that I felt lacking for anything? Again, it seems you believe that you know better than I about what I think and feel. And if you really mean that we are all incomplete, and we accept that I am happy in my life and you are in yours, then of what benefit is your belief to me if I am able to be equally happy without it?
What it comes down to is that if you cannot accept a basic statement on my part (i.e. that I am truly an atheist, that I have a full and enjoyed life) then it seems we will not be able to proceed with any sort of dialog. You are disabling me from the start.
Again, I am not writing this in anger. A small amount of frustration, perhaps, but that is all. I in no way want to discourage you from replying and offering your viewpoint. Just expect me to reply in kind if you hit the wrong nerve
Comment by Sho Kosugi
Shoukai
Sho is Shinto, a broad religion that embraces cleanliness of self, the support of family, and the wonderment of nature. A simple religion, one that does not have specific rules or contradictions. Things simply are, and if a god or goddess wishes to bless the mountain, well then, by all means, they shall!
But in truth, man is at the disposal of his very own imagination. So in turn, his gods must be as well! How can we speak truth when we live only in mystery? How can we have confidence in a god or goddess who remains as cloudy as the distant nebula? And even then, the nebula could be nothing more than a speck of dust!
These are trying times for a ninja. Trying to live within harmony, being discouraged by monotheists and other like minded fools of certainty and hatred. We all share one path under the Moon, and must continue to share; that much is certain, not these oral traditions which have been founded into corruption and selfishness.
"The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question: 'Is this real, or is this just a ride?' And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, 'Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.' And we kill those people."
- Bill Hicks
Comment by dQuarters
...
We're all dishonest to ourselves and others. I am constantly finding out previous lies I've been told, and told myself. That's just a part of learning. You calling yourself an Atheist... sure it might be true that you have no belief of a God. The lie is the label. See, I don't believe in Christians or Muslims either. But the difference is that Atheism is not really, well, anything. Should I label myself by my lacks? Am I an A-Atheist because I don't believe in it? And you an A-A-Atheist?
You already know I mean no offense by my words, yet take offense to them. Why? It's just my belief. Which is why I commented to begin with. I did it to show you what you sound like to a believer, and further more, why being an Atheist could be construed to be taken offensively.
You believe my belief in God is me lying to myself. What's the difference?
We are all agnostic because none of us "know". But most of us (with the exception of Atheists and some real dense religious types) are also gnostic, because we seek out God and godly things. Atheist have seemingly closed that window to knowledge by their belief in no thing. And in my opinion (belief), you telling yourself and others that you believe in no God does not mean God is not inside of you, or that the window is truly closed, seeing how you're obviously too smart to stop learning.
Reason tells me one should keep an open mind. It also tells me that labels are anathema to that reason.
I didn't mean to call you a liar. At least not anymore than I'd call myself or anyone else one. And you coming out of the Atheist closet can only be 'good'.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I see, to a point, your reluctance to use labels. However, whether one believes in labels or not, they are often a necessary shorthand for describing a position on a given topic. Sometimes it's just easier to hear Republican or Democrat, Jew or Christian than it is to delve into exactly what each and every person you encounter believes. Of course, these labels are not adequate to the task of REALLY describing what people believe, but they establish a useful starting point. Labels enable conversation to begin with basic tenets already agreed upon (usually). I understand that you find it odd to define myself by my lack of a belief. It's true, if I were to define myself that way thoroughly, it would be a very long list (I am A-leprechaunist as well, for example). I would prefer that such a label was not required, but in a society like America, which is at least 75% Christian and in which non-believers are a small minority, a label to distinguish ourselves from theists is necessary. Again, it is a shorthand for a basic position. Religion is probably the single most prevalent identifier in this country. We react accordingly.
