Atheist!

[Stella_Omega]

I am not a newbie at understanding insults...

well, that's the only area of expertise you can claim.

 

[Kev H]

Thank you to whomever resurrected this thread, because the first 10 pages or so had gems that were worth rereading. I wish the various angles of this discussion hadn't been snuffed out with such belligerence (from the safety of anon land), but I guess we must expect such a sorry journey for threads while enjoying what pieces we can.

Regardless of the confusing twists of rationality and the whole quick-to-anger-and-lash-out thing that marred some otherwise interesting posts, welcome (or welcome back?) to the AH, wmrs2.

Thanks to my pile of RL duties/pleasures, I simply don't have the time to wade through this mess, but if there's a particularly valid or interesting post after about page 12, feel free to PM me about it. I have a keen, questioning curiosity about matters of the spirit (or simply spirited matters), and I truly hope that does not change during my time on this earth.

If I may contributing to the original question (and thus avoid hypocrisy), I reason that atheism is an extreme. Compared to the broad spectrum of spiritual experiences/thoughts, the people who claim there is only delusion when it comes to a spiritual experience (ones relating to God or gods) seem to, by default, take up an aggressive stance against "those others." In any case, that is the perception (shared among even the less defensive), and any softening of that atheistic stance makes for a non-atheist (someone other than an atheist, by definition, be that an agnostic or deist or whatever label they adopt or don't adopt).

So, in my questioning mind, this begs to be asked: Why must atheism exist in intelligent circles (i.e., outside the occasional rebel) at all? Why must there be an it-isn't-so camp when a more reasoned approach is both more open-minded and less combative (from the viewpoint of anyone in a spectacular universe, leading a life that is, from all we can observe, rare and precious; an immeasurable gift, regardless of who/what gave that gift)? This is not to suggest the opposite extreme (all-must-believe), mind you, but simply that being open-minded to a possibility is a more treasured position than a hard stance (made often in ignorance, right?).

If anyone would rather not post their thoughts here and open themselves to the kind of treatment we've witnessed, I understand. Yet, if anyone wants to PM me in a game-free (honest) format, please do so--I will value any well-thought-out response.

 

[Stella_Omega]

IMO, there is only one reason to get aggressive against "those others," although that reason can be manifested in a multiplicity of ways. Some of those versions of that reason have been demonstrated here, from the ugly and incoherent polemics that wmrs has treated us to-- whether we want them or not-- to a far more gentle, but still visible, version in your own-- also whether we want them or not.


The question of why atheism "must exist in intelligent circles" seems to me to be self-evident...

 

[amicus]

Hello again, KevH, been a while I think?

