What's your opinion on atheism?

I think it’s throwing the bathwater out with the baby, but I’m sure an atheist will correct me on that.

I thin God loves atheists too.

My opinion on atheists is that they have an opinion and I have mine and that’s about it.

@kevbo: Not an atheist, but I’m amused by your (intentional?) reversal of the idiom, as if the baby/God were the bad thing, there.

I am a weak atheist (“Given current evidence I do not see any reason to believe in God”, to be exact). This means that in my opinion, atheism (in its weak form) is really the sensible way to go. But like @absalom, my thinking is that as far as I care. people can believe whatever, as long as they do not start to use it as an excuse to impose their morals on me.

There is “militant” atheism like there is fanatic anything. I do not particularly approve of fanatism.

I’m an Atheist, & concequently I have a favorable opinion of it. That being said I have a CoE mum & an Islamic older brother so I’ve also learnt to accept that my opinions aren’t necessarily correct. All I can really say is that in my life I’ve not experienced anything that would lead me to conclude that there’s a supernatural side to existance. If, however, that changes, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly.

I’m agnostic but have leanings towards secular humanism, unfortunately faith doesn’t give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.

@octopussy ; My faith KEEPS me asking questions. I learn new things about God every day. I also learn new things about creation that cause me to ask more questions. The difference is, I don’t throw a tizzy fit and cover my ears and say, “If I don’t understand right this minuet I will not believe anymore.” I am content when I get the answer, “It will all be revealed at the proper time.”
It doesn’t stop me from asking the questions though, and often the answers are made clear in ways I would never expect.
I know I am going to regret getting into this. I really don’t want to argue or proselytize, I just felt like I needed to correct the statement that faith means you stop asking questions.

my opinion? its the new “in” thing like being bisexual. lots of kids are just hoppin the bandwagon.

@TheJoker umm..your birth? lol

@earllyan ; plase don’t put spam on fluther!

God loves everyone. Besides, being atheist doesn’t change anything about your personality. The only difference is that one has faith in the Lord and one has faith in the sciences…its not like all atheists are serial killers and rapists or something.
@earllyan I would check out the site, but I don’t wear a tie.

@Judi I apologise, I was making a generalisation here based on my dealings with Christians that I know and interact with and no I don’t want to argue the point either because we will just go around in circles :)

@octopussy, yes, mutual respect for people who have differing opinions is a wonderful thing :-)

“Atheism” is positive. Although it is constructed with the privative prefix (negative in the sense of “without,” not “against”), it should be viewed as a double negative. By comparison, “non-violence” is considered to be a positive word. Since “theism” is unreasonable and even dangerous, the message that we can be free of it is good news. Atheism is like having a large debt cancelled.

I dislike atheists that try to shove it down other people’s noses and try to make themselves seem better than the religious because they are superior. But then again, I dislike religious people who do the same. Basically I am one for “each to his own”.

Personally, I am an atheist/scientist but I wouldn’t have wanted the world to remove religion entirely. Else where would I get my reading literature, music, philosophy, and other cultural shiz that stems from Christianity, Islam and the likes?

Probably going to sound contradicting here, but I view my atheism (at least) as just not believing that there is a God in the same way that most people don’t believe there is Russel’s teacup flying around in space. I tend to prefer evidence and reasoning over faith. And my reasoning for no God is that surely he would be even slightly interactive and not just get people to ‘blindly’ follow him based on the words of thousands of years of literature and the psychology need for meaning. Unless of course if he didn’t indeed care that we believed in him or not, in which case being atheist makes no difference. Also I find no evidence that he directly exists.

@Ame_Evil that’s what most people dislike about any religion or belief.

In my opinion, Atheists don’t believe in a supreme being and Agnostics don’t believe anything exists outside of the material world. But it’s only my opinion.

I can say I am not crazy about the ones who feel it is their duty in life to be obnoxious about their belief. If I don’t shove my belief down your throat than they should respect my right to believe what I want to believe.

@bigboss….. Hahahahaha, cheeky :)

I try to believe in myself first from there I will figure out the rest….

Well, it would be a perfect World, if all people respected others for whatever they believe. That ain’t going to happen, as we all know….without saying!

Regardless of somone’s looks, beliefs, race, gender, etc., it would be real cool if we just loved one another and let each person find their own way in regard to religion.

Bottomline, God loves all people and that would certainly include people of all religions. We should do the same!

@BoBo1946 I do not think it is completely reasonable to equate “beliefs” with looks, gender, race etc when deciding to let them go their way. After all, “it is alright to kill gays because God hates them” or “girls should not taught to read” are beliefs. Personally, I find “your religious/political/whatever world view is none of my business” to be a bit of a cop-out.