I still do not not understand why "being an Atheist could be construed to be taken offensively"? I am not offended by your position. I would have no reason to be, unless you persisted in trying to force me into your way of thinking. Barring that, we can talk and agree to disagree all day long. What I was mildly offended by was your portrayal of my stance. But, realizing that we're dealing with benign misunderstandings and not malicious attacks, I would call that offense minimal at most. I do not, by the way, believe you to be "lying to yourself". I am quite sure that you believe what you say. Whether I think you are correct or not is entirely different from suspecting you of being disingenuous, either to yourself or to me. By and large I think most people do believe what they say they do. Their belief isn't in question, what matters is why they believe.
We are all agnostic because none of us "know".
This is true. It is almost impossible to KNOW anything to a 100% degree of certainty. However, if you mean "to know" in the common usage, then there are lots of things that we deem knowable or not knowable based on probability and observation. I do not "know" that there isn't a Volkswagon Beetle outside the orbit of Pluto in the Kuiper Belt. But with no observations to suggest otherwise, and with no reasonable hypothetical models for how that would come to be, it's reasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that I "know" that Volkswagon is not there. Could I be wrong? Possibly, yes. But until such time as evidence indicates otherwise, there is no reason to suggest that our cosmic Volkswagon exists. So it is with god. The amount of mysteries attributed to god or the gods has shrunk exponentially as our knowledge has increased. At this point, there has been nothing found scientifically that does anything except strengthen the case for a naturalistic universe. If one trusts in the scientific method (and we should, considering it has yielded all of our current technology and medicine) then why would one consider it irrelevant in this one instance?
Not wishing to consider unfounded hypotheticals is not the same as "closing the window" to knowledge. I'll be more than happy to examine claims for god and the supernatural, as soon as anyone presents any evidence that indicates such a claim might be valid. Until then, the default position is disbelief.
Atheist have seemingly closed that window to knowledge by their belief in no thing.
By belief in "nothing", what exactly do you mean? The only thing I have stated is my lack of belief in a deity. I believe in a lot of things! I believe in love, beauty and human ingenuity. I believe in charity and happiness. I would hardly call these things "nothing"! Does the fact that I believe in them without thinking that a deity is necessary to inspire them somehow render them less worthwhile?
Thanks again for the dialog. If nothing else, it forces me to reexamine my reasoning on these issues. Self-examination is never a bad thing. No apology needed, by the way. I know there was no malice intended.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As you say, what people perceive and what is real may widely differ. That goes for science and religion. The difference between the two is that science adapts and builds upon itself, as it is founded upon continual observation and correction. Religion, on the other hand, starts with a fixed premise, and adapts the rest of what it sees to fit its worldview. They are polar opposites.
We all share one path under the Moon, and must continue to share; that much is certain, not these oral traditions which have been founded into corruption and selfishness.
Doukan desu. Arigatou gozaimasu!
Comment by dQuarters
Personally, I think belief in another man's God is the basis for some of the broadest atrocities known to history... and just plain blinkered.
I also believe that everyone not only has the right, but SHOULD have their own belief system based on rational thought. And if yours falls under the label of Atheism, so be it. Your life lead you to your beliefs and who am I to judge that?
All I want to get across is that there is inside of us a place where the laws of nature and science take no precedent. We all have that space inside, and by those who have taken to attaining this enlightenment, it is regarded as no less than a commune with "God". God is just another label, mind you. But it's one that readily means something to just about everyone.
The point is that science cannot prove everything. And some things require belief to be attained... God or not. I don't like seeing anyone rationalizing their beliefs to be apart from that. And Atheism, like Christianity or Islam or Judaism only seems to serve the opposite, and widen everyman's divide from the one mind we share. The higher states of consciousness are all repeatable outcomes... Why does science not do more to share these findings? Because business OWNs both science AND religion. And there's no money in sharing enlightenment.
So when I meet every new Atheist, I can't help but feel they are taking a reactionary stance toward history's atrocities as opposed to a new, clearer way of thinking. And it's that you Atheists are usually of sound mind that triggers my debate switch. I rarely find such an instinct when confronted with a religious type. Uphill battles usually breed quite a bit of animosity and only strengthen their resolve.
