The Atheist/Agnostic/Freethought/Humanist/Skeptic/Nonbeliever Thread

[Amy SF]

I think that covers it all.

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the Lounge, but a mod can move it if necessary.

to my fellow atheists.

and this: http://www.newshounds.us/20120719_eric_bolling_asks_if_omg_nbc_approves_of_atheist_night_at_ballpark

This minor league team seems a lot more fun than the Dodgers, frankly.

 

[uno]

i'm not sure that i ever feel like ranking atheist with these other thoughts is really correct.

 

[Pickle Juice]

i'm not sure that i ever feel like ranking atheist with these other thoughts is really correct.

I agree. I have seen people make religions out of most of the others. I even see people make religions out of science. I know some people accuse atheists of religious faith in their non-beliefs, but that doesn't really make sense.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think I'm a fairly free thinker, but I am a theist.


I don't think that you need to be free of beliefs in order to be open to new ideas.

 

[uno]

I agree. I have seen people make religions out of most of the others. I even see people make religions out of science. I know some people accuse atheists of religious faith in their non-beliefs, but that doesn't really make sense.

i wouldn't call it religious faith as much as a smugness in knowing the answers.

 

[mlp]

As an atheist I don't feel like I know all the answers as much as I am comfortable with not needing to know all the answers.

That's a nice way of putting it.

I think that religions often just put an arbitrary stop to any further questions, instead of actually answering questions.

I'm never quite sure what to call myself. I don't think a supreme being, a devil, or an individual after life exists, but I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong (other than the devil bit). I am confident that there is no God/gods as contemplated by any of religions with which I have any passing familiarity, at least none worth worshipping. I generally call myself an agnostic to distinguish myself from the type of atheist who is absolutely certain in his belief/lack of belief.

 

[Renee1]

Hai! I'm an atheist. Some might call me militant, but I don't feel that I am.

 

[beancounter]

I think it's useless to argue or debate with a theist. Their hard coded world view includes a creator, and an Atheists worldview doesn't. Changing these views takes an "earth shattering event", so any discussion will lead nowhere.

 

[Muggle]

I think it's useless to argue or debate with a theist. Their hard coded world view includes a creator, and an Atheists worldview doesn't. Changing these views takes an "earth shattering event", so any discussion will lead nowhere.

Well that's not a sweeping generalisation.

 

[AeryFairy]

I think it's useless to argue or debate with a theist. Their hard coded world view includes a creator, and an Atheists worldview doesn't. Changing these views takes an "earth shattering event", so any discussion will lead nowhere.

It's useless, in some sense, to argue or debate with anyone when they hold a firm belief. A lot of theists feel that arguing with me is pointless, because I will not "come around" to their way of thinking any more than they will start to believe mine. Debate, to me, isn't about changing minds so much as opinions - getting people to understand and think a little differently, without thinking I'm some raging hothead who just wants to force my beliefs onto them.

And surely, if all us atheists were conclusively proven wrong and the existence of God was shown to be true, that would also be an earth-shattering event.

 

[uno]

As an atheist I don't feel like I know all the answers as much as I am comfortable with not needing to know all the answers.

that sounds much more of an agnostic viewpoint than an atheistic one.

 

[uno]

That's a nice way of putting it.

I think that religions often just put an arbitrary stop to any further questions, instead of actually answering questions.

I'm never quite sure what to call myself. I don't think a supreme being, a devil, or an individual after life exists, but I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong (other than the devil bit). I am confident that there is no God/gods as contemplated by any of religions with which I have any passing familiarity, at least none worth worshipping. I generally call myself an agnostic to distinguish myself from the type of atheist who is absolutely certain in his belief/lack of belief.

same here.

 

[beancounter]

And surely, if all us atheists were conclusively proven wrong and the existence of God was shown to be true, that would also be an earth-shattering event.

Yes it would. But I don't think we'll be seeing seven horsemen trotting down Main Street any time soon.

 

[schmencer]

I'm an atheist but it's not a particularly important part of my identity. It's just a result of my other beliefs, not a core part of my worldview.

 

[Josh James xVx]

i wouldn't call it religious faith as much as a smugness in knowing the answers.

