Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Attila]

1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

My usage may be peculiar to me but you asked me so... "believe in" involves faith rather than reason. It is not evidence-based and the believer cannot be wrong. To "think" something is so means there exists some evidence to support that view but it could always be mistaken. The thinker (rationalist) is willing to abandon any evidence-based claim in the face of convincing counter evidence.

Darwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here?

1. By "darwinism" I assume you mean, evolution by natural selection. But are we really going down this road Earthling? Been there, done that. There's ample material available on the subject so  I'm unclear as to why you want me to repeat it again. A search of HAF will turn up all the answers you're looking for.
2. As a rationalist (an evidence-based kind of guy) I freely admit I can be wrong about any evidence-based claims I make. I have referred to this as "playing with real money". I abandon theories every day when the evidence show they are wrong. A faith-based person is essentially anti-social in the sense that no argument, be it logical or empirical, will cause you to change your mind. Such faith-based views are entirely legitimate but given their non-empirical nature that should be kept private. You cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith" for the reasons given. This is what I call "playing with fake money". If you want to enter the rational world, Earthling you gotta pay the entrance fee. Are you prepared to do that.

2. I am extremely political.

I think that most militant atheists are as well.

Please define "militant" atheist. I am loathe to discuss poorly defined or value ladened notions. My ignosticism (check it out if you're unfamiliar with the term) is derivative rather than primary. I am a rationalist and an anarchist -- ignosticism a logical consequence of those views.

That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist.

Interesting claims, but nought to do with me. I have never lived in a social circle where the topic ever came up. I've never known a theist (I mean one that came out of the closet) personally. I find discussions of political philosophy and rational moral philosophy quite interesting. Nothing about theism has any intellectual appeal. In sum and with all due respect, your musing about atheists seem to be a collection of unsupported garbage: either meaningless for factually incorrect.

It is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats,

WARNING!!!!! My saturation point is nearing. Reading your baseless assertions about things you know nothing about is starting to bore me and I don't like to be bored. Repeated claims of something in the absence of evidence has the stink of authority about it. I don't like authority in any form. Now let's see where this is going.

Your continued use of the undefined term "militant" raises my hackles as well as my suspicions. I wouldn't know a militant atheist if I tripped over one. I'm sorry but why would atheists form associations to debate issues with theists who, by definition, are immune to all rational discussion of the question? The benefit I see for such venues as HAF is to provide support for those who live in less fortunate circumstances (surrounded by religious fanatics [def.] people of irrational views who want to impose them on others [/def.])  and to provide information for people who are truly curious about learning a world-view different from one they are used to.

The notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles.  

Oh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist.

As I've said repeatedly I AM NOT AN ATHEIST I have no interest in debating a meaningless concept. I don't know what part of that statement you don't understand.

Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god.

WARNING!!!! #2 I'm getting really bored with this.
I don't give a flying fuck what mumbo jumbo you provide me with. My requirement are this: I want an operational decision procedure, an algorithm,  that I can use in evaluating any entity for whom the predicate GOD is proposed and that will return a value TRUE or FALSE. It's that or nothing, I'm afraid. I refer to you my remarks about the Dawkins scale. These may be of help to you. I've deleted the rest as just to boring. Get back to me if you're willing to play with real money and abandon all your currently held beliefs.  

[Earthling]

Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

[xSilverPhinx]

'Militant' is one of those over-used words by theists for anyone who even just mentions that they're an atheist...

Speaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

And speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist.

Labels are a double-edged sword, describes a person but at the same time gives them a simplistic word or two to identify them as Not really atheist but apatheist? You make it sound like the two are incompatible...

[Attila]

Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

Do I note a glimmer of mutual understanding? or am I just being a silly older git? I do think you may have a reading difficulty. I started off my journey on HAF as an apatheist, a term which I learned here but (as I repeatedly indicated) was uncomfortable with it. Thanks in part to people on this forum I learned about the Ayer-Drange position on the question of the existence/non-existence of god. I am (no sarcasm at all here) really grateful to this forum for providing me with exactly what I was looking for, namely, a philosophical basis for my position which opens the door to all kinds comments (pro or con). Be that as it may, the god question does not really interest me nor occupy any significant role in my life. I repeat again: I know no theists my social group. I hope my view is clearer.

"Militant" frequently has negative connotations. May I suggest "sincere" in its stead. Perhaps you come from a culture where people need to "come out" if they are rationalists and so, as part of the  dominant group you see any form of resistance as "militant". Would you agree that this attitude is akin to the "uppity nigra" epithet used in recent American history. I mean something like "us po' godless heathen don't know our place, boss." You'd prefer us to take off our hats and step off the pavement when a Christian walks by. If we don't we're MILITANT. See what I mean?

[Tank]

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig 

[Tank]

Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

Yet you have no compunction applying them all the time to other people, that's pretty hypocritical really isn't it?

[Too Few Lions]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is.  

But you're saying that as a believing Christian. To me the Bible is just a book of myths and stories written a couple of thousand years ago, no different from The Iliad or The Odyssey.

You also make the same mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

[Attila]

You also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle. 

[Too Few Lions]

You also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle. 

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

[Tank]

You also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle. 

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

[Attila]

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU?

[Attila]

Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

Ok, CB. I'll have a look and report back. Do bit reckie, what? Are we planning a full-scale invasion of that site? Mums the word. Blink once for yes and twice for no.

[Too Few Lions]

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU?

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

[Attila]

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU?

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

You mean like me and Ildiko are doing right now? C'mon in the water's fine. Gorizia is inland but you might like Grado right on the coast. You'll have to brush up on your tedesco though. Living cost are considerably less than in the UK. The Adriatic is seriously underrated which is fine with me. Excellent wine region too. What else could anyone ask for. 

[Attila]

Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

Ok, I checked it out CB and it's not orderly and well organised like HAF. Can you point us to the funny forums where they really go after each other? What are Tank's top 5?
thanks.