I think they should wear colored patches on their clothing so we can know who they are without having to interact with them. Next come the liberals. posted by psmealey at 2:06 PM on March 22, 2006
Oh, climb off your damn cross. posted by keswick at 2:06 PM on March 22, 2006
An athiest homeland, eh?
+Lots of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.
-Have to listen to people talk about Ayn Rand. posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on March 22, 2006
Columbia, MO as an "atheist homeland"??
Sounds lame... do they have an In-N-Out Burger there? posted by BobFrapples at 2:07 PM on March 22, 2006
No one wants to see only a man behind the curtain. Life is too hard, and too unfair, for there not to be another world. Sadly, this emotional need is exploited to great effect by leaders everywhere. The death of religion is our only salvation.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
- Denis Diderot posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:10 PM on March 22, 2006
Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
So what religion should I choose if I want to marry a child? posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:11 PM on March 22, 2006
Atheists already have homelands. They're called "cities." posted by MaxVonCretin at 2:12 PM on March 22, 2006
Wow. Stuff like this always amazes me. Our (atheists) lack of belief in a supreme being is of no danger to ANYONE in ANY capacity. There may be atheists who are terrorists, or communists, or otherwise dangerous/evil/immoral/etc, but their atheism is not the danger or the cause. posted by davidmsc at 2:13 PM on March 22, 2006
I thought NYC was the atheist homeland. posted by bshort at 2:15 PM on March 22, 2006
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below..... Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
I'll bet the answers would be different if the poll was anonymous. As this report reads, this was a poll conducted by telephone. So the interviewee knows that his name/address are known to the poller. Further, it is most likely that the interviewee answering these sensitive questions does not know his caller's race, sexual orientations, etc. ....And since atheists come in all ethnicities, classes, races and sexual orientations, mistrusting atheists is the safest and most polite answer.
But is it an honest answer? I don't know. posted by applemeat at 2:15 PM on March 22, 2006
Bigots are my most distrusted majority, so we can call this mutual admiration. posted by VulcanMike at 2:18 PM on March 22, 2006
Athy, athier, athiest. posted by grobstein at 2:18 PM on March 22, 2006
It's all about framing, baby. "Atheist" has negative connotations and sounds harsh. "Intelligent Design" is just creationism in a sexier wrapper, after all. How can atheists pretty up that name and image? posted by blefr at 2:18 PM on March 22, 2006
I think atheism as a whole - as it is seen - has similar problems as evangelical religions - it’s the hangers on and the fans causing all the trouble.
There’s this whole sort of Mensa “I’m smarter than you” vibe going on in some of those areas.
As neither (theist, or atheist), I tend to catch it from both sides. But I think the athiests (again - certain vocal minority members) are more resistant to any form of criticism or even self-evaluation of principles. Mostly because they are too busy on the offensive.
/to be fair I get the sense the theistic folks are more likely to mass up and stone me or something. Polytheists just killed a guy for smashing a statue, so go figure (further down on mefi)
But those are the exceptions on both sides and the resulting perceptions.
Certainly atheists can and do have certain principles - but there lies the problem.
In some respects I don’t see - and some atheists I’ve spoken with have agreed - any principle inherent in atheism other than the whole “No God(s)” thing.
So I would have to ask if it is fair to classify “atheists” in the same way we would a group with an ethos or philosophy?
Classifying them that way seems to lend itself to thinking of them as unprincipled or nihilistic, so of course they won’t be trusted.
But in fact many atheists are secular humanists or objectivists or eupraxsophists or what have you.
So (my initial anecdotal/social response aside) I think the classification elicits the response in the survey. posted by Smedleyman at 2:19 PM on March 22, 2006
I think they should wear colored patches on their clothing so we can know who they are without having to interact with them.
Paranoia 1
Tolerance 0
Let's hope tolerance can make some half-time adjustments and step up in the second half. Back up to the booth, Jim. posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:20 PM on March 22, 2006
I can't believe atheists would be less trusted than the filthy Irish. Then again, I wouldn't want either of them to date my sister. posted by Gamblor at 2:21 PM on March 22, 2006
I've always thought atheism was kind of hypocritical. Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
Agnosticism is the way to go. posted by 517 at 2:23 PM on March 22, 2006
Take that Jews! We're #1! We're #1! posted by unsupervised at 2:24 PM on March 22, 2006
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households
2000 households across the nation? 2000 households in Minnessota? 2000 households in the towns surrounding UMN? posted by batou_ at 2:24 PM on March 22, 2006
Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
This is funny. In a scary, horrifying, sad, stupid way. posted by docpops at 2:25 PM on March 22, 2006
How can atheists pretty up that name and image?
How about changing the name of the term from "Atheist" to "People who don't believe in the giant, invisible wizard who lives in the sky". Too long, you think? posted by Gamblor at 2:25 PM on March 22, 2006
How can atheists pretty up that name and image?
How about non-delusional. "He's one of them non-delusionals. Those bastards are always using facts and logic to make decisions, I don't trust them one bit." posted by Mr_Zero at 2:26 PM on March 22, 2006
I've noticed that atheists seem to get much less flack when referred to instead as "folks who don't believe in God". Unwieldy, of course, but free of a lot of the baggage that "atheist" carries. posted by bugbread at 2:28 PM on March 22, 2006
Love it, Gamblor! posted by applemeat at 2:29 PM on March 22, 2006
Also, for a lot of USians atheist == communist. posted by bshort at 2:30 PM on March 22, 2006
I bet the poll didn't have Objectivists or Scientologists on there. Or Satanists. Or felons. Or people in emo bands.
Still, the atheists in this thread aren't making any great strides for acceptence. posted by klangklangston at 2:31 PM on March 22, 2006
Agree with Smedleyman about atheist extremists giving the rest of us a bad name. Until recently I've identified as an agnostic precisely because I really dislike the smarter-than-thou (since not holier) that many atheists exude (including my own dear husband, on occasion). I agree somewhat about the smarminess inherent in "brights" (although it is kind of cheerful, like "gay") and have always hated "freethinker" because I resent the implication that religious people are incapable of free thought (I know too many very smart ones to believe this, but I grew up around Jesuits).
I still swear by my bumper sticker: "MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I don't know and you don't either." I think that might be the least offensive way to go; too bad neither atheists or religious folk often don't appreciate it. posted by dlugoczaj at 2:32 PM on March 22, 2006
Gamblor:"How about changing the name of the term from 'Atheist' to 'People who don't believe in the giant, invisible wizard who lives in the sky'."
