my coming out as an atheist

[zoltanspawn]

Now what we have here is the extremely prevalent misconception about what "atheism" actually is. Somehow, atheism has become a counter belief system to that of a religious belief system, prompting you to claim that the arguments "for" atheism and the arguments for religion are operating on near equal footing, and are operating under the same principles of belief, the only difference being the belief itself. Similar arguments incite statements such as "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe in god."

This is fundamentally inaccurate. Atheism is nothing more than a skeptical response to the claim of the existence of god. To say things like "atheist belief structure" is as flawed as saying "the hobby of not collecting stamps". Atheism is not a system of belief or a world view. It is merely the doubt one has when someone else makes a religious claim.

If you actually understand the arguments made by atheists when discussing god's existence, you will note that none of them are conceptually original arguments to attempt to demonstrate that god doesn't exist. They are actually responses to the claims of god that have been made by others. The arguments made are not "appearing to present the superior theoretical argument in favour of the atheist belief structure", but are actually presenting reasons why the claims made by the religious provide insufficient logical reasoning for believing those claims to be fact.

Atheists do not argue for the non-existence of any particular idea of god. A person who does not believe in a god is, in actuality not believing in the claims of god made by others. It takes the believer to define and present an idea of god before a skeptic can decide not to believe in it. The skeptic can then present the various reasons why the particular claim does not warrant belief. The skeptic is not presenting an argument for why he doesn't believe in his own rejected idea of god, he presents an argument for the reasons why he does not believe in the god claimed by the believer. Atheists are never arguing in favor of a belief structure, they are arguing against the belief structure claimed by the believer, who, by definition, shall always be plagued by the burden of proof.

So, the next time you converse with an atheist, think: are they really trying to convince you to believe a particular belief system, or are they just rejecting YOUR belief system because you have not met the burden of proof by providing sufficient evidence why a person should believe as you do?

Belief, claims and argument are not part of everyone's sense of religion.

 

[FirmaFan]

Belief, claims and argument are not part of everyone's sense of religion.

They are part of the discussion of religion. And that is what this is...a discussion on religion.

 

[kallipolis]

They are part of the discussion of religion. And that is what this is...a discussion on religion.

Not according to the topic title.

 

[Peterdragin]

I was watching the MTV awards and some black rapper guy said that he had prayed to GOD to let him win and that GOD had answered his prayer. And I thought to myself, why would GOD grant his prayer and not grant the prayer of a starving child!

I'm not gonna give you any flack, and I just want to ask, Why Atheism, and what motivated you to become an atheist?

 

[FirmaFan]

They are part of the discussion of religion. And that is what this is...a discussion on religion.

Not according to the topic title.

Are you really saying that the discussion that has been carried on in this thread is NOT one of religion simply because of the nature of the topic title?

And is that all that you are going to respond with in rebuttal to the post I made in response to yours? I was hoping for a more stimulating conversation than the one my post seems to have enacted.

 

[zoltanspawn]

They are part of the discussion of religion. And that is what this is...a discussion on religion.

It's a poor discussion, then, if the natures of religions are innacurate or mischaracterized....I wonder, if atheism is merely a skeptical response to a claim, and no claims have been made, what are atheists skeptical of?

 

[FirmaFan]

It's a poor discussion, then, if the natures of religions are innacurate or mischaracterized....I wonder, if atheism is merely a skeptical response to a claim, and no claims have been made, what are atheists skeptical of?

Oh, claims are definitely made. Every single religion encompasses beliefs that makes hundreds and hundreds of different claims (many of which are contradictory to other religions). The primary claim being that a supreme supernatural being exists. That is also the primary claim that atheists are skeptical about.

Here are some other claims made by believers:

God created everything.

Non believers go to hell.

Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected.

Adam and Eve existed and lived in a garden until a snake convinced them to eat forbidden fruit.

Mary gave birth to Jesus a virgin.

A global flood killed all life except what was contained in a single ark.

A person is endowed with a soul at the time of conception.

There is an afterlife and actions during life affect the nature of the afterlife.

....and that is just the most popular of claims made by just one religion. These are claims made from religious belief. It is claims like these to which I refer to and to which atheists reject, nearly always on the basis of shear lack of supporting evidence. Now, unless you believe that religion makes no such claims (up to and including the existence of a supernatural supreme being), you now have an understanding of the kinds of ideas atheists respond to and reject.

 

[zoltanspawn]

There are certainly some people who think of religions as masses of claims. As with fundamentalists this sort of literalism seems to be atheisms' favorite portrayal of religion. I don't agree with you though that all, or even most, religions make claims. (And of course, the idea that the primary claim of something called religion is the existence of a supreme supernatural being is factually incorrect.) Rather, I think most religions have to do with other parts of the human mind that fall outside the question of belief.

