This is a good read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/no-atheists.htm
First few paragraphs:
It is time for us to recognize as a society that there is no such thing as an atheist. Let me help you understand why this is the case.
Do you believe in Leprechauns? Probably not, because Leprechauns are imaginary. Yes, there are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist.
We know that Leprechauns are imaginary. Why? Because there is no evidence for their existence. Despite all the publicity Leprechauns get, normal people dismiss storybook creatures like Leprechauns as myths, and rightly so.
If you do not believe in Leprechauns, what are you? Are you an aleprechaunist? Of course not. You are normal. People who do not believe in Leprechauns are completely normal.
Later in the article, the writer proposes that we call ourselves Rational People instead of Atheists.
Should we now call this the Happy Rational Person's Forum? ;D
The problem is that theists also consider themselves to be rational people.
Maybe we are empirical evidentialists, where we have an epistemology (method of knowledge) based on observations.
Whereas theists have an epistemology based on specific scripture or specific theological assertions.
I totally get the point of the article, but the thing is, a lot of society's still heavily faith-centric. And unlike leprechauns or Santa, people really BELIEVE in their faith. I doubt that in the USA, someone could even be elected president if he or she admitted to not believing in God. In the UK, the story's maybe different. In Canada, most of our political folks give some kind of nod to a higher power, too. A ton of people identify themselves as at least culturally religious (ie, their family was even if they're not). And then there are a TON of people who don't belong to a specific religion, but still assert that they believe in God or a higher power or that they're "spiritual".
Until the overall mentality's roughly the opposite of the above, we'll probably keep calling ourselves atheists just to differentiate ourselves from the folks above.
I agree with Amicale.
There comes a point when every "minority" position has to re-visit whether voluntarily labeling itself as "different" does more harm or good. It'd be nice if rational thought was the assumed default, but I don't think we're there yet.
I think he makes some great points but I would have to disagree to an extent. Yes no one believes in leprechauns but if a majority of people did and claimed to have rules from the leprechauns and tried to impose those rules on you I would have no problem being aleprechaunist and would promote it lol. I think the label atheist has a bad reputation but in my experience when revealing that you are an atheist, it strikes at the curiosity of the person asking, usually leading to a very nice discussion. Most of the time lol. I think the label is necessary in this time and age, maybe things will change in the future who knows.
I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL
The difference is that most people do not believe in leprechauns. I understand where the author is coming from, but in our current world, a majority of people seem to believe in a god. Therefor, I think the term is justified, just as I would consider myself an "aleprechanist" if a big enough portion of society believed in them.
We as atheists are not normal, at least as far as the majority opinion is concerned. This is why I personally like the label atheist.
I would also say many religious people are rational, simply not when it comes to religion.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. I have had many glasses of wine tonight.
Quote from: Jimmy on April 03, 2012, 05:17:48 AM
I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL
Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.
Quote from: John_5.0 on April 03, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on April 03, 2012, 05:17:48 AM
I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL
Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.
Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion. :)
'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.
Quote from: John_5.0 on April 03, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on April 03, 2012, 05:17:48 AM
I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL
Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.
'Atheism' is just an umbrella descriptive label, it doesn't say anything about what people do believe and can actually be harmful as in it feeds the tendency that some theists have for black-and-white thinking. It's the main issue IMO with the label, other than that, I have no problems with it.
I'm not even sure that atheism is the default position. Being a theist is the more effortless approach if it is indeed the natural byproduct of a brain's wiring (religious beliefs in general, not one or another in particular). The path of least resistance.
Quote
I'm not even sure that atheism is the default position. Being a theist is the more effortless approach if it is indeed the natural byproduct of a brain's wiring (religious beliefs in general, not one or another in particular). The path of least resistance.
That is a very interesting point. I remember reading the God Delusion by Dawkins and him talking about that. It made me unsure as well if atheism is really the default position.
Quote from: Amicale on April 03, 2012, 06:04:43 AM
Quote from: John_5.0 on April 03, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on April 03, 2012, 05:17:48 AM
I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL
Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.
Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion. :)
'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.
Thanks Silver, That is what I mean. Atheism is used pejoratively to mean "without faith," as if having faith is the default position to have, as it surely is in the minds of the religious.
Quote
Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion. :)
'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.
If I could clear something up, If you do not believe in something (disbelief) Then wouldn't you lack belief in that something? I am pretty sure what I said fit the definition of atheism that you provided. Now I don't deny the possibility of God existing, I just think it is extremely unlikely. But I do think that it fits.
Quote from: John_5.0 on April 03, 2012, 06:23:46 AM
Quote
Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion. :)
'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.