That said, I do agree that it would be cool if we just all got along and had a religion or lack there-of that did not interfere with other people’s rights. ;)

I find radical atheism to be as obnoxious as radical religious belief, if it is directed at me. I am an agnostic in the classical sense ( a=not, gnosis=knowing) and have seen no evidence to support either position. I try to live a life of principle, doing as little harm as possible to thers, sometimes I even succeed. Radical atheism has become a belief system in itself and its evanlgelists can be every bit as irritating as Robertson, Dobson, etc. It’s not religion that is causing the worlds miseries, but evangelism. Ugh…my tribe right, yours wrong…convert or burn!!

@Janka you did not read the part of my answer that says, “in a perfect world?” Don’t understand your problem with my answer.

I think atheism is the better label for me than agnostic, even though strictly speakking, I am agnostic: I don’t know for sure. However, people belief agnostics to be unbiased toward the two options of (un)existence of an almighty god. I call myself atheist, since I think it is a fairer representation of my estimation of god’s existence, which I think is infinitely unlikely.

I think that some people’s point of view that atheists are being ‘against god’ is ridiculous. Why would one be against something that one doesn’t belief to exist?

True enough many atheists, including myself, may make snide remarks on religion, but please understand that for nonreligious people many of the things said by religious people comes across as totally silly.

For a non-believer there is no more reason to have more respect for the belief in God, Allah and Jesus than for the belief in fairies and lapricorns. Personally, I will always strive for that respect to be there and always do my best to respect especially the people who belief, as people. As soon as discussions start, however, that sometimes becomes hard, more so when religionists claims exclusivity to morals and ethics.

furthermore:I will always fiercely defend people’s rights to their own belief, but I would just like there to be less violence and misery stemming from religion.

I think it’s a viable belief system. Though speaking of militant atheism is just the same as fundamentalist or extremist anything. There’s people with moderate beliefs that are normal, then there’s always militant idiots.

@kevbo Oddly enough that’s what my mother says too. (I’m an antheist, my parents are both cathoilcs, even though we live in italy so it’s hard to explain the huge differences in the approach to religion that we have in our culture)

I frankly don’t see it.

Ok the bathwater is supposed to be relgion and the baby is uspposed to be god (correct me if i misunderstood), but the metaphor for atheism would more likely be “tossing the baby out the window along with the bed he sleeps in”. Since the part i tossed out wasn’t religion at all.

Religon, to me, was never an issue to begin with, it never stuck on me and i usually saw it as a metaphor. Then i went into song lyrics interpretation and OH BOY i realized i could make ANYTHING into a metaphor. So i thought it through and i became agnostic for a while. I then took a good hard look in the mirror and after debating and arguing with more “hard core” believers i realized that mostof the values that i had been thaught dobn’t actually come from christianity but from common sense and that in many cases the bible openly speaks in the opposite direction (Slavery, rape, equal rights between men and women, tolerance, etc). I therefore realized that it wasn’t the fact that those norms were god given that made them important (Kinda slow, i agree) and that god wasn’t needed at all.

And that was when i tossed God and, obviously, religion out the window. It wasn’t a necessary part of existence from a scientific standpoint nor, from that point on, from a moral standpoint.

@Judi, I don’t share your faith in any way, but I like your answers.

I’m an atheist, and when people ask me why I tell them, “God made me this way.”

@CyanoticWasp LOLL…got’cha…good answer!

@CyanoticWasp hey, I’m a Christian (not the best one on the team, but will make a good waterboy), but God made me this way also…and sometimes, not real proud of myself…it is a complicated World and people get so offended by our answers sometimes…loved Judi answer also!

@BoBo1946 , answered in private.

@Janka thank you!

Atheists seem to be rather intelligent people who have allowed their intellect to dominate their hearts. I call it “intellectual hubris.”

Militant anything especially within the confines of religion serve only to derail and distract from the good part of a religion. Even atheists or agnostics are generally peaceful in their beliefs or lack thereof. Throw in the militant quotient and you merely have attention getting trouble for troubles sake.

@CaptainHarley No, it is not necessarily like that for everyone. I follow my heart too, not just my head, despite being an atheist. It is (unfortunately?) not true that everyone who truly listens to their heart and asks to be saved will find belief. There are a lot of atheists who are former religious people who have sincerely and honestly prayed for God to give them faith and keep live, but for some reason that has not happened.

@Janka

I understand perfectly. For several years I was an atheist, so I know there is truth in what you say.

