Happy Atheist Forum

Before I post I'll quote from my introduction for those who may have missed it:

Shalom everyone.
I am working on a project for my website. Having grown up in church with a pastor for a father, I knew very few non-theists on a personal level as I am sure you can readily imagine. I knew atheists as opponents rather than people. Having spent the last 12 years unlearning and rediscovering my Faith, there are a few walls I would like to break down. That said, back to the matter at hand. The project! As most of you know preeminently, a great deal of Christians understand very little about how atheists are as people. To my chagrin, I count myself among that number. The ultimate aspiration for my visit is to procure input for a series of articles I will be writing in March (upon my return from Israel) which deal specifically with the most personal aspects of Atheism.
I also wanted to iterate that I am not here to debate. We all know the arguments (many of them verbatim). Most debates into which I have ventured begin with one side or the other vying for intellectual supremacy. I will be happy to stand aside and play the part of the village idiot in those instances. You will come to know what I am after once I put forth the questions orbiting feverishly around this small mass of gray matter in my skull.
Well, that's me. I suppose the next step is to put some questions to the board. Pleasure to meet you all.

The first question may or may not dispel a belief in some circles of Christianity which suggests that there are two camps: The Non-Theist and the Atheist. The rationale is that Non-Theists simply "live and let live". They don't believe in any sort of Deity and live peaceful, progressive lives. In the other camp, across the river, live the intellectual-para-military arm of Non-Theism, Atheists. These, as it is understood, study and research for the purpose of debate and debunking religions as a whole but in particular, Christianity (Dawkins, Gould, Newdow, et al).

What do you find in this belief (naive or willfully ignorant as you may see it) that is erroneous to any degree? And do you subscribe in whole or in part to any of these notions?

Thank you all for your consideration.

John

Ill take a stab at it…
In my opinion the “intellectual-para-military” atheist isn’t much different than a fundamentalist religious person. Perhaps one could say that feeling the need to spread the word of disbelief isn’t that different than feeling a need to spread the word of belief. That and perhaps the need to feel or prove to themselves, to others, or possibly to the whole world that they are right. However some are people just like to debate. Some like to learn, to study, and then go out and show others what they have learned. And then there are of course a select few who actually want to rid the world of religion.
Now I am no psychologist or scientist but this is my simple take on the question.

For the other part of your question, the debate against Christianity in particular. One would have to figure that is the dominate western religion. So most people where raised Christian and know Christianity better than other religions of the world. They meet more Christians and most often if “engaged” or harassed by a religious person it is more than likely be a Christian.  Also there is more freedom of religion in the west. Where one can be an atheist if one so chooses. As always it is different strokes for different folks, and Im sure if others reply to your post you will have a number of different answers.

I hope this has contributed in some way. I look forward to discussing both views of it more.

Quote from: "G-Roll"I hope this has contributed in some way. I look forward to discussing both views of it more.

Brilliantly so. Thanks for that. My observations (which will not go over well with my Christian brethren once the articles hit), are very similar to yours. Robertson, Falwell and Hagee would be the para-military arm of the Christian camp. No question. With regard to Christianity seemingly being singled out in the west, that makes sense. Christians are more ready to hand in the west. I suppose an Atheist in Iran would be taking on a much different type of religious system (though to greater consequence). Well put. Thanks, G-Roll.

John

QuoteRobertson, Falwell and Hagee

one would have to mention bill o'riely as well. his constant atheist war on christmas non since.  

Quote from: "G-Roll"

QuoteRobertson, Falwell and Hagee

one would have to mention bill o'riely as well. his constant atheist war on christmas non since.  

Ha! Well that's certainly true. Although, I am a Bill-O fan...he does, like most news analysts, get carried away at times. And about Christmas, I have all but made my mind up. It doesn't really belong to Christians in a historical sense. Not in my mind anyway. Yes, I celebrate Yeshua's birth, but I do so around Sukkot (which is most likely when He was born). Christmas as a celebration of much of anything is fast becoming a ruse in my eyes.

Hi John,

If I may chime in (not an atheist myself), but it sounds like your definition of atheism is actually "Anti-Theism".

Most atheists I've spoken with do not take an active anti-religious stance, but instead react when religious groups or individuals intrude on their lives or freedoms.

In this sense, "Non-Theists" and "Atheists" would be the same thing, with the para-military wing labeled as "Anti-Theists".