If I could clear something up, If you do not believe in something (disbelief) Then wouldn't you lack belief in that something? I am pretty sure what I said fit the definition of atheism that you provided. Now I don't deny the possibility of God existing, I just think it is extremely unlikely. But I do think that it fits.
I think my issue is with the way the word "lack" implies that you don't have something you need. I find that problematic. There are many things I don't believe in -- ghosts, UFO's, the tooth fairy, etc, but I don't "lack" a belief in them. That is, I don't think I need to believe in those things. I'm not missing anything, in my opinion, by refusing to believe in them. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Zeus or Athena". I don't lack a belief in Zeus or Athena, as I don't need a belief in them. :)
When I use the word lack, I only ever use it in terms of something I'd like to have, but don't. For example, I can say I lack knowledge in botany. I'd like to have it, but I don't. I can also say that when I'm hungry but need to go grocery shopping before I can eat, I lack food. Or if I ignored someone who needed my help, I could say I lacked compassion -- all things I'd like to have, but in those cases, wouldn't.
Does that make sense? Maybe we just emphasize the word differently. :)
Quote
I think my issue is with the way the word "lack" implies that you don't have something you need. I find that problematic. There are many things I don't believe in -- ghosts, UFO's, the tooth fairy, etc, but I don't "lack" a belief in them. That is, I don't think I need to believe in those things. I'm not missing anything, in my opinion, by refusing to believe in them. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Zeus or Athena". I don't lack a belief in Zeus or Athena, as I don't need a belief in them. :)
When I use the word lack, I only ever use it in terms of something I'd like to have, but don't. For example, I can say I lack knowledge in botany. I'd like to have it, but I don't. I can also say that when I'm hungry but need to go grocery shopping before I can eat, I lack food. Or if I ignored someone who needed my help, I could say I lacked compassion -- all things I'd like to have, but in those cases, wouldn't.
Does that make sense? Maybe we just emphasize the word differently. :)
Ah yes that makes sense, we do emphasize words differently. Thank you for clearing that up! ;D
Even though I may not believe in a god and therefore atheist it doesn't even come close as a label at describing me as a person and is not who I am beyond my thoughts on a god. It doesn't mean anything other than a non-belief in gods, so for it to represent a person they would have to be a very one dimensional character. Language requires us to label things so we can communicate however inept those labels may be they give a slight hint at a persons basic position on a particular subject, when it comes to gods atheism does the job just fine. I don't want or need to define myself entirely by a label and wrap it all up in a bow, its pointless and futile pursuit that creates restrictions on the self-labeled and those who do are fast on their way to becoming a hypocrite. Somethings are best to just give it a basic name for communication purposes, it doesn't really matter what that word is as long as it creates a direction for discussion and understood by many.
'Rational people' is a daft label for atheists, rationality is a constantly shifting concept that isn't fixed. Hypothetically if evidence was found for a god and all reason and logic pointed to that being the case the 'rational people' wouldn't be the atheists they would be anymore they would be the believers therefore the label of 'rational people' to define atheists would be defunct and wholly incorrect in the first instance. I can think of many youtube and famous atheists that think logically but are anything but rational; they jump to conclusions without forming a measured opinion before shouting their mouth off and spurn those for thinking differently, whilst saying they can not abide by the pressures of religious organizations to make people conform. paradoxically they are the ones that would most likely embrace this label as it makes them feel big and important whilst providing them with their daily ego masturbation. I would say the label of 'Rational people' to represent a group of people or individual because they have a certain opinion is a total contradiction to rationality.
Quote from: Stevil on April 03, 2012, 04:19:49 AM
The problem is that theists also consider themselves to be rational people.
Further not all atheists are rational. Some people are staunch in their dismissal of deities but have no problem believing in UFOs, Bigfoot, lycanthropy, or any other myriad of odd superstition or spiritual gimmickry. Atheism is a statement of non belief not a statement of any sort of mental or emotional stability or superiority.
I think that socially atheism has been a term that is needed and useful because historically it goes again the natural grain of humanity. Worship has been an organic part of human development. Every culture on earth throughout all of history has had developed religions, organically and independently of one another. New religions and faiths are being born today. The atheistic view of reality actually goes against cultural majorities in most cases. I'm actually quite glad to be considered an atheist today. If I were an atheist a few hundred years ago I'm sure I would not have been called an atheist I'm sure I would have been called a heretic or a blasphemer or a witch or warlock or some other sort of nonsense and would probably have been drowned ,burned or hanged. So, when viewed through the lens of history, being called or identifying myself as an atheist today seems like a step in the right direction.
Quote from: Twentythree on April 03, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 03, 2012, 04:19:49 AM
The problem is that theists also consider themselves to be rational people.
