Happy Atheist Forum

Didn't know where exactly to place this thread but I'm too curious what the reactions might be to PZ Myers' new post (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_are_you_an_atheist.php). I know we've had a few hear do some of the things he "hates", myself included.  :P

Quote from: "PZ Myers""Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing.

Wrong. We say that exactly because atheist are not what he describes above. What else is there to being an atheist besides the lack of belief in gods? Nothing. End of story.

Quote from: "Sophus"Personally, I think PZ's being a bit silly.

He is.

From the excerpt you posted, it sounds stupid.

Christianity is a belief in the resurrected Jesus. Nothing more. Some people will try and add more meaning to the term, and there's almost always an extra set of beliefs the accompany that term, but all you can logically infer from the word "Christian" is that that person believes in Jesus' divinity.

It's the same with atheism. At its base definition (weak atheism), it's simply a lack of belief in any deities.

EDIT: I just read all of it. In a sense, I actually kind of agree with him. I mean, I guess there are two senses which a word can have -- it's dictionary definition, and its real life usage. When just in casual discussion, I think it's useful to use the sort of definition of atheism that PZ is talking about; however, when in intellectual debate, distinctions can be important. Maybe.

I think, read in context, there is nothing wrong with some of what he said.  When he's complaining about dictionary atheists (as he calls them) he's complaining about those who (apparently) claim they are an atheist because they are an atheist...can't say I have met one of these types but would find them annoying too.

However, I do think this is not his best worded blog entry because it was a bit hard to follow what he was trying to say...perhaps he is more upset about upsetting a bunch of atheists than he lets on and it's affecting his writing style?

QuoteI think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

I disagree on this...but that's also why I identify more with free-thought . . .which, in my view, can have an actual movement behind it.

QuoteBabies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion.

On this point, I'm inclined to agree....I don't like to label minors as anything and would prefer just to call them neutral as they have yet to be exposed to the idea of god or had a chance to contemplate rejecting the idea of god.  That said, I do understand why many are inclined to label babies as atheists...because they lack the mental facilities to hold a god belief and thus fall under what PZ admits is a very broadly defined label.

QuoteThe "I believe in no gods/I lack belief in gods" debate.

From what he said in this paragraph I'm not sure he understands the reason that comes up...not sure how he could not be familiar with burden of proof though. I think, perhaps, he is talking about something else because he keeps on referring back to people telling him why they became an atheist.

QuoteScience flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!

I agree with is sentiment here....while it was a quirky saying at first it really doesn't work once you think about it.

Quote"I just believe in one less god than you do". OK, I don't hate this one. There is actually a germ of a valid point in there: disbelief in itself is good and normal social practice, and even the most zealous theist actively disbelieves in many things. That's a good point to make in a world where people cite blind faith as a virtue.

I think he's not seeing why people use this phrase...it isn't because they believe they have truly investigated all other gods or because they think theists actually chose their gods after investigating all others.  The point is to get religious people to realize that atheists aren't really any different than them....a problem many sheltered religious people have problems grasping.

QuoteAnd also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity.

I think our religious friends on the forum would appreciate this bit.  I agree with PZ on this in general; however I'm probably more inclined to assume willful ignorance is involved in quite a few situations even if there are those interesting few who actually have contemplated their belief.

I prefer the dictionary defintion myself. Never saw why you should start adding meanings to the word atheist. Atheism is not supposed to be an entire belief system or way of life. If you want to talk about either of those two things, I think you should use another term...such as secular, or non-religious.

Given that babies do not know the concept "god", they're in no condition to know whether or not they believe in that god.  In that sense, PZ is spot-on.  He doesn't say it here, but the fact is that when it comes to god(s) babies aren't believers, atheists, or agnostics; they are ignorant.

It is a semantic point, but semantics are useful, because the meanings of the words we use to communicate help to carve the channel our thoughts.

Oh sweet, now I get to hear a whole bunch of quote mining from this article when I don't even like PZ very much.

I don't care for most strident atheists, myself, PZ amongst them.  But he's right about this, in my estimation.

I agree with this comment (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_are_you_an_atheist.php#comment-3194661) from the article:

Quote from: "jack.rawlinson"Thing is, these values, these additional opinions, attitudes and aims we often share? They are not atheism. I'm sorry, they're really not. They are other things that often - maybe usually - go with atheism. But they are not atheism.

I don't think many of the "dictionary atheists" would deny that we share these values. But they're correct in pointing out that none of them are part of atheism; of what it means to be an atheist. It's the other way around: atheism is often part of what it means to have those values. It occurs because we have those values.

Asking why someone is an atheist is not the same as asking what an atheist is, just as surely as asking someone why they're a biologist is not the same as asking what a biologist is.

Because that is pretty close to how I would word it.

That is good.  Succinct.