On the internet, I know I have a habit of appearing to be a “militant atheist”. This is because IRL, I’m still “in the closet”. What I am not free to express to those in my immediate surroundings, I take out on others on the Internet. It keeps me sane, and my marriage functional.

Many people take the stance “You have your beliefs, I have mine. Whatever.” And I’ll be honest, it kind of gets my goat. Atheism is not a belief system. It’s simply the product of our persistent need to give a name to everything. No one is born with religion. It is thrust upon them by family, by friends, or by society. “Atheism” is the default setting. It is neither positive or negative – it’s simply what is.

If you’re one of those who did have religion thrust upon you, and later deconverted to “atheism”, atheism is a positive thing as you are no longer bound by the tenets of your rejected doctrine, nor threatened with punishment for disobeying them.

Observation only: seems to me..correct me, if i’m wrong! if you are secure and happy with your beliefs, why be so combative with people who do believe? Plus, if you mention religion, more non-believers will answer the question than believers!

@octopussy is so correct…why discuss…as O said to Judi, “I apologise, I was making a generalisation here based on my dealings with Christians that I know and interact with and no I don’t want to argue the point either because we will just go around in circles :)”

My grandfather always said, “boy don’t ever discuss politics or religion with a friend, if you want to keep them!”

How true!

Btw, certainly would never push my beliefs on anyone! Got enough problems with myself.

@Seek_Kolinahr I like your comments cuts right to the chase!

Thank you, @Cruiser :-)

I think atheism is hard to define, in that there are no basic principles that all atheists accept like there are in religions. The only thing atheists all have in common is their disbelief in gods. I often find myself disagreeing with other atheists, but that is perfectly natural because atheism is not a belief system.

I must disagree with @Seek_Kolinahr though; atheism is not the default state, agnosticism is. People who have never thought about religious issues to any depth are agnostics, because without consideration of the issue it is impossible to make an assertion either way. Atheists positively assert that there is no god(s), and therefore have set up a stance that is not the default.

Atheism has a lot of potential to free people from the religious ideas that trap so many people. I owe much of my current understanding to fellow atheists, without whom I would still be a Christian unable to comprehend a view other than my own. However, I hope one day that the term ‘atheist’ will be obsolete, as theism will die and there will be no imaginary entity to deny the existence of. I realise that this is hundreds or even thousands of years away. Unfortunately many people are not ready to accept such a theory.

I think atheists leave me alone a whole hell of a lot more often that religious people do.

@FireMadeFlesh More good thoughts on the subject…GA!

I think that “militant” atheism is a myth promoted by religious apologists as part of an attack on atheism. What is militant about these atheists? That they write a few books or blogs arguing their point of view? If you called every religious person who did that “militant” you would have an awfully long list. Militant Muslims kill hundreds or thousands of people in suicide attacks. Militant Christians murder abortion providers. Militant atheists write blogs. The word militant should not apply to one of these cases. I hear this talk about people being upset about “fanatical” or “radical” or “militant” atheists and all I hear is exaggeration. You have to go out and find their books and blogs and read them to hear their message, how is that shoved in your face? When was the last time an atheist stranger knocked on your door during dinner to tell you the good news that there is no god? Atheists are the most hated minority in America (polls show that more Americans would vote for a black, Jewish, female, or gay president of their own party than would vote for an atheist and that more families would accept their relatives marrying any other race than would accept them marrying an atheist) and yet somehow the Christian martyr complex has the overwhelming majority religion acting as if they’ve been victimized by this minority. It’s absurd.

Now I’m sure I’ll hear two arguments:
1. That atheists have killed millions, citing the major Communist bloc countries and Hitler. But that’s beside my point. No one is running around today saying: “Atheism rules!” and setting off the bomb under their coat. A few megalomaniacs who said atheism was a part of their system and who killed for power and control is not the same as people killing for their religion, Hitler was not an atheist, and that’s not happening now.
2. But there are all the angry arguments on blog comments and on religious threads.
Well, sorry, that’s got nothing to do with “militant” atheism, that’s the nature of the internet. People love to argue with anonymous strangers, and some of them go overboard. There are at least as many Christians showing up and being at least as insulting on atheist blogs and forums, so suck it up or find a friendlier medium, or censor comments. Flames go hand in hand with blogs and forums, they should mostly be ignored.

Hear here, @Snarp .

