Atheist!

[Guest]

Concise.

"Belief" implies that there may or may not be an empirical basis...And, to play devil's advocate, where is the empirical basis for a "belief" that God does not exist?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Interesting that you make a claim that American's most notable contribution is Evangelical, then define EC as judgemental, then justify the argument by saying they are obviously the enemy. It's funny, in 40 years of being involved in EC, I've never met anyone like you're describing and don't know a soul who believes we are "supposed" to build a New Jerusalem here. Maybe the reason you feel that religious people judge Atheists is because you are just seeing a reflection of what you are putting out. I noticed quite a lot of judging in your post. Funny, I never bothered to judge what an Atheist thought in any way (other than being annoyed by the countless lawsuits that get publicized with people trying to eliminate public displays of religion or getting a word removed off the dollar). The fact is, what someone does or doesn't believe has no effect on my day to day life whatsoever. Obviously, you've worried about it a lot.

Guess I must not be religious enough.

I apologize if I've personally offended you, but given the innacuracies involved in using generalities, I'd stand by my assertion that Evangelical Christianity is the most politically active and influential religion in America these days. That's not to say that all Evangelicals are political activists, but when you look at religious leaders who have political agendas, they seem to be largely Evangelical: Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, etc.

Certainly Catholics have political power, as do members of the Mormon Church, but I don't think they have the clout of the Evangelical Christians.

As to judgmental, perhaps I used the wrong term, for which I apologize again. I was under the impression though, that one of the tenets of Evangelism is the moral imperative of spreading the Christian gospel. The very word "Evangelize" means to convert to Christianity, doesn't it? And doesn't the spreading of the gospel imply a kind of us/them mentality?

As for worrying about it a lot, yeah, I do. I especially worry about it when I hear we have a President who believes in the literal truth of the Book of Revelations and the Rapture and what has to be done to fulfill the conditions for the Second Coming. I worry about that a lot.

I was raised a Jew and probably see a different view of America than you do. Quite honestly, although I no longer practice my religion, it still makes me uneasy to travel to some parts of the country and see crosses and biblical exhortations displayed all over the place. I'm not disputing your right to display them, I'm just saying that it makes me uneasy. Just like one person can look at a Billy Graham Crusade, say, and think, "What a wonderful thing" and another can look at it and be just a little bit frightened.

 

[cantdog]

I agree with every word dr_mabeuse said, and I wish I could have said it as well!

Now, my confession: I find atheism and evangelical christianity equally unappealing. I would never try to argue either extreme away from their beliefs, but, to me, that's what they are--extremes.


A little off the point, but to reply to a particular posting:

There was a comment about educated Americans being more likely to be atheists, whether or not they profess it. I wouldn't count on that as a truth. I am educated; I hold a couple of degrees. I believe in God (if not religion.) I've yet to meet a doctor who is an atheist; I only know one who is agnostic. If you listen to or read interviews with some of the world's leading scientists, you are more likely to hear them say they just don't know.

I've met atheist doctors. Perhaps we move in different circles. I associate with freethinkers when I can, because I enjoy reasoning unencumbered with the burden of dogma. And so, as you say, do "leading scientists," I daresay. Certainly a lot of them have been freethinkers.

A Jewish friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I do think there is some truth in that.

Atheists have served in America's armies since the founding of the nation. There have always been atheists in foxholes.

That sentiment is arrogant, in that it assumes that under stress, any atheist will waver and recant. Believers imagine that atheists recant on their deathbeds, too. If I claimed there were no Christians in foxholes, basing my argument on the need of the Christian to kill and thereby suspend his obedience to the tenets of his faith, it would seem to Christians to be a repugnant argument, would it not? One that betrayed a deep ignorance of what it means to be Christian? And further, one that assumed Christian faith to be paper, giving way under the first stress placed on it?

 

[Guest]

I didn't say there were no atheist doctors or scientists. And, I hope you don't mean to say that those who believe a God are not freethinkers? To be dogmatic in a belief that there is no God is no more free than to insist there must be. Either way, it is a matter of faith, not fact.

As far as this whole foxhole thing is concerned, I can only speak from my own experience here, and I don't believe that makes me--or the sentiment--arrogant. Extreme stress does change people; it tends to bring out the best or the worst. I've seen both.

 

[Liar]

Do you mean "secular", or "atheistic"?