Hope I'm not confusing the issue, but it seemed a bit off to me.

For the record, I'm a "Live and Let Live" type...

Cheers,
JoeActor

I'll add a little. Some atheists self-identify primarily as such, while others do not. Ask the rather vague question "what is your world view?" and some atheists will self identify primarily as atheists and others as something else. Ask me and I'll say something along the lines of "some kind of Liberal existentialist". But if you were to specifically ask me if I was an atheist I would have to agree but admit that, while I believe there are most likely no deities (at least as far as any society has yet conceived), I don't claim to know with certainty.

Others might self-identify primarily as "free-thinker", "Buddhist", "humanist" or any number of other designations. I think this difference between theists and atheists might be because, for theists, the religious belief is more important than any other categorization, whereas for the atheist, religion might or might not be the most important aspect of there outlook. They might feel that, for example, ethics, philosophy or politics is more appropriate.

There's also the issue of context. An atheist is probably more likely to self-identify as atheist in the context of an atheist or religious forum than in real life.

Good luck with the project!

Quote from: "joeactor"If I may chime in (not an atheist myself), but it sounds like your definition of atheism is actually "Anti-Theism".

Just to clarify it's not my definition but one of those beliefs held tightly in certain Christian circles. It was, of course, my view prior to rediscovering the beliefs I now hold
But you are quite right! And I can understand a group's natural tendency toward defensiveness when it is attacked. In most Christian sects there exists a great deal of fear of being perceived as intellectually inferior. From Copernicus to Galileo to Scopes â€" brilliant men have been hammering away at religion. My great dread is that fellow Believers are so used to fear (both experiencing it and doling more that enough of it out), they have missed the Message. But that's another story. You'll hear absolutely no defense from me for many Christian evangelicals who put to use scare tactics bolstered only by a gross man-handling of the Scriptures.

Thanks, joeactor!

Quote from: "joeactor"In this sense, "Non-Theists" and "Atheists" would be the same thing, with the para-military wing labeled as "Anti-Theists".

And here you touch on one of my strong pet peeves.  Where you label "para-military", I often hear people say "militant" atheists/anti-theists/etc.  At least in my life-time there really haven't been any violent actions taken by atheists, particularly against any form of theists/religious/etc.  On those (extremely) few occasions where some of the (usually younger or more newly converted) atheists have begun to cross the lines with vandalism/graffiti/etc, there's usually a very rapid denunciation of them by the various non-religious communities.

As such, calling them militant is a pretty severe misnomer and appears to be trying to link or associate actions inappropriately.  I could see calling the more vocal and out-spoken atheists and anti-theists as "strident", "activist" or some such, but to the use of the term "militant" I must strongly object.

Quote from: "pckizer"As such, calling them militant is a pretty severe misnomer and appears to be trying to link or associate actions inappropriately.  I could see calling the more vocal and out-spoken atheists and anti-theists as "strident", "activist" or some such, but to the use of the term "militant" I must strongly object.

In my original post, I was restating what certain Evangelical circles believe. And I believe I used the words Intellectual-para-military. But these are the words they use. It stokes the fire. However, for my purposes, the ire wrapped within your objection does answer some questions about this belief among Christians and the atheist reaction to it. Fair enough.

John

Quote from: "AlP"Others might self-identify primarily as "free-thinker", "Buddhist", "humanist" or any number of other designations. I think this difference between theists and atheists might be because, for theists, the religious belief is more important than any other categorization, whereas for the atheist, religion might or might not be the most important aspect of there outlook. They might feel that, for example, ethics, philosophy or politics is more appropriate.

There's also the issue of context. An atheist is probably more likely to self-identify as atheist in the context of an atheist or religious forum than in real life.

Good luck with the project!

So, within those self-identifications, are there really that many variables? For instance, there are wide chasms between what a Catholic believes about core doctrine and what a Charismatic does. I understand there exists no real doctrine within Atheism. But are all core beliefs about the world (both humanity and nature) relatively similar? Is there any division within Atheism (say with regard to science or philosophy) as there is within Christianity as a whole?

Quote from: "John_Silver"So, within those self-identifications, are there really that many variables? For instance, there are wide chasms between what a Catholic believes about core doctrine and what a Charismatic does.