But to me, it's just another divider of people. And to hear calls that Atheists need a better group organization... ? Need a church, too? Clergy-men of the no-god? The last thing this world needs is a new religion. *cough*scientology*cough*
It's sad that in the States, Atheism is held in such low regard, but so is Islam, Homosexuality and being Mexican. So would my beliefs. So is being from anywhere or thinking anything different. Maybe science should get off it's high-and-mighty ass and figure that one out
Anyway, I'd like you to get in a last word here. So I'll shut up. This is WAY longer than I intended.
Comment by Onesnap
I'm a little late to this post, so I'm just catching up now with everything written here and the responses.
I'm really glad that you spoke up (and out) about this topic.
When I was younger I actually had people make me cry over the fact that I am not baptized (and never was as a child). I've even had people tell me I'm going to hell etc. etc. over this fact. I'm a stronger person now, and I'm proudly able to answer back that no, I was not baptized. My parents left it up to me to decide to believe in what I wanted. They made the right choice and I wish more parents did that for their kids.
Comment by Sho Kosugi
Shoukai
However, Sho must disagree with your power of science. Yes, it is the decrypter of gods, the decipherer of devils. But can your science compete with Sho's mighty ninja magic? One thinks not! Sho's powers are such to put even Master Jesus, the most powerful of black-magic manipulators, to shame!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
The point is that science cannot prove everything.
That's absolutely true. No reason to stop looking, though. 200 years ago we'd have thought that the the things we take for granted now were impossible. 100 years ago our knowledge of our universe was infantile compared to what we know today. What science "can't prove" today is tomorrow's common knowledge. That's the great thing about science, is that it is the one way of looking at the world that demonstrably increases our understanding of it. Religion does not offer this. Personal revelation is not universal truth. Personal faith and belief does not translate beyond the individual. One's personal insight does not benefit the world at large. As a society and as a species, it is science that has, and will continue to have, the power to advance us. God has been oddly silent about it.
The higher states of consciousness are all repeatable outcomes... Why does science not do more to share these findings?
Actually, science HAS done some research on altered states of consciousness ("higher" is a misnomer that begs the question). The fact that the results are repeatable and familiar in many instances strongly favors a naturalistic cause. It implies that our brain chemistry is fairly predictable. I have never heard nor read about any "altered" state of consciousness that produced any results that could only be explained by communing with a higher being, etc. Does this mean that we will never find any result like that? Not necessarily. But at this point the evidence is to the contrary.
And to hear calls that Atheists need a better group organization... ? Need a church, too? Clergy-men of the no-god? The last thing this world needs is a new religion. *cough*scientology*cough*
I don't recall anyone suggesting the above? I think that Journeywoman mentioned something about atheists being more organized, but that it purely on a political level in order to prevent our rights from being trampled under theistic legislation. Church? Clergy? Never. We do not want it, and we could never get it. As I said, we're far to disparate a group for that sort of organization. Atheism says nothing about what people believe other than their lack of belief in god. Even if we wanted to, we'd never agree. But I don't think that's going to be an issue.
Thanks for keeping up the long conversation with me. I know that I can get a little verbose sometimes, sorry about that. At least you just have to read. My wife has to listen to me.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks for dropping by
Comment by DeAnne
Public Journalist
Simple Gift Guide
Blogging American
Home Cooking on Recipeyz
Work From Home Online
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
If all theists shared your view, we would have a great deal less problems in the world. We are all free to believe as we see fit. Why isn't that enough for some? What many Christians (as well as members of other religions) don't grasp is that even if religion gets more of a standing in politics and law, whose religion is it? Arguing that we need god in schools leaves open the question, whose god? Is it the Catholic's idea of god, or the Presbyterian's, or the Evangelical's, or the Mormon's or the Jew's? It can never be satisfactorily decided; whichever religion wins, the rest would lose, and I doubt that would sit well. The best course is simply to leave religion out of the political sphere and allow people to worship or not as they choose, without fear of interference from the government. If only more people understood that continuing to push for more god in the government and in the schools would most likely backfire on them spectacularly.....