I think people put the label of ‘militant’ on anything they think is going ‘too far’ according to their own views on life..it’s a meaningless term

@FireMadeFlesh You fundamentally misunderstand what atheism and agnosticism mean. It is entirely possible, even common, to be both agnostic and atheist. What the default position should be is agnostic atheism. Agnostic means that one does not have any direct knowledge of the existence or non existence of a god. From that position of no direct knowledge one can either believe or not believe. It seems to me that most agnostics are also atheists. Belief is active, if you say “oh, I’m agnostic”. That’s different from “I believe”. If you can’t say “I believe” then you do not believe, therefore you are an atheist, even if you are also agnostic. The term agnostic has been misappropriated to provide cover for atheists who don’t want to flat out say what they are.

Wikipedia is a decent starting place on what “agnostic” really means.

@CaptainHarley…. thats a wonderful expression ‘intellectual hubris’ & wouldn’t argue against that. I’ve certainly thought my way out of any possibility of belief in a supreme being…. excluding the unexpected like him appearing infront of me when I’d have no choice but to accept.

@Snarp GA for the first post.

Agnosticism is “the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists” Encarta, while atheism is “disbelief in the existence of God or deities” Encarta.

In academic pursuits, no assertion is made until evidence indicates a particular direction. While my use of the term agnosticism was not entirely correct, in that the default position does not say a proof is impossible, the default position cannot be atheism. I don’t accept that a person can be both agnostic and atheist, because if they say it is impossible to prove then an assertion of belief or disbelief is foolish.

Many people in the general public will call themselves an atheist just because they don’t buy into religious ideas, but this is not really atheism. The one thing atheists have in common is that their disbelief is not based on hunches or feelings, but rather on a lack of evidence. An agnostic believes that evidence for or against a deity cannot exist, and they can do no more with this lack of information. An atheist has information they believe points to the improbability of a deity existing, and so do not believe.

@FireMadeFlesh I am both an agnostic and an atheist. Atheism is the absence of a belief in god(s). Either you believe or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are an atheist. Also, the fact that I cannot know for certain whether god(s) exist, doesn’t mean that there cannot be evidence for or against. There is no evidence for. There is a mountain of evidence against the Abrahamic god at least.

Can’t somebody make a spellcheck algorithm that can detect inappropriate use of there, their, and they’re?

@FireMadeFlesh

If one is never introduced the the idea of a supernatural deity by family or society, they will have no need to question. They will simply “not believe”. If there is no concept of god, there is no belief that they cannot know. Agnosticism is the assertion of a belief, even if that belief is “I don’t know”. Atheism is the lack of a belief system.

@Snarp “Militant Muslims kill hundreds or thousands of people in suicide attacks. Militant Christians murder abortion providers. Militant atheists write blogs.” You have a good point.

It’s the only ratoional and logical explanation of religion that I can find.

“Militant Muslims kill hundreds or thousands of people in suicide attacks. Militant Christians murder abortion providers. Militant atheists write blogs.” “You have a good point.”

I agree…...That was awesome. I’m using that quote now lol.

@Blackberry Feel free.

@Snarp and @Seek_Kolinahr I believe I have made a mistake, thanks for the explanation.

I still think there is a distinction between not believing in gods and believing that there are no gods. Maybe this is the difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ forms of atheism.

Yes, if God exists, he loves atheists too.

I only have a problem with aggressive, intolerant atheists and their hurling of polemics and their hasty generalizations about religious people and organized religion in general.

On average atheists are better educated than believers and most atheists are capable of critical thinking, which includes their willingness to question their own views.

Although I’m a religious person I share many values with atheists.

Atheism is the strangest of all the religions.

@FireMadeFlesh It’s a common mistake. It’s such a popular view of agnosticism and atheism that I feel the need to argue against it when it comes up.

There is some distinction between absence of belief and belief in absence, and if you’ve got to label that distinction “hard” and “soft” is as good a way as any. My problem is that making that distinction remains a way for some atheists to distance themselves from others, and when you are as small a minority as atheists, I think that trying to isolate yourself from other atheists is unwise, and it’s unfair to other atheists. It enables one to escape the judgment often leveled against atheists in a religious society while still being an atheist.

@Christian95 Have you got a link to the TED talk?

@bigboss What exactly about being born is supernatural?

@bigboss I’m with @benjaminlevi

I was present at my son’s birth (ha ha…) and there was nothing supernatural about it.

Believe me, I would have been more than amicable to a host of heavenly bodies descending upon the hospital bed and drawing my child painlessly from my womb… however, it took me 37 hours and two liters of blood to deliver that kid. God doesn’t get the credit.

I don’t get the need for the whole ‘god loves atheists too’...was I asking if god does or doesn’t? it’s so condescending…like, don’t worry, little doggy, you’re still okay by Jesus…um, I’m not worried and no thanks

@Zen_Again ditto, ditto, and ditto!

