Jayjay

Us atheists really like to play the intellectual superiority card and dismiss religions automatically emotional, but I think that wanting to go by the facts instead of emotions is itself an emotional choice... I like atheism because religious world views don't make sense to me and as such make me uncomfortable. Some folks have different priorities.

ju'iblex

I wouldn't speak for all of us if I were you.

Jayjay

Alright, I apologize if it seemed as if I am representing atheists in any form. However, I still stand by my observation that atheists (i.e. people who identify themselves as such) often do consider their worldview to be somehow more rational and intellectually superior to theistic worldviews. Theists on the other hand seem to appeal to their perceived moral superiority instead.

(Yes, they are both sweeping generalizations.)

thedigiMESS

CX wrote:
Atheism is and only is the following:
Q: Do you believe in god?
A: No.

In light of this criteria established by CX my dissertation might seem superfluous and overwrought, but this essay was inspired by this thread, so, thanks in advance for indulging me.

I am not an atheist. Through the miracle of countless contingencies over many millennia it has happened that I have been born into a species that has evolved the ability to reason. Exercising this ability, and honing it through the methods of science, I have not encountered any compelling reason to hypothesize the existence of phenomena that transcend the boundaries of the natural, knowable universe.

My life is not defined by the presence or absence of a god or gods. In my reality, which is governed by the laws of the natural universe, it is no more necessary to speculate on the existence of supernatural deities than it is to wonder whether the moon is made of Miracle Whip. I am no more a denier of god than I am a denier of lunar mayonnaise. In reality, in my reality, the denial of preposterous claims is extraneous. Why should anything that can be dismissed simply because it is implausible (and/or lacks supporting evidence) have to be denied?

I am not an atheist. How can I be defined by what I am not? I do not actively disbelieve in god, no more than I actively disbelieve in unicorns or Smurfs. Whenever I am faced with an incredible claim I exercise discretion in determining whether or not to (provisionally) accept it, but I do not consider myself the denier of every claim that I have ever rejected. It would be terribly cumbersome to always have to describe myself by the things that I am not. It is much easier to describe myself as having two legs than to explain that I don�t have three legs, four legs, five legs, six legs, ad infinitum.

Accepting the atheist label means submitting to a theistic worldview where supreme beings are presumed real and of paramount importance. If the world can (or should) be divided into two groups, those who believe in god and those who don�t, then the subtle implication is that a god does in fact exist, or is very likely to exist, and that there just happens to be a category of people who refuse to accept it.

As the yang to the theist�s yin, the atheist is cast in the role opposite the true believer. No matter how diametrically opposed the two sides may appear, the fact remains that they are inextricably linked, merely occupying opposite ends of the same spectrum. Though the spectrum covers the gamut from believer to nonbeliever (or denier), it must be kept in mind that the entire spectrum itself is a by-product of the theistic worldview. The question of whether god exists is only important to those who believe in god. In acquiescing to this theistic context the atheist indulges, wittingly or not, the notion that the existence of god can be seriously pondered and unwittingly buttresses the theist�s agenda.

What is illuminated through the use of reason and the application of science is too easily lost in the shadow cast by the discussion of god. Critical thinking cautions that you cannot prove a negative, yet the atheist, by definition, must defend a negative assertion; that god does not exist. This leaves the atheist with little recourse other than to resort to the kind of zealotry and dogma that is typically associated with the theists and that is so abhorrent to critical thought.

Atheism incites such distractions from the tenets of science and reason that it can hardly be considered an adequate way of describing people with a naturalistic worldview. I am indifferent when it comes to the existence of god. It is reasonable to provisionally accept that no god or gods exist in light of the overwhelming lack of evidence, but until there is any evidence to speak of it is hardly worth discussing; I just assume not be assigned to either side of the argument. I do not believe in god. I do not deny god�s existence. My identity is not tied to the existence of god. I am a free thinker. I am a critical thinker. I am not an atheist.

-thedigiMESS

Howay the Toon

:notworthy

I could not agree more. I have always been uncomfortable with having to give myself a label according to my attitude to someone elses nonsense.

I am no more an atheist than I am an A-santa-ist or an A-Leprichaun-ist.

Dr. Retard

I think the usual definitions of "atheist" don't involve any reference to what kind of place atheism has in the atheist's life. So this looks like a word game.

