Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[Xifel]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

 

[thom_cat_]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

"you're all stupid, think for a moment and look at the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims"

That's anti-theism. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lacking.

No it isn't.
It's not a belief in lacking, it's an assertion that because there is no evidence to support a claim then it should be ignored until evidence is provided/found. That's what atheism is. What I was talking about was that. I was not talking about rejecting religion, I was talking about rejecting the claim.

I think we (or at least I) got confused because the thread is so full of the same words in different orders, lol.

Atheism is saying: you can't prove it.

Anti-theism is saying: there is no god and you suck (lol).

I think we agree, just misread some stuff.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods".

No. See above.

Atheists believe nothing (including that there is no god). Atheists are simply saying no one has proven there is a god.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

Yeah, we definitely agree on the definition, because we just replied to the same post with basically the same words, lol.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Except that people aren't automatically assumed to be an astrologist or alchemist even when nondescript in appearance. Otherwise we'd have to explain to people that we weren't astrologists or alchemists as well when it mattered, or they'd assume we were.

 

[Dr Jones]

We've got the word "sugar-free," and "atheist" is the same thing. Except with God and not sugar.

Pretty much, yeah. Atheism is just a word used to describe another person. Just like sugar-free is there to describe wares that are sugar-free (as perhaps a diabetic could have great use of knowing).

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You're just not thinking properly.

The majority is religious. So of course there needs to be an identifier for those of us who aren't. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter what the majority is NOW. We are all born Atheist and later CHOOSE to believe certain things (that there is a god, that there are lots of gods, that there is no god, etc., etc.). The default state of being is Atheism--so why is there a word to describe it? It seems odd in my eyes that we need a title to describe the norm in this context. I'll use the example again: everyone is born not a skydiver; some people later choose to skydive and are thus skydivers. You don't call yourself not a skydiver, do you? No. Because it's normal.

Being Atheist is normal (it's physically impossible to be born believing in a god). Choosing to be religious is just that-a choice.

 

[hawkeye52]

The reason for this is because Atheism represents a group of people and flows a lot better then the "People who do not believe a god exists" group

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

The reason for this is because Atheism represents a group of people and flows a lot better then the "People who do not believe a god exists" group

Atheists don't believe no god exists. Atheists assert that no one has proven a god exists. There could be a god. There could be lots of gods. No one has proven it.

Atheism is lack of belief, not the belief of lacking.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you still don't get it: Atheism can only exist in a world where people are expected to be religious by default--a.k.a.: a fucked up world--and need to inform others otherwise.

Yes, the world is fucked up.

Yes, religion is the default expectation because most people are religious.

So...?

 

[Xifel]

Hold on! Just a question.

Isn't a atheist someone who actively say that "there is no god/gods". That is to deny the existence of a defined god.
An agnostic is a person that doesn't have a god, i.e has no religion.

In science you can have a thesis and people can actively oppose this thesis. But there are also a lot of people that has no opinion of it, say, people that aren't scientist. Isn't that more like "people with no religion?". No opinion at all?

In my opinion I think it is a cultural thing. I'm a Swede so you are more or less by default "Christian" but few people consider themselves as believers. A person that is religious has to actively declare themselves as "believer", otherwise religion seems a bit like a joke here. The norm here is "non-religious" or "don't care at all".

(All this is my subjective opinion, and I can't make a statement for my fellow Swedes)

Nope. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that there is a god. In the same way you reject the claim that there is an invisible dwarf on your head. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't one there, they're just saying that you have no right to make that claim because there is a distinct lack of evidence.
Basically, atheism is the scientific method applied to the question of a higher power.

Yeah, we definitely agree on the definition, because we just replied to the same post with basically the same words, lol.

OK, then I get it. To be honest I haven't put enough thought into it. I know maybe a total of 10 religious people, 2 of them are priests. I'm actually thankful to live in a country where non-believers are the default. Although sometimes it is to much to in that direction. People sometimes feel that they don't want to "come out of the closet" as religious, and I truely believe that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want (as long as they are not hurting anyone).

But could you define "agnostic" for me, since I sort of mixed up the concepts here...

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

If you still don't get it: Atheism can only exist in a world where people are expected to be religious by default--a.k.a.: a fucked up world--and need to inform others otherwise.

Yes, the world is fucked up.

Yes, religion is the default expectation because most people are religious.

So...?

The point is that people shouldn't assume religion to be the default.

If you don't feel something is worth discussing, why comment? That confused me. You start by saying that it's bad, but then say you don't care. You either don't believe it can be changed, in which case there is no reason to comment, or don't care enough to want it changed, so there would also be no reason to comment.

Basically: why are you here? Lol.

 

[Saltyk]

The Problem: You have to call it something.

You missed the entire point. Just because YOU have a religion doesn't mean someone has to title themselves as NOT having a religion. Some people sky-dive, so do we now need a non-sky-diver title? Some people play soccer/football. Do we now need to create a label for people who don't? Some people believe in aliens. Do people who don't need to call themselves a name referring to not believing in aliens?

It's nothing but obnoxious rhetoric on behalf of religious zealots for us to have to label ourselves non-believers. Religion isn't the default. You aren't born not believing. You are born NOTHING. You CHOOSE to become religious and you CHOOSE the title. Atheists chose not to take up a religion and therefore stay default--no title.

Actually, this is a pretty good point. I'm not really religious, but I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. If anything, I consider myself agnostic. And I hate that some people think agnostic is another word for atheist (it happens). But no matter what, this is a conscious choice that the person makes. They identify themselves as religious, atheist, or agnostic. It's not like being born a male or female. The doctor didn't look at you and say, "He's Christian. And this one is a Buddhist. I delivered an atheist last week."