@Simone_De_Beauvoir
Any god that is planning to love me, should realize that I am all into equality in my relationships and hir love will remain unanswered.

@whitenoise is “hir” a typo, or a convenient way of abbreviating “his or her”?

Oh…I don’t know :P

I think that atheists have a really bad stereotype. They are not minions of the devil, they just don’t believe in a god. Agnostic people, are probably 80% of the people in the world. Most people don’t seem to really have a religion, and if they do they usually don’t practice it and fully have faith in their religion.

I consider myself to be the hardest version of atheism available on the planet. What do i think about it? I think it’s the truth. I think it’s worth knowing. I think it makes sense. I sincerely hope for non-atheists to join me in my convictions, as I’ve found them more than just satisfying, but also important for the good of all human kind.

And of course, if I’m wrong about atheism, I would like to know.

Thank God for atheism.

@Snarp the latter.

@Snarp hir wasn’t a typo (see here).

[mod says] Spam link removed via internal editing.

Just two small points to consider:

1. There is a vast difference between having faith and having a religion. Neither is a guarantee of the other.

2. Hubris means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

@CaptainHarley
3. And people with various religious beliefs can have just as much hubris as anyone else.

@CyanoticWasp

4. The question was about atheists. I would never, ever make the claim that religious people could never be guilty of hubris! And don’t forget point number one! : )

@CaptainHarley In the United States there are very few atheists in positions of power. In major elected office there are none.

@Snarp

Where the heck did THAT come from??

i think it was a point #5.

6.) hubris is inevitable. everyone has the same amount.

@CaptainHarley Isn’t this a thread about atheism? Didn’t you just say this: “2. Hubris means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.” (emphasis added) as an expansion on this: “Atheists seem to be rather intelligent people who have allowed their intellect to dominate their hearts. I call it “intellectual hubris.””?

Here‘s someone smarter than any of us on atheism.

ouch, snarp! i take offense to that comment!

:) naw, bertrand’s full of awesome. but I do disagree with the notion that religious beliefs don’t have a practical value. from a deterministic stand point the religions of the world, hopefully finally dying out under the weight of superior scientific understanding, were required in the development of society. They shaped society providing a false but enjoyable pretense for morality allowing civilization to get as far as it has.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with someone having their own oppion on religion. If you don’t believe in god then you don’t believe in god. I myself persondaly don’t believe that Jesus was gods son, he may have existed but i’m not going to believe that he’s “gods son” or was that amazing. I am personaly agnostic which means I do believe in god just basically not in orginized religion. Why would god have us follow different religions where there is only one god. anyways, to each is their own.

@ninjacolin I zoned out for part of that interview, but as I understood it he was arguing not that there is no practical purpose for religion, but that it is wrong to believe something because it is practical when you don’t actually think that it is true. I also felt he was speaking more from the viewpoint of religion in modern life than of any positive effects religion might have had in the past.

Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief or belief system. It is no more monolithic than Christianity; in fact, any two atheists are as likely as not to differ over what they mean by it and what it means in their lives. Generalizing about atheists is as fruitless an exercise as generalizing about people who drink Coca Cola versus those who drink Pepsi.

I haven’t read all the answers on this yet… I found the question a little late.
But my dad’s an atheist, and doesn’t let me forget it… so here’s my view. (I dunno if it’s similar to others up there, yet, I’ll get to those..)
I think atheism is in a way a type of religion… they’re argument is that since there’s no proof God exists, He doesn’t…. but they do that without proof to the contrary, either. So they’re choosing to believe that a lack of positive evidence is the same as actual negative evidence.. I don’t think it is.
I have nothing against atheism, or any religion, as long as an atheist doesn’t try to shove their belief down my throat, like my dad did. I think because he’s my first exposure to atheism, the way he talked about it so absolutely to me, and bashed any beliefs other than his own—the way he said people who believed in an afterlife of any kind were delusioned and didn’t think for themselves… I kinda see atheism in a negative light… But if someone’s atheist, and that’s all they say about it, they don’t decide they need to “enlighten” me, I’m fine with them believing what they want… the way I see it, we don’t know until we die, really; we believe what makes the most sense to and comforts us the most. Who am I to take away that person’s right to figure out the world for themself? I would want that, so why should I take it from them?
Because I know what it’s like to have that choice of yours sorta taken… my dad did that to me. The only thing I’ve known since I could understand death was that it was the end, because that’s what he told me, over and over. I’ve gotten to a point where personally, I don’t necessarily think it’s the end. I can’t help but be skeptical, though, because that’s kinda imprinted in my brain… Now I think of it in a way I first heard as Dumbledore telling Harry Potter: it’s just another big adventure in life. : )
So I let it be an adventure… I love surprises, and it’s a ways off for me.
And I let the atheists believe what they believe, and I let the religious people believe what they want. I don’t think of one as wrong or one as right…
I only have a problem if they decide to tell me that I’m wrong by not agreeing with them.
I guess I didn’t really answer the question though, because I’m not a ‘religious’ person viewing atheism… hm.