I would argue that the reason the words Atheist and Atheism are made such a big deal among us, and therefore other meanings are attempted to be added on to them, are because of the tendency of religious people to single out that atheist trait as the single most important trait about a person. And because they do it, Atheists tend to subconsciously do it to themselves as well - even though religious belief (or the lack thereof) might actually be the least important characteristic about them.

Basically, what I'm saying is - Atheists tend to identify themselves as Atheists more often than other things they might also be (i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, some type of professional/artist/worker, or a college student, or military, or retired or whatever) because religious people tend to do the same thing to us as well. They place emphasis on the "Atheist" part above anything else...so naturally...we do as well.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "terranus"I would argue that the reason the words Atheist and Atheism are made such a big deal among us, and therefore other meanings are attempted to be added on to them, are because of the tendency of religious people to single out that atheist trait as the single most important trait about a person. And because they do it, Atheists tend to subconsciously do it to themselves as well - even though religious belief (or the lack thereof) might actually be the least important characteristic about them.

Basically, what I'm saying is - Atheists tend to identify themselves as Atheists more often than other things they might also be (i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, some type of professional/artist/worker, or a college student, or military, or retired or whatever) because religious people tend to do the same thing to us as well. They place emphasis on the "Atheist" part above anything else...so naturally...we do as well.

anarchist=bad

atheist=bad

hitler=bad

it almost solicits a conditioned response from the religious

I would go further than say "almost". I would say it definitely solicits a response from the religious, as they've been brainwashed their entire lives against non-believers. In many religious people (especially those in my neck of the woods), it actually brings up the whole "fight or flight" mentality because they consider it such a threat to their wellbeing. And, I must admit, it is for this reason why I too am still uncomfortable using the word. The effects of brainwashing take time to dissipate, I guess.

Quote from: "terranus"Basically, what I'm saying is - Atheists tend to identify themselves as Atheists more often than other things they might also be (i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, some type of professional/artist/worker, or a college student, or military, or retired or whatever) because religious people tend to do the same thing to us as well. They place emphasis on the "Atheist" part above anything else...so naturally...we do as well.

I disagree.  The "herd of cats" analogy is apt because atheists tend to be distrustful of group identities.

 :D

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "terranus"Basically, what I'm saying is - Atheists tend to identify themselves as Atheists more often than other things they might also be (i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, some type of professional/artist/worker, or a college student, or military, or retired or whatever) because religious people tend to do the same thing to us as well. They place emphasis on the "Atheist" part above anything else...so naturally...we do as well.

I disagree.  The "herd of cats" analogy is apt because atheists tend to be distrustful of group identities.

We do? Well damn...I wish someone had told me!  

I rather like group identities, actually. Makes it easier to know who your enemies are.

Quote from: "terranus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "terranus"Basically, what I'm saying is - Atheists tend to identify themselves as Atheists more often than other things they might also be (i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, some type of professional/artist/worker, or a college student, or military, or retired or whatever) because religious people tend to do the same thing to us as well. They place emphasis on the "Atheist" part above anything else...so naturally...we do as well.

I disagree.  The "herd of cats" analogy is apt because atheists tend to be distrustful of group identities.

We do? Well damn...I wish someone had told me!  

I rather like group identities, actually. Makes it easier to know who your enemies are.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing specific atheists, thus the term "tends"; your mileage may vary, to use the 'Net phrase.

But it's a pity you might designate someone an enemy simply because they're out-group.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I disagree.  The "herd of cats" analogy is apt because atheists tend to be distrustful of group identities.

I don't think it's that...I know tons of atheists who are more than willing to identify with meetup groups; even going so far as to proudly wear t-shirts, logos etc related to the group.

The analogy comes in because even within those groups it's hard to get a bunch of free thinking people to agree on any one direction.  So, as with herding cats, you have to figure out what the hell the cat wants in order to end up with all the cats generally agreeing that they should head in the same direction.  Anyone who has owned a cat knows how hard it is to figure out what it takes to get a cat to want to do something.

Quote from: "Whitney"So, as with herding cats, you have to figure out what the hell the cat wants in order to end up with all the cats generally agreeing that they should head in the same direction.  Anyone who has owned a cat knows how hard it is to figure out what it takes to get a cat to want to do something.

Pop a top to any pop top can here and you can get ALL 7 cats to do the same thing for at least 2 minutes, that's how long it takes them to realize that it was NOT cat food you just opened, just mushrooms  

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "Whitney"So, as with herding cats, you have to figure out what the hell the cat wants in order to end up with all the cats generally agreeing that they should head in the same direction.  Anyone who has owned a cat knows how hard it is to figure out what it takes to get a cat to want to do something.

Pop a top to any pop top can here and you can get ALL 7 cats to do the same thing for at least 2 minutes, that's how long it takes them to realize that it was NOT cat food you just opened, just mushrooms  ;)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "Whitney"So, as with herding cats, you have to figure out what the hell the cat wants in order to end up with all the cats generally agreeing that they should head in the same direction.  Anyone who has owned a cat knows how hard it is to figure out what it takes to get a cat to want to do something.