Further not all atheists are rational. Some people are staunch in their dismissal of deities but have no problem believing in UFOs, Bigfoot, lycanthropy, or any other myriad of odd superstition or spiritual gimmickry. Atheism is a statement of non belief not a statement of any sort of mental or emotional stability or superiority.
Very true!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 03, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on April 03, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 03, 2012, 04:19:49 AM
The problem is that theists also consider themselves to be rational people.
Further not all atheists are rational. Some people are staunch in their dismissal of deities but have no problem believing in UFOs, Bigfoot, lycanthropy, or any other myriad of odd superstition or spiritual gimmickry. Atheism is a statement of non belief not a statement of any sort of mental or emotional stability or superiority.
Very true!
This is more true than anyone knows, when it comes to me. For the better part of several months, chemical imbalances in my head caused me to hear voices and sounds that didn't exist, and it got so strong and so bad that it's hard to describe. The entire time, I didn't believe in God, but still somehow at least partially bought into what I heard in my head -- even if you know these things don't exist, it can be damned hard to ignore them when they're nearly constant. Still, I knew that I wasn't rational. I wasn't able to be, I wasn't stable enough to be. Medication and getting some help assisted me in being a lot more rational, but my atheism certainly wasn't any indicator that I was a rational person.
Anyways, yup, it's possible in several ways to be an atheist without necessarily being rational, although I'd wager that a lot of atheists and agnostics (not all, obviously) who are serious about their ideas do TRY to be rational, barring any mental health issues.
Maybe by being rational, the person means knowing that sex feels good , and Isnt just for procreation, how two people can have an amazing relationship without being married (or even raise a kid together.)
How birth control isnt only used to prevent pregnancies.
Maybe that's what they mean by rational?
By looking at facts, logic, and using life experience to make choices rather than a dumpty old fairy tale.
If people actually believed in leprechauns then there would be a word for those who don't. Since people actually believe in god there is a word for those who don't. It's a matter of practicality more than anything. There are other words that also describe most atheists such as Humanist, Secular, Rationalist, Freethinker etc and individuals can decide which label they prefer to use if they decide to answer when asked.
Here's one interesting distinction I've seen made in several places: people who simply want to announce that they don't believe in God or gods will probably call themselves atheists, but for those who also want to announce that they don't believe in ghosts, pseudoscience, UFO's etc, the word they often use is "skeptic". They're not just skeptical about supernatural religious claims, but also claims generally that are likely bogus/lack evidence.
Rational People? I don't know, can we shorten it to Rat People? Or Ratheists, it has some appeal for those who'd like to escape the ship that theists seem bent on sinking.
Rat people? LOL!!! :)
I usually do say i'm skectic rather than an atheist.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 03:50:26 AM
Rat people? LOL!!! :)
I usually do say i'm skectic rather than an atheist.
Ah a new Sweetdeath word, sweet.
What is a skectic/skec tic?
I'm going to suggest an involuntary rapid shaking of the head which occurs when faced with the most ludicrous religious mumbo jumbo. It could possibly have a protective effect, preventing our brains attempting to escape through our ears.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on April 04, 2012, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 03:50:26 AM
Rat people? LOL!!! :)
I usually do say i'm skectic rather than an atheist.
Ah a new Sweetdeath word, sweet.
What is a skectic/skec tic?
I'm going to suggest an involuntary rapid shaking of the head which occurs when faced with the most ludicrous religious mumbo jumbo. It could possibly have a protective effect, preventing our brains attempting to escape through our ears.
Gundam!!!
I meant
skepticXD rawr, I am sucking hard tonight at English.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 04:05:10 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on April 04, 2012, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 03:50:26 AM
Rat people? LOL!!! :)
I usually do say i'm skectic rather than an atheist.
Ah a new Sweetdeath word, sweet.
What is a skectic/skec tic?
I'm going to suggest an involuntary rapid shaking of the head which occurs when faced with the most ludicrous religious mumbo jumbo. It could possibly have a protective effect, preventing our brains attempting to escape through our ears.
Gundam!!!
I meant skeptic
XD rawr, I am sucking hard tonight at English.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fgundam%2Fimages%2F7%2F7e%2FGUNDAM-2.jpg&hash=3ba4d45585c2240dc3d074f168f5e09bc51caa19)
I couldn't resist...
I do prefer freethinker, feels more right to me.
Yes, Amicale!! :D
In real life, I do tend to say Gundam or Gundamnit (instead of god damn. LOL!! )
I like the term free thinker a lot too. :)
:D Ratheist!
I like it.
If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.
This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.
To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."
I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.
I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website. annelebrecht.com
Quote from: lebrecht52 on April 11, 2012, 03:16:45 AM
If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.