I never saw any sense in any of the “god” stories, so I see no reason to believe there is any such thing.

However, I don’t see why my tax money should be spent to promote any religion, and if it takes a so-called militant like Atty. Michael Newdow to protect my First Amendment Constitutional rights, then I will support him.

@Jeruba I’m nothing like a coca cola lover. We share no likeness. GO PEPSI! (Sorry couldn’t help myself) I’m a Pepsi fanatic

“So they’re choosing to believe that a lack of positive evidence is the same as actual negative evidence.. I don’t think it is.”

That’s not quite true, at least not for me. I believe there is negative evidence, but that is not for this discussion. A lack of positive evidence helps to rule out, because a theory as complex of that of a god would inevitably leave a mark on nature. No god that wanted or required our worship would play hide and seek with humanity. If there is a god, he/she left us alone a long time ago, had no hand in creating the universe and life, and is really quite useless. Such a god does not deserve our worship, and so can be ignored.

Yes, I understand, @Pandora, but the point is: are you like all other Pepsi lovers?

They think what they think, they just better hope they are correct or eternity will be a mother for them. :-)

Most people who cannot accept agnosticism or atheism (even more so) as viable options are usually repressing their own fears and insecurity.

I’m having an Answer Bag flashback

LMAO @evandad

Who cares what you believe. It’s how you act that counts.

^ the problem is your beliefs cause your actions.
imagine if you believed your house was on fire

@evandad… it does seem strangely familiar!

@Siren As @ninjacolin said, beliefs influence actions. If the Taliban did not believe in their breed of Islam, they would not kill people for minor moral offences, they would not declare jihad on the west, and they would not bother with those silly beards. If a schizophrenic person did not believe the voices in their head were real, they would behave the same as the rest of us. That is why we bother with debating beliefs, because thinking a certain way leads to acting a certain way.

@FireMadeFlesh: I don’t think debating beliefs does anything except anger the truly devout (of any religion). But that’s just my opinion. The reality is, regardless of your religious beliefs (or whatever you follow), that ultimately we are responsible for our own actions. I don’t see atheists running amuck on the streets because they don’t believe in retribution by a God. If you believe in something or don’t, it’s really of no consequence, whatsoever. Your actions define who you are, period. You can justify your actions by blaming your mother, your God, your devil, the vampire next door (had to stake him, he was going to kill me) or your dog. It’s you.

^ @Siren, i’m very curious how you might define the term “you”

Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organisation

Agnosticism: when you don’t know WHAT to believe, but do so furiously! : D

@CaptainHarley Agnostics, in my opinion, are not people who don’t know what to believe. I guess you can say that they don’t believe in ‘belief,’ as religious beliefs are irrational by their very nature (it’s that ole ‘leap of faith’ that every believer must take). And I don’t believe it’s in the makeup of agnostics to espouse their views furiously. I feel they tend to take a more ‘live and let live’ attitude. Now maybe atheism is a different story. Agnostics reject atheism because it is a belief system, albeit one based heavily on reason (as they believe only what can be observed or perceived but leave no room for even the possibility of the supernatural). A furious agnostic seems like an oxymoron to me.

You take things WAYYY too seriously! : )

@Siren Debating beliefs has a lot of value. It is from debate that Christians started to accept evolution, and that contemporaries of Galileo and Copernicus broke down the Catholic Church’s aversion to science. Debate is how change occurs in academic settings, and although this change is slow, it is important. It is also through personal debate that I became an atheist – I refuse to give up on people, because in the past people did not give up on me and eventually there were results.
I agree that people use belief systems to justify what they would have done anyway, but beliefs also influence actions. It works both ways, and if you can show that an action has no basis then it is less likely to occur. Progress is slow, but it is worth it.

@Polly_Math Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief. Agnosticism says nothing about belief, only about the nature of knowledge. Agnosticism and atheism address different things, but they are not exclusive, nor are they synonymous. One can be (and many are) both agnostic and atheist. One can also be both agnostic and theist, though I think that’s rarer. In fact, if you are agnostic, you really are one of these two categories. Either you believe there is a god or you don’t. If you don’t you are an atheist, though you may also be agnostic. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@FireMadeFlesh: That’s all good and well, but looking at the flipside—-

Beliefs keep some people from doing what their natural (or unnatural) instincts tell them to do in following their own interests at the expense of society.