Thanks so much again for your feedback!
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Sho, I loved this wisdom,
And I knew the author of your quote from the first line....Bill Hicks is sorely missed.
Now, for my view?
I suppose, if you had to call me anything, Id be agnostic? Im severly damaged by the catholic church - I cant even feel desire without feeling 'dirty' but the church is not god.
I believe in SOMETHING but I do not like to call it god, and these comments here are exactly the reason why -
The word 'god' just causes so many issues. I believe there is concioussness in the universe - but I believe more in a communal concioussness than I do a big person up there somewhere. I believe that a part of you does live on, as energy never dies, but its not at the will of 'god' or dependant on 'sins'.
I like to say all that. Really I do. And Id like to believe it. But deep down inside theres a girl in a very tight tie and knee socks whos just sure shes going to hell....
Time for the Bill Hicks dvd....
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Good ol' Catholic guilt. It does lay ahold of you, doesn't it?
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Just who do you think is going to convert whom? It just won't work.
There are good and bad people of all ilks and even the very bad have redeeming features and vice versa. From my point of view, end of discussion, I've said too much already.
There is as much bigotry amongst non-believers as the other way around.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Conversion? Nah, that's not my bag.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Primitive religions, I suspect, which go in the guise of many denominations.
No need to answer this one. It could go on all night. That I (nor you) do not want.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
But I'm very glad (and not at all surprised) that you don't feel that way. As always, thank you for your input
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
We also have a (questionably) famous atheist in the form of John Safran. Ive recommended his stuff to Lilla but Im starting to feel it might not be something she'd appreciate. He did a series (which you can buy on dvd over the web) called 'John Safran versus God' and I really think you'd love it. He goes around the world and reviews every religion as an atheist - he never plans to change his views mind you - yet he 'reviews' the religions as if they could 'convert' him!
Hes not just some nut either, his arguments are well thought out and so hair spiltting he reminds me of...Well, you sometimes!
And the entrance sequence to the dvds where he crawls out of the ground and straightens his tie looking up at the sky with this 'come and get me' look....Oh, its hilarious!
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Theres this bit where they do mormons. They decide to get payback for everyone thats ever been woken up by them on the weekend to do it to them!
I think its a sunday morning. John and his mate dress up in the mormon garb and ride bikes. But what are they preaching? Atheisim! They even have booklets and try to convince mormons that actually, scientific evidence proves you believe in nothing.....
Its priceless Winston!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I remind you of him, eh? I don't look much like him, and I lack the accent...
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I concur.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Plus, who says it's the vindictive, churlish Christian god who exists? Good lord, odds are that if there IS a god, it isn't the worst one of all...
Thanks for stopping by, I appreciate your input on this.
Comment by Dana
Thank you for this thought. The idea that I'm expected to respect all beliefs regarding religion that differ from my own has never sat well with me. That some sort of respect is necessary in matters of religion is obvious from a pragmatic standpoint, but trying to tease out where the lines are is frustrating. This helps, I think.
Dana
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks very much for reading and commenting
Comment by Timothy Powell
my second my first blog
poetryatrics
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Let me try to clarify. Atheism is defined as "lacking a belief in a god or gods". It is not a positive assertion that a god or gods definitely don't exist. In the absence of a positive assertion, it is the theist's job to provide evidence for their positive claim that god exists. While I have more reasons than I can count as to why I find the idea of a god implausible, it really isn't my burden to present them: I'm not the one making an extraordinary claim. I have no "proof" that god does not exist, as it is not logically possible to prove a negative. Now, there are atheists who claim that god DOES NOT exist. Atheists making this positive claim are referred to as "strong atheists". Strong atheism is an unprovable position just as is theism. When most people think of atheism, they think of strong atheism, but the great majority of atheists would not identify themselves this way,
Agnosticism IS atheism, just a different shade. If you are not able to answer the question "do you believe a god exists?" with a yes, then you are an atheist. Atheism deals with what you believe, while agnosticism deals with what you know. I am an atheist. Based on the evidence, I do not believe that a god exists. However I do not, and can never, know for sure that a god doesn't exist, just as I can't know for sure that there aren't leprechauns living in my closet that hide every time I open the door. So, that would make you an agnostic atheist: you lack belief in a god, as well as knowledge regarding that god's existence. Referring back to the strong atheism above, a gnostic atheist would be someone who KNOWS a god does not exist. Again, this is not representative of most atheists.