So, what, Hindus and Buddhists are atheists, then? posted by bugbread at 2:32 PM on March 22, 2006
So what religion should I choose if I want to marry a child?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:11 PM PST on March 22
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I've always thought atheism was kind of hypocritical. Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
I guess the ultimate irony of all this is that in my travels and discussions with folks far and wide, in university, at work, in my church group and elsewhere, most people who consider themselves to be "of faith" have extremely poor understanding of their own faith. They seem more likely to cobble together various elements of religions and myths and fantasy and proclaim that they believe in God, yet is clear to anyone with even the most pedestrian background in theology that they don't have the slightest fucking idea what it is that they believe in... other than a loose assemblage of superstitions.
At a some level, if I can generalize once again, I would say that most American atheists I know have a much stronger grasp on what it means to believe in something than most religious Americans I know do. posted by psmealey at 2:34 PM on March 22, 2006
Do y'all think there's still some hangover from Madalyn Murray O'Hair? She was pretty ruinious to the public image of atheists in America... posted by mr_roboto at 2:35 PM on March 22, 2006
MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I don't know and you don't either.
A-fucking-men, dlugoczaj. That's the most cogent thing I've read all day. posted by Gamblor at 2:36 PM on March 22, 2006
mtr_roboto, I doubt most Americans even know who she was! posted by applemeat at 2:36 PM on March 22, 2006
The same people who say the word "atheist" has too much baggage are the same who prefer not to use the word "liberal" - namely, the chickenshits who acquiesce to America's vocal minority of fascist jesus freaks who demonize all that is rational. That's the master plan - once you get weak-willed people to stop using the real word for an ideology, you're well on the road to eliminating it. posted by MaxVonCretin at 2:37 PM on March 22, 2006
There may be atheists who are terrorists, or communists, or otherwise dangerous/evil/immoral/etc, but their atheism is not the danger or the cause.
You equated communism with terrorism, davidmsc. There's so much I want to say, but frankly, what's the point? I don't want to resort to personal attack, but you either need to a) edit your posts beforehand or b) read a few books. Let's not be beastly to us commies, huh? posted by ford and the prefects at 2:37 PM on March 22, 2006
“folks who don't believe in God”
Exactly. But still the question is - what do athiests believe?
(bit of a loaded term ‘believe’ but it’s meant to reflect a question someone might ask informally rather than an invitation to a philosophical discussion)
And the response is ‘nothing’.
There should be a different classification. Some sort of ethos or framework that exists - except without a deity in it. (listed several above)
Otherwise an “athiest” is merely a nihilist. posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM on March 22, 2006
Why do people think you need god to know what is right and wrong and have morals? That's so bizarre. They think they would just go off the deep end and be "bad" if they didnt read the bible or something? Sooooo strange. posted by aacheson at 2:38 PM on March 22, 2006
The problem with the label "atheist" is that it doesn't connote anything other than the lack of a belief in God. It's as meaningful for the purposes of grouping people in the real world as "theist" is, which is to say none whatsoever.
Since atheists by definition aren't religious, they don't have the cultural markers that peg them as a member of an organized community. Thus their ethics and their group memberships aren't definable in that way.
By the way, I don't believe there's anything hypocritical in the least about atheism, though I myself am not an atheist. There are no inherently contradictions in atheism. It's more of an intellectual stance that insists there isn't any point in believing things for which there is no evidence. If it were a belief system, then on Judgment Day all the atheists would take up their guns against Jesus and the angels, demanding that they cease to exist. Instead, I think most would probably tell God deferentially, in the words of Bertrand Russell, "You didn't provide sufficient evidence!" posted by vraxoin at 2:38 PM on March 22, 2006
I visited Columbia, MO recently. There has to be a nicer place we can all go hang out. posted by PhatLobley at 2:38 PM on March 22, 2006
Optimus:
You have less evidence to support the fact that god does not exist than you do to support the fact that it does. After all, all of this must have come from somewhere, and that somewhere could be considered god. If there is no god, then where did all the things around you come from?
(I'm not limiting my thought to the idea of biblical/ koranic/... god, which are only charming little stories. posted by 517 at 2:39 PM on March 22, 2006
Having been an athiest as long as I have, this is hardly surprising.
I think this attitude stems from two things: confusing athiesm with antitheism and the mistaken belief that religion is a necessary component of morality.
517: I personally don't see belief as a matter of faith in the first place. Try for a moment to believe in something you're disinclined to believe in--say, that the world is actually a flat disc which rides on the back of a turtle. It's damned hard, isn't it? Furthermore, let's say that I give you all sorts of evidence--sattelite imagery, basic lessons in cosmological science, etc.--to indicate that the world, in fact, is a sphere which orbits the sun. And let's say that you find this evidence incredibly plausibe. Now try believing in the flat disc. Impossible, right? That's the position I find myself in.
Simply put, I don't belive in god because I don't. To say that I have faith in the inexistance of god assumes a level of effort which I am simply not exerting. The difference between my convictions and that of a fundamentalist religious type is that I willfully acknowledge that I might be wrong about the whole thing. Maybe the world really is a disk riding on the back of a cosmic turtle. I just don't believe it. posted by joedan at 2:40 PM on March 22, 2006
Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
No. It doesn't.
As I always say, until proven to my satisfaction otherwise, I also don't believe pigs fly. I am not undecided on the matter simply because I can't prove a negative. Why have different standards on this matter? Isn't that, in fact, hypocritical. posted by drpynchon at 2:40 PM on March 22, 2006
MaxVonCretin:"The same people who say the word 'atheist' has too much baggage are the same who prefer not to use the word 'liberal' - namely, the chickenshits who acquiesce to America's vocal minority of fascist jesus freaks who demonize all that is rational."
Huh? I say it has too much baggage (as an atheist myself, I don't like that it has too much baggage, and that it shouldn't have any at all, but it does, and it has more than it should, so it has too much), but I don't prefer not to use the word liberal. So unless I'm some kind of weird exception, I doubt what you say is true. posted by bugbread at 2:40 PM on March 22, 2006
I've always thought atheism was kind of hypocritical. Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
Why more?
You're headed for a stupid semantic argument there where people starting linking to wikipedia entries for the words agnostic, atheist, and maybe even antitheist.
Regardless, I think there are very few people out there who fit the particular description you seem to have to have in your head for atheist. posted by malphigian at 2:40 PM on March 22, 2006
Still, the atheists in this thread aren't making any great strides for acceptence.
posted by klangklangston at 5:31 PM EST on March 22 [!]