Another way of saying this is that religion is not a bad version of science, about notions unsupported by evidence. I think instead that religion is about our human imagination and the many ways in which we might use it.

 

[FirmaFan]

There are certainly some people who think of religions as masses of claims.

Religions are a system of beliefs that establish "truths" about the world in which we live. Those becomes claims made that can become open to skeptical scrutiny.

As with fundamentalists this sort of literalism seems to be atheisms' favorite portrayal of religion. I don't agree with you though that all, or even most, religions make claims.

I would be very interested to find a religion that doesn't make at least one claim based upon their belief system.

(And of course, the idea that the primary claim of something called religion is the existence of a supreme supernatural being is factually incorrect.)

Throughout the discussions on this thread, people have talked about theists and atheists....these are categorically defined by either the belief or non belief in a superior supernatural being (specifically "God"). While not all religions specify a "god", atheism is, by definition, a rejection of the idea of god made by theists. We are talking about claims made by religion, and the claim of "god" certainly tops the list.

Rather, I think most religions have to do with other parts of the human mind that fall outside the question of belief.

Please, specify the details of this claim. What part of the mind are you referring to?

Another way of saying this is that religion is not a bad version of science, about notions unsupported by evidence. I think instead that religion is about our human imagination and the many ways in which we might use it.

You'll be hard pressed to find a follower of religion that thinks their beliefs are not facts but are products of the human imagination. When was the last time you heard someone discussing their beliefs by saying "I imagine..."?

 

[TX-Beau]

There are certainly some people who think of religions as masses of claims. As with fundamentalists this sort of literalism seems to be atheisms' favorite portrayal of religion. I don't agree with you though that all, or even most, religions make claims. (And of course, the idea that the primary claim of something called religion is the existence of a supreme supernatural being is factually incorrect.) Rather, I think most religions have to do with other parts of the human mind that fall outside the question of belief.

Another way of saying this is that religion is not a bad version of science, about notions unsupported by evidence. I think instead that religion is about our human imagination and the many ways in which we might use it.

Are you kidding with that? If religion is about human imagination and what we might do with it, then it's fiction. Which I grant you has value, but it's still fiction, and doesn't claim to be otherwise.

Anyway, you are factually in error if you assert that religions do not make factual claims based on faith.

That's just silly.

Which religion supports your claim that it's nothing more than human imagination and the ways we might use it?

Which ones?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Religions are a system of beliefs that establish "truths" about the world in which we live. Those becomes claims made that can become open to skeptical scrutiny.

Isn't this actually a description of science? I don't agree that religions are belief systems about truth. Others may.

I would be very interested to find a religion that doesn't make at least one claim based upon their belief system.

I think most don't. Literal truth isn't the game.

Throughout the discussions on this thread, people have talked about theists and atheists....these are categorically defined by either the belief or non belief in a superior supernatural being (specifically "God"). While not all religions specify a "god", atheism is, by definition, a rejection of the idea of god made by theists. We are talking about claims made by religion, and the claim of "god" certainly tops the list.

It should not be too much to ask that we embrace the real range of religions on this forum.

Please, specify the details of this claim. What part of the mind are you referring to?

The part of the mind that does not simply believe or disbelieve. Some people think they are evolving beyond it, but I'm skeptical.

You'll be hard pressed to find a follower of religion that thinks their beliefs are not facts but are products of the human imagination. When was the last time you heard someone discussing their beliefs by saying "I imagine..."?

I don't agree. You are introducing a gradient of fact and fancy that simpy does not exist across religion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Are you kidding with that? If religion is about human imagination and what we might do with it, then it's fiction. Which I grant you has value, but it's still fiction, and doesn't claim to be otherwise.

Anyway, you are factually in error if you assert that religions do not make factual claims based on faith.

That's just silly.

Which religion supports your claim that it's nothing more than human imagination and the ways we might use it?

Which ones?

In standard atheist vernacular I feel I must respond, "all of them."

 

[TX-Beau]

So you can't find a single one.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[FirmaFan]

Isn't this actually a description of science? I don't agree that religions are belief systems about truth. Others may.

No, science has nothing to do with belief. Science is about collecting evidence and formulating theories based upon that evidence. I also do not agree that religions are a belief system about actual truth, hence why I used quotation marks in my last post when writing "truth". The beliefs about the world that many religions perpetuate are definitely not actual truths, even though they are believed to be. And now we are back to the claims made by religion that are rejected by non-believers.

I think most don't. Literal truth isn't the game.

My only advice here would be to talk to someone who follows a specific religion and ask them if they believe it as a "literal truth".

It should not be too much to ask that we embrace the real range of religions on this forum.

Fine...we don't have to focus just on the religions that believe in god. I am more than happy to discuss my skepticism at other religions as well. Trust me, my skepticism goes way beyond just the existence of god.