The word agnosticism is frequently misused as not being sure whether or not you believe in god. That's sort of become the common usage for it, but it's incorrect. I think the reason many people use the atheist label is because, as they learn more about their beliefs, they realize that the term "agnostic" is no longer accurate. Then again, I'm not sure that more people actually use the atheist label. The term "agnostic" is at least slightly less reviled that the term "atheist" which is one reason that many people choose to use it (not realizing that the distinction is not what they believe it to be).
I hope this answered your question. I probably typed more than necessary, it's a bad habit of mine
Comment by Timothy Powell
my second my first blog
poetryatrics
By the way what do you think atheism translates to? it is not 'lacking a belief in God or Gods' it means the opposite of theism which is a belief in God. So that would be the belief that God does not exist.
Theism atheism and agnosticism all depend on belief. None of these belief systems can be 'proven' not logically or empirically. Now you can claim to have belief in the lack of belief in God but that simply reduces to belief that God does not exist. You have to choose to be an atheist just like you have to choose to be a theist or agnostic. As i have shown your soft atheism is a default position for everything that exists and thus is completely useless to anyone. You can't deny that you have to chose the postion of atheism and as such you are implicitly believing in the absense of God. Agnosicism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. That's it it has nothing to do with 'what you know' the fact that you made that statement says everything really because you contradict yourself later when you claim that agnosticism is just a different shade of atheism how can something based on belief and something based on 'what we know' be the same? are you claiming that belief and knowledge are interchangable/synonymous? You need to go back and actually think about what you are saying. Atheism and agnosticism are completely seperate positions and no matter what you say you have to choose them which means you believe in the essetial tennants of the position. By the way it is easy to logically prove that something cannot exist it is called a logical fallacy like the 'stone so heavy that even God can't lift it' Next time you try to 'show your intellectual superiority as an atheist' try considering the implications of the position you claim to believe in and what someone else is saying because you end up making yourself look very stupid. Oh yeah and nice irony with 'most people misuse the term agnosticim'
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
However, do you really want to get into an argument about this? This is one of the reasons I am not around Orble much anymore: people who think that because they're anonymous behind a keyboard, basic civility is not required. I don't understand that. If you want to have a discussion with someone, or if you feel that someone has said something in error, try being polite. It's amazing how much more inclined it makes people to answer you, rather than writing you off as someone looking for a fight.
With that being said, I find several errors in your argument above.
Despite your assertion, atheism means "lacking a belief in a god or gods". The prefix a- means "without". Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods". So, atheism is the position of being without a belief in a god or gods. That's it. It is not a positive assertion that a god definitely does not exist, because that would entail knowledge that is unobtainable. Yes, some people (frequently theists) use the word to mean a positive denial of god, but that is not the way most atheists generally apply the label to themselves. Once we start talking about knowledge, we're talking about gnosticism and agnosticism. Yes, agnosticism and atheism are different things, but not so very much. If your agnosticism prevents you from answering the question of "do you believe a god exists" with a yes, then you are an atheist (an agnostic atheist), as you lack a belief in that god. Here’s an excerpt from an essay I found by Gordon Stein (a noted skeptic who died in 1996). I think it expresses this view very well:
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
You claim that only 'hard atheism' is a positive belief that God does not exist. Does this mean that everyone who is not aware of God or who doesnt actively choose to believe in God is an atheist?