Acceptance by who? The people whose religions damn us in the first place? Why exactly do we need to be accepted when our fault in their eyes is that we don't believe in something? Start believing what you'd like us to? Stop making fun of you for what you believe? Isn't that kind of hypocritical since you've already branded us as evil?
Oh, and by "you", I don't necessarily mean you, just the hypothetical people whose acceptance you've mentioned we should be seeking.
And by "we" I don't claim to speak for atheists as a whole because the only thing that unites them is a lack of a belief. It would be like trying to speak for a bunch of people that don't like asparagus. There's not a lot that binds them together as a group beyond that. posted by unsupervised at 2:41 PM on March 22, 2006
After all, all of this must have come from somewhere
Does it? Why? Maybe it has always just been. posted by psmealey at 2:41 PM on March 22, 2006
I wouldn't want my daughter to debate one. posted by Astro Zombie at 2:41 PM on March 22, 2006
applemeatwrites"I doubt most Americans even know who she was!"
Those who lived through the 60s and 70s do. And I would bet respondants to a phone poll tend to skew older.... posted by mr_roboto at 2:41 PM on March 22, 2006
Still, the atheists in this thread aren't making any great strides for acceptence.
posted by klangklangston at 2:31 PM PST on March 22
We shouldn't have to.
Atheists have one and only one thing in common: we lack belief in a god or gods. There are no well-funded organizations that look out for our interests at the expense of others. We don't bomb doctors' offices or cut the throats of journalists or bulldoze people's homes in the name of some selfish deity. Oh, sure, we get blamed for cults of personality like Stalin's or Mao's when the lack of belief in gods had nothing to do with it, but how many of us are trying to kill theists or go door-to-door with pamphlets and magazines and threats of eternal torture?
What I want, and what every atheist I know wants, is to be left alone to not practice religion and to not have our pocketbooks rummaged through to fund your god's little projects. We want equality and tolerance, and we fight for yours as well. What's so wrong about that? posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2006
So, what, Hindus and Buddhists are atheists, then?
As far as the fundamentalists I've known are concerned, they might as well be. The same goes for Catholics, I was a little surprised to hear. You not only have to be Christian, you have to be precisely the right kind of Christian, otherwise you're just wasting your time.
(And technically, Buddhists don't believe in god. At least Mahayana-style) posted by Gamblor at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2006
Exactly. But still the question is - what do athiests believe?
<snip>
And the response is ‘nothing’.
<snip>
Otherwise an “athiest” is merely a nihilist.
And once again you prove that you have no clue about atheists or atheism. posted by bshort at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2006
Gamblor:"And technically, Buddhists don't believe in god. At least Mahayana-style"
I think you got that backwards. The Mahayanists do, the Therevadists don't. But, yeah, perhaps Buddhism was a bad choice. I was just going for mainstream religions that don't believe in a wizard in the sky, and it's one that popped to mind.
unsupervised:"Why exactly do we need to be accepted when our fault in their eyes is that we don't believe in something?"
Uh, because they outnumber us, and they have voting power? posted by bugbread at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2006
I *am* very shifty, you can see it my eyes.
Regarding naming and framing, I wish I could refer to myself by what I do think & believe rather than what I don't. Positive: rational, pro-science, think the universe and nature are glorious and miraculous, see that this earth and life are sacred because of their finite nature, etc. What ever happened to the (in my opinion) poorly named "bright" thing, I wonder. posted by tula at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2006
athiest is to atheist as nucular is to nuclear.
posted by jfuller at 2:39 PM PST on March 22 [!]
Oh. No.
I really need to get over my spellcheck issues.
Jessamyn? Any chance for a fix?
(oh hell, "americans'...." so much shame....) posted by maryh at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2006
I prefer the term "humanist" personally. posted by xthlc at 2:47 PM on March 22, 2006
What ever happened to the (in my opinion) poorly named "bright" thing, I wonder.
Oops. OK, so Hinduism and Buddhism are down as partially atheist.
Ok, Roman Godism (whatever the religion is that believes in Mars and Zeus) and Norse Godism (the whole Valhalla thing). Those are non-atheistic, but don't have wizards in the sky, right? posted by bugbread at 2:48 PM on March 22, 2006
bugbread:So unless I'm some kind of weird exception, I doubt what you say is true.
Yes, I believe you are. Sorry, my bad for not including the requisite qualifier "most of." I stand by the point though that allowing perfectly good words to be demonized is a form of retreat. posted by MaxVonCretin at 2:48 PM on March 22, 2006
Our (atheists) lack of belief in a supreme being is of no danger to ANYONE in ANY capacity.
I would like to suggest that, perhaps, those less-than-sincere religions figureheads who rely on the blind faith of the masses to be obedient might view Athiests as loose cannons of a sort, and therefore a threat to their way of life and their control (or perceived control) over their flock.
Does perception of harm == actual harm? I suppose it depends on the person doing the perceiving. However, If one athiest convinces a christian to question their beliefs, or change them, that likely is harmful to the congregation as a whole. So there's that. posted by davejay at 2:48 PM on March 22, 2006
Exactly. But still the question is - what do athiests believe?
(bit of a loaded term ‘believe’ but it’s meant to reflect a question someone might ask informally rather than an invitation to a philosophical discussion)
That is a very valid question. posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:49 PM on March 22, 2006
You have less evidence to support the fact that god does not exist than you do to support the fact that it does. After all, all of this must have come from somewhere, and that somewhere could be considered god. If there is no god, then where did all the things around you come from?
Why does it have to be considered god? An unknown process that may be completely mindless? If that's your definition of god, then I submit a counter-definition of god: n. A squibidy entity that flaorgs and horimets and that also vosroofgtrifu. Both are equally lucid. posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:50 PM on March 22, 2006
Funny story: I once told a kid I was an athiest (although I was actually agnostic at the time, but didn't understand the difference, being a kid myself). He picked up a rock and threw it at me. And he was a friend of mine. It was like a reflex.
FWIW, later in life he turned into a schmuck who did things like drink heavily, lie to cover up his mistakes and attempt to commit insurance fraud, while I've lived an honest, clean and stable life. So I guess there's a lesson* there.
*don't throw rocks. posted by davejay at 2:51 PM on March 22, 2006
Why does it have to be considered god?
Good point here: why should the potentially mindless birth of the universe be shoehorned into a word that is generally interpreted to mean a conscious and benevolent entity?
Anyway, all the things around me came from Herman Miller. But that's just because I'm at work. posted by davejay at 2:52 PM on March 22, 2006
I think the problem a lot of atheist have is that they consider the biblical concept of a god, rule it out because it is ridiculous, and then consider themselves an atheist because they don't belive in the standard concept of god.