 

[Lectori Salutem]

Basically, words and terms tend to pop up in everyday language if people feel there is a need for them, I would think. While you can indeed argue that the term might be redundant, in cultural context it is/was useful, since non-belief is/was generally not the norm.

 

[AngloDoom]

You're just not thinking properly.

The majority is religious. So of course there needs to be an identifier for those of us who aren't. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter what the majority is NOW. We are all born Atheist and later CHOOSE to believe certain things (that there is a god, that there are lots of gods, that there is no god, etc., etc.). The default state of being is Atheism--so why is there a word to describe it? It seems odd in my eyes that we need a title to describe the norm in this context. I'll use the example again: everyone is born not a skydiver; some people later choose to skydive and are thus skydivers. You don't call yourself not a skydiver, do you? No. Because it's normal.

Being Atheist is normal (it's physically impossible to be born believing in a god). Choosing to be religious is just that-a choice.

Atheism is often a 'choice' just as much as it is for religious individuals. Many people come into contact with religious individuals at school, work, or even in their own family. 'Deciding' to not believe in a god when surrounded by individuals who do believe in a god makes you an abnormality and so a label is given.

Most of the world believes in a religion, while most of the word doesn't go out skydiving. Most of the world freely eats meat, so those who don't are given a label. The default state of meat is raw but we give it a label to distinguish it from cooked meat, and ore refers to the 'raw' state of metal and minerals before human involvement and refining. You don't give names to things simply because it is different from the norm, but for ease of conversation and to lump things together for ease of recalling.

 

[manic_depressive13]

You're just not thinking properly.

The majority is religious. So of course there needs to be an identifier for those of us who aren't. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter what the majority is NOW. We are all born Atheist and later CHOOSE to believe certain things (that there is a god, that there are lots of gods, that there is no god, etc., etc.). The default state of being is Atheism--so why is there a word to describe it? It seems odd in my eyes that we need a title to describe the norm in this context. I'll use the example again: everyone is born not a skydiver; some people later choose to skydive and are thus skydivers. You don't call yourself not a skydiver, do you? No. Because it's normal.

Being Atheist is normal (it's physically impossible to be born believing in a god). Choosing to be religious is just that-a choice.

Let's use your "vegetarian" example from earlier in the thread. I don't like having to apply such a label to myself. No one is born eating meat. At a young age most of us are fed meat, just as most of us are fed religion. I believe eating meat is the wrong choice, just like you believe accepting God is the wrong choice. But we're the minority. We don't get to dictate the fucking lexicon.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I stretched it to fit atheism because it's another mode of thinking that goes to alot of work over denying god existence.

Fair enough. Although I as an Atheist generally don't spend a lot of time denying gods existence, at least not more than I discuss any other topic.

 

[hawkeye52]

The reason for this is because Atheism represents a group of people and flows a lot better then the "People who do not believe a god exists" group

Atheists don't believe no god exists. Atheists assert that no one has proven a god exists. There could be a god. There could be lots of gods. No one has proven it.

Atheism is lack of belief, not the belief of lacking.

A bit pedantic but necessary I guess since in a general sense they could be considered one and the same until proof has been shown.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I see the term atheist as a person who believes in one LESS god than everyone else.

Think about the millions of gods, and thousands of religions ever dreamt up. A given group of people will reject all the millions of previous or subsequent gods for their god of choice, thus essentially renouncing 99.9% of all of the worlds religious views in favour of one religion for one reason or another.

I mean, take Europe ALONE for a second and consider all the deities that are still widely believed in. Obviously you have the big 5 religions, Christianity, Islam, etc, and the following sub-religions, like Church of England, Scientology whatever. But you also have hundreds of varied Baltic, Celtic, Irish, Etruscan, Finnic, Germanic, Ango-Saxon, Norse, Greek, Hungarian, Roman, Lusitani, Paleo-Balkanic, Sami and Slavic deities that don't even get a mention outside their own country. Each one of the categories I've just mentioned have AT LEAST 10 gods to their name. And that's just fucking Europe! Take Asia for example, thousands upon thousands of deities are still widely believed in! And India!... Fucking India...

Atheism is just renouncing that final 0.01%. Atheist means non-theist. Which means we don't believe in a god. In fact, it doesn't EVEN constitute that we have to believe in the scientific method, although it's usually used as a by-word for that, but whatever. That's not what atheist means.

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe a magical zombie being in the sky that created everything we see on a whim, and then gave humanity the go-ahead to take over so he can watch us fuck up royally, stumble around in periods of dark ages, ignorance, and hatred and only give us extremely subtle and often insanity driving hints on what to do next with our lives.

I'm just saying, if by some freak turn of events a god turns out to be real, he is a freaking asshole. And I'm jumping on the ancient Greek bandwagon and going to war the very second I see proof of that shit. He needs to be freaking slaughtered. And I will be there, in amongst the legions of billions of people that are pissed off with his shit, purging his draconian regime from the history books, and bringing peace and happiness to the world for future generations to come.

 

[Navvan]

"Atheists don't believe anything."

That's like calling yourself a carnivorousness vegan; you either are or you aren't.

Atheist only means a lack of believe in a god. Irrelgious means they don't have a religion, and nihlism (existential nihlism) at its core is the belief that there is no objective meaning our existance. The three are distinct, and a person can be any combination of the three. More importantly a persons position on any of the three can influence their conclusions about the other two.

That is a slight deviation from what you were saying but it illustrates that there can be more than one "type" of atheist in terms of how they come to their conclusion, and what their beliefs are about other topics. There are many views that people like to lump in to one term "Atheism" but describe fundamentally different positions. Distinctions should be made, and that is where things like agnostic and gnostic atheism come in to play.