I think the big problem with "atheist" is that there's an association of the word with former Soviet regime.

Like the word "Aryan", whose true meaning has been irrevocably obliterated from common usage, the word "Atheist" is now besmirched with images of oppression.

Funny, I've never heard of any such special associstion between Soviet and atheism. Did the regime use it as a buzzword of sorts in propaganda?

 

[cantdog]

"Belief" implies that there may or may not be an empirical basis...And, to play devil's advocate, where is the empirical basis for a "belief" that God does not exist?

Atheism in the Madalyn Murray O'Hair sense of the word is indeed a leap of faith. There is perhaps little basis for an assertion, flatly, that there is no God, despite a total lack of evidence for any. Most atheists seem to arrive there through Ockham's Razor. There's no need to postulate an entity unnecessarily. God has no role. God fills no function. There's no direct evidence for any god. You just add it up, that's all.

 

[cantdog]

I didn't say there were no atheist doctors or scientists. And, I hope you don't mean to say that those who believe a God are not freethinkers? To be dogmatic in a belief that there is no God is no more free than to insist there must be. Either way, it is a matter of faith, not fact.

As far as this whole foxhole thing is concerned, I can only speak from my own experience here, and I don't believe that makes me--or the sentiment--arrogant. Extreme stress does change people; it tends to bring out the best or the worst. I've seen both.

Atheists arrive at their position through the rational faculty. They have thought it out. They never have to swallow any camels and accept things on faith, from authority, as though authority mattered a hoot.

The stress of combat may make people irrational, and I daresay that's a good thing. You need hot blood to fight well. But it can't be assumed that it will cause a person to throw out a lifetime of consideration and invent a deity.

Also, the biggest determinant of behavior under stress is training. I was a fireman. I worked an ambulance as the attendant for ten years. I've seen both, too. Some people swing right into Drama Mode, others are reduced to gibbering, others detach and make lucid and helpful decisions, others get tunnel vision and set all their efforts to accomplishing one thing, whether it's the most sensible thing or not. But the thing which determines what way they lean under pressure is their training.

 

[Guest]

Atheism in the Madalyn Murray O'Hair sense of the word is indeed a leap of faith. There is perhaps little basis for an assertion, flatly, that there is no God, despite a total lack of evidence for any. Most atheists seem to arrive there through Ockham's Razor. There's no need to postulate an entity unnecessarily. God has no role. God fills no function. There's no direct evidence for any god. You just add it up, that's all.

Ockham's Razor: I'm glad you explained it, because I had no idea what you were talking about, lol...If that is your belief (I'm not sure if it is or isn't), we'll have to agree to disagree. God does have a role and a function in my life.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I like the story about the rabbinical student who'd been studying for years and finally went to his teacher and said, deeply disturbed, "Rabbi, I'm going to have to quit. I've decided that I don't believe in God."

The teacher clapped his hands in delight and embraced the young man. "Finally!" he said. "At last you're ready to learn!"

I was gratified to learn that Judaism has a strong atheistic tradition. There are atheistic Jews. There's even a Hebrew word for them: apikoros. It's a Hebrew corruption of the Greek "Epicurian", after the rationalistic philosophy.

You can be aware of the divine and the transcendent without believing in God. Whether than makes you an atheist or not, I don't know, but I think serious religion has to do with that problem, and that's why that rabbi was so happy for his student.

 

[Equinoxe]

As an afternote to Pure, no, an atheist could not be King/Queen of England, because, thanks to Henry VIII and his new 'Church of England', the Head of State, i.e. Queen/King, is automatically titled, 'Defender of the Faith', and is the - on paper - head of the Church of England.

Every single member of parliament has to pledge their allegiance to the King/Queen (and by default, to the church) when they take up their place in the House of Parliament. And with their hand on the Bible. That was the problem with the members elected from the IRA. They wouldn't take the pledge of allegiance.

No publically professed atheist at least. Nor, for that matter, member of any religion other than the Church of England -- although there was once an openly Catholic head of the Church of England.

The Oath of Allegiance in Parliament is somewhat negotiable, and a member of Parliament is allowed to instead make a solemn affirmation, mostly due to certain groups which don't believe in oaths (like the Quakers); though it was established in general in 1888, as the eventual result of an atheist being elected to Parliament. They do still have to swear allegiance to the Crown though, and hence the IRA objections.