I would say there are as many variables as there are ideas and the number of ideas has been vast and growing in Western civilization since the transition from feudal times into the industrial revolution and prior to that in the ancient world.

Quote from: "John_Silver"I understand there exists no real doctrine within Atheism. But are all core beliefs about the world (both humanity and nature) relatively similar?

They are similar in the sense that they are all ideas. There are also some common themes, such as ethics, ontology and epistemology.

Quote from: "John_Silver"Is there any division within Atheism (say with regard to science or philosophy) as there is within Christianity as a whole?

I would invert that question. Is there any consistency within atheism? Atheism to some people is simply the absence of a certain kind of belief while to others it is a positive belief about the number of deities that exist and within the latter category there are degrees of certainty: for example gnostic (strong) versus agnostic (weak) atheism.

I don't think there are really divisions. That would imply some kind of barrier. A barrier, I think, would require some kind of doctrine. Some atheists do subscribe to beliefs that could be considered dogmatic, such as rationalism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with their atheism.

Quote from: "AlP"I don't think there are really divisions. That would imply some kind of barrier. A barrier, I think, would require some kind of doctrine. Some atheists do subscribe to beliefs that could be considered dogmatic, such as rationalism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with their atheism.

Great points, all of them. So the lack of a core doctrine (over which two might squabble for centuries, as is the case with Christianity) removes a barrier to similar worldviews? For instance, one Atheist might believe that an ape who saves a child who has fallen into her den at a zoo (as happened a number of years ago) and cradles it and protects it until help arrives is instinctual and another might believe that it demonstrates "mother-love" and therefore holds that animals do in fact have souls? (I heard the latter from an Atheist friend; now whether or not she can be considered an Atheist based upon that premise I leave to you). But this does not, in effect, cause division within the worldview itself?

Thanks again for you well-reasoned replies AIP.

John

Quote from: "John_Silver"Great points, all of them. So the lack of a core doctrine (over which two might squabble for centuries, as is the case with Christianity) removes a barrier to similar worldviews?

I would say there is no barrier to be removed in the first place. Without doctrine, where would the barrier come from? If you could please explain what you mean by barrier, I can perhaps provide a better answer.

Quote from: "John_Silver"For instance, one Atheist might believe that an ape who saves a child who has fallen into her den at a zoo (as happened a number of years ago) and cradles it and protects it until help arrives is instinctual and another might believe that it demonstrates "mother-love" and therefore holds that animals do in fact have souls? (I heard the latter from an Atheist friend; now whether or not she can be considered an Atheist based upon that premise I leave to you). But this does not, in effect, cause division within the worldview itself?

No division. Though personally, although I don't have the full details of the scenario you describe, I am initially skeptical of both conclusions.

As others have pointed out....

Atheists are non-theists.  Those who speak out against religion are simply anti-religion atheists (or might be anti-religion theists in some cases as there are theists who dislike religion just as much as some atheists).

I personally think it is possible to voice personal distaste for religious views yet still maintain a live and let live attitude.  There are tons of things I think are horribly wrong with religion but as long as religious people don't try to force their views on others (via politics, school, government, etc) then I frankly don't care what whooey they believe.  Unfortunately (or fortunately since it makes them look bad to all reasonable people), it is the religious people with the craziest views who tend to practice a my way or the highway approach.

Quote from: "AlP"I would say there is no barrier to be removed in the first place. Without doctrine, where would the barrier come from? If you could please explain what you mean by barrier, I can perhaps provide a better answer.

Well the barrier would be put into play once a person holding a particular view and who associates with those of similar mind discovers that another individual claiming to hold the same view contradicts the worldview held by all parties involved and begins to share these views on a large scale with others. It happens in churches all over the world. I am just wondering if it ever happens in Atheism. Take the example I gave (even though you aren't familiar with the details). Would an atheist look at another atheist (or one who claims to be) who believes animals and humans have souls and say "that's not an atheist". So I suppose a better word for barrier would be a "bone of contention". Please forgive my lack of understanding of your worldview it is for this reason I am asking these questions.  

Quote from: "AlP"No division. Though personally, although I don't have the full details of the scenario you describe, I am initially skeptical of both conclusions.

Fair enough.

