*trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?

[Seraphina]

So you want to know " What if atheism's not all it seems?"

What's it supposed to "seem" to be? All atheism is, is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's no "organization" or anything. Outside of that one simple statement, fellow atheists are like night and day. We are each uniquely different and enjoy various amounts of activities and interests that have zero to do with atheism. Sure organizations like FFRF exist but that in no way indicates that everyone who is a member, subscribes to rituals or anything else. To compare Atheism to religion is just absurd thinking.

Besides... how does that actually trigger anything for anyone?

+1
Watch the broad-brush stroke statements about atheists. About all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

Also, theists need to keep their personal religious beliefs out of my kid's school and away from my uterus and bodily functions and stop knocking on my damn door at 9am on a Saturday. Other than that, I don't generally care what woo you choose to believe in.

-Teresa

[henryp]

Finally, to wrap up this post, I want to make one more point: if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide for your philosophical views, you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad - the only guide you can get from it is to take what you can get and maximise your own happiness. No justice, no reward for good, or judgement for bad. Just do as you please. This is what rationalism looks like in practice - not ideal for a cohesive society.

What if maximizing your own happiness and empathy join forces and cause people to rationally behave good'ish.  That's a tangible thing.  It gets complicated when other people go a different route, and everybody in Uganda ends up with Aids, but for 21st century internet participants in societies where most people arrive at good and bad one way or another, and you get some agreed upon laws out of it,  rationalism and religion have very similar endpoints.

Evolution didn't stick all it's eggs in one basket.  There seem to be a whole litany of things to get us to behave in a way that keeps us alive and reproducing.

[Cyberman]

Hmmm...trying to decide if this violates the prime directive or not.

Bloody backseat moderators!

[Cyberman]

- and finally: non-believers should be ridiculed because their views are *obviously* wrong and yours are completely, unquestionably correct - right?

No, because you're making the mistake - or ploy - of taking criticism of one's beliefs and making it personal. If you don't want your views ridiculed, don't present me with ridiculous views.

Also: pot/kettle much? There aren't many theists who don't insist that theirs are the only unquestionably correct views.

[Astreja]

I'm not sure about you, but given that our views on the world are personal choice due to our lack of knowledge about it all, I'd take a creed which at its core promotes love, justice, and selflessness towards others over a world view that's equally unprovable but is rooted in nothing more than a cold, every-man-for-himself cesspit.

Humanism.  No gods required.

[Aroura]

Dude sounds like every other theists who's ever come through here.

1. Was an atheists. Check
2. Misdefines and misunderstands atheists and atheism. Check
3. Asserts that without God, there is no meaning to life. Check
4. Asserts that without belief in God, people would be out stealing and raping for their own pleasure, even though that is demonstrably false. Check
5. Kudosed by other resident mindless followers. Check

So original! So believable! Not completely full of shit at all! Go tell it to Michael Bay.

[Pat Mustard]

Hi, all

I used to frequent these forums just over two years ago when I was a staunch atheist myself - I used to post anti-religion memes on Facebook, thought Richard Dawkins was super cool, laughed at the *obviously* intellectually inferior religious fools (because the only measure of one's intelligence is whether they refute a god and submit themselves to the great and glorious concept of ~rationalism~ - right?), and generally, I acted like a very proper atheist.

But amidst all of my unwavering sense self-assurance and intellectualism, I now see in hindsight that I failed to ask myself one very important question - what makes me so sure of my beliefs?

I pose the above question to you today because I want you to consider this deeply. I now cringe at my past self, how arrogant and facetious I acted towards a topic which I, and every single one of you reading this post, have absolutely no certainty of. We are all clueless. We can guess, yes - we can ponder and theorise what the answer could be. But ultimately the answers we all come up with are nothing short of personal opinion or hope. Spouting out statements full of 100% assurance, as I see so many atheists do, like "There is no afterlife - deal with it" or "God doesn't exist - now enjoy life" demonstrate an almost - dare I say - religious sense of certainty?

This brings me to my next point: whether you are willing to see this or not (and I too remember wincing years ago when people said this but I now see their reasoning) - atheism follows almost all of the characteristics of an organised religion. It provides you with a sense of certitude, like you have figured out the universe; it gives you a community to belong to; there are bishop-like figures, think Dawkins, Krauss, etc etc., you make statements which you don't know are true for sure. - and finally: non-believers should be ridiculed because their views are *obviously* wrong and yours are completely, unquestionably correct - right?

Beyond this, I wish to understand the following: why is such visceral contempt held towards the idea of daring to have some hope that this universe may have a greater meaning beyond this one? Did you ever consider the person who has just lost their home, or their family, whose life is completely empty and whose only consolation is the hope that maybe there is a loving god out there who cares for them? Their opinion is no less valid than yours, and most of these people hold no ill will towards anyone. They choose (and I can completely understand why) to be optimistic and hopeful in what can be a sad and confusing world rather than desperately trying - quite strangely - to promote the idea of a universe devoid of any greater meaning at all. I ask you to please consider this the next time you laugh at such people.

Finally, to wrap up this post, I want to make one more point: if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide for your philosophical views, you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad - the only guide you can get from it is to take what you can get and maximise your own happiness. No justice, no reward for good, or judgement for bad. Just do as you please. This is what rationalism looks like in practice - not ideal for a cohesive society.

I'm not sure about you, but given that our views on the world are personal choice due to our lack of knowledge about it all, I'd take a creed which at its core promotes love, justice, and selflessness towards others over a world view that's equally unprovable but is rooted in nothing more than a cold, every-man-for-himself cesspit.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Best wishes,
- Z

Given the way you've so badly mischaracterised atheism, I'm calling bullshit on your claim to ever having been one. You're a Lee Strobel atheist, a believer who falsely claims former disbelief in the vain hope that it bolsters his pathetic arguments.

Firstly atheism is a belief in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Secondly atheism has no structure, no hierarchy, no set dogma, therefore it has exactly none of the characteristics of organised religion. Finallly from a logical perspective atheism is a more valid viewpoint than theism, even though we have insufficient evidence to conclusively rule out the presence of any god*. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any god existing, and the preponderance of evidence indicates thst it is not necessary for one to exist (the biggest nail in the gods' colloective coffin is evolution, it explains us without need for a divine spark by showing we're just animals). Therefore using William of Ockham's least causes doctrine we can discard god until sufficient evidence comes along for him. Atheism is the better position.

*Note that I am speaking about a generic god here, specific gods can be disproven, eg a close critical reading of the bible shows that yhwh is assigned traits which cannot exist in a single being, therefore yhwh is an impossible being, therefore he doesn't exist.

Oh and one final thing on your "no justice" screed, you're wrong, human ideas of justice and morality stem from the secies evolution as a social animal. Our rules stem from the fact that we evolved to live and work in groups, and that shapes our thinking on morality. Look at the other primates and you will see a morality remarkably similar to ours. No gods needed.

---

Both, definitely both.

[pocaracas]

(Not really)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Atheism is a religion in precisely the same sense that 'bald' is a hair colour. 

Boru

[LastPoet]

Hmmm...trying to decide if this violates the prime directive or not. Kinda similar to posts that assume all Christians are Evangelical fundamentalists.

As to my understanding limited as it is, he is making a case of sorts. So yeah discussion. As to his characterization of atheists... well, not really offended. Its a religion of cats.