I now bow out of this debate. Good day.

Don’t forget that even scientists do have beliefs. For example that the natural laws work the same way next week (one cannot prove this). They’ve got faith in an orderly universe. Beliefs must not necessarily be a bad thing. They can of course, if you think of young-earth creationism or the 72-virgin paradise for mass murderers.

@CaptainHarley Sorry, Cap. I’m usually one who doesn’t take things seriously enough. Had a bad day, and wish a good day to you, sir!

@Siren said: “If you believe in something or don’t, it’s really of no consequence, whatsoever.”

Actually, you haven’t made your point. The reason atheists don’t run amuck in the streets is because they don’t believe they should. That is, they believe they should live “normal”.. good lives.

Those who believe they ought to cause trouble, like the Black Block, or car thieves, do.

I’ll say it again: Beliefs cause actions.

@Siren said: “Your actions define who you are, period. You can justify your actions by blaming your mother, your God, your devil, the vampire next door (had to stake him, he was going to kill me) or your dog. It’s you.”

A lot of people believe this, it is very common and highly inaccurate. Your actions are merely a reflection of your beliefs. Beliefs coerce all human behavior.

This is to say, Siren, Beliefs themselves have consequences. If I believe I need to get up and go to work, I will get up and go to work. If I believe I need to rob a bank, a bank will be robbed. If I believe I need to rally to get God put back in schools, the rally will happen. If I believe a country needs to be terrorized, terror will happen to that country.

And I’m not talking about “Wishful thinking”.. I mean, that’s how things get done. Necessarily, via beliefs.
—

Aw, don’t bow out, @Siren. Debating together let’s us progress together.

“Beliefs keep some people from doing what their natural (or unnatural) instincts tell them to do in following their own interests at the expense of society.”

I fully agree with you. That’s why it’s important to care what people believe. People with “shitty” beliefs (for example, people who believe they need to be greedy to protect themselves at the expense of society) can be taught “better” beliefs (for example, that you benefit more by giving than you do by greed).

As @FireMadeFlesh said, it’s a slow process to get people to learn, but there is a way. The first thing though, is to identify the malignant beliefs in society and figure out how to teat those beliefs to coerce them to improved beliefs.

lol.. figure out how to treat those bleiefs to coerce them to improved beliefs.

Or those “beliefs”. ^_^

for the love of..

Faith in God or lack thereof is a personal matter and I think anyone who feels the need to broadcast their religious beliefs isn’t content enough with their own convictions. They are recruiting or bolstering their stance.

@Snarp I don’t know why so many proponents of atheism are averse to defining their religious stance (which it most definitely is) as a belief system. To me, a belief system is a precept or set of precepts which govern our attitudes, behaviors, and worldview. Agnosticism is a lack of belief whereas atheism is a choice not to believe, but paradoxical as it may seem, the atheist’s choice is what makes it a belief. To take it further, atheism could be viewed as a faith (though not a religion per se as some would suggest), i.e., firmly believing that god does not exist without any empirical foundation. The Greek bases for these words should be self-explanatory in relation to belief. Theism—belief in one god; agnosticism—“without knowledge,” therefore no belief; atheism—belief in no god. I am basing my opinions on atheism as defined in its most basic sense.

@Polly_Math “don’t know why so many proponents of atheism are averse to defining their religious stance (which it most definitely is) as a belief system.”

this is worded interestingly. “atheism” is simply the lack of belief in god. End of story. This isn’t any different from “disbelief.” It’s the same thing. It’s betting against the odds that there is a god of the sort we’ve ever been told of before. That’s all it is.

However, I’ll concede the point that atheists tend to fail to provide an explanation and perhaps dodge the question of their individual religions. It’s as if it’s a big secret. It’s just as @Silhouette said above, it seems to be a personal matter how they will go about all that stuff about behavior. That is, how they will live their lives as atheists. What moral and ethical codes ought to be followed and what not.

I don’t feel that way myself. I am a loudmouth when it comes to my religion. That’s how I was taught as a Christian and worse, I even think it’s important to be this way. In contrast to @Silhouette‘s opinion about keeping such things to ourselves, I consider it a virtue to share religious ideas. Ideas about how to behave well.