Pop a top to any pop top can here and you can get ALL 7 cats to do the same thing for at least 2 minutes, that's how long it takes them to realize that it was NOT cat food you just opened, just mushrooms  ;)

Mention Hitler?

[spoiler:olqpscr1]He was NOT an atheist!! :rant:  :brick:[/spoiler:olqpscr1]
 

roflol

hmmm.... I'll have to think about that one for a bit

No, no I think 'Hitler was an atheist' will work........

Quote from: "KDbeads"No, no I think 'Hitler was an atheist' will work........

Hitler was not an atheist!

...Oh I see, it does work.

QuoteBut it's a pity you might designate someone an enemy simply because they're out-group.

Eh...I don't necessarily make someone my enemy just because they're out of group. Perhaps I could've chosen my words better. Let's see if I can rephrase that.

I like groups because...they make it easier to guess at what viewpoints/attitudes I'll be getting upon meeting one of their members. Of course all people have differences even among the same group...but they can't have that many or else they wouldn't be part of that group, right?

PZ Myers defends himself: (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/you_dont_really_want_to_be_lik.php)

Quote from: "PZ"Last week, I made a post criticizing poor atheist arguments, and in particular, citing atheists who fall back on the limp crutch of the dictionary to justify their beliefs. This made many people upset. I have been named idiot of the week for failing to understand the meaning of atheism, and I've got one wanking manic obsessive on twitter insisting that I must make a public apology for daring to try to redefine the meaning of the word "atheism". Commenters are declaring that they are proud to be Dictionary Atheists.

They're all wrong. I'm not redefining atheism, nor am I declaring the dictionary wrong: I'm saying it is insufficient. Also, no one is a Dictionary Atheist, and the folly lies in pretending that you are one.

I do not have the power to redefine the word, and I'm also smart enough to know it. I only wish those readers had been smart enough to realize that, too. My article was not a top-down commandment (it's peculiar and revealing that so many thought it was), but was instead a bottom-up recognition of an obvious fact.

Everyone who is an atheist is so because of other, prior ideas. I'm not saying that there is one set of ideas that make for a True Atheistâ,,¢, but rather that if you claim there are not, if you pose as someone who is an atheist simply because you don't believe in gods, you are failing to consider your own philosophical foundations. Calling yourself a Dictionary Atheist is like taking pride in living an unexamined life.

That's it. And that's what really annoys me, people who can't recognize that there's more to their atheism than blind acceptance of what a dictionary says.

It's sad to see that so many atheists have something in common with Ray Comfort. As you might expect, Comfort completely distorts what I wrote to claim that I was "pointing out the non-existent foundations of atheism." Not so, of course, since I was saying the precise opposite: that atheism has strong and rich foundations, and is not simply a blanket rejection of deities.

That's what Dictionary Atheists imply. Not me.

And this:

Quote from: "PZ"What is the matter with you people?

I am not redefining atheism. I am not adding more to the minimal definition. I am not telling you what you have to believe. I am not saying that every atheist shares the same set of beliefs beyond the minimum.

I am telling you the obvious fact that you aren't blind followers of the dictionary, and you all have reasons for being atheists...unless, of course, you're really stupid. And that you look really stupid and fool no one, especially not theists, when you go around declaring that atheism is this simplistic, bare bones belief. It isn't.

In this sense, I agree with him.

My reason for being an atheist is that I stopped believing there was a god. The "rich history" behind my atheism is that I used to go to church and then I quit because I realised it was all make-believe. Wtf is this guy's problem, is he stuck in some mental loop?

IMHO, we're all dictionary atheists. We're all more than that, of course, but we're that.

I 'd offer to email PZ, but I suspect he's getting an earful from a lot of atheists over this one.

Quote from: "PZ Myers"Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion. Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist â€" it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks â€" which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.

I can somewhat agree with this quote, assuming the rocks and trees part is sarcasm. I would think babies would be born Agnostic or just something between Atheist and Theist, since they don't really have an opinion on whether there is a God or not.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I disagree.  The "herd of cats" analogy is apt because atheists tend to be distrustful of group identities.

I don't think it's that...I know tons of atheists who are more than willing to identify with meetup groups; even going so far as to proudly wear t-shirts, logos etc related to the group.

The analogy comes in because even within those groups it's hard to get a bunch of free thinking people to agree on any one direction.  So, as with herding cats, you have to figure out what the hell the cat wants in order to end up with all the cats generally agreeing that they should head in the same direction.  Anyone who has owned a cat knows how hard it is to figure out what it takes to get a cat to want to do something.

Yeah, I was just speaking from  my own experience, which is apparently different than yours.

QuoteI am telling you the obvious fact that you aren't blind followers of the dictionary

Hail the almighty Dictionary! :twak: