Concerned About Atheisim

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Yes I certainly have a lot of respect for most of science, but even in science there is division in agreement and I suppose that is a healthy way to be. Its like the climate change thing going on, there are plenty of science who don't believe what the other side believes, and this can be very confusing to the public.

But among biologists, the people that should know, there's pretty much a consensus on the matter.

[psychoslice]

Will atheism one day in the future become like a religion, with its dogma, and fundamentalism belief system ?. Myself I simply don't have a belief in any god, or god's, but I don't call myself an atheist, I don't blindly believe everything that science says, I am a free thinker.

I do agree that its great that so called atheist do keep a balance with religion, after all who is going to keep them honest, but like all belief systems they eventually try to take over, or put themselves above all else.

I might be wrong, but I do feel that atheist are becoming arrogant in their beliefs, it could be that their beliefs in science makes them feel as if they can never be wrong.

I just hope this is not the case, I do like the atheist way of thinking more than the religious way of thinking, but I just hope we are not getting rid of one monster to be replaced with another.

On my part this is not a debate but a simple question, thank you.

People who believe in a god don't need to follow any particular 'religion,' per se. So, likewise, stands to reason, that there will be atheists/agnotsics who may take their views, and preach against religion, like you say...creating sort of a ''counter religion'' to religion. And there will be atheists who don't.

Much will be contingent too on how far religion pushes things in the secular / government arena. If religion keeps trying to veto secular progress, then I can see more of a united front/uprising from atheists/agnostics, in order to keep that from happening. Which would be understandable.

This is why I think I don't like to label myself an atheist, its like you are boxed into a belief system, just as religion is boxed into their particular belief system.

I can see your point, that a united front may be needed, some times we need a revolution for the better of all.

---

But still, science cannot be totally right with everything they say, well I cannot believe that. Of course science has a lot of truth, but they are not the owners of all truth.

True. But, science is the revealer or discoverer, of truth.

Yes on one level I can agree with that.

---

Yes I certainly have a lot of respect for most of science, but even in science there is division in agreement and I suppose that is a healthy way to be. Its like the climate change thing going on, there are plenty of science who don't believe what the other side believes, and this can be very confusing to the public.

But among biologists, the people that should know, there's pretty much a consensus on the matter.

But who are the people who should know, verses the people who don't know, and all being equal in their title of being biologists, or whatever science field ?.

[psychoslice]

"If we ever want to truly reach the general public with our message of skepticism, scientific inquiry and a conviction about the importance of basic civil rights and liberties, we need to recognize that you can respectfully disagree, but you can't respectfully ridicule. Let's drop the arrogance and reemphasize the humanist values that appeal to so many people of varying faith traditions. We can still be vocal about our disbelief and should seek to challenge ignorance (be it religious or otherwise) whenever it rears its head, but we should do so in the way that opens minds instead of closes them."

By Ron Speckhardt

Executive Director, American Humanist Association.

[Whateverist]

This is why I think I don't like to label myself an atheist, its like you are boxed into a belief system, just as religion is boxed into their particular belief system.

I think you may have absorbed some of the stereotypes some theists hold against atheists. We're really not a homogenous group at all.

Some atheists believe positively that no gods exist. Some even think they can make an argument to that effect that others should find convincing. Many others just don't find any reason to believe so far. For me it isn't anything I dwell on. I don't ever expect to find reason to believe but I can't rule out the possibility that I am wrong about that. I see no reason to overstate my case.

Some atheists are angry, many for good reason. For some religion has ostracized them from family and neighbors. But none 'hates God', that being a self contradictory combination. And many atheists are not at all angry about religion.

It does seem to me sometimes that some atheists attach more significance to science than is justified. Back in the day of Freud there was a strong cultural feeling that progress was unstoppable. Science would overcome every disease and make possible every wish. For some atheists, religion is an obstacle to the march of progress through science. But not every atheist shares that perspective including myself.

For a variety of reasons some atheists would welcome an end to all religions. But unless that is accompanied by universal high quality education there is little reason to think a lot of good would come from that. Personally, I'm not for excising anything we don't fully understand.

So don't be so quick to toss the atheist monicker. It belong as much to you as it does anyone else who harbors no belief in gods. Go ahead and claim any other descriptor which fits as well. But if you don't believe in any gods, like it or not, you are an atheist.

[psychoslice]

This is why I think I don't like to label myself an atheist, its like you are boxed into a belief system, just as religion is boxed into their particular belief system.

I think you may have absorbed some of the stereotypes some theists hold against atheists. We're really not a homogenous group at all.

Some atheists believe positively that no gods exist. Some even think they can make an argument to that effect that others should find convincing. Many others just don't find any reason to believe so far. For me it isn't anything I dwell on. I don't ever expect to find reason to believe but I can't rule out the possibility that I am wrong about that. I see no reason to overstate my case.

