The Atheist's Bible (show of 7 Feb 09) - the faith of atheism

[justinbrierley]

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/15180000/15187933.JPG

Listen at the usual place www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable from 3pm on 7 Feb

Interestingly Joan Konner, the book's compiler, doesn't describe herself as an atheist (although she does say she doesn't believe in 'the supernatural'). However she was very adamant that what she dislikes about religion are those who make exclusive claims to the truth.

I pointed out to her that in saying that no religion should make exclusive claims, she herself is making an exclusive claim.

Are atheists guilty of being as fundamentalist as any religion in their own faith assumptions?

[Pumbelo]

Are atheists guilty of being as fundamentalist as any religion in their own faith assumptions?

Definitely.

[wildrow12]

Woah there partner!

When you say:


Are atheists guilty of being as fundamentalist as any religion in their own faith assumptions?


You are really painting the entire ideology with a very broad brush.

That said, are there Atheists who have views as inflexible and dogmatic as any fundamentalist or extremist?

Yes. However, just like in the case of Christianity, these "Fundamentalist Atheists" do not represent the whole.

[yo lunch]

Actually Atheism is a misnomer. An "ism" does not apply here because it means that one has to practice it. However an Atheist merely does not believe in a God and does not need to "practice" at such non-belief. It is simply an absence of belief in God.

[Pumbelo]

Actually Atheism is a misnomer. An "ism" does not apply here because it means that one has to practice it. However an Atheist merely does not believe in a God and does not need to "practice" at such non-belief. It is simply an absence of belief in God.

I don't think so. But for the sake of the argument, would you prefer Atheislam or Atheistianity?

[Ex Nihilo]

Actually Atheism is a misnomer. An "ism" does not apply here because it means that one has to practice it. However an Atheist merely does not believe in a God and does not need to "practice" at such non-belief. It is simply an absence of belief in God.

This is one of those things that I find frustrating, personally. As a Christian, I have to accept all the rules placed upon me by the non-believers I speak with. Yet the atheists never seem to have a solid definition for me. I have to hit a moving target while they get to scattershoot against portions of things that I may or may not believe.

Not saying you do this, but the "you don't know what atheism means" just kind of comes off as a dodge, even when it's not.

[Echelon]

This is one of those things that I find frustrating, personally. As a Christian, I have to accept all the rules placed upon me by the non-believers I speak with. Yet the atheists never seem to have a solid definition for me. I have to hit a moving target while they get to scattershoot against portions of things that I may or may not believe.

Not saying you do this, but the "you don't know what atheism means" just kind of comes off as a dodge, even when it's not.

Very good point. I find that atheists who are following the newer trend, the less informed ones, tend to play with the term so as to shift the burden of proof.

[Pumbelo]

This is one of those things that I find frustrating, personally. As a Christian, I have to accept all the rules placed upon me by the non-believers I speak with. Yet the atheists never seem to have a solid definition for me. I have to hit a moving target while they get to scattershoot against portions of things that I may or may not believe.

Not saying you do this, but the "you don't know what atheism means" just kind of comes off as a dodge, even when it's not.

True. They define "faith" as whatever they want but every single one of them has his own definition of atheism.

[Eru Ilúvatar]

*waits for the KJV-Version Onlyist atheists to crop up*

[princesa]

[QUOTE=yo lunch;2573845]Actually Atheism is a misnomer. An "ism" does not apply here because it means that one has to practice it. However an Atheist merely does not believe in a God and does not need to "practice" at such non-belief. It is simply an absence of belief in God.[/QUOTE

And yet, that's precisely what they do.

What do you call a group of atheists who advertise their non beliefs on buses, put up plaques indicating 'there is no god' near the holidays, not to mention all the secular organizations dedicated to the nonbelief in God on and offline.....

If that's not practicing atheist(ism), we need a new definition of the word 'practice'.

[Ex Nihilo]

[QUOTE=yo lunch;2573845]Actually Atheism is a misnomer. An "ism" does not apply here because it means that one has to practice it. However an Atheist merely does not believe in a God and does not need to "practice" at such non-belief. It is simply an absence of belief in God.[/QUOTE

And yet, that's precisely what they do.

What do you call a group of atheists who advertise their non beliefs on buses, put up plaques indicating 'there is no god' near the holidays, not to mention all the secular organizations dedicated to the nonbelief in God on and offline.....

If that's not practicing atheist(ism), we need a new definition of the word 'practice'.

Wait, we don't even know what atheism means, if you start defining practice, I am going to get lost! :wink:

[Whateverman]

Yes. However, just like in the case of Christianity, these "Fundamentalist Atheists" do not represent the whole.

Exactly.