The part of the mind that does not simply believe or disbelieve. Some people think they are evolving beyond it, but I'm skeptical.

Still not quite sure what you are getting at here. If you are saying that religious faith involves more thought processes beyond belief, then fine, that in no way validates the religious doctrine.

I don't agree. You are introducing a gradient of fact and fancy that simply does not exist across religion.

Religious beliefs can either be true or false. To say that "true or false", "fact or fancy" simply doesn't apply to religion is nonsense.

 

[punkboi26]

Here's the thing about atheism. It is not an alternative to religion, or an entirely different mindset, and, above all else, is not faith based. Atheism is a skeptical approach to the claim of a god (actually, to the claim of any and all gods).

Mikey asked an interesting question: why atheism? While I can not speak for every atheist, I can tell you my reason for atheism. My reason is a statement of fact, plain and simple. Many will argue that this fact is incorrect, but I can tell you now that it is not incorrect. Why am I an atheist: there is absolutely no independently verifiable objective evidence that supports the claim for the existence of any god worshiped....past and present.

I am unable to understand why the vast majority of human beings insist in believing in the affirmative when it comes to religion, yet will take positions of skepticism when broached with nearly every other supernatural claim. Why is the default position to believe when told about god? Why isn't skepticism the default position. Skeptical approaches to claims is how we come to understand what is actually true and what isn't. Here's a fun little example. In 1989, a chemist by the name of Martin Fleischmann reported that he had achieved cold fusion in his laboratory. Fusion, combining the nuclei of two elements into heavier ones, is a source of great energy (it's what powers the sun). This energy, however, comes at great expense, since the temperatures needed to achieve fusion are incredibly high. However, cold fusion stated that fusion could be achieved at close to room temperature. When the claim of cold fusion was made, did everyone immediately believe it to be true? You already know the answer to that question, and instead, scientists ran back to their own laboratories to try to recreate the conditions which would allow for cold fusion. Well, turns out, cold fusion was all but a farce, and what was reported to be cold fusion was, in fact, not. Cold fusion is considered by most a dead topic, but some research continues to be done with little positive results. The point I am trying to make is that nearly every claim made must be supported by evidence before it is accepted as fact. What makes the existence of god so unique that accepting it as fact does not warrant our instinctual skeptical scrutiny?

One such reason may exist within the nature of the claim itself. Cold fusion was an okay example, but it differed from the claim of god in one single respect: it was falsifiable. Experiments could be done by independent parties to produce objective data that showed cold fusion to be false. There is no experiment or argument that can objectively show their to be no god. I can not devise a test that would produce objective, independently verifiable data to demonstrate that god does not exist. It is this one characteristic of the nature of the claim of god that allows so many to derive a sense of validity to the claim. Mikey himself has challenged at least once "prove that there is no god". Well, the great answer to that challenge is that I can not, and I freely admit that. I can not disprove god. The existence of god is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. This, however, does not give the claim of god any validity. There are literally an infinite number of concepts which I can devise that carry the same characteristic of unfalsifiable. Famous example used to demonstrate how unfalsifiable does not automatically afford a sense of probability: ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster? Probably - and you know what, you can not disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

The universe is incredibly mysterious. There is no telling what the investigation of its origins will lead to. But when you simply believe that the origin of the universe is "god did it" while at the same time asking for no evidence to support said claim, you are effectively eliminating the motivation to investigate the true origins of the universe. And it is not just the origins of the universe that have suffered at the hands of the "god did it" claim. Evolution, the most important concept to come along in the field of biology and has produced everything from the development of vaccines to the ability to write digital data to discs with lasers (yes...the study of the evolution of the eye of a moth lead to the development of CDs). Yet, evolution is continually the subject of controversy, is still battled with in school boards and even federal courts, because people have taken the affirmative to the claim that "god did it", without even the slightest bit of objective evidence that shows those claims to be true, even in the face of the extraordinary amount of evidence that evolution is indeed true (there is more evidence in support of evolution than there is for the existence of gravity).

When asking "why atheism", ask yourself this question: why "your" god? There are thousands of gods, past and present, that have been worshiped. The reasons for people's differing religions are extremely subjective. Most of the time it is simply the religion that their parents followed. At the heart of all religions is the existence of a deity that is responsible for the creation of all. This is a claim that holds two possibilities: either it's true or it's not. However, when have you ever known any explanation for real world observations (such as the existence of the universe) to be dependent upon personal creed? There are hundreds of different religions...they can not all be right, but they can all be wrong, and, as of present, no evidence has been presented to verify the validity of one religion versus another. So, why "your" god? I am not trying to be rude or mean to people who believe in god, I am simply trying to ascertain the reason for the belief. I have gone through great detail to explain my atheistic position to the claim of the existence of god, and the questions I have posed here are to help those who do believe understand that it is because of these questions that have yet to be effectively answered that I will always take the skeptical position to the existence of god.

I don't think there is really much to add to that. I will say this. My partner and I are also Atheists and it seems like we have had more "flak" for being Atheists than for being gay. We do live in the south so that may be why. We have never been nasty to anyone religious and have always been respectful but find the same cannot be said for anyone here in our town when they ask us what church we go to. They immediately curse us or say how they feel sorry for us. Meh, what can you do right?

 

[dynk]

For years I called myself an ex-Catholic. I even spent 2 years in a seminary. It only added to my disbelief in Catholicism.

It is nothing but a big business (and tax-free at that). They base their religion on the fears of their followers.

I am now an Atheist, and not afraid to say so

 

[bankside]

There are certainly some people who think of religions as masses of claims.

The vast vast majority of people who think of religions as masses of claims are....the self-proclaimed adherents of a particular religion.

Re-imagining religion as:

• a collection of folk tales
• the best wisdom available at the time
• an aesthetic triumph
• obviously metaphor
• or any other assertion which detaches religion from factual claims

is a novel interpretation of most religions, alien to the way most adherents have experienced those religions throughout their history. It is also so at odds with the established practice of almost every religion that anyone thus rocking the boat would be labelled a heretic by both the devout and probably a majority of the laity.

Any atheist can accept a given religious text as a work of literature which may be meaningful if not factual. But that is not how most adherents of a religion intend for that text to be accepted.

And as far as this has implications for the relationship between atheists and these "imaginary post-modern believers," or what have you, it is in this: you'd think that the believers would be reaching out to atheists to help them challenge the wooden, dogmatic fundamentalists. If the fundamentalists are in our sights, you'd think that other kinds of believers wouldn't even recognize themselves in our critiques. The fact is, it hits too close to home and believers don't make a difference between themselves and fundamentalists in their unified response to atheism.

 

[zoltanspawn]

So you can't find a single one.

That doesn't surprise me.

TX Beau, there's something about your tone that doesn't make me want to respond to you. I don't want to converse flippantly, and the rest of us are showing reasonable grace as we disagree with one another. Perhaps you don't really want to have a conversation.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And now we are back to the claims made by religion that are rejected by non-believers.

Yeah, FF, we *are* going in circles here. I don't agree with your premise that it's the nature of all religion to perpetuate beliefs. In the case of fundamentalism, yes. But that is only one (kind) of many religions practiced in the world and it's fallacious to say that all religions are fundamentalist in nature. If we take as an example "mary gave birth to jesus a virgin," the people who take it literally are fundamentalist, and simple. But the virgin birth can be, and is, contemplated otherwise, not as a claim. I don't think it makes sense to be skeptical of the metaphorical. Or, if perhaps someone thinks of metaphors chiefly as false, I would respond that they have an overly diminutive sense of imagination.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The vast vast majority of people who think of religions as masses of claims are....the self-proclaimed adherents of a particular religion.

Re-imagining religion as:

• a collection of folk tales
• the best wisdom available at the time
• an aesthetic triumph
• obviously metaphor
• or any other assertion which detaches religion from factual claims

Now who is re-imagining religion? Not me.

is a novel interpretation of most religions, alien to the way most adherents have experienced those religions throughout their history. It is also so at odds with the established practice of almost every religion that anyone thus rocking the boat would be labelled a heretic by both the devout and probably a majority of the laity.

--I disagree that a figurative sense of religion is novel, departs from history or would always be cause for alarm amongst the community.

Any atheist can accept a given religious text as a work of literature which may be meaningful if not factual.

--I disagree that any atheist could accept a given religious text as meaningful; at least, the general rhetoric seems to preclude such an admission.

But that is not how most adherents of a religion intend for that text to be accepted.

--I disagree that most religious texts are intended to be interpreted factually.

And as far as this has implications for the relationship between atheists and these "imaginary post-modern believers," or what have you, it is in this: you'd think that the believers would be reaching out to atheists to help them challenge the wooden, dogmatic fundamentalists. If the fundamentalists are in our sights, you'd think that other kinds of believers wouldn't even recognize themselves in our critiques. The fact is, it hits too close to home and believers don't make a difference between themselves and fundamentalists in their unified response to atheism.

Well, you know what? The wooden, dogmatic fundamentalists are idiots. I don't have a lot of hope for them. But most atheists I've chatted with are pretty damn smart, though I think they are making some interesting and important mistakes. The chiefest of which is an exacting literalism reminiscent of fundamentalism. I think I've got better a better chance of fostering some understanding of the mythic amongst "aspiring Vulcans," or what have you, than I do amongst the stupider sort of literalist.