Yes. What else should I call them? Potential theists? As I've already said, atheism is just lacking a belief in a god. That's it. The term says nothing at all about whether or not they might believe in a god at some point in the future, or about any of their views on anything else at all. It's just a word to describe a position (or lack thereof) on one point. It ABSOLUTELY is the default position for everyone, I couldn't agree more. But why is that useless? Not believing you can fly is a default position as well. Is that useless? Believing unfounded things can be dangerous, so it’s probably a good thing that our default position tends to be unbelief. Until someone offers some actual evidence, gods and flying people are about equally worthy of consideration. The babies and rocks argument is completely absurd and untenable, by the way, as to the best of my knowledge babies and rocks are also not democrats, conservatives, Marxists or Yankees fans. Maybe we should limit our arguments to sentient beings with the capacity to form complex opinions?
You have to choose to be an atheist just like you have to choose to be a theist or agnostic.
No. I imagine we're going to have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, because I don't see it that way at all. Belief is not a choice. It is not subject to the will. Belief is the result of being convinced (or unconvinced) by evidence. You can't decide to believe something. Go ahead and try it. Close your eyes and decide that you're going to believe that Elvis lives in your closet, and he's making you a grilled cheese sandwich right now, but if you look for him he'll turn invisible and intangible. Do you believe it yet? Try harder! I'm betting it's not working. That's an absurd example, but it works for this purpose. Without some evidence that Elvis lives in your closet, you can't choose to believe or disbelieve that statement. While the statement can never be proven false, given the set of conditions listed, there is absolutely no reasonable way to give it any credence. Are you making a choice by disbelieving, or is that simply the result of not being convinced by the available evidence? Now, let’s tweak the example and say you looked in the closet and, sure enough, you did not see Elvis but you DID find a sandwich crust. Would that convince you that the whole statement must be true? Possibly, as the evidence that convinces people that a god exists is about as flimsy as that crust of bread. But if you do conclude that Elvis and the grilled cheese are there, based on that bit of sandwich, it still is not a choice. You have been convinced by evidence that you perceive is in support of the statement. Obviously there are an infinite number of explanations for the scrap of sandwich more plausible than an invisible Elvis (at least in my mind), but that does not change the fact that some marginal evidence that the statement could be true persuaded you. You did not “choose” it; you accepted it. That’s the way belief works, you either accept data as true or you don’t. I can't choose whether or not to believe in god. Without good evidence it is simply a non-issue. The information that is commonly presented as evidence strikes me as entirely unpersuasive and inadequate. I don’t choose to feel that way, I simply feel that way. It's not that I decided not to believe in god, it's that nothing has convinced me otherwise. I’m compelled by what I see (and don’t see) to make the conclusions I make. Do you honestly think that it’s possible to choose what you believe? That implies that I could see clear evidence for something but exercise my will to disbelieve it anyway. If Zeus shows up in Times Square and starts flinging lightning bolts I’d say choice sort of goes out the window, whether I want to believe in Zeus or not. Even people who are delusional and clearly believe things that are demonstrably untrue believe them based on some sort of personal evidence and conviction. There is a big, important difference between this view and your statement above. Being convinced by something is not the same as making a choice. The only choice I made was to use the label. The beliefs behind it are dependent on the evidence. If and when the evidence dramatically changes, the beliefs probably change as well.
are you claiming that belief and knowledge are interchangable/synonymous?
Not exactly, no. They are not synonymous, but they are inter-dependent. Do you know things you don't believe, or vice versa? Doubtful. If you do, you shouldn't. I may not have made my point as clearly as I should have initially, I admit, but I think if you actually read what I wrote you'll see that I noted the distinctions. Even so, the bottom still line holds, that being agnostic (i.e. thinking that ultimate knowledge of god is unknowable) generally results in lacking a belief in a god (although, as Stein noted, it is also possible to be an agnostic theist). Conversely, most atheists are open to the idea that despite their oftentimes strong unbelief in a god, that god's existence or non-existence is ultimately unknowable. In this instance, there is much overlap.