In regards to "atheism requiring faith", only the Strong type does (ie. belief that no God exists). The vast majority of atheists float somewhere between agnosticism and weak atheism (the latter of which is defined only as lacking belief in a specific God), which requires as much faith as knowing that after the traffic light turns yellow, it's going to turn red.

[Pumbelo]

Exactly.

In regards to "atheism requiring faith", only the Strong type does (ie. belief that no God exists). The vast majority of atheists float somewhere between agnosticism and weak atheism (the latter of which is defined only as lacking belief in a specific God), which requires as much faith as knowing that after the traffic light turns yellow, it's going to turn red.

Has anyone noticed that this idiotic categorization has no symmetry?

[Whateverman]

Has anyone noticed that this idiotic categorization has no symmetry?

Symmetry with regards to <what>?

[Pumbelo]

Symmetry with regards to <what>?

Your categories (feel free to correct me):

strong atheism: believing that no god exists
weak atheism: not believing that a god exists
agnosticism: ??? maybe collecting underpants
weak theism: believing that a god exists
strong theism: believing that there is proof that a god exists

No symmetry.

My categories:

strong atheism: believing that one has sound proof that no god exists
weak atheism: beliving that no god exists
agnosticism: not beliving that a god does or does not exist
weak theism: believing that a god exists
strong theism: believing that one has sound proof that a god exists

Symmetry.

[Cowthulu]

This is one of those things that I find frustrating, personally. As a Christian, I have to accept all the rules placed upon me by the non-believers I speak with. Yet the atheists never seem to have a solid definition for me. I have to hit a moving target while they get to scattershoot against portions of things that I may or may not believe.

Not saying you do this, but the "you don't know what atheism means" just kind of comes off as a dodge, even when it's not.

That's cause it is a dodge.

No True Scotsman (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html)

[Whateverman]

Your categories (feel free to correct me):

strong atheism: believing that no god exists
weak atheism: not believing that a god exists
agnosticism: ??? maybe collecting underpants
weak theism: believing that a god exists
strong theism: believing that there is proof that a god exists

No symmetry.

My categories:

strong atheism: believing that one has sound proof that no god exists
weak atheism: beliving that no god exists
agnosticism: not beliving that a god does or does not exist
weak theism: believing that a god exists
strong theism: believing that one has sound proof that a god exists

Symmetry.

I would quibble with some of your definitions, obviously, but I'll address the symmetry issue. Categorizing atheists is difficult at best - all atheists lack belief in (a) God(s). Why they lack that belief is what's being categorized, and the reasons are extremely varied.

You wont find much symmetry for the same reason you wont find much in categorizing people who don't collect stamps; some think it's stupid, some have never encountered the idea, others would rather collect something else, etc.

As for definition, I guess we could go back and forth for days and never agree. I'll simply refer you to one ore more Wiki entries on the subject. I'm not trying to cite Wiki as the ultimate source of definitions, because dictionaries are just as valid. But - the term "Christian" can be used either very loosely or not, the consequences being substantial. In general, the term includes Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses - and I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of Christians here who would reject this even though by dictionary definitions it would be correct. And thus, there are categories of Christians.

The same is true about "lacking belief in God" - there are categories of non-belief, and they're pretty diverse. And when those categories involve the subject Lacking something - I don't think symmetry should be expected...

ps. Thanks for clearing up what you meant bythe term...

[Whateverman]

This is one of those things that I find frustrating, personally. As a Christian, I have to accept all the rules placed upon me by the non-believers I speak with.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it a bit?


Yet the atheists never seem to have a solid definition for me. I have to hit a moving target while they get to scattershoot against portions of things that I may or may not believe.

Not saying you do this, but the "you don't know what atheism means" just kind of comes off as a dodge, even when it's not.

"Atheism" is a word put into use by Christians, and meant as an insult; they got to define the term used to label themselves, however.

That isn't meant as a jab at you, and I apologize it if appears otherwise. I'm raising it only to point out that part of the reason you're having a hard time pinning "atheism" down is that only within the last 70 years (roughly) have atheists actually started labelling themselves. Whereas "Christian" as a positive label has been around for a long time, "atheist" has not. And thus you may find some unfamiliar terms if you do a bit of web research.

The second reason is that it's very difficult to find simple terms that label "lack of belief" accurately and concisely. There are many vastly different reasons for a person not believing that God exists; you might believe that the idea is stupid, you might have faith that No Gods Exist, you might feel that you've never found credible evidence (but remain open-minded), or you might reject specific theist versions of this being without rejecting the idea completely.

How exactly do you label that diversity of non-belief?

It would be just as difficult and weird to try to label People Who Don't Collect Stamps.

Christianity is a positive statement about belief; most of atheism is simply a lack of a statement.

[Ex Nihilo]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it a bit?.