"...So, in my questioning mind, this begs to be asked: Why must atheism exist in intelligent circles (i.e., outside the occasional rebel) at all?..."

~~~

I offer this scenario from my point of view: The early history of man, huddled around campfires to ward off the dark, cowering before thunder and lightning, in fear of floods and fires and hailstones and a plethora of dangers in a hostile world; created an explanation for these events that included either an angry deity or a helpful one.

They did this, created a deity, because the nature of man's mind is inquisitive and demands answers to things beyond his comprehension in day to day life.

Each, according to his own knowledge of history, can create the conditions and transitions Man went through in the transition from hunter/gatherer to agricultural to industrial and what beliefs he carried with him as one generation passed to another.

Faith, belief, Religion all served the purpose of enabling early man to set aside his inquiries and trust that the wise men of his time had discovered the answers in their numerous Gods and mythical creatures, all created from the fertile minds of thousands of soothsayers and elders in hundreds of social groups.

Let us pause briefy with the glory that was Greece and perhaps even more specific, Thales, oft identified as the first true philospher in all of human history, although there are those who will look to early China, Egypt and Babylon as precursors.

Philosophy, 'a love of knowledge', perhaps created the first 'agnostics', those who demanded proof of religious theology but were not certain, thus remained somewhat, 'in the middle', on the fence, neither declaring for or against theology.

A thousand years later, give or take, perhaps with Harvey, or Chaucer, or perhaps many more that did not survive the pages of history, but, somewhere in there, between medicine and astrology and alchemy, the history of metals, man began to answer questions in what might be referred to as early scientific method.

Enter the Renaissance and free thinkers abounded and collided head on with the Church and poor old Galileo was confined to house arrest for daring to challenge the earth centric explanation of creation.

Skip forward to Darwin and evolution and formal religion was knocked back on its heels.

In my not so humble opinion, religion served it purpose and was made obsolete by science, a very long time ago, in terms of our short lifespan.

When the 13 Colonies united and left God out of the equation, at least in terms of inclusion in government, the dye was cast for religion to wane and rational, objective scientific throught to wax.

A rational atheist notes the total lack of evidence supporting the existence of a deity and declares, 'there ain't none'.

And why it is contentious? Because it is an either/or, situation. A yes/no, right/wrong, with no wiggle room at all.

That is why circles of intellectuals have been atheist for centuries, except when omission is the better part of valor and to save one's ass, they either remain silent or pay lip service to the powers that be.

There is more...much more...but I have already repeated myself and I hate it when that happens....

amicus...

 

[ishtat]

An observation.

Most "believers" of whatever faith appear to think that atheism is some sort of extreme dogma. It is not. Atheists come to their point of view because they have a very clear understanding of the ethics which they live by. Given sufficient confidence in ones own ethical precepts religion simply becomes irrelevant.

Atheism has therefore a fundamentally moral origin and comes from within wheras religion is merely belief applied externally to the adherent for his (her) greater comfort. The absence of genuine individual freewill in all religious belief systems is their fundamental weakness.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ishtat, "atheism" really only refers to one thing; the disbelief in gods.

For me, gods do not exist. I cannot even pretend that belief. And since the fundamental precept of religion is non-existent it makes all of those other religious precepts look pretty stupid-- all of those morals, which are perfectly justifiable on their own merits, only because "My Bible Tells Me So."

Atheists can be as morally sound as any Christian-- or as dishonest. We engineer our own repentance, assign ourselves penance, and forgive ourselves. I have a handful of irrational superstitions that I indulge in-- but I know they are irrational, and don't actually have any bearing on real events. I don't make all of my decisions rationally, I tend to be an emotion-based decision-maker-- but I know the difference.

I am not going to go into the ways that belief baffles and irritates me, but when I see people using religious belief as if it were a functional and reality-based system-- that scares me. Bad, bad, bad news.

 

[Kev H]

Thanks for the replies, Stella and amicus, though they mainly highlighted how poorly I phrased my question. Please try to view my questions without any filtering (defensive stance that precludes honest thought)--I am most certainly not a Christian or an evangelist of any kind, but a seeker who is vastly curious about matters unknown.

What I meant by my initial question of why atheism should exist was not meant as an attack on your right to disbelieve, but rather a straight-forward philosophical question on why you feel that the option must exist (to the point where it becomes "your choice"). Why rule out any possibility, even if you don't like everything else (religion) you see? I'd like to glimpse upon soul-searched answers of why atheism is such an important choice, if that makes any sense. Let me try rephrasing.

When asked the question "Is there a god, in your opinion," why not have the gumption to respond in some fashion like this: "I don't know; I'm open-minded and searching (which is a more enlightened choice than being close-minded), and will probably be searching for my entire life, but I honestly just don't know. I'm open to the prospect of a Creator, as silly as that might sound to me, and even though I know how off-base the major religions are, simply because I must admit that I do not know for sure, and there are truly phenomenal aspects to my existence."

Amicus, don't you think it curious that so much order abounds and that we tend to reflect that, as a species? (And replace order with chaos.) That so many separated peoples "came up with (imagined)" so many similarities, even when their approaches (thought processes) were so vastly different? Sure, it may not feel statistically significant to you, but doesn't it at least prick your spiritual curiosity?