I see that far more from religious types than from skeptics or atheists. Science itself isn't about saying you have all the answers. It's actually designed to scrutinize itself and admit when it's wrong - which is something faith by definition cannot ever do.

 

[Josh James xVx]

I see that far more from religious types than from skeptics or atheists. Science itself isn't about saying you have all the answers. It's actually designed to scrutinize itself and admit when it's wrong - which is something faith by definition cannot ever do.

that sounds much more of an agnostic viewpoint than an atheistic one.

Nope. Not mutually exclusive terms. Didn't let you guys get away with misusing those terms on the old site and I won't be silent here, either.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. It's possible to be both. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I have no direct contact with or knowledge of a god so I am agnostic, and I have no belief in one due to lack of evidence so I am an atheist.

This is a wonderful video on the subject that clarifies the misconception that agonosticism is some sort of middle ground between belief and nonbelief. That's simply false by definition. If you break down the word into what it actually means -into its core components - it's "lack of knowledge".

 

[Calliegirl]

Yay, I finally have a place to post this. If anyone should happen to be in the San Diego area next summer, this looks like fun.

Rock Beyond Belief is an ambitious project that will be putting on a free festival consisting of secular speakers and musicians, both big name and small. We are a small grass-roots outfit, but we have the backing of many major secular and military foundations. After the success we had on Fort Bragg we are now focusing on putting together Rock Beyond Belief II aboard Camp Pendleton, California.

We are not interested in just being a counter-event to the offensive relationship that Camp Pendleton has had with the Armor of Light organization on base.
. We are also not interested in putting on an anti-christian, anti-religious, or anti-anything event. Rock Beyond Belief is A Day of Fun and Entertainment for the Rest of Us.


In the spirit of Richard Dawkins’ Out Campaign, we are embracing the fact that just by coming out and saying “we are non-theists, and also we are your firefighters, your military members, and your neighbors and friends” that we help to shed the negative connotations and debunk the myths associated with being a non-believer.
Join us!

​

http://rockbeyondbelief.com/

 

[mlp]

Well, Josh James, by those definitions, I guess I too would be an agnostic atheist.

 

[Josh James xVx]

Well, Josh James, by those definitions, I guess I too would be an agnostic atheist.

Those are simply the most accurate and unbiased definitions of those words.

There's a spectrum ranging from:

Gnostic Theist (Absolute certainty a deity exists, supposed knowledge of this)
Agnostic Theist (Existence of deity is unknown and unknowable, believes anyway)
Agnostic Atheist (Existence of deity is unknown and unknowable, doesn't believe)
Gnostic Atheist (Absolutely certain no deities exist)

I'd argue the first and last are both unreasonable and unscientific, but the Agnostic Theist is still slightly less reasonable because he or she chooses to believe in something for which there's no tangible evidence.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I'd argue the first and last are both unreasonable and unscientific, but the Agnostic Theist is still slightly less reasonable because he or she chooses to believe in something for which there's no tangible evidence.

I'd suggest there is nothing any more unscientific and unreasonable in being certain there is no deity running the world than there is in being certain there is no Isis, Easter Bunny, Dagoth, Sauron, Wizard of Oz, Loki, Cerberus, Santa Claus, leprechauns, Krishna, satyrs, Golem, Aslan, werewolves, Zeus, etc., etc., etc...

I think it is much more unreasonable to demand that a person consider the possible existence of all fictional characters or be labeled unscientific. Because there is certainly no reason to suggest that while we can be certain of the non-existence of all other gods and mythical beings, we must consider the possibility of the existence of the Judeo-Christian one or be called unreasonable. What makes him special when there has never been any more evidence for his existence than there is for the tooth fairy?

What is unscientific is to deny evidence that shows a supposition to be false. If the Judeo-Christian god came down here to my house and smote me with something improbable for my region, like a plague of Egyptian locusts, or filled my little creek with blood and made it run uphill, I would probably consider the possibility of his existence, but I'd still be more likely to try to discover the scientific explanation first.

There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity running reality, therefore it is not unscientific to be certain there isn't one. Certainty and rigidity are two separate things, and the application of scientific methods of investigation does not demand that we consider every potential possibility, just the ones we have evidence for.