 

[cantdog]

My parents gave lip service to a role for God, too. They imputed a lot of things to God which, upon disinterested investigation, proved not to need God at all.

But let's assume that god created the planet. Why does that make him worthy of worship? The day may come when a man operating a machine, and with a porn novel in his pocket, and chewing gum in his mouth, may manipulate levers and set parameters, then activate the machine to make any number of planets to spec, from asteroidal material previously collected, or from other sources. I'm not going to be filled with sudden awe in him, personally, and bow down to him, and wish only to sing his praises for ever. Although I will find the machine pretty nifty.

The planet thus made will need to be terraformed. For all I know, this could one day be done with a wifty seeding process, taking seven days, start to finish. Thus creating all that liveth and breatheth and so forth. Again, so what? Do I then worship the dude with the terraforming contract for this sector?

And, frankly, there is no evidence that any such special work had to be undertaken to place this particular planet where it now sits, nor to render it useful to the sort of life forms now inhabiting it. On the contrary, all this stuff can be easily seen to have happened in the absence of any intervention at all from supernatural processes.

Millenia of prayer have done less to mitigate disease than the efforts of a few thousand men in laboratories. And if there is a benificent and omnipotent Presence, he is unforgivable. Come on! River blindness? Gillian-Barre syndrome? Plague? Breakbone fever? Shall we say thank you and bow down to the Author of these miseries? Or shall we fund another few laboratories?

 

[NoJo]

Ockham's Razor: I'm glad you explained it, because I had no idea what you were talking about, lol...If that is your belief (I'm not sure if it is or isn't), we'll have to agree to disagree. God does have a role and a function in my life.

I'd say God has no role in your life, because he doesn't exist, but your belief in God certainly has a role and a function.

Atheism is not a belief. I posted earlier about this common misconception, which I think I'm going to have to clear up again:

Atheism is simply this: Not taking the existence of God on faith. Atheism requires that you DO NOT have a leap of faith about God.

I have leaps of faith about a lot of things, but certainly not about the existence of God.

The things I have leaps of faith about are usually real things:

Like:

"I just know we should turn left here."
"I'm sure that person is right for me."

etc.

I follow hunches like that all the time without requiring evidence, but the difference is that the things I have hunches about can easily be verified or falsified either by more careful consideration or by obtaining evidence.

 

[NoJo]

You can be aware of the divine and the transcendent without believing in God.

That's a very familiar feeling to scientists. Einstein, a strongly commited atheist, has been famously misquoted on the subject many times.

 

[Pure]

a couple notes:

i think cant formulated the evidence issue. most people think the God claim demands evidence, and it's hard to see that evidence.

the older definition of atheism, 'a belief there is no god' is a bit imprecise, since, some say, every belief should flow from evidence.

the newer definition of atheism, in many dictionaries is "absence of belief in God." i.e., no beliefs on the subject of God. or, in cant's terms, show me the evidence, and I'll consider a god. this is the same as I would say, I have no beliefs as to the existence of life in other planetary systems. I challenge your belief about that, in the absence of evidence; but it's wrong to say "I DISbelieve in such life", what would be to say, "I believe there is no such life."

i note that Joe, just above, #62 , is saying much the same thing, as I read him.

===
second.

as a Dostoevsky character said:

"if there is no God, then everything is permitted."

that's why youse guys aren't trusted, Joe!

let me add the footnote that, for these purposes 'God' = 'an objective support for morality'. if you believe the universe applauds 'moral' acts and boos or punishes the immoral ones, you have a God.

 

[cantdog]

Exactly. Intuition is very useful, and it is not rational, either. The rational is overrated, and comes into play only later, to clear things up. Decisions are generally made without much reference to it, in my experience.

God is intuited, imagined. But you get better results leaving it out, when you have a real problem to tackle. Like making America, for instance. First time the authority for a society derived from the people in it, not some god. We took God out of the government business. Millions impute the process to the will of a god, but the constitution remains adamant that the source and origin of the power of the state is the people in it.

 

[NoJo]

Every few years or so, on TV or on the radio , there's a poll of the "1,000 greatest songs ever" or some such airtime filler.

And every single time, John Lennon's "Imagine" comes out #1.

Go Atheists!

It restores my faith.

 

[Liar]

Atheism is simply this: Not taking the existence of God on faith. Atheism requires that you DO NOT have a leap of faith about God.