Quote from: "John_Silver"Well the barrier would be put into play once a person holding a particular view and who associates with those of similar mind discovers that another individual claiming to hold the same view contradicts the worldview held by all parties involved and begins to share these views on a large scale with others. It happens in churches all over the world. I am just wondering if it ever happens in Atheism. Take the example I gave (even though you aren't familiar with the details). Would an atheist look at another atheist (or one who claims to be) who believes animals and humans have souls and say "that's not an atheist". So I suppose a better word for barrier would be a "bone of contention". Please forgive my lack of understanding of your worldview it is for this reason I am asking these questions.

Got it. I think there can be no barriers within atheism if you take atheism to mean simply not believing in deities. There really isn't anything to debate unless you claim there are deities, at which point your position ceases to be atheist. I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

Quote from: "AlP"I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

Fair. That makes sense. So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place. But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?  

Quote from: "AlP"That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

Yeah...I think that's a people thing.

Quote from: "John_Silver"

Quote from: "AlP"I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

Fair. That makes sense. So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place. But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?  

Quote from: "AlP"That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

Yeah...I think that's a people thing.

Welcome to the forum bud and i'm glad you're here. It's rare these days to enjoy a conversation with a theist  such as yourself.

Atheist do indeed oppose the idea or stereotype that we hijacked some other belief system or religion's morals or that we live without morals. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong but the general consensus among atheist is that morals are a result of social evolution and just as logic dictates that if you jump off a building you will die common sense or human nature rather compels you to help your fellow man. I'm an atheist and have been since I was six. I like to think I have a decent sense of morals and I would never harm a person in offense, I always try to help those when I have the power to do so. I tend to be generous with currency  and I always try to offer kind words when deemed fit to do so. Now that doesn't mean i'm without faults, I've done bad things in life but not because I never accepted religion and anything i've done was a result of neglecting logic as a youth.

Quote from: "John_Silver"So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place.

That idea can, should and has been assaulted. See John Stuart Mills or Friedrich Nietzsche for example. Note that I used the word "should" in the first sentence. I agonize over how to justify that "should". That's where I am with ethics. Ethics is hard and I'm glad that it's hard.

Quote from: "John_Silver"But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?

Others might well disagree with me. I think atheism itself isn't really about ethics. It is simply a disbelief in deities. However, some atheists argue that they behave ethically or altruistically for evolved physiological or psychological reasons. If that's true, which I think it is, it's not because they are atheists, it's because they are human animals. I agree with this idea but I also think that ethical ideas are something that must be actively pursued by the individual.

I honestly believe that ethics is the pursuit of an answer one can never obtain. This seems consistent with reality. Nobody in the history of mankind has found the "right" ethics. Ethics is the pursuit. That's not an atheist idea though; it's an existentialist idea.

Quote from: "AlP"Others might well disagree with me. I think atheism itself isn't really about ethics. It is simply a disbelief in deities. However, some atheists argue that they behave ethically or altruistically for evolved physiological or psychological reasons. If that's true, which I think it is, it's not because they are atheists, it's because they are human animals. I agree with this idea but I also think that ethical ideas are something that must be actively pursued by the individual

I had to laugh at the Nietzsche reference. Particularly when I had said no sane person would assault it. Kidding! I am currently reading The Birth of Tragedy. But it makes me want to jump out a window in some parts it's so depressing. I can only read his work in small doses.

But, back to earth, what I wanted you to clarify is the statement "It is simply a disbelief in deities". If that is true, my question then becomes; why all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities? Surely you discuss things of importance which leads me to believe that there are some pretty strongly held beliefs in something. I think it is that something that I am trying to get at. And again, it is to shed light on a great deal of ignorance "back home" and, admittedly, in my own mind.

Quote from: "AlP"I honestly believe that ethics is the pursuit of an answer one can never obtain. This seems consistent with reality. Nobody in the history of mankind has found the "right" ethics. Ethics is the pursuit. That's not an atheist idea though; it's an existentialist idea.

Well said. Thanks!

John

Atheist is a very vague word...it is a broad definition that can apply to people with a wide range of worldviews. I am an atheist, but to say that is sort of like my christian friends identifying their religion as "theist." Labels like "secular humanist," "freethinker," "rationalist" convey a lot more information about ones worldview.

Quotewhy all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities?

Because we achieve more together than apart. There is nothing more to it than that really...the "opposition," so to speak, are heavily organised and influential, and in most countries more numerous than us, we would simply get run over if we did not band together.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Welcome to the forum bud and i'm glad you're here. It's rare these days to enjoy a conversation with a theist  such as yourself.

Thank you, Ultima! I know, and it's unfortunate. But we are out there...those of us who believe in a god (or Yeshua, specifically in my case) yet still see how He spoke and interacted and in fact spent a great deal of time with unbelievers. To what end? Who knows. We aren't always told. And I think that's important. Conversion isn't the end all of a Believers existence despite what some would have you believe. In fact, I am beginning to question whether or not it is a Believer's responsibility at all! I mean, we don't get extra credit. And if I don't get extra credit, I don't write the essay. :)

John

Quote from: "templeboy"Atheist is a very vague word...it is a broad definition that can apply to people with a wide range of worldviews. I am an atheist, but to say that is sort of like my christian friends identifying their religion as "theist." Labels like "secular humanist," "freethinker," "rationalist" convey a lot more information about ones worldview.

In truth, I wasn't aware of the labels. That helps immensely.

Quote from: "templeboy"Because we achieve more together than apart. There is nothing more to it than that really...the "opposition," so to speak, are heavily organised and influential, and in most countries more numerous than us, we would simply get run over if we did not band together.

Ok, I can certainly understand that. I may be reading more into it than I should (I tend to over-analyze as a rule) but what would you lose by getting "run over"? For instance, a Christian fears that Atheists would "run them over" if any law that smacks of Godlessness were to be implemented (hence the maniacal attacks on Michael Newdow). But Atheists don't really believe in anything they couldn't let go of at the drop of a hat. I mean, there really appears to be nothing to lose either way for an Atheist. He isn't bothering anyone so why should he be bothered to band together as a matter of tactical survival? Or is it simply that Christians have infiltrated law-making bodies and tend to err on the side of religion when passing bills? A major annoyance with which I can identify (don't get me started on that). But even then, if you simply don't believe in a deity, does it really affect you that much?

Again I am trying to get at the dynamics of this notion of banding together. And, for the record, I do not in any way shape or form believe that Christians should be meddling in matters of State. There is simply no Scriptural precedent for such a ridiculous notion.    

John

Quote from: "John_Silver"I had to laugh at the Nietzsche reference. Particularly when I had said no sane person would assault it. Kidding! I am currently reading The Birth of Tragedy. But it makes me want to jump out a window in some parts it's so depressing. I can only read his work in small doses.

Admitted. Nietzsche's work is somewhat like the Bible. It has to be interpreted. I find much of it beautiful and some of it makes me want to jump out of the nearest window.

Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html). I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

Quote from: "John_Silver"But, back to earth, what I wanted you to clarify is the statement "It is simply a disbelief in deities". If that is true, my question then becomes; why all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities? Surely you discuss things of importance which leads me to believe that there are some pretty strongly held beliefs in something. I think it is that something that I am trying to get at. And again, it is to shed light on a great deal of ignorance "back home" and, admittedly, in my own mind.

You're right, my statement was vague. I will only speak for my own part. I am interested in philosophy. Religion will obviously influence a person's philosophy. I like to take that bias out of the picture. That was my original reason for joining this forum many months ago; I wanted to discuss philosophical ideas with people that have no religious bias. Or I suppose from another perspective one might view this as wanting to discuss philosophy with people having my own religious bias. Anyway, now these people are my friends and that is the primary reason why I now frequent these parts.

I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

One reason to get together is that humans simply tend to enjoy the company of like minded people.  Not to mention that many people do run into issues with work and family simply due to their lack of belief so groups can also provide emotional support when dealing with those problems.

Quote from: "AlP"Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html). I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

I will read it this evening. Thanks!

Quote from: "AlP"I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

Not surprised at all. I just wanted to hear it from someone else. It is funny. In my circles, the concern is obviously reversed. Maybe a discussion down the road of the implications of lawmaking as it relates to different groups (be it religious, non-religious, minority or other groups) is warranted. Thanks for your input, Alp. I shall return tomorrow.

John

Quote from: "Whitney"One reason to get together is that humans simply tend to enjoy the company of like minded people.  Not to mention that many people do run into issues with work and family simply due to their lack of belief so groups can also provide emotional support when dealing with those problems.

