There seems to be this general thinking amongst a large majority of those who practice a religion that Atheist are bad people. My fiance's family is quite religious and quite confused when it comes to my actions and beliefs despite being faithless. They really don't get it, i'm a good person without a promise of a heaven or a threat of hell. Why is that religious people can't see the alternative between being a Christian or Satanist. Has anyone else experienced this type of thinking.

If you are a level headed, open minded person, you would know that Satanism doesn't make people evil. Satanists are as capable as any other person to be upstanding, morally correct and successful.

You can't color this situation black, white and grey.

That little spurt of babble aside, I experience this type of thinking daily. Its not fun.

Edit: Punctuation

[This message has been edited by PurplePuppy (edited 02-22-2007).]

Yeah that was the same reason that the Inquisition acquired because people have this thought grown inside them that anything other than christianity it devlishment. I personally am a alternate christian.

I am not religious either (though I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm Atheist...). I have found that most people really want you to take some sort of stand on the issue and they become offended when you don't. Of course I get that from both Religious and Atheist groups...

[This message has been edited by Jove (edited 02-22-2007).]

We always have the tendency to critizise those that dont exist within our group.

Its not a misconception that happens accidentally, its the result of the conditioning that CHRISTIAN=GOOD ALL ELSE=BAD. When confronted with a good person who doesn't have their beliefs, normally I'll get "But don't you realize that jesus loves you?" or some other bullshit like that. Christians are just narrow minded like most other religious zealots (thats zealous christians, btw. Weekend warriors seem to tolerate me fine). Just ignore them and keep on keepin' on, it'll knock them back to find out you can somehow retain sanity without sacrificing your firstborn to belial.

A lot people I've ran into seem to think that atheism means 100% certainty that there is/are no higher power(s).

quote:Originally posted by bung:

A lot people I've ran into seem to think that atheism means 100% certainty that there is/are no higher power(s).

That's what it means to be Atheist... what you mean is Agnostic.

It's sad that a person thinks there has to be some omnipotent being that dishes out sticks and carrots in order for there to be morality, and that you have to believe in this drivel in order to be a good person.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Jove:

That's what it means to be Atheist... what you mean is Agnostic.

No it doesn't. Atheism is simply disbelief in higher powers.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

No it doesn't. Atheism is simply disbelief in higher powers.

Actually, there's weak atheists and strong atheists. A strong atheist says there is no God, a weak atheist (an agnostic-atheist, which is what I am) simply has a disbelief in higher powers but admits that there is a possibility he is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

No it doesn't. Atheism is simply disbelief in higher powers.

Believe what you want...

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Actually, there's weak atheists and strong atheists. A strong atheist says there is no God, a weak atheist (an agnostic-atheist, which is what I am) simply has a disbelief in higher powers but admits that there is a possibility he is wrong.

Oh, I know all about strong and weak atheism. I was just referring to the general dictionary definition of an atheist.

It depends on the definition of "god", how athiest you are.

Is there some higher-level force guiding events in our universe? Sure, why not.

Is there some invisible guy who designed everything, impregnates virgins, and has a foreskin fetish? Nope, don't think so.

Just turn around and call any religion person, Brothers in Atheism

Since if somebody believes in a god there 99% atheist 1% christian(for example)

There just atheists that are a little confused.

I live in the uk

anyone who is outwardly christian is a bit weird here, especally in the younger groups

I dont think i've ever said grace or anything, and if any of my friends suggested it they'd get about 4 jokeing/sarcastic replys at once

Go secularism

I think a big misconception is that atheism is a religion.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Just turn around and call any religion person, Brothers in Atheism

Since if somebody believes in a god there 99% atheist 1% christian(for example)

There just atheists that are a little confused.

lol, i tried my own idea today when i ran into this guy i remembered from highschool. A parent to one of the kids and he was a full blown evangelical. Called him a brother in atheism, and explained he was 99% atheist 1% christian and he flipped out and stormed off. LOL

Christianity and the other Abrehamic religions are set up where morality is focused towards getting into heaven and serving a God. The lack of a heaven or God means a lack of morality... If your definition of right and wrong is different than their right and wrong, or their purpose for right and wrong, that you are immoral.

And unfortunately in their moral code... immorality falls under the bad category.

So basically, most in this thread are saying that it is wrong for a Theist (Christian or otherwise) to claim that atheism is belief that there is no God? And that it is wrong to claim that atheists are immoral?

Am i understanding this right?

By implying a 'wrong', isn't that a statement that 'wrong' is immoral?

This presupposes that Morality and Truth are not subjective.... that Morality and Truth are eternal and absolute.

God Bless,

johnny

No, the OP is saying that it is a misconception that all atheists have no "morals". It's like saying 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. It's not a moral judgement on the OP's behalf, just pointing out a misconception.

I did the same thing when I pointed out the misconception that all atheists are absolutist in their belief and are not willing to accept that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

Also, you don't have to believe in a God to believe there is absolute eternal Truths. I don't know where you got that misconception from. For example, by logic, it is eternally true that "there are no truths" is inherently flawed.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-25-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

So basically, most in this thread are saying that it is wrong for a Theist (Christian or otherwise) to claim that atheism is belief that there is no God? And that it is wrong to claim that atheists are immoral?