As I understand the term, there is no such thing as a doubting atheist. If you are open-minded enough to doubt, then you are something other than an atheist--am I right on this or missing some important consideration?

 

[oggbashan]

If you are a doubting atheist you are probably an agnostic.

However there are wide variations among people who call themselves atheists as there are wide variations between those who say they are Christian (or Muslim, Buddist, etc.).

You can be a Christian and have doubts about the existence of God.

You can be an Atheist and have doubts about the non-existence of God.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, Kev.

Once more, you've exemplared the reason why atheists tend to get angry in these conversations.

Gumption? My dear fellow, fuck off.

Any atheist will tell you this; If we found conclusive proof that a god exists, the question would no longer be a matter of belief.

And many atheists will also tell you that the term "agnostic" is nearly always recognised as an invitation for any believer to explain Pascal's wager, something that no atheist has considered before.

Humans are very good at finding things. Once the concept of a Big Bang was broached, we began to search for evidence of it. It took a little over one hundred years, but we put a lot of resources to bear, and have amassed a great deal of evidence.

How long have humans been searching for gods, how many resources? Found anything yet? Seriously, we have better evidence for String Theory.

 

[Kev H]

Dear, Stella. That you bristle at my term shows you consider it a zero sum game, that I cannot say it's courageous to keep an open mind without you feeling like I'm saying it's not courageous to be an atheist. This is far from how I feel. I honestly think atheists have more courage than conviction (a good thing, for most part, and necessary for the psyche), and the only ones this journey who lack courage are the ones who only let others tell them what to believe. So, please don't mind that I don't fuck off. Instead, please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, but to get at the heart of an important matter (one of many in this existence).

And why it is contentious? Because it is an either/or, situation. A yes/no, right/wrong, with no wiggle room at all.

amicus...

Cheers for amicus--this is hitting close to what I was looking for (I think). Why must this be an either/or? Why isn't it simple for the rational mind (one who does not want to belittle the vast complexity of our existence) to look past this zero sum game? To see more options than two (are you living in binary?). Heh. While I tease in an attempt at humor, my question is no less valid. Why can't some courageous soul say, "Yep, all the religions I've seen are hopelessly whacked, and self-supportive/self-reinforcing so they can answer all my questions for me" without saying, "And therefore, there must be no god, no creator"?

I cannot wrap my head around the concept of there being only a right and wrong, as if I must line up on one side or the other to keep from being seen as "wiggling" or worse. I know a simplistic thought tells us there must either be a god or not be a god, but while we indeed have the right to choice either one, isn't it intellectually disingenuous to claim to know which it is? For example, it's perfectly reasonable that a supreme creator is larger than we currently have the ability to "know" or that this being simply likes it this way--there's a large selection of other possibilities, and that's only coming from my limited creativity/flexibility. Heh, if I may wax sci fi on you for a moment, it's within the realm of possibility that we won't know our god until we get to the center of our galaxy, and once at that center, it will then admit there's others at the other centers, and that there exists a feeling of something even greater that set up the mechanics that allowed this being to create its own galaxy. Who knows? Isn't that the point? Why make stuff up, like a belief in a specific god (or a disbelief in them all)? It's fun to make stuff up in a fiction story, but why live a life of fiction?

If you are a doubting atheist you are probably an agnostic.

Yes, Ogg, that's also my contention, though I'd also include the deists and other less rigid schools of thought. People can call themselves anything they want, of course, but if their mind isn't closed to the possibility of a god or gods, then they are not really atheists. This is my thinking behind the question of why any reasoning person should call themselves an atheist (and close their mind to options they have yet to even consider). This further leads to the nagging question of why there even is an atheism. I feel I'm still missing something important, because there's no way reasonable people would develop and define it as a mere reactionary move against organized religions. Right?

 

[Stella_Omega]

That you bristle at my term shows you consider it a zero sum game, that I cannot say it's courageous to keep an open mind without you feeling like I'm saying it's not courageous to be an atheist...

This statement is not the same as;

...When asked the question "Is there a god, in your opinion," why not have the gumption to respond in some fashion like this...

Because you are trying to dictate my response, and linking my improper Response to my lack of gumption, I say; fuck off.

And this line is, if you are conversing in good will, meaningless;

I honestly think atheists have more courage than conviction...

Can you explain, please, what you mean by "conviction" here? Because your wordings really don't feel like this will be a good faith conversation, in the end. Honestly. I've had a lot of experiences with this, and when my conversationalist makes their bias so vividly visible-- and seems to be so blind to that visibility-- I have a strong indication that I won't get much information through, and I will be blamed when the convo breaks down.

I can say; "All gods I have heard of, or thought of, are essentially (and morally) meaningless, and certainly unprovable... and therefore, all religions are hopelessly whacked etc."

You can try get me to turn my statement around with regard to cause/effect, but I don't think you'll be successful.

Why is atheism your nagging question? I have very strong theories about why belief exists, however misguided. Why not address your inquiries in that direction?

 

[amicus]

Kevh..."...

Amicus, don't you think it curious that so much order abounds and that we tend to reflect that, as a species? (And replace order with chaos.) That so many separated peoples "came up with (imagined)" so many similarities, even when their approaches (thought processes) were so vastly different?..."