CX

Based on what you just wrote, you are an atheist, but have an incorrect definition of atheism in your mind. Atheism means one thing: Nonbelief in god(s). This is not the same as disbelief or negative belief or anything else. Properly understood atheism is not a worldview or a philosophical position. It's a terse answer to one question and no more. Consider this, "amoral" is not the opposite of "moral". It is the absence of morality not the presence of immorality (which is the opposite of "moral"). Likewise atheism is not the opposite of theism, it is the absence of theistic belief not active belief in the nonexistence of god. Unfortunately there's no suitable word for that so atheism gets coopted. Add to that the use of the word "atheist" as an epithet by theists of various flavors almost since the beginning of time and the waters are further muddied.

All that being said your treatise was very good and poetic.

P.S. It sounds to me like you are also a materialist and a metaphysical naturalist both of which say considerably more about a person than saying that he or she is an atheist.

thedigiMESS

Howay the Toon wrote:
�I could not agree more. I have always been uncomfortable with having to give myself a label according to my attitude to someone elses nonsense.�

Thank you for your feedback.

Dr. Retard wrote:
�I think the usual definitions of "atheist" don't involve any reference to what kind of place atheism has in the atheist's life. So this looks like a word game.�

I agree. I had some problems with that as well as I was writing it. I was aware that I was manipulating some loose definitions to my advantage in building an argument that really only boiled down to a matter of semantics. I think the real issue however, and what I was attempting to address, is not so much the technical definition of �atheist� but what you eruditely pointed out as �what kind of place atheism has in the atheist's life.�

For many people atheism does describe much more than whether or not they believe in god. Witness this forum for instance. There is an entire culture associated with it and I was merely trying to express some misgivings I have about the atheist�s inescapable relationship with god and the world of believers, despite their alleged indifference.

It is a semantic game to be sure, and I would like to make it clear that this is not a position that I am interested in spending much time defending. I am not a staunch �anti-atheist,� or some kind of hardcore naturalist/atheist reformer. I just thought it was an interesting thought exercise. To that end, thank you for your comments. You definitely get a better work out when there is someone else there to push you.

-thedigiMESS

thedigiMESS

CX wrote:
�Based on what you just wrote, you are an atheist��

I agree. I agree with everything that you have said. In fact, I alluded to as much by beginning my original post with a reference to your concise, particular definition of atheism. I addressed this already a little bit in my response to Dr. Retard so I won�t go into it again here. Just wanted to drop you a line to know that I do agree with you.

CX wrote:
�All that being said your treatise was very good and poetic.�

Thank you. And thank you for allowing me the room to maneuver my way around an otherwise straightforward definition in order to express a nuanced, and perhaps somewhat obtuse, idea.

-thedigiMESS

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Frankly, I don't think there is a "logical" argument. Logical arguments can only be made upon matters of fact. Facts can only be established by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is gathered through objective observation of measurable and definable objects or phenomena.

Christian notions of God, however, tend to be nebulous, mystical, and subjective. These notions are, therefore, not empirically measurable, which means we cannot establish their validity or otherwise via logic. Logic simply does not apply to mysticism or entirely subjective beliefs. It is not an adequate tool on such occasions. To falsify the notion of God, you must pin him down as some measureable quantity. But that's more than most Christians will ever concede, so most Christians find the atheist's logical disproof of god unconvincing.

Like CX, I am an atheist because I don't belief in God. My belief (or in this case, lack of it) has no basis in any logical proof. But then, neither does the Christian's belief that there is a God. It's my subjective experience against the Christian's subjective experience. So at this stage, we're even.

However, that's not the end of the matter. Just because there is no "logical" basis for my atheism, doesn't mean there is no basis whatsoever. In fact, I don't believe in God, because I subscribe to "naturalism" as a world view. And I can compare my naturalistic world view with the Christian's theistic world view. When I do so, I find that naturalism is more useful world view, in that it can account for just about anything that one observes in the universe. It doesn't create the sorts of philosophical difficulties and ambiguities that theism creates (the problem of evil, for example).

On the balance of probability, I find that naturalism as a world view comes closer to being "right" than theism does, and that it is certainly a more functional and practical sort of world view than theism. To summarize: truth doesn't come into it, because no "truth" can be known in this instance. So I'm an atheist simply because it's better than the alternative.

And as far as I'm concerned, the only "emotional problem" in atheism is the fact that some atheists become atheists because they are emotionally and socially retarded. They are attracted by the misguided notion that atheism somehow involves becoming an emotionless, flagellatory, nihilistic, social periah. Since such people are already emotionless, flagellatory, nihilistic, social periahs, all they're really looking for is a label, an excuse, and a peer group that will sympathize with their sad and sorry asses. I'm sorry to say, they won't get any sympathy from me.