Am i understanding this right?

By implying a 'wrong', isn't that a statement that 'wrong' is immoral?

This presupposes that Morality and Truth are not subjective.... that Morality and Truth are eternal and absolute.

God Bless,

johnny

Actually, this only presupposes that it is possible to judge things in a moral sense.

Whether that morality is eternal and all encompassing or pliable to the judges will and lasting only the lenth of this conversation is unspecified.

quote:Originally posted by Drox:

I think a big misconception is that atheism is a religion.

I came across a great response to the assertion (that atheism is a religion) in the comments of a Youtube video on Intelligent Design:



"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby".

I am a spiritual person, but I also believe that morality is not born out of religion. In a sense, I believe that morality is relative to the judge of the act. My morals say that killing for no reason wrong, but Jeffrey Dahmer may have believed that all the murders he committed were morally right. (i dont know Dahmer's morals, I am just using that as an example.)

Therefore, I believe that Atheists can be moral people, and the only thing that would make them immoral is themselves.

quote:Originally posted by PurplePuppy:

If you are a level headed, open minded person, you would know that Satanism doesn't make people evil. Satanists are as capable as any other person to be upstanding, morally correct and successful.

You can't color this situation black, white and grey.





thats just the most fucking retarded thing i ever heard in my life!!!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:



thats just the most fucking retarded thing i ever heard in my life!!!



You seriously must be a troll. Somebody with the name "masta thief" claiming to be devoit fundementalist christian doesnt add up. That or your just a complete idiot.

Do you even know what satanism is? Its not the worship of the devil.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

You seriously must be a troll. [...] That or your just a complete idiot.

He's both.

quote:Originally posted by pseudo_follower:

We always have the tendency to critizise those that dont exist within our group.

If you're a dick, yeah.

Actually being a teenager you would take way more shit for being religious now then for being an Atheist especially with a totse-esque crowd. The only shit you will get as an atheist is if you are with people who are hardcore Christians. Lot's of people in middle school, high school, etc are Atheists in my experience and would give people of faith a hard time if not to their face behind their backs.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Is there some invisible guy who designed everything, impregnates virgins, and has a foreskin fetish? Nope, don't think so.

I perfer the term "magical sky wizard."

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I came across a great response to the assertion (that atheism is a religion) in the comments of a Youtube video on Intelligent Design:



"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby".



That's so brilliant, that I'm going to have to use it all over.

quote:Originally posted by Jove:

That's what it means to be Atheist... what you mean is Agnostic.

No, it doesn't. Just as I'm not 100% certain that there isn't a giant invisible purple dildo hovering above New York, I'm not 100% certain that there isn't a God/god/gods. Atheist simply means a-, "not", theist, "theist" ( http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)). Not a theist.

Agnosticism, philosophically, is a position that holds nothing can ever truly be known with certainty; the fallibility of human knowledge. You can be an agnostic Christian, an agnostic Atheist, agnostic whatever.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 03-07-2007).]

the roots are different than that.

it comes from the greek word atheos, which means godless, with theos meaning god.

atheism is the belief that there is no god. a person is 100% sure that there are no supernatural beings.

if you disagree then you are wrong and confused, it really is that simple.



agnostic means that you believe that nothing can be known for sure. that the existence of god is unknowable, and therefore you take no side.

you cannot be "agnostic Atheist" for example, as you cannot say god does not exist and then claim you cannot prove anything and god might exist.

again, if you disagree you are wrong, but every respectable dictionary will agree with what i have said.



if someone gives themselves labels like "agnostic Atheist", or 1% christian then they are just confused. they have no fucking idea what they believe. it is totally ok to be confused, and not know what to think, but you cannot contort the definitions around what you believe. these words mean very definite things, and using them incorrectly makes you sound like a fool.

here, this might make it simple:

)you believe there is no god ---> atheist

)you are unsure ---> just confused

)you believe that the existence of god is unknowable ---> agnostic

)you believe in god ---> religious (religion based on which god/gods)

I like Richard Dawkin's 1-7 scale. One being there definitely is a god, and 7 being there definitely isn't one. I would consider myself a 6.

Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannon know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

the roots are different than that.

it comes from the greek word atheos, which means godless, with theos meaning god.

atheism is the belief that there is no god. a person is 100% sure that there are no supernatural beings.

if you disagree then you are wrong and confused, it really is that simple.



agnostic means that you believe that nothing can be known for sure. that the existence of god is unknowable, and therefore you take no side.

you cannot be "agnostic Atheist" for example, as you cannot say god does not exist and then claim you cannot prove anything and god might exist.

again, if you disagree you are wrong, but every respectable dictionary will agree with what i have said.



if someone gives themselves labels like "agnostic Atheist", or 1% christian then they are just confused. they have no fucking idea what they believe. it is totally ok to be confused, and not know what to think, but you cannot contort the definitions around what you believe. these words mean very definite things, and using them incorrectly makes you sound like a fool.

here, this might make it simple:

)you believe there is no god ---> atheist

)you are unsure ---> just confused

)you believe that the existence of god is unknowable ---> agnostic

)you believe in god ---> religious (religion based on which god/gods)

You are not correct in your assertions. The term "agnostic atheist" is a genuine and valid position and is not based on confusion in the least.