~~~

In an attempt to openly create a foundation to stand firmly on....perhaps if one viewed 'atheism' as merely the spiritual component of an entire world view, or, as Rand described it, 'a sense of life', it might lead to an understanding of how one arrives at an objective ability to declare, for one's personal moral decision that there is no God.

I perceive atheism as a discipline, quite like any other, that takes great effort to comprehend and grasp fully. Compare it to mathematics or physics or astronomy and of course, formal philosophy, not the liberal arts introductory courses to philosophy, but, as with the aforementioned disciplines, a determined survey of the history and fundamental proofs, theories and assumptions that are at the root of all science.

In answer to your question as pasted above, no, I do not find it 'curious' that men of all ages have discovered both order and chaos in that which they observed and attempted to understand. It is a very big world filled with complex actions and interactions that can overwhelm the viewer the more one opens ones eyes and takes it all in.

I am going to digress at this point to make yet another observation that I trust will be of value.

I have an acquaintance who is preparing a thesis for a Masters Degree in Nuclear Engineering. His project is to describe the ability of various materials to withstand/absorb/deflect the various forms of radioactivity the are inherrent in a nuclear reactor and even hospital X-ray machines. His stated goal is to reduce, according to statistical methodology, accepted by the industry as a, 'standard', to mathematical equations that can be understood industry wide by those in the field.

21 pages thus far of nothing but mathematical, algebraic equations; 'linear algebra', he calls it and his computer crunches numbers by the hour to solve the equations he has formulated.

I haven't got a clue. I cannot read his paper. He speaks to me in 'laymens' terms to explain.

This digression is intended to to express the complexity, yet 'order', of all disciplines such as the ones I alluded to earlier and of course many more.

I drove a few hundred miles to visit children and grandchildren last Sunday and passed through mountainous areas where layers of rock were revealed by erosion and roadwork. My thought was, had I several lifetimes to invest, one of them would be in Geology, so that I could look upon the rocks with a familiar eye.

I marvel at the achievements of paleontologists and the history of the discipline, that over a few short hundreds of years, have exhumed the bones of our ancestors and all forms of flora and fauna back into the past encompassing millions of years.

They do not find any evidence of divine intervention in the evolution of life on planet earth. The do find a logical progression of species change and mutation over time. This is just one field of study that forms a foundation to reject faith, in terms of 'creation theory', in favor of objective, non contradictory research and the application of scientific method.

It applies most certainly also to astronomy and the various studies that contemplate planetary evolution, our place in the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and the universe at large.

Well, that is a pretty, 'big gulp', for one reading. I trust I addressed your question in a manner that opens the subject for further discussion.

regards...