This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.
To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."
I have to disagree. Atheist and agnostic can mean the same thing essentially. Based upon the lack of evidence I know there is no god. That is not to say I'm 100% certain there isn't one. It's the same as how I can say there are no leprechauns. I'm not 100% certain they don't exist, but given the lack of evidence, I feel comfortable saying I know they don't.
I'm going to nit pick at this, because to me there is a distinction between believing or not believing (theist or atheist) and knowing or not knowing (gnostic or agnostic). I don't know that leprachauns don't exist. Maybe they do in some portion of the universe. I don't believe they exist, though.
I'm just not that comfortable using the word 'know' in some situations.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 11, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
I'm going to nit pick at this, because to me there is a distinction between believing or not believing (theist or atheist) and knowing or not knowing (gnostic or agnostic). I don't know that leprachauns don't exist. Maybe they do in some portion of the universe. I don't believe they exist, though.
I'm just not that comfortable using the word 'know' in some situations.
Perhaps it's the way I define "know." I can only know something based on the knowledge I currently have. The fact that I have a particular piece of knowledge, does not even mean that knowledge is accurate. I simply side with those who see the terms as interchangeable. I think Dawkins is one.
Quote from: lebrecht52 on April 11, 2012, 03:16:45 AM
If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.
This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.
To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."
I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.
I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website. http://www.annelebrecht.com
atheism [ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm]
n
(Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
[from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Atheists
I don't see anything about claiming certainty in the philosophy definition. The definition of theism also doesn't imply certainty.
Wheter you are certain or not is unimportant. It is on what you base your life that matter.
If you live your life as if there is no god, then you are an atheist.
It is acts, not words that define people.
I feel that if a theist is allowed to say that they know for sure that there is a god, then an atheist should be able to say that there isn't a god.
Quite right, Budhorse. Seems to me there's philosophical knowing and practical knowing. Bertrand Russel's orbital teapot is a good case in point: a philosopher can't prove there's not one there, but in reality you'd be loony not to dismiss it for practical purposes.
Quote from: Bertrand RusselMany orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
A physicist talking about quantum uncertainties once pointed out to me that at any moment his foot
might burst into flames and fly across the quad. Only it was pretty unlikely - so unlikely that in the real world you'd get locked up for believing it was going to happen.
So with god: I don't care how often they tell me that I cannot ultimately disprove his existence. For all practical and rational purposes, there is no such thing. End of story.
Quote from: lebrecht52 on April 11, 2012, 03:16:45 AM
If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.
This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.
To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."
I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.
I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website. http://www.annelebrecht.com
Highlighted is incorrect. I am an atheist and I have never stated that I
know there is no God. What a do know is that I have seen no compelling evidence nor argument to convince me there is a God. And in addition the
total lack of any evidence for the existence of God has pushed me way beyond agnostic as regards the existence of God(s).
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: lebrecht52 on April 11, 2012, 03:16:45 AM
If we state that we ARE an Atheist then we are saying that we know there is no God.
This is similar to a Christian or other faith arguing that there IS a God.
To resolve this I suggest saying "I am an agnostic."
I am definitely out as an Atheist so am not trying to hide this, just offering some food for thought.
I have written and published several novels, that address some of these issues.
If interested you can find them on Amazon.com
or at my website. http://www.annelebrecht.com
Highlighted is incorrect. I am an atheist and I have never stated that I know there is no God. What a do know is that I have seen no compelling evidence nor argument to convince me there is a God. And in addition the total lack of any evidence for the existence of God has pushed me way beyond agnostic as regards the existence of God(s).
Tank, what you said here definitely makes sense, and it's why I'm leaning more into soft atheism, rather than agnosticism. It would be more rational to call one's self an agnostic if there was even some proof or evidence, however sparse it was -- then we could be more comfortable in saying 'well, MAYBE there's a God since a bit of the evidence seems to suggest there could be, but we just don't know'. As things stand, the total lack of evidence has pushed me away from saying 'maybe, I don't know' to 'I don't see any compelling evidence or arguments that convince me God exists', as you stated.
Yeah, like Whitney's pointed out, atheism derives from the Greek word a-theos, which literally means 'without god(s)' or 'free of god(s)'. As far as I'm concerned it merely means living one's life without the belief in gods and free of related religion / superstition. It's not saying that one knows for a fact that no gods exist. I live my life without thought or consideration for any gods, therefore I'm an atheist.
just noting that I removed the hyperlink in lebrecht52's post because I think she may have just posted enough to get past our radar on the spam rule...the books on her site don't seem to having anything to do with atheism; especially not anything scholarly enough to be pointing to them like they are a source.