They don't consider that the concept of god is much larger.
They decide to believe in the big bang because there is evidence of it. The big bang is something real that happened but that, also, had to either come from somewhere or be created. Both of which involve a concept that could easily be considered god.
That's why I say that it requires more faith to rule out the existence of god than it does to rule in the existence of god. The only thing that doesn't require any faith is the acknowledgment that we haven't go a clue at the moment. posted by 517 at 2:53 PM on March 22, 2006
But still the question is - what do athiests believe?
I considered asking the clarifying question: believe in, as in "put their faith in", or believe, as in "think the origin of the universe is" -- and realized they're the same question. :) posted by davejay at 2:54 PM on March 22, 2006
I prefer the term "humanist" personally.
I was going to suggest this, too. It's positive (we believe in people, man!) rather than negative, and it's got a nice long tradition. "Brights" is both silly and obnoxious and makes atheists sound like that geeky kid in high school who can't get a date so he quotes Nietzsche to everyone and tries to act superior to all that. Yes, that geeky kid was me! posted by languagehat at 2:55 PM on March 22, 2006
517: The big bang is something real that happened but that, also, had to either come from somewhere or be created.
Who created God? We could play this game all night. posted by unsupervised at 2:56 PM on March 22, 2006
I think you're conflating two different propositions there, 517: not beliving in god and ruling out its existence. I don't believe in god. I don't rule out the possibility of one existing. posted by joedan at 2:56 PM on March 22, 2006
MaxVonCretin:"I stand by the point though that allowing perfectly good words to be demonized is a form of retreat."
Ok. I understand where you're coming from. And I generally agree with that. The only reason I find dropping "atheism" to not feel like a retreat is because the baggage I'm talking about is the baggage generated by atheists themselves. That is, if someone tries to demonize a perfectly good word (and I'm talking in general now, not about "atheism"), it annoys the hell out of me, and I generally try to bring the word back. If, however, a perfectly good word gets tainted from within, I don't have much of a problem with dropping the word. Atheism has had both happen. The baggage that I was talking about was of the latter sort.
But what do I know, my dad runs a humanist organization with "humanist" in the title. I've very likely been unintentionally and subconsciously swayed. posted by bugbread at 2:57 PM on March 22, 2006
Both of which involve a concept that could easily be considered god.
Could be, but doesn't have to be. It could also be considered science, or nature, or chance, or chaos, or luck. It depends on your point of view, I should think.
That's why I say that it requires more faith to rule out the existence of god than it does to rule in the existence of god. The only thing that doesn't require any faith is the acknowledgment that we haven't go a clue at the moment.
I respectfully disagree. I think it take an equal amount of faith to say "god" or "no god" -- and the acknowledgement that we haven't a clue (but that some possibilities are more reasonable than others) requires faith in your ability to reason. posted by davejay at 2:57 PM on March 22, 2006
that geeky kid in high school who can't get a date so he quotes Nietzsche to everyone and tries to act superior to all that
*smiles* I suspect a majority of MeFi members have been here - I certainly have... posted by greycap at 2:57 PM on March 22, 2006
god created god. posted by 517 at 2:57 PM on March 22, 2006
The main problem is that typical American Christians hold to the triple fallacies (a) that atheism means lack of religion, rather than lack of theism (b) that their own religion is entitled to sole credit for all the good values it endorses and (c) that rejection of his/her religion means rejection of all the values it claims credit for.
Obviously on this reasoning anyone would consider atheists immoral. And this nonsense is widely assumed without question, and forms the premises of judgments of people. posted by jam_pony at 2:57 PM on March 22, 2006
Smedleyman: In some respects I don’t see - and some atheists I’ve spoken with have agreed - any principle inherent in atheism other than the whole “No God(s)” thing.
Exactly. But still the question is - what do athiests believe? ...
And the response is ‘nothing’.
What do theists believe? Do Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, Astaru, and Wiccans all believe the same thing? I've done a fair amount of reading of religion, and I don't see any principle inherent in theism other than the whole "God" thing.
So why is there this concept that atheism must mean some monolithic "nothing?
Optimus Chyme: What I want, and what every atheist I know wants, is to be left alone to not practice religion and to not have our pocketbooks rummaged through to fund your god's little projects. We want equality and tolerance, and we fight for yours as well. What's so wrong about that?
god created god.
posted by 517 at 2:57 PM PST on March 22
I want you to go home and think about what you just said, and get back to us when you're sober. posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:59 PM on March 22, 2006
joedan:
Think of god like time, space or matter. The fact that you exists requires all of them, they all had to come from somewhere. Even if they just magically appeared. posted by 517 at 3:00 PM on March 22, 2006
bugbrad:I think you got that backwards.
It's possible. But Zen is Mahayana, and there's definitely no god there, just Mu void nothingness. Mu! posted by Gamblor at 3:00 PM on March 22, 2006
"think you're conflating two different propositions there, 517: not beliving in god and ruling out its existence. I don't believe in god. I don't rule out the possibility of one existing." - joedan
Right, 517 mistakes atheism for anti-theism. It's a terminology problem - people define the term differently. posted by jam_pony at 3:00 PM on March 22, 2006
The "atheist homeland" link is satire, m'kay? Unless you believe there is a Richard (Dick) E. Normus or a Billy Thornton saying "these atheists don’t even attend church regularly." posted by F Mackenzie at 3:01 PM on March 22, 2006
I considered asking the clarifying question: believe in, as in "put their faith in", or believe, as in "think the origin of the universe is" -- and realized they're the same question. :)
You know, there is a difference between believing in something that has literally no evidence to back it up and believing in something that evolved from the process of trying to uinderstand observable, verifiable phenomenon, and can be revised at any point if the evidence points another way. There is no equivalency to believing in God, which is based on a sort of faith that sometimes requires people to completely ignore verifiable facts, and believing in science, which is rooted in actual observation.
But, other than that, yeah, they're the same question. posted by Astro Zombie at 3:02 PM on March 22, 2006
Think of god like time, space or matter. The fact that you exists requires all of them, they all had to come from somewhere. Even if they just magically appeared.
posted by 517 at 3:00 PM PST on March 22
*smokes a shitload of weed* posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:02 PM on March 22, 2006
I really wish we could permanently put to rest the whole "atheism requires as much blind faith as theism" argument. The old "invisible pink unicorn" construct is useful here -- I can't prove that there's not an invisible pink unicorn in the room with me right now, and if given the slightest shred of evidence for her existence I'd be happy to leave some carrots for her when I go home. Technically, I'm an agnostic on the subject of invisible pink unicorns. But that doesn't mean that I think her presence is likely, or that I behave as though I believe in her just to be on the safe side, or that I lie awake at night wondering just what shade of rose her mane might be.