Well I can understand that. I may have been thinking of the more outspoken groups. Lumping them altogether wasn't my intention. Duly noted.

John

Quote from: "John_Silver"

Quote from: "AlP"I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

Not surprised at all. I just wanted to hear it from someone else. It is funny. In my circles, the concern is obviously reversed. Maybe a discussion down the road of the implications of lawmaking as it relates to different groups (be it religious, non-religious, minority or other groups) is warranted. Thanks for your input, Alp. I shall return tomorrow.

John

I was thinking about this some more last night. Another idea...

In countries where religion is popular, such as the US, people tend to identify strongly with their religious group. I can anecdotally contrast that with the experience of living in a country where religion is not as popular. I'm British but I now live in the US. In Britain, I was not a member of any atheist group. The fact that I was an atheist was something that I was aware of, but day-to-day it didn't really register much. If someone did happen to quiz me on my religious beliefs I would self-identify as "not-religious" rather than "atheist". I didn't consider atheism to be an especially important part of my social identity. At that time you could accurately have described me as "apatheist". On the other hand, when I moved to the US, atheism became a much more important part of my social identity. I think it relates to in-group /out-group. An American is very likely to identify in-group as their own religion or denomination. So it comes down to this. Am I an atheist or an outcast?

I find this article a bit perplexing.. it seems that you are trying to quantify any given belief system into some sort of stereotype... It's almost not a matter of beliefs vs beliefs here... In many cases it's a matter of sound logical notions of existence  vs illogical notions of existence... Religions, beliefs, or whatever other intangible, or unprovable ideological constructs are merely philosophical points of view that they claim to be absolute facts... I don't think atheist have a problem with any given philosophy or religious ideology.. The problem comes in when such ideologies are thrust into legislation, forcing those who don't agree with said religious construct into being obedient to the ideology..  Most powerful religions have Theocritus agenda's... Atheist do not attempt to legislate atheism... However, we can be very vocal on our points of view.. Most atheist I know believe that logic and reason lead you to a more rational state of mind... To accept what is without trying to literally impose it on others... That is the sole purpose of freedom of religious belief...

Now I don't speak for others here.. But my personal view is that Existence can not be created.. Logically that is impossible.. It would require the need to believe that reverse creationism is possible... Existence simply exists because non-existence can not literally be a person, place, or thing of existence... A god can not create that which he himself must have in order to be in existence.. And that is the container to his own existence and mind.. Thus, by logical deduction, or by example of "infinite regress", a God can not be the answer to existence no matter how supernatural anyone thinks it would be... All minds must have separate containers within a larger container to be free agents.. All containers can not be created by any one mind.. It doesn't take much to debunk the notion of a magical being... The only thing that remains is what ideological morality are you trying to enforce through the use of religion... We all know that religion is not required to have a belief in any given deity's existence... I could logically state that a 5 dimensional being can manipulate our lower 4 dimensions.. It would be no different than me drawing on a peace of paper to create a 2 dimensional drawing... However, no being would be capable of creating existence or actually be capable of being a literal God.. It would only be manipulative creationism.. This is where preexisting tools and substances are required.. But I can not possible claim a 5 dimensional being even exists or had any real manipulative power over our own dimensional planes of existence... I couldn't even tell you if such a being is mortal or immortal...

There comes a point to where if you are speaking out of honesty or speaking in dishonesty... I find those who think they know a GOD exists, or what it's supposed will is, are speaking from a very dishonest point of view... Passing things off they can not verify as facts... This is what breeds irrationality, extremism, and even terrorism... 300 years of burning ought to be example enough of how far such cults will go in order to enforce their ideology on other people...

Also, atheist don't reside in groups.. At least as far as I can tell... There is no Church of atheism or some symbol to be worshiped.. Atheism is more of a philosophy based on logic and reason... It's based on the notion of seeking truth without assumptions.. We question everything... Religion on the other hand is 100 percent assumption and blind faith... It requires blind obedience without self criticism or scrutiny... Most religions use common mechanics found in the process of brainwashing to engineer devotion... If you have ever read a book on the mechanics of brainwashing, you would literally see right through any given religious ideology.. The play on salvation, love, and fear is pretty obvious once you start to do some critical analysis of any given religion... Atheism does non of these things... Atheism simply tries to logically establish what is more likely closer to the truth..