~ I was referencing the dodge that many non-believers like to put on the atheistic movement. Whereas I (though I don't believe in these things) have to stand up for all the strange things that others believe in, because someone else assumes that "all Christians believe x". There are as many flavors of Christianity as there are Christians, but for some reason we are expected to all move as one while the non-believers get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm just saying it's unbalanced, is all.


"Atheism" is a word put into use by Christians, and meant as an insult; they got to define the term used to label themselves, however.

That isn't meant as a jab at you, and I apologize it if appears otherwise. I'm raising it only to point out that part of the reason you're having a hard time pinning "atheism" down is that only within the last 70 years (roughly) have atheists actually started labelling themselves. Whereas "Christian" as a positive label has been around for a long time, "atheist" has not. And thus you may find some unfamiliar terms if you do a bit of web research.

I'll start here. Polycarp (Martyred in 155AD) was required by the Roman procunsul to deny Christ with the phrase "Away with the Atheists". The Christians were denied by the Romans as atheists early on as well. It wasn't a positive label, especially early on. I can't say it's positive not in many people's eyes.

I didn't take it as a jab...

The second reason is that it's very difficult to find simple terms that label "lack of belief" accurately and concisely. There are many vastly different reasons for a person not believing that God exists; you might believe that the idea is stupid, you might have faith that No Gods Exist, you might feel that you've never found credible evidence (but remain open-minded), or you might reject specific theist versions of this being without rejecting the idea completely.


How exactly do you label that diversity of non-belief?

Atheist.

a - without

theist - belief in the existence of a god or gods

I would like to point out that much of the atheistic negativity is that being grouped with those of like mind usually means that you are going to have to answer for them as well (much like Christians and the Crusades). The problem is that (as I am sure you know) the predecessors of modern atheism did not engage in traditional holy war like the Crusaders, but were ruthless in their methodology and practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reason).

It would be just as difficult and weird to try to label People Who Don't Collect Stamps.

I agree, and only feel that this should be an even setup, if atheists get to dodge other's beliefs then why not Christians?


Christianity is a positive statement about belief; most of atheism is simply a lack of a statement.

Sometimes. But Dawkins, Hitchens, this guy (newatheism.org/), these people (newatheists.org), etc, etc.

I'm not saying you are like this, but there is certainly a trend out there of these types. I expect that unless one who defends atheism would like to be treated like I would these people, then I would expect the same level of "give" when observing my views.

[Pumbelo]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it a bit?




"Atheism" is a word put into use by Christians, and meant as an insult; they got to define the term used to label themselves, however.

That isn't meant as a jab at you, and I apologize it if appears otherwise. I'm raising it only to point out that part of the reason you're having a hard time pinning "atheism" down is that only within the last 70 years (roughly) have atheists actually started labelling themselves. Whereas "Christian" as a positive label has been around for a long time, "atheist" has not. And thus you may find some unfamiliar terms if you do a bit of web research.

The second reason is that it's very difficult to find simple terms that label "lack of belief" accurately and concisely. There are many vastly different reasons for a person not believing that God exists; you might believe that the idea is stupid, you might have faith that No Gods Exist, you might feel that you've never found credible evidence (but remain open-minded), or you might reject specific theist versions of this being without rejecting the idea completely.

How exactly do you label that diversity of non-belief?

It would be just as difficult and weird to try to label People Who Don't Collect Stamps.

Christianity is a positive statement about belief; most of atheism is simply a lack of a statement.

Well, it's an interesting topic.
I think agnostics would reject the term "atheist", because they are not making a knowledge-claim.

What's a better expression for "believing no god exists"?

[Whateverman]

Well, it's an interesting topic.
I think agnostics would reject the term "atheist", because they are not making a knowledge-claim.

I'm not an atheist, and I'll confess that the categorization I've seen in a few Wiki enries seem - odd... There are agnostic atheists and lots of hybrids, stuff that makes a bit of sense on paper but seems bit obtuse on an instinctive level. As for me, I believe your above statement is generally correct.

What's a better expression for "believing no god exists"? As stated, this would be "strong atheist", and I haven't met many of them. The majority reject specific theist Gods (Christian, Muslim, etc) without stating a general belief that no god exists

[Ex Nihilo]

I'm not an atheist, and I'll confess that the categorization I've seen in a few Wiki enries seem - odd... There are agnostic atheists and lots of hybrids, stuff that makes a bit of sense on paper but seems bit obtuse on an instinctive level. As for me, I believe your above statement is generally correct.

As stated, this would be "strong atheist", and I haven't met many of them. The majority reject specific theist Gods (Christian, Muslim, etc) without stating a general belief that no god exists

Just FYI, the avatar is awesome!

[Whateverman]

Thanks :)