As for the "the universe must have come from somewhere, so we'll just call that God" argument -- first of all, it's not really what most people mean by God, is it? Most people at least assume God to be sentient, and to have free will, but that's not really required by the argument from first cause. And then, of course, there's the fact that it doesn't really answer the question of where the universe came from -- it just displaces it. Everything came from God, great. where did God come from, then? And if God was just "always here," then why couldn't the same be true of everything he supposedly created? posted by Acetylene at 3:03 PM on March 22, 2006
Doesn't it require more blind faith to believe there is no god than it does to believe there is one?
It depends on your definition of atheism.
Is an atheist someone who believes there isn't a god?
Or is an atheist someone who doesn't believe there is a god?
The dictionary seems to lean toward the first, while most atheists in this thread are leaning toward the second. posted by the jam at 3:03 PM on March 22, 2006
Zen is kind of an exception within Mahayana. For the most part, Therevada (Hinayana if you disagree with it) is godless, and Mahayana has the multiple incarnations of Buddha, boddhisatvas, etc. posted by bugbread at 3:03 PM on March 22, 2006
517: god created god.
I bet he rested a hell of a lot longer than 7 days after that one. posted by unsupervised at 3:04 PM on March 22, 2006
jam_pony, you're being entirely too intelligent and well-reasoned. Shouldn't you be...oh, flinging jam or something? posted by davejay at 3:04 PM on March 22, 2006
Do any of you Christians go to one of those cool churches where the pastor shaves his head and plays bass? posted by fleetmouse at 3:05 PM on March 22, 2006
As neither (theist, or atheist), I tend to catch it from both sides. But I think the athiests (again - certain vocal minority members) are more resistant to any form of criticism or even self-evaluation of principles.
Duh, you can't be "neither" Atheists are people without religion, literally "a-" theist. That's like being neither political nor apolitical. posted by delmoi at 3:05 PM on March 22, 2006
jam_pony:
Atheism, disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Anti-theism, ; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity, while in theistic ones, it sometimes refers to opposition to the actual entity God.
I undertand the difference and it isn't what I am talking about. posted by 517 at 3:05 PM on March 22, 2006
:D
I'm usually too serious in the threads that are by consensus snarky, and v-v. posted by jam_pony at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2006
517:god created god. 517:Think of god like time, space or matter. The fact that you exists requires all of them, they all had to come from somewhere. Even if they just magically appeared.
517, please change your name to 420. I want to hang with you sometime, and I'll even bring the Little Debbie snackcakes. posted by Gamblor at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2006
If time, space, and matter magically appeared, 517, can they really be said to have come from somewhere? posted by joedan at 3:07 PM on March 22, 2006
517, you were addressing one and others were defending the other. That was a misunderstanding.
As for a defense of anti-theism, Acetylene has disposed of it well enough for me. posted by jam_pony at 3:08 PM on March 22, 2006
I meant: waht acetylene said. posted by jam_pony at 3:09 PM on March 22, 2006
joedan, if they magically appeared something must have willed them into existence.
If anything, I think atheism is kind of a lack of imagination. I can't figure out how it works, so it must not work in a complete and total manner without possible exception and it requires no faith on my part to conclude that. I'm hungry, where are my crackers. posted by 517 at 3:14 PM on March 22, 2006
Ok, Roman Godism (whatever the religion is that believes in Mars and Zeus) and Norse Godism (the whole Valhalla thing). Those are non-atheistic, but don't have wizards in the sky, right?
Huh? Zeus is as much a 'wizard' as Jehova... posted by delmoi at 3:15 PM on March 22, 2006
if they magically appeared something must have willed them into existence.
I bow before your superior understanding of magic. posted by boaz at 3:16 PM on March 22, 2006
If anything, I think atheism is kind of a lack of imagination. I can't figure out how it works, so it must not work in a complete and total manner without possible exception and it requires no faith on my part to conclude that.
517: They don't consider that the concept of god is much larger.
They decide to believe in the big bang because there is evidence of it. The big bang is something real that happened but that, also, had to either come from somewhere or be created. Both of which involve a concept that could easily be considered god.
Well ok, certainly "god did it" is a reasonable hypothesis in the absence of evidence. But so is brane theory. So is quantum foam. So is theories of multiple dimensions. "God did it" is a subset of the multitude of possible theories. Why should I privilege "god did it" over any other, lacking any hard evidence either way?
Another point in question is whether it is worthwhile to use a term that is traditionally used for entities that are somewhat potent, aware, and concerned with human affairs, to describe an entity that is impotent on human scales, not aware of what we do, and unconcerned with human affairs. I certainly can't say that Einstein was wrong in his impersonal pantheistic vision of god. I can only say that I can experience the same wonder without calling it "god." By the way, I find this, "something that could be considered god" to be a bit of a cop out. Because when the chips are down, you can just propose a different "something that could be considered god."
That's why I say that it requires more faith to rule out the existence of god than it does to rule in the existence of god. The only thing that doesn't require any faith is the acknowledgment that we haven't go a clue at the moment.
Well, OK I don't know that my birth date and my SSN will be the next set of Superball lottery numbers. I don't know that it won't be the next set of Superball lottery numbers. Not knowing either way, I have a profound lack of faith that it would be better for me to buy a lottery ticket rather than cup of coffee.
Likewise, I don't know that "something that could be considered god" caused the big bang. I don't know that "something that could be considered god" didn't cause the big bang. Not knowing either way, I have a profound lack of faith that it would be better for me to spend my time worshiping or contemplating that "something that could be considered god." In the absence of evidence, it is prudent to exercise a lack of belief, and move on to more productive pursuits. That is atheism is a nutshell. posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:17 PM on March 22, 2006
delmoi:"Huh? Zeus is as much a 'wizard' as Jehova..."