Agnosicism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. That's it it has nothing to do with 'what you know'
So, you're saying that not knowing something has nothing to do with what you know? Ha. OK. I’m still not sure why you find this statement (‘Atheism deals with what you believe, agnosticism deals with what you know’) so amusing. That’s pretty much the definition of those words. One deals with belief, one deals with knowledge. Problem? Now, as to your citing of my apparent contradiction, I’ve already stated above that while, yes, they are different things, they overlap so heavily that I see it as futile to try to address them entirely separately. They are complimentary terms that work together to describe someone’s attitude toward the idea of a god or gods. Another reason I describe agnosticism as being a form of atheism is more pragmatic. If you are like most self-described agnostics and your agnosticism means that you don't worship a god, attend services, observe rituals, adhere to dogmas, etc., then what is the difference between you and me? The end result is the same, In practice they're often hard to tell apart.
By the way it is easy to logically prove that something cannot exist it is called a logical fallacy like the 'stone so heavy that even God can't lift it'
I completely agree. What I actually said was "it is not logically possible to prove a negative". As in, disproving things for which we have a complete absence of evidence. See the difference? By all means, if you CAN do it, let me know. Prove conclusively the statement that god, Santa Claus, leprechauns, imps, Bigfoot, aliens, chupacabra, vampires, fairies, gremlins, Medusa, and the Loch Ness monster do not exist. I'll wait. If you can't do it, does that mean that we should be ambivalent about the existence of all those things? Are you agnostic about gremlins too? Honestly, I don't see the point to that position. There comes a time when it makes sense to say that, given the available evidence, you think something is untrue. That does not mean that new evidence might not convince you otherwise! But the wishy-washy "unknowable" position is just bizarre. Unknowns are a part of life; almost nothing is known to a 100% degree of certainty. How do you make decisions, if not by weighing evidence for and against and being swayed by the strongest case? Do you refuse to say that you know anything?? There's a paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I looked at per your recommendation) that echoes this sentiment. I liked it.
"Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy."
Can I say for sure that I know that there is no god? No. But I can say that based on the evidence, I know that there is probably no god. Room for error? Always. But it's unlikely. That sliver of doubt is not enough to sway me, and because of that I do not believe that there is a god. I have an opinion based on evidence and observation. Everyone does. Thus the reason that I find the agnostic label, used by itself, to be complete BS. While it certainly suggests that you do not find the idea of god particularly plausible, in the end it tells me nothing about what you really believe. The term agnostic, used by itself, is a dodge. I’m an agnostic as well, but absent a declaration of my belief (theist or atheist), who cares? You have some opinion on the matter, whether you wish to commit to the idea or not. Isn’t that more important? What do you believe based on what we know now? Either you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably does, which makes you a theist, or you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably doesn’t, making you an atheist. You can be agnostic about either position, but you must give more weight to one than the other. By itself agnosticism is a non-position, and as such it is completely useless.
You know, I'm really not on here much anymore. I happened to check back today out of curiosity as to whether or not you responded. I wasn't expecting the hostility, that's for sure. I’m not sure what your beef is, or where you got the 'show your intellectual superiority as an atheist' line from: I sure didn’t say it, so I’m not sure why it’s in quotes. I’m not trying to show my superior anything – are you?
I'll probably check back again at some point. But I just don't have it in me anymore for these long, tedious, back and forth arguments. The only reason I have written such a long response is because you said a lot of things I had an issue with, and you said them in an antagonistic fashion. I'll generally respond once to someone when they're impolite, but not twice. I like discussing things, and I'm more than open to respectful differences of opinion. If at some point you want to respectfully continue to explore our differences, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, let's not bother pursuing a discussion that will go nowhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this discussion if it's just going to be a pissing contest. In the end, we're both entitled to our opinions anyway, and neither one of us has to like the other's.
Comment by Timothy Powell
my second my first blog
poetryatrics
Comment by Timothy Powell
my second my first blog
poetryatrics
and so yes this essentially means that belief and knowledge are synonomous