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Kevh..."...

~~~

In an attempt to openly create a foundation to stand firmly on....perhaps if one viewed 'atheism' as merely the spiritual component of an entire world view, or, as Rand described it, 'a sense of life', it might lead to an understanding of how one arrives at an objective ability to declare, for one's personal moral decision that there is no God.

This is no sneak attack, no worries - just one thing which I don't really understand: why is it a moral decision for you? Rational I would understand, but moral?

 

[amicus]

This is no sneak attack, no worries - just one thing which I don't really understand: why is it a moral decision for you? Rational I would understand, but moral?[/QUOTE]


~~~

I am choosing to address the last post first in this instance and will return to KevH's later.

~~~

https://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/fcsc4112/Ethics.htm

Section 1: Ethics

Ethics are standards of conduct that distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, justice and injustice. Some ethical standards, i.e. morals (or morality), are highly general and apply to all people. Other standards apply within the context of various institutional, organizational, professional, or familial roles, such as medical ethics, academic ethics, military ethics. etc.

I think it was you, PP who put forth the requirement that one use facts and definitions in any discussion of philosophical matters.

As one can read, the very definition of ethics, states a 'moral' component to all human actions.

A, 'moral' position or element in determining the existence of a supernatural being is directly tied to reality and a non contradictory perception of concrete facets of that which is real. When man uses his mind to focus on the meaning of such 'real' events, concrete events, and attempts to forumate those perceptions and conclusions into concepts and abstractions, it must be done on the same non contradictory, congruent and consistent basis as is our knowledge of nature qua reality.

Reality exists independent of the human mind and is what it is, the very old, A is A of Aristotle; 'a thing is that which it is.'

If I discover that placing my unprotected hand in fire causes pain, then a rational person avoids placing ones hand in fire.

If I were to take an innocent infants hand and place it in fire, knowing it would cause pain, I will have committed an act that one can judge immoral, wrong and bad.

Thus I hope to illustrate the direct connection between the real, concrete world and the conceptual world of ethics and morals, right and wrong, good and bad.

Most 'relativists' deny the connection between reality and conceptual thinking, I do not; I hold that there is a direct connection and that human actions, can be rationally judged as moral and immoral.

Our perception of reality must be clear and focused and without contradiction if we are to understand the nature of the world we inhabit.

No evidence exists to support the theory of a supreme being, therefore it becomes an ethical and proper and 'moral' conclusion to state, that observed fact that there is no God, that one is an atheist.

I said the same thing in about eight different ways in hopes that one of the approaches might strike a chord with some.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

KevH:

"...Why must this be an either/or? Why isn't it simple for the rational mind (one who does not want to belittle the vast complexity of our existence) to look past this zero sum game? To see more options than two (are you living in binary?)..."

~~~

How to say this without sounding arrogant, insulting and sexist? Hmmm...if I stiputate that it is intended to be informational and none of the above, will that fly?

Many have noted and been chastized for that notation, that men are cold and rational and women are warm and emotional. Take that as you may.

I could not count how many times I have been told I am 'closed minded' and not open to change. That I should, as you imply, see more than the 'black and white', 'either/or' and see more options than two...and funny you should ask, but I thought of the binary analogy when I was answering another of your posts.

Now...I love women and their flibbertigibbet serendipitous view of reality. Nothing is absolute in their view of the world and I appreciate that, it relieves the tedium and stress of always being rational and objective. Whenever I wish to relax, I turn off my mind and seek out a female.

However, with all lighthearted humor aside, reality is the final arbiter; survival of the species the imperative and the binary, either/or is rampant in nature.

Nature and evolution dictated predator and prey, the strong survive, the weak perish. Don't blame me...I didn't do it!\

It is our task as sentient humans to comprehend the ways of nature, as it is, not as we might wish it were.

Nature is very bleak and very judgmental; live or die, survive or perish. The means by which man survives and reigns supreme is due to one factor and one only, the rational mind.

Nature provides us with that mind but not necessarily the instruction on how to use it in a beneficial manner.