Yeah, but he's a wizard on a mountain, not a wizard in the sky. posted by bugbread at 3:17 PM on March 22, 2006
I don't see why something would have had to will them into existence, but that might be my lack of imagination. :)
Interestingly enough, I always thought that theists suffered from an overactive imagination.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -Douglas Adams posted by joedan at 3:18 PM on March 22, 2006
No, man, Jehovah is twice the wizard Zeus is. Jehovah could totally kick Zeus's ass. In fact, he did... posted by languagehat at 3:18 PM on March 22, 2006
In grad school, a lot of militant Christian evangelizers used to show up and do their thing on campus. The older guys just handed out free bibles and said hello, which I thought was entirely within their rights, and only a bit annoying. The younger ones around my age were real assholes though--their pastor had obviously given them a quota or something on how many people they had to witness that day. I tried to do the polite, Habermasian thing--just smile and say no thank you, but these guys would hound you and keep asking the same annoying questions over and over. It got to the point where, if I wasn't in too much of a hurry, I would ask them questions. It started with what age they lost their virginity, and progressed into intentional vulgarities--How often do you masturbate? Have you ever watched a bukkake video? Who's you favorite pornstar?
So yeah, I was one of those cranky, smarter-than-though atheists. But I reformed--questions of personal faith and belief, or in my case a lack thereof, are serious ones. But in defense of my younger self, they started it. Because it's really fucking rude to ask those things of a total stranger, to make so many assumptions about them, and to proselytize in order to make yourself feel better, not to actually help someone else. It's positively un-Christlike, and it's funny that "Christiantiy" is an institutional scam that has nothing to do with the person after whom it's named. If Jesus was alive today, he certainly wouldn't call himself a Christian. posted by bardic at 3:20 PM on March 22, 2006
Ok, ok, ok...So is the correlating lesson to be drawn from this that religions which don't put their deities in the sky (like Hinduism and Buddhism) generally include atheistic components, whereas religions which put their deities in the sky (like Roman Godism and Christianity) generally don't include atheistic components? Because that would be kind of a neat, novel discovery. posted by bugbread at 3:24 PM on March 22, 2006
I think I am failing to explain my point so I am going to give it one last shot, in two sentences.
The fact that anything exists becomes evidence of god when you consider why it is here at all.
god does exist, it just doesn't care about you in the same way it doesn't care if something is created or destroyed; there is not value judgement. posted by 517 at 3:25 PM on March 22, 2006
517:"The fact that anything exists becomes evidence of god when you consider why it is here at all."
This just indicates a lack of imagination. There could be any number of reasons why existence is. posted by bugbread at 3:27 PM on March 22, 2006
The fact that anything exists becomes evidence of god when you consider why it is here at all.
I think we can all rest better on this subject if you do us a favor, 517: define "God".
I'm not kidding, either. How do you, personally, define "God". What does that word mean to you? posted by davejay at 3:29 PM on March 22, 2006
Fare enough bugbread, I tried, it doesn't mean I actually know the answer. posted by 517 at 3:29 PM on March 22, 2006
not trying to be argumentative or anything like that -- I understand that some deifne "God" as an entity, others as a force, and so on and so forth. Without a clear understanding of what the word "God" means to the person talking, it's impossible to agree/disagree with them, except using our own personal definition of "God", which is likely different. posted by davejay at 3:31 PM on March 22, 2006
The progenitor of all existence. posted by 517 at 3:31 PM on March 22, 2006
517: OK, God is shorthand for the progenitor of all existence, meaning God could be quantum foam or multiple universes or any of the other theories for the existence of the universe that Kirk put forward and your belief would be unchanged?
If not, that's not a complete definition. posted by revgeorge at 3:34 PM on March 22, 2006
Crap, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved, no one is going to win this thread. posted by revgeorge at 3:35 PM on March 22, 2006
Sounds like the ontological argument, 517. I was never very persuaded by it but, hey, to each his own.
I find it interesting that you don't see god making value judgements. In your view, is god simply the creator? An invisible force that unifies the world? The first cause? posted by joedan at 3:36 PM on March 22, 2006
Good point here: why should the potentially mindless birth of the universe be shoehorned into a word that is generally interpreted to mean a conscious and benevolent entity?
It's true that that's the popular conception, but a lot of philosophy and theology is talking about a 'first cause', and the 'intelligence' of that first cause is usually the beauty & order of nature, rather than a reflective consciousness. This is more obvious when you consider the atheistic philosophers: Hume believed that we can't be sure natural laws will still be true tomorrow, for instance -the consistency, unity, order/etc of the universe is the 'intelligence' of the universe, or god. Or Sartre, who says that Being is "absurd", that it can't be made sense of - his world feels fractured and insecure; if you think Being is stable and makes sense, then by many philosopher's views, you are amenable to the concept of god.
Of course, many people have personified & laid claim to god as something specific to them, and hence the whole conversation is a mess because no one knows what they're agreeing to or disagreeing with... but 'the divine' has been equated with Truth, Logos (reason or the Word - this was not just xtianity), the Good, the All, the One/etc - so to diminish it to only sky-wizards is an unfortunate modern interpretation, not a historical absolute. posted by mdn at 3:37 PM on March 22, 2006
The fact that anything exists becomes evidence of god when you consider why it is here at all.
god does exist, it just doesn't care about you in the same way it doesn't care if something is created or destroyed; there is not value judgement.
Well, I think this calls for the Epicurus argument:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
To be fair, 517, I know where you're coming from in relation to your definition/feelings of god (but not on your "atheism requires faith" argument). I used to believe essentially the same: that god was the name of that which generated existence, not some guy with wizard robes. One day, when I was talking to a non-militant atheist friend, in our discussion this exchange came up:
Him: "So you believe that there must be a generative force which caused that which is the big bang to exist, but not that it had to be sentient or anthropomorphic."
Me: "Yeah, basically."
Him: "Why do you take that extra step, then? Why couldn't the big bang itself be the generative force that caused existence?"
Me: "..."
And since then, I don't really believe in the generative force beyond the big bang which generated existence. posted by bugbread at 3:38 PM on March 22, 2006
The notion that a Supreme Being is witnessing the horrors down here on earth is the most blasphemous idea that any God could expect to tolerate. The angry, lonely God comes from this belief. He is in charge, therefore obviously enraged. While this persona may have made sense under paganism, a Supreme Being cannot be jealous, nor enjoy flattery from common stupidity. Only a fraud would demand faith in his presence when a real God could have made robots for that job. Honor remains the only human quality worth testing for. I am proud to fail an exam from a jealous fraud who authors sectarian confusion but yet issues his followers all of the correct answers. posted by Brian B. at 3:40 PM on March 22, 2006
(And, to be fair, I don't really have "faith" in the big bang as the generative force, either. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the generative force. If evidence came up that the big bang theory was incorrect, and the universe started some other way, I'd readily switch over) posted by bugbread at 3:41 PM on March 22, 2006
No, it isn't the ontological arguement, I'm not saying god can be reasoned into existence. I am saying existence is evidence of god.