Some atheists are angry, many for good reason. For some religion has ostracized them from family and neighbors. But none 'hates God', that being a self contradictory combination. And many atheists are not at all angry about religion.

It does seem to me sometimes that some atheists attach more significance to science than is justified. Back in the day of Freud there was a strong cultural feeling that progress was unstoppable. Science would overcome every disease and make possible every wish. For some atheists, religion is an obstacle to the march of progress through science. But not every atheist shares that perspective including myself.

For a variety of reasons some atheists would welcome an end to all religions. But unless that is accompanied by universal high quality education there is little reason to think a lot of good would come from that. Personally, I'm not for excising anything we don't fully understand.

So don't be so quick to toss the atheist monicker. It belong as much to you as it does anyone else who harbors no belief in gods. Go ahead and claim any other descriptor which fits as well. But if you don't believe in any gods, like it or not, you are an atheist.

Yes I agree with most of what you said, but why do we need to call ourselves atheist, I don't believe in Santa, or the Easter bunny, but that doesn't mean I should call myself a name or categorise myself as a believe system that doesn't believe in Santa and the bunny.

Once we put ourselves in a box, we begin to make ourselves into a tribe. We then begin to start our own rituals with spaghetti monsters and whatever else we dream up. We then organise little dinner parties and meetings, which will probably one day become a whole new belief system, and who knows down the track there maybe a generation that will try to rid our belief system, who knows ?.

[Whateverist]

Yes I agree with most of what you said, but why do we need to call ourselves atheist, I don't believe in Santa, or the Easter bunny, but that doesn't mean I should call myself a name or categorise myself as a believe system that doesn't believe in Santa and the bunny.

It isn't anything I print on my business cards. I don't attend any atheist group meetings. I don't really care to proselytize on the behalf of atheism for that matter. Atheism isn't really a thing you can be, it merely classifies you as "none of the above" when it comes to religion. If religion occupied a less dominant position in society it would indeed be an odd thing to bring up in describing oneself. (Like, "hello, I'm not a banker.") But whether or not you are an atheist is a different matter from what aspects of yourself you want to lead with socially.

Once we put ourselves in a box, we begin to make ourselves into a tribe. We then begin to start our own rituals with spaghetti monsters and whatever else we dream up. We then organise little dinner parties and meetings, which will probably one day become a whole new belief system, and who knows down the track there maybe a generation that will try to rid our belief system, who knows ?.

I think you worry too much, but that's just the way it seems from where I stand. Even though religion isn't a hot button topic for me, here I am on an atheist forum discussing aspects of religion at times. If it is such an unimportant matter to you I wonder how you explain your presence here to yourself?

[psychoslice]

Hi whateverist , no its no that I am worried, it would just be a shame if atheist did turn out to be just another belief system. I don't have any beliefs in a god, that is a god with a penis, or even a virgina lol, but I do feel that all is connected, nothing is separate, this connection I call the Source or a higher Consciousness, whatever name you want to call it, but I don't see it as a god that is watching us and judging us, we do enough of that to each other already.

Now if I bring up what I feel, that is all is connected, strait away you have an atheist jumping up and down, bringing up some science evidence they then throw at you, I see it as something that science may not be ready to understand, there has been a lot that science hasn't understood, but now they do, and this connection or source maybe just another future discovery ?.

[Alex K]

I currently work as a scientist, and not blindly believing everything that science says as dogma is basically part of the job description. It's always, always, always about working with different degrees of belief in various conclusions (led by the data of course), exploring the limitations of existing theories, inventing new models to test, throwing out some. As long as you stay true to the process of science, a fixed dogma should ideally not emerge. It will sometimes because we are humans, and there are fads and other annoying sociological effects, but the scientific principle does not really justify it, and so they are usually overthrown after a while. I like to think I've adopted this line of thought outside of the workplace as well. Atheism is likewise not the highest intellectual good, but rather a conclusion. I only proclaim those gods to be nonexistent with 100% certainty which are inconsistent, to all others I assign degrees of disbelief. This is the way it should be, and it's the way the vast majority of atheists handle it. This also informs my ideas about public policy, namely promoting the ability to think critically, to enable people to cope with varying degrees of belief in things, and definitely not write atheism into the laws. (but also not the opposite, secularism please)

As to the label, I happily identify myself as one because god belief is so pervasive in society that atheism becomes a thing. If god belief were some exotic specialty, I wouldnt bother giving a label to disbelief.

[psychoslice]

I like what you said about working with different degrees of belief in various conclusions (led by the data of course), I hope that all scientific thinking people do the same, and not just hold to a belief like their treasured dogma, so much harm could come out of such thinking, as with religious thinking also.

[Alex K]

Yes, that's true. But you also have to live with the fact that some conclusions come with a extremely high degree of belief (at least according to some or the majority), such that it would be perverse to disregard it. This can be confused with dogma esp to those on the outside. When such a superconfident conclusion is erraneous because of human fallibility or because of misleading data, it can have the deleterious effects like dogma.