If you choose to function in life by abrogating the objective facility of the brain that you are given and choose instead to live with faith and belief, without logical proof or evidence to support your faith and belief, then you are destined to fail in all aspects of life as the rational function of the mind cannot be corrupted with faith. It will destroy you intellectually and psychologically.

Either rational, objective, focused thought using your mind or blind faith and belief which destroys the mind.

Do you see why it is and must be, either/or?

Amicus....

 

[past_perfect]

This is no sneak attack, no worries - just one thing which I don't really understand: why is it a moral decision for you? Rational I would understand, but moral?[/QUOTE]


~~~

I am choosing to address the last post first in this instance and will return to KevH's later.

~~~

https://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/fcsc4112/Ethics.htm

Section 1: Ethics



I think it was you, PP who put forth the requirement that one use facts and definitions in any discussion of philosophical matters.

As one can read, the very definition of ethics, states a 'moral' component to all human actions.

A, 'moral' position or element in determining the existence of a supernatural being is directly tied to reality and a non contradictory perception of concrete facets of that which is real. When man uses his mind to focus on the meaning of such 'real' events, concrete events, and attempts to forumate those perceptions and conclusions into concepts and abstractions, it must be done on the same non contradictory, congruent and consistent basis as is our knowledge of nature qua reality.

Reality exists independent of the human mind and is what it is, the very old, A is A of Aristotle; 'a thing is that which it is.'

If I discover that placing my unprotected hand in fire causes pain, then a rational person avoids placing ones hand in fire.

If I were to take an innocent infants hand and place it in fire, knowing it would cause pain, I will have committed an act that one can judge immoral, wrong and bad.

Thus I hope to illustrate the direct connection between the real, concrete world and the conceptual world of ethics and morals, right and wrong, good and bad.

Most 'relativists' deny the connection between reality and conceptual thinking, I do not; I hold that there is a direct connection and that human actions, can be rationally judged as moral and immoral.

Our perception of reality must be clear and focused and without contradiction if we are to understand the nature of the world we inhabit.

No evidence exists to support the theory of a supreme being, therefore it becomes an ethical and proper and 'moral' conclusion to state, that observed fact that there is no God, that one is an atheist.

I said the same thing in about eight different ways in hopes that one of the approaches might strike a chord with some.

Amicus...

Thanks for the attempt to clarify. Ok, let me see if I understand you right and try to summarize:

Each action can be judged as moral or immoral. According to your following conclusions, I assume you think that believing is an action. Believing in something that cannot be proven or observed is therefore immoral. Is that the gist?

 

[amicus]

T

hanks for the attempt to clarify. Ok, let me see if I understand you right and try to summarize:

Each action can be judged as moral or immoral. According to your following conclusions, I assume you think that believing is an action. Believing in something that cannot be proven or observed is therefore immoral. Is that the gist?

~~~

I detect a tone. semantical and nit-picking, in your post that I do not appreciate.

One can postulate the fidelity of one's mate and perhaps that belief, or faith, in the expression of loyalty can even modify the behavior or each or both.

There exists a hierarchy of values, with human life being the fundamental one from which all other values, ethics and morals emerge.

Your question is oxymoronic in nature as you question whether the suspension of the focused mind, in preference to faith without evidence is a moral action. Once you accept the tenets of belief, morality then becomes a subjective and relative value and can be whatever you wish it to be.

Moral decisions can only be made in the context of a functioning mind exercizing choice and free will. Belief or faith nullifies the mind and depends upon emotions to make the decisions of ones life.

Your question is not valid.

Amicus...

 

[Kev H]

This statement is not the same as; Because you are trying to dictate my response, and linking my improper Response to my lack of gumption, I say; fuck off.

And this line is, if you are conversing in good will, meaningless; Can you explain, please, what you mean by "conviction" here? Because your wordings really don't feel like this will be a good faith conversation, in the end. Honestly. I've had a lot of experiences with this, and when my conversationalist makes their bias so vividly visible-- and seems to be so blind to that visibility-- I have a strong indication that I won't get much information through, and I will be blamed when the convo breaks down.

I can say; "All gods I have heard of, or thought of, are essentially (and morally) meaningless, and certainly unprovable... and therefore, all religions are hopelessly whacked etc."

You can try get me to turn my statement around with regard to cause/effect, but I don't think you'll be successful.

Why is atheism your nagging question? I have very strong theories about why belief exists, however misguided. Why not address your inquiries in that direction?

Stella, you seem comforted by your ability to lash out (even that does not prevent me from understanding hostility). Chances are good you've forgotten all about our chats (both public and in PMs in the past when dealing with Joe Wordsworth), or you'd not question my motives or background. Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to feel I'm trying to anger/bait you or some such silliness by questioning your stance (trying to "get me to turn my statement around"). Perhaps it's a waste of time for me to attempt to convince you otherwise. Perhaps I can continue meaningful/insightful dialog with others instead (though I'd certainly be happy if you were willing to continue in a less defensive/cynical manner).

To answer your first question:
Conviction, being a firm belief structure (or for that matter "the act of being convincing" works, too). Atheists (I've met/read) seem to base their statements on very simple beliefs (no god, or no belief). There is a rational purity to such simplicity, but at the same time, atheists (other than perhaps you, Stella, and I hope that is simply a misconception) seem less entrenched in a doctrine and less inclined to evangelize (my pet peeve). Perhaps because they've had to be (from being such a minority), they tend to be more tolerant of others' beliefs as long as they aren't being force-fed. Am I being too generous with this, here? Perhaps this is only the way I want them to be--feel free to disavow me of such ideals, Stella. *wry grin* So, courage is integral to an atheists psyche, their stability, yet conviction is much less so. Yes? Am I too wrong? (If so, why do you think so?)

I will gloss over your second question because I am late. I hope to read the other replies when my evening is through. The question of atheism nags me for the simple, open reason that I do not grasp it. I'd think my questions would make that perfectly clear. Read my questions again from the mentality of child-like curiosity, of wondering what you're missing, and then see if you can hang onto your cynicism. I'll edit this when I get time, since it's such a hurried response.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, you seem comforted by your ability to lash out (even that does not prevent me from understanding hostility). Chances are good you've forgotten all about our chats (both public and in PMs in the past when dealing with Joe Wordsworth), or you'd not question my motives or background. Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to feel I'm trying to anger/bait you or some such silliness by questioning your stance (trying to "get me to turn my statement around"). Perhaps it's a waste of time for me to attempt to convince you otherwise. Perhaps I can continue meaningful/insightful dialog with others instead (though I'd certainly be happy if you were willing to continue in a less defensive/cynical manner).

Kev. You may not mean to sound baiting-- but I am pointing out to you that you do sound that way. The terms you chose-- from "lack of gumption," in your first post to "silliness" in this one-- seriously, dude.

Don't call my irritation "silliness." Don't tell me why I "lash out." YOU began with disrespect. As far as I can see, you haven't bothered to "waste" one minute of your time attempting to convince me of your sincerity, until now-- maybe because you couldn't think that I might be sincere in being offended?

To answer your first question:
Conviction, being a firm belief structure (or for that matter "the act of being convincing" works, too). Atheists (I've met/read) seem to base their statements on very simple beliefs (no god, or no belief). There is a rational purity to such simplicity, but at the same time, atheists (other than perhaps you, Stella, and I hope that is simply a misconception) seem less entrenched in a doctrine and less inclined to evangelize (my pet peeve). Perhaps because they've had to be (from being such a minority), they tend to be more tolerant of others' beliefs as long as they aren't being force-fed. Am I being too generous with this, here? Perhaps this is only the way I want them to be--feel free to disavow me of such ideals, Stella. *wry grin* So, courage is integral to an atheists psyche, their stability, yet conviction is much less so. Yes? Am I too wrong? (If so, why do you think so?)

Oh, I see. I tend to define "Conviction" as something more... morally loaded, perhaps. In the mouths of most ,"lack of conviction" is an insult. I feel plenty of conviction, trust me. My convictions lead me, for instance, to challenge your choices of these belittling descriptors when you talk about my life system.

"Courage and tolerance" how does that sound? A little less reductive? Thanks, I appreciate it.

You are right, I am far less inclined to evangelicise my atheism, than believers are inclined to accost me.

I will gloss over your second question because I am late. I hope to read the other replies when my evening is through. The question of atheism nags me for the simple, open reason that I do not grasp it. I'd think my questions would make that perfectly clear. Read my questions again from the mentality of child-like curiosity, of wondering what you're missing, and then see if you can hang onto your cynicism. I'll edit this when I get time, since it's such a hurried response.

You are not a child, though, or you wouldn't be here on lit! I expect you, simply be default, to express your curiosity in adult terms-- these are adult concepts.

For instance you say here; The question of atheism nags me for the simple, open reason that I do not grasp it.

Which would have been far preferable to providing yourself with you own imagined answers, in the same breath with which you asked the question. And having those self-answers be so... silly. I am not going to demand that you apologise, in preparation to moving forward... But I would, if I had begun the way you did, just saying...

Okay, so;
"Atheism" means one thing; the lack of a god belief.

Since god belief is so intrinsic to almost the entire human race, it does become obvious, to those of us outside that system, that belief is an entity separate from what the belief refers to. It's nothing I, as an atheist feel any need to hold a conviction about. The moral system I adhere to-- different matter.

 

[DeeZire]

Why must atheism exist in intelligent circles (i.e., outside the occasional rebel) at all? Why must there be an it-isn't-so camp when a more reasoned approach is both more open-minded and less combative...

You can't expect me to adapt a "more reasoned" approach when that approach would be unreasonable to me. As a kid I embraced the belief in Santa Claus. Then I grew out of it. Same thing happened with religion. To expect doubters to leave open the possibility of the existence of God would put them in the same position as accepting the possibility of Santa showing up next Christmas.

Please, give me some credit for my own convictions, which should not be judged against your perception of reality (or fantasy, as the case may be.)

 

[sr71plt]

I gotta go back to a belief being one of the few absolutes. Either you do or you don't. You can fool yourself and try to fool others and you can pretend to yourself and to others. But what you believe or don't believe is just that--and no blame is involved. And, of course, it can change on the dime. It just can't be reasoned away at that moment in which it reigns.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I gotta go back to a belief being one of the few absolutes. Either you do or you don't. You can fool yourself and try to fool others and you can pretend to yourself and to others. But what you believe or don't believe is just that--and no blame is involved. And, of course, it can change on the dime. It just can't be reasoned away at that moment in which is reigns.

Quite so.

 

[jomar]

I gotta go back to a belief being one of the few absolutes. Either you do or you don't. You can fool yourself and try to fool others and you can pretend to yourself and to others. But what you believe or don't believe is just that--and no blame is involved. And, of course, it can change on the dime. It just can't be reasoned away at that moment in which it reigns.

Faith.

No harm no foul.

Baybee.

 

[sr71plt]

Faith.

No harm no foul.

Baybee.

Yep. I happen to believe some things that keep me from being an athiest--but the beliefs I have keep me from being pigeonholed otherwise too. I'm just not going to pretend to believe something that I consciously don't really believe.

And I can certainly understand why someone's beliefs would lead them to athieism--for reasons they can't control or bend if they are going to be honest with themselves.

That's their business, not mine.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course, there's Pat Robertson et al, who do make big business out of it.

The lack of belief in gods has very little to do with any other beliefs a person might have, nor their moral system-- but that one item can completely define a person in the eyes of a monotheistic believer.
And since that definition so often includes terms like "Evil in the Sight Of The Lord" and "Bound For Hell" it's really no wonder that so many atheists turn away from religions as well, deeming them no friend to the unbelieving. Duh, huh?