I think it is a complete definition, I can't see what could be added to it. At a certain point there is something beyond the Quantum foam(?). posted by 517 at 3:41 PM on March 22, 2006
mdn: Certainly, but in most of modern society, when I'm forced to address the question of theism it's almost always in relation to a personal god that shapes history and makes law, and not the premise that the universe is stable and makes sense.
My personal belief is that it's possible to talk about the universe as stable and sensible without athropomorphizing it. And using "god" language tends to be an open door to anthropomorphism. posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:43 PM on March 22, 2006
At a certain point there is something beyond the Quantum foam(?)
Why is the foam there? It had to come from somewhere. posted by 517 at 3:45 PM on March 22, 2006
I think it is a complete definition, I can't see what could be added to it. At a certain point there is something beyond the Quantum foam(?).
Replace "Quantum foam" with "God" and say that sentence again. All you're saying is that something self-existent exists, that's not being disputed. posted by signalnine at 3:45 PM on March 22, 2006
I've read most of the above posts, and skimmed through the rest, but have yet to see anyone prop up the fundamental absolute truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the unifying pastatheist we can all chew on. posted by tzelig at 3:46 PM on March 22, 2006
517: Could time, space, and matter have always existed? In fact, our current understanding of physics has some laws about conservation. Things don't get created or destroyed, they merely change state. If you believe God has always existed, isn't it just as rational to suspect the physical world has always existed? posted by knave at 3:47 PM on March 22, 2006
Wtf is "eupraxsophism"? The internet seems to be rather short on this subject. posted by borkingchikapa at 3:47 PM on March 22, 2006
517,
signalnine puts it well. If there must be something beyond quantum foam (yes, that's new to me too), then there must be something beyond god, and it's turtles all the way down. If, on the other hand, you're willing to give god a free pass for existence, why is it unreasonable to give the free pass to quantum foam instead? posted by bugbread at 3:48 PM on March 22, 2006
Because that's where it came from/turtles all the way down/I don't really know, it's just my argument. If you are asking for eye witness testimony, I can't provide because I just don't know. posted by 517 at 3:50 PM on March 22, 2006
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! posted by fungible at 3:51 PM on March 22, 2006
517: Why is the foam there? It had to come from somewhere.
Well, this is getting to the fundamental point of disagreement. You think it's reasonable to call that "somewhere" god. Fair enough but the bottom line is I'm not convinced.
I'm not convinced therefore, I lack faith, I don't believe therefore, I'm an atheist. posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:51 PM on March 22, 2006
That's the god aspect the answer bugbread but I think stopping short of it is a false conclusion. posted by 517 at 3:52 PM on March 22, 2006
atheist, no. Agnostic is the next logical step. Not complete and total disbelief. Complete and total disbelief, without evidence, requires faith. posted by 517 at 3:55 PM on March 22, 2006
Your argument is not an "argument," it is an insistance. We say "infinity," you say "infinity times infinity." Only for you, "infinity times infinity" has to equal God, because... well, just because. For us, there's no reason to make that leap.
This is a pointless discussion, because it involves a fundamental disconnect: attempting to use logic to argue points of faith respects neither logic nor faith. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:55 PM on March 22, 2006
Complete and total disbelief, without evidence, requires faith.
posted by 517 Moments ago
You don't know anything about atheism or atheists then. Most of us think "yeah, I guess there could be a god," but we wouldn't be any more surprised if it turned out to be a giant Keebler Elf rather than Jesus or some shit. There's no evidence for either, therefore we lack belief. Few atheists will say that all gods are impossible. posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:58 PM on March 22, 2006
517: You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. Atheism is the absence of belief, anti-theism is the belief of absence. posted by revgeorge at 3:59 PM on March 22, 2006
517:"That's the god aspect the answer bugbread but I think stopping short of it is a false conclusion."
And why do you think so? (Not a counterargument, just a question).
By the way, kudos to those involved for not being the spastics these conversations tend to devolve to. First the "anticipatory warrant" thread progressing sanely, and now this. There's hope for MeFi yet! posted by bugbread at 4:00 PM on March 22, 2006
Ah, the ever present Athiesm Thread of the Week. What would mefi be without it. posted by unreason at 4:00 PM on March 22, 2006
I guess not, remain as before/ Florence's answer. posted by 517 at 4:00 PM on March 22, 2006
I think I'm jealous of anyone (and it usually feels like everyone) who is so completely, totally and unshakably certain of whatever standpoint or viewpoint they have, whether they are completely sure there is a God, or completely sure there isn't a God. It must be nice to be so utterly certain about whatever you're utterly certain about. Frankly, I'm uncertain about just about everything and I seem to grow even more uncertain the older I get.
I need a church or a meeting hall or wherever where I can sit around with other people who know fuck-all for sure, and we can sit there and scratch our heads for a half-hour a week, and then wobble home, knowing just as little as we did when we got there. I think we'd be the true minority. posted by notmydesk at 4:01 PM on March 22, 2006
Optimus Chyme:"Few atheists will say that all gods are impossible."
Unfortunately, that few tends to be the most vocal (especially on the internet). posted by bugbread at 4:01 PM on March 22, 2006
Atheism, disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity posted by 517 at 4:02 PM on March 22, 2006
Ah, the ever present Athiesm Thread of the Week. What would mefi be without it.
posted by unreason at 4:00 PM PST on March 22
And it's posts like yours that make them great. Thanks for contributing.
Atheism, disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
posted by 517 at 4:02 PM PST on March 22
Webster's defines excellence as 'the state or condition of being excellent.' posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:05 PM on March 22, 2006
517: "I guess not, remain as before/ Florence's answer."
I don't understand this comment. There was nothing disrespectful in my comment. I'm just stating my opinion that faith and logic are inherently - by definition - incompatible. That's not a judgement on logic or faith - just a statement of incompatibility. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:07 PM on March 22, 2006
Here's a rule of thumb, little nublet: if you're linking to online dictionaries in a discussion, you're arguing over semantics and not anything substantive. posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:08 PM on March 22, 2006
I was agreeing with you It's Raining Florence Henderson. Take something out far enough and you've got nothing. posted by 517 at 4:09 PM on March 22, 2006
There's also a problem with the way "belief" is used by different people on both sides of the issue. If I say, "I believe I turned the light off when I left the house", it is parsed as "suspicion that something is true, but without absolute certainty". When people say "I believe in God", they mean "certainty that something is true". So if an atheist "believes" there is no god, and a theist "believes" there is a god, you have to consider which definitions of "belief" are in use. Some atheists "believe" (that is, suspect, reckon, figure) that there is no god. Some atheists "believe" (are certain, convinced) that there is no god. posted by bugbread at 4:09 PM on March 22, 2006
Exactly. I am going to watch tv now. posted by 517 at 4:16 PM on March 22, 2006
Since when is Zeus Roman? posted by cookie-k at 4:17 PM on March 22, 2006
To paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, I try not to believe in anything. But this doesn't ususally work--I have to believe that the pieces of paper in my wallet have value. They don't--they're just pieces of paper--but because everyone else has to believe the same thing, it's not a big deal.