Wouldn't that be agnosticsm?

I've always heard it said that atheism isn't "not believing". It's "believing not". It's not about being un-convinced there's a god, but being convinced there isn't one. Or, if you will, a leap of faith about not-God.

 

[Pure]

check some more recent dictionaries, liar.

 

[Liar]

check some more recent dictionaries, liar.

According to my 05 edition of the national Academy's Dictionary, that's the def.

It's not directly translatable then?

And then what's an agnostic or even nihilist's stance on deities compared to your more recent(?) definition of the word?

 

[Equinoxe]

Wouldn't that be agnosticsm?

I've always heard it said that atheism isn't "not believing". It's "believing not". It's not about being un-convinced there's a god, but being convinced there isn't one. Or, if you will, a leap of faith about not-God.

Atheism can be divided into Strong and Weak Atheism, with Strong Atheism being the rejection of the existence of God and Weak Atheism being the absence of belief in God. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is indeterminable, either at present (Empirical Agnosticism), or in principle (Strict Agnosticism).

 

[rgraham666]

To me belief in a god, Allah to Zeus take your pick, and atheism are the flip sides of the same coin. Both are matters of faith. You can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove it.

Which is why I prefer to refer to myself as agnostic. I don't know, can't find out and lack the faith required to chose. It isn't that important a question anyway. I'm always more concerned with how people act than what they believe.

 

[Pure]

here's a ref, liar:

merriam-webster unabridged
[used by the US Supreme Court]
:

atheism:
1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity

-----------
dis·be·lieve

transitive verb : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withhold belief in <disbelieve his professions of sincerity> <disbelieve the existence of ghosts>

intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief -- used with in <disbelieves in the sanctity of the status quo -- W.C.Brownell>

 

[Weird Harold]

Funny, I've never heard of any such special association between Soviet and atheism. Did the regime use it as a buzzword of sorts in propaganda?

Nope, not as a buzzword, but as an official State Policy -- ALL religions were outlawed by the Soviets and Atheism was raised to the status of an official State Religion -- eg the only acceptable belief system. Tolerance for various religions varied over the course of the Soviet era, but the official policy was always that any belief except atheism was a "mental aberation to be eliminated."


I think the conection to the "Godless Communists" is probably the closest to any general explanation of the antipathy towards Atheists in the US but it also has a lot to do with the actions of people like Madleine Murray O'hare.

I can't really speak for all Americans, but I have personal antipathy towards atheists -- at least towards the very few "true" hardcore atheists that I've had any personal contact with -- that is very similar and closely related to to the antipathy I have towards fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, Fudamentalist Muslims, many Seventh Day Adventists, "Card-carrying" KKK members, "Card-carrying" members of PETA, and "card-carrying" members of the Sierra Club and the Sierra Club's spiritual offshoots. (Note: "Card-carrrying" in this context means "Extremist" or "fundamentalist" and has nothing to do with actual physical posession of a membership card.)

What all of those groups have in common, is that they all are condescending and generally insulting and abusive because I don't believe the same as they do and wish to legislate my compliance with their agendas.

 

[hmmnmm]

Of course, there's the word 'atheism' which packs far less punch than 'atheist'.
'Agnostic' is easier to handle, but less definitive.
Crap, there was something else, but I just went blank...

 

[shereads]

To me belief in a god, Allah to Zeus take your pick, and atheism are the flip sides of the same coin. Both are matters of faith. You can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove it.

Which is why I prefer to refer to myself as agnostic. I don't know, can't find out and lack the faith required to chose. It isn't that important a question anyway. I'm always more concerned with how people act than what they believe.

Agreed. I think of myself as an agnostic, but a believer...in something. Collective conscience; whatever compels us to make music, create art, defend the weak or perform any selfless act for which there's no logical purpose...We're each a fragment of a more perfect whole; God is the whole, and the inner voice that tells us we're incomplete without it.

I cant prove my beliefs even to my own satisfaction, much less anyone else's. So Im agnostic by faith.

But in matters of politics I side with athiests. They're the underdog in this country, and unlike the religious they've never attacked anyone's right to practice their beliefs - or their non-belief - on private property. Mandating athiesm as the Soviets did would make me take the other side. I'm against the intrusion of government into people's bedrooms, churches, temples, bowling leagues, porn shops and other private places.

That's 100% certain that God agrees with me on this, if he or she exists.