TheJackel:

Honestly, don't let an article, yet to be penned, perplex you. I shouldn't want you to be perplexed at all. And thank you for your input. The article, once written, is predominately for Believers who see Atheists (or free-thinkers or existentialists or whatever they should like to be called) as "the root of all evil". And to enable them to see a bit more of a human side. I speak as one who once saw an Atheist as a near-machine, incapable of feeling and with no rational reason to feel.

I do hope this has satisfied your rather sudden, straub-tailed anxiety. But I truly appreciate the in-depth reply. It renders a good deal of insight.

John

Quote from: "AlP"Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html). I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

Loved it! I'll give you my reaction shortly. Got a meeting to go to. Thanks for that, Alp.

Quote from: "John_Silver"

Quote from: "AlP"Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html). I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

Loved it! I'll give you my reaction shortly. Got a meeting to go to. Thanks for that, Alp.

Oh I forgot I asked you to read that. No need for a review or anything. Really like / dislike is fine but I am interested to know why you liked it.

Quote from: "AlP"Oh I forgot I asked you to read that. No need for a review or anything. Really like / dislike is fine but I am interested to know why you liked it.

Well because of this:

Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious.

That is me. As an artist and musician I exist as a separate person. The hope is that someone will like my art and my music. But I know, from experience, no amount of praise or recognition truly grants me any real fulfillment. I go on "rolling the rock up the mountain" knowing full well that it will end up at the bottom again. For me, it is my Faith that grants me any real peace. But as an artist I continue to play this game.

I imagine the story spoke to me differently than it did you? What do you think?

John

Incidentally, Alp, the truth captured in the story is the reason I wrote this song:

Go to http://www.30shekels.com (http://www.30shekels.com) and click on the music button up top. On the right of the page you will find "World Ablaze" which speaks to this endless circle we are touching on.

John

Quote from: "John_Silver"I imagine the story spoke to me differently than it did you? What do you think?

Yeah eternally rolling the rock up the mountain only to have it roll back down is a metaphor for the pointlessness of some lives. But Sisyphus sees beauty in the absurdity itself and makes it his own. That is his revolt.

Quote from: "John_Silver"Incidentally, Alp, the truth captured in the story is the reason I wrote this song:

Go to http://www.30shekels.com (http://www.30shekels.com) and click on the music button up top. On the right of the page you will find "World Ablaze" which speaks to this endless circle we are touching on.

John

I enjoyed both the songs =). Just two of you make them? You must record each instrument individually and then mix them together? I'm not a musician so I don't really understand how that works.

Quote from: "AlP"I enjoyed both the songs =). Just two of you make them? You must record each instrument individually and then mix them together? I'm not a musician so I don't really understand how that works.

Thanks!

Yes, just the two of us. Once the song is written, we start with a click track (metronome). Then the drums get laid down on another track. After that, the drums are played back and on another track we lay the bass down. Then piano, guitars and so on laying the vocals down last. Same with the orchestral piece I composed. I got my hands on some sophisticated sampling software that has recorded notes of every instrument in a full orchestra and sampled each note from each instrument 36 times. In other words, when I press a key, that note comes out sounding fat and bad-ass! Like you were standing in an auditorium. Then I lay each down using the method described above.

It keeps me out of trouble.

John

I've been gone for the past several days but from what i've read I hope you have a long stay John and I hope you luck in your article.  

You've reminded me that theist can be just as if not more logical than atheists and I hope more like minded theist like yourself become more of an identity. I've only met one other like yourself and that was my old teacher in highschool, he taught our religion class in a catholic all male school but he took a professor's approach to it and taught the class from a non biased point of view and he quickly became my favorite teacher.

Anyone else on here ever looked forward to going to religion class at a catholic private school? XD

Ultima, Thanks! Your words are healing.

In truth, I expected to come here and have a difficult time. Not that I would get blasted, but that many people just wouldn't understand what I was attempting to do. I have been talking to Ultra Orthodox Jews in the same manner but they have a strong distrust and even loathe of Christians who speak Hebrew (particularly Christians of the Messianic variety) and I am almost always labeled a missionizer no matter how tactful I am in my inquiries.

I am fairly close to a rough draft for this article. I have made the decision to post it before I leave for Israel and Egypt in February rather than after I return. As I promised, I will post the draft in here first. Thanks, again, Ultima for your warm welcome.

John