Religious folk believe in God, athiests believe there is no God (and don't get all semantic and shit, I know you can switch it to "athiests don't believe in God" but I think it balances out to the same thing.) Both stances are rigid and inhibit critical thinking. Which I guess makes me an agnostic--I want to be able to make an informed conclusion based on experiences, observations, and plain ol' information. I haven't come to any conclusion yet, and may never. But I like to think I can think critically about the Big Question(s). posted by zardoz at 4:18 PM on March 22, 2006
Mountains come out of the sky, and they stand there.
One mile over we’ll be there and we’ll see you.
You bastards. It'll take weeks to get that out of my head. posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:19 PM on March 22, 2006
The foam? It abides, dude. (and I mean that completely seriously).
mdn: ...'the divine' has been equated with Truth, eLogos (reason or the Word - this was not just xtianity), the Good, the All, the One/etc - so to diminish it to only sky-wizards is an unfortunate modern interpretation....
But these are all elaborations on the concept of volition, of will, of some Prime Mobile. Since magic is, at it's essence, the imposition of personal will in the cosmos, it seems not too far wrong to me to, if only in jest, draw the line between the concept of the divine and magic. That was the criticism of the church, when such things mattered, was it not? The practice of magic was the personal assumption of godhead, lése majestè of the worst kind. posted by bonehead at 4:23 PM on March 22, 2006
Try not to speak for those you admit you do not represent, zardoz. My atheism is not a rigid belief inhibiting critical thinking. It is a direct result of examining my beliefs while applying critical thinking. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:23 PM on March 22, 2006
Yikes!! Since it's 9 am at the end of a night shift. And, for that matter, since when does Zeus hang out with Mars, and not Ares?? Sorry about that. posted by bugbread at 4:27 PM on March 22, 2006
Religious folk believe in God, athiests believe there is no God (and don't get all semantic and shit, I know you can switch it to "athiests don't believe in God" but I think it balances out to the same thing.) Both stances are rigid and inhibit critical thinking.
I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. Do these stances inhibit my critical thinking, or are they so trifling as to be not worth concern? Why is thinking or worrying about whether god exists worth my time? It's not just an issue of "semantics". posted by LionIndex at 4:34 PM on March 22, 2006
Most of us think "yeah, I guess there could be a god," but we wouldn't be any more surprised if it turned out to be a giant Keebler Elf rather than Jesus or some shit. There's no evidence for either, therefore we lack belief. Few atheists will say that all gods are impossible.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:58 PM PST on March 22 [!]
This sums up my positon pretty well, although in my experience, many people seem assume (right or wrong) this is agnosticism.
I grew up around Catholics who, without exception, demonized Madalyn Murray O'Hair and found in her the ultimate expression of (non-communist) atheism. That is, some one who not only denies 'belief', but actively strives to deny the expressions of belief of others. This may not be true, but for a lot of Catholics in the '60's and '70's, O'Hair (and by extension, all atheists) were portrayed as monsters of intolerance out to destroy the social fabric. Even if O'Hair herself isn't remembered much (she certainly is by some), I wonder how much of her legacy colors perceptions in religious communities. I have a feeling that there are probably a lot of non-religious people going to church when the family demands it, who lack belief but would never imagine themselves atheist. posted by maryh at 4:41 PM on March 22, 2006
I need a church or a meeting hall or wherever where I can sit around with other people who know fuck-all for sure, and we can sit there and scratch our heads for a half-hour a week, and then wobble home, knowing just as little as we did when we got there. I think we'd be the true minority.
I think the problem a lot of atheist have is that they consider the biblical concept of a god, rule it out because it is ridiculous, and then consider themselves an atheist because they don't belive in the standard concept of god.
They don't consider that the concept of god is much larger.
I don't know that I have met an atheist who bases his status as an atheist solely on the biblical concept of God. The atheists that I know personally are all very educated in religious matters - not just in the god of the scriptures, but of most world religions.
They decide to believe in the big bang because there is evidence of it. The big bang is something real that happened but that, also, had to either come from somewhere or be created. Both of which involve a concept that could easily be considered god.
Or not.
That's why I say that it requires more faith to rule out the existence of god than it does to rule in the existence of god. The only thing that doesn't require any faith is the acknowledgment that we haven't go a clue at the moment.
there is no "faith required," actually. I don't have "faith" that a giant purple elephant is standing beside me. Why? Because it's not there. On the other hand, if you want to try and convince me that there really IS a giant purple elephant standing there - but I can't see it.... you better have a good argument. And if you believe that the elephant exists, it will require a large amount of faith on your part.
Me? There is no elephant there. I can see that. No faith required. posted by bradth27 at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2006
Upside: If we keep this thread going to 100,000 posts I think we will at last hammer this thing out and come to a consensus.
Downside. And as a by-product we will then know all the various names of God. And then if you look out the window you will see the stars will wink out... one... by... one.
Keep it going! posted by tkchrist at 4:47 PM on March 22, 2006
Compassionate Naturalism? posted by cytherea at 4:50 PM on March 22, 2006
"It proves you exists, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
*proves that black is white; gets killed on the next zebra crossing* posted by keswick at 4:50 PM on March 22, 2006
"A recent poll ranks atheists as America's most distrusted minority."
"a 1999 Gallup poll found that only 49 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for president. "
I don't know. I think an anarchist would have a harder time getting elected president. posted by Eideteker at 4:53 PM on March 22, 2006
517 syas:
Existance; therefore God
to which I counter
eXistenZ; therefore no God.
And with this, I win, and humanity enters a peaceful era of maturity and intellectual reponsibility, with none of that infantile approval-seeking from blood-thirsty, father-shaped holes in the mental depiction of the universe.
Phew, that was a close one. posted by Sparx at 4:54 PM on March 22, 2006
Me? There is no elephant there. I can see that. No faith required.
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? posted by davejay at
Subscribe
posted by psmealey at 2:06 PM on March 22, 2006