I think a lot of religionists (of the non-atheist variety) are wasting their time. I really feel the world would be better off with them understanding reality a little more similar to the way that I do, rather than according to the delusions I believe they have. This isn’t a knock against diversity either. Diversity exists regardless. But I’m interested in seeing this world get as far as it can before I die, and I can’t help but realize that it would get much further if others were more science and logic driven than they currently are.

Things would just be more fun.

@Polly_Math There is no such thing a belief in nothing. If I believe there is no leprechaun sitting on my porch, is that a believe system called Aleprrchaunism? If I believe my glass is empty because there is no more water in it is that a belief system called Aaquaism? Simply because I do not believe in fairy tales – God tales and such does not constitute any kind of belief system.

A lack of belief is not a belief system, it’s pretty simple really.

And it’s especially not a “system” (more than one disbelief). Any two atheists are going to be more different from one another than alike. The only thing they may share is that lack of belief.

@octopussy – Yes, but the belief that the universe is self-explanatory is a belief and not a scientific finding. Where do the natural laws come from is a legitimate question. If people have a desire to find an answer they need to be content with beliefs. There won’t be any natural law capable of explaining the natural laws. If we try to search for such a meta-law (infinite multiverse?) we are soon faced with the question of a meta-meta-law trying to explain the meta-law. We have to acknowledge the limitations of science.

We know that any consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by a computer program is incapable of proving certain truths about arithmetic. We are also incapable of proving the answers to the much bigger questions.

@mattbrowne. My reply was directed to posters who claim that atheism (people who don’t believe that God exists) is a belief system, it is not. The universe is not self explanatory, far from it, we don’t know and probably will never know to a certainty, what created the universe in which we live but saying that “God did it” has no explanatory power either and is not a valid claim, but you are asking a new question now. I have more faith and confidence in the methods of science than I do in a deity.

You say “If people have a desire to find an answer they need to be content with beliefs”. Well I for one am not content with false or unproven beliefs, therefore I have no religious beliefs, some christians like to take this a step further and say that a non believer must also have no morals, humans decide what is moral not God. I don’t know where the laws of nature came from, but I do know they have never been inscribed on stone tablets or found anywhere.

I agree that in this point in time, science does have it’s limitations, but the idea of a magic being pointing a finger and making everything appear from nothing leaves even more to be desired. God is simply a gap filler for information we have yet to uncover.

@octopussy – I was never talking about a God of the gaps. I have confidence in the methods of science too. I don’t see a contradiction.

Atheism is (or should be) the default position. Theism is irrational and popular.

I don’t believe in atheism.

@CyanoticWasp: That’s good. I don’t “believe” in not believing in supernatural beings either. So atheism is a great non-belief that we can all feel comfortable not believing in. Maybe we can win some non-converts to the non-cause of atheism too?

@Snarp: Atheism is not a belief system any more than not believing in magical unicorns is a belief system. You have defined atheism very narrowly as a positive belief in “no god”. As an atheist, I don’t believe that there is no god. Some might, but I do not. There could be a “God” or gods out there and I admit that. It’s just that there are not any good reasons to believe that it’s true. Theism basically is an “anything goes” sort of thing, with exactly zero ways to confirm or deny. Atheists don’t “choose” to disbelieve in “God” or gods any more than you choose to disbelieve in magical fire-breathing dragons. By the way, agnostics are either theistic or atheistic. Someone either believes in supernatural beings or they do not. Agnosticism is not a 3rd way.

@mattbrowne: Of course scientists have beliefs. The difference is that there are rational reasons to believe that “natural laws” will work the same next week. There is no need to have “faith” in the notion that gravity will continue keeping us falling toward the Sun. But if you would like to define that as faith, then any belief at all, by anyone, would require faith – - thus rendering “faith” a meaningless word. Many scientists also believe in evolution. Not because of a personal choice they’ve made or because of their “faith” in Darwin – but because of the evidence. The laws of logic do not require faith in the theistic sense, because everyone must have “faith” in logic and reason: otherwise everything… including “God” or gods would be unintelligible nonsense anyway. And no, beliefs are not necessarily a bad thing, as long as those beliefs are based on evidence and have a rational foundation. If “Where do the natural laws come from?” is a legitimate question, then it is also a legitimate question to ask “Who or what made the natural law maker?”. Usually this is where the theistic short-circuit kicks in. The theist simply creates an exception and exempts his or her deity of choice from the original line of reasoning.

@soarwing11 Bravo!

@soarwing11 – I have rational reasons to believe in God. Atheists have rational reasons not to believe in God. To me that’s not a problem. I only have a problem if arrogant atheists want to tell me that I’m being irrational and their position is vastly superior, which it isn’t.