In reality, it cannot be proven (known) that a god (or supernatural entity) does not exist. That being said, it does not logically follow that the odds of existance/non-existance are equal. With the weight of emperical evidence supporting a natural universe, and the lack of emperical evidence supporting the existance of such an entity, it is quite logical to hold the position that such an entity does not exist. Thus the term agnostic atheist or weak atheist is quite valid.

There is no confusion in holding such a position.

I'm a full blown atheist because the God(s) in all religions are simply a personification of a system that is too abstract for most people to comprehend. I can comprehend such abstract thoughts, so I know that a God doesn't exist but it's not likely I could explain it to most. The god concept is very much the same as the face of big brother in the book "1984" by george orwell. The government in the book is technically faceless, so to make it more acceptable to the people, it's given a face which is much more personable than the impersonal system it represents. Ofcourse, instead of it being a government and control system, its a system of existence.

God isn't really a person, a being, but rather an actually quite logical mathematically predictable function. God is reality, regulates the universe, and determines all things that can mathematically and logically happen or exist. The reality is that what we call god isn't comforting, easily understood, or even likeable. It actually leaves you feeling alone, useless, and purposeless when looked at with little depth and inability to understand. This idea of god is hard to swallow be it the truth or not. People realized this and quickly created a more likeable concept which is essentially the same, by personifying it to ease the simple minds.

Since god is a function, and the universe is a function, everything within it can be balanced and optimized to it's natural function. The problem was that when most holy books were written, what people observed and concluded was often a long ways from that perfection they wished to achieve for the function of humanity. The problem being personal beliefs and prejudices of those times poisoning such a goal. Eventually over time, religions would fall apart and evolve closer and closer towards this perfection and now we are very close to it.

Men like Jesus, Allah, etc... where all key players in bringing humanity closer and closer to the ideal society of sustainability and social stability. Most likely within our lives we will be seeing most religions fall and a new movement rise at there end. I believe that these wise men have actually perposely geared each new religion to end itself and pave the way for an evolved form. The Tribulation for example which is part of both Christianity and Islam was purposely created to help those of that faith accept its eventual demise in a way that is predictable to a religions end. Technically, it's the super faithful that end their own religions with conflict and spawn a more evolved more accepted offshoot.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

You are not correct in your assertions. The term "agnostic atheist" is a genuine and valid position and is not based on confusion in the least.

In reality, it cannot be proven (known) that a god (or supernatural entity) does not exist. That being said, it does not logically follow that the odds of existence/non-existence are equal. With the weight of empirical evidence supporting a natural universe, and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of such an entity, it is quite logical to hold the position that such an entity does not exist. Thus the term agnostic atheist or weak atheist is quite valid.



ask a christian if he can prove god exists. he will say yes, as it is what he believe (weather you can refute the evidence is another point).

ask a atheist if he can prove god doesn't exist. he will use many arguments and believe he can. as difficult as it is, i believe i can create a logical argument that shows god does not exist.

to be an atheist you have no god. you believe there is no god, and can justify it to yourself. this is not an empirical evidence discussion, this is about personal point of view.

an atheist does not say 'i believe there is no god' and then ummm and ahhhh about evidence and proof and the possibility that they are wrong. the key word is believe.

an agnostic does not know. he realises that the existence of god cannot be proven conclusively, but recognises that it may not rule out his existence. to be agnostic is to realise that there is no profit in believing one way or the other, as to do so would be foolish. an agnostic deliberately sits on the fence, waiting perhaps for some new evidence to come along, or death even, before making up their mind.

to be an agnostic and believe completely that there is no god is not following the idea that the existence of god cannot be known. it is a silly thing to do to say "the existence of god cannot be known in our lifetime" and then say "but i completely believe he does not exist". to admit you can never know something, and then announce that you have made a conclusion is mutually exclusive. it is completely illogical and incorrect.

for example, i belive that there is no god. i reject entirely that we cannot know if god exists, because he doesn't. i take the complete absense of something to be evidence it does not exist. i have justified in my mind the complete non-existence of a god, and i reject any agnostic view point that he _might_ exist, that we can't know.

atheism means 'no god'. not 'no god but.... maybe....'

there is no middle ground, those who class themselves between the two are yet to make a decision if they wish to fit in with either of those two terms (of course, the option is always open to belive whatever you want, there are dozens of labels around if thats your thing. you just won't be atheist or agnostic).



"In reality, it cannot be proven (known) that a god (or supernatural entity) does not exist."

thats your reality. not mine, not a christians, just yours. we have established that you are agnostic and i am atheist.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

ask a christian if he can prove god exists. he will say yes, as it is what he believe (weather you can refute the evidence is another point).

It matters not if a christian says he can prove the existance of a god. If the evidence he offers can be refuted, he has proved nothing.

quote:ask a atheist if he can prove god doesn't exist. he will use many arguments and believe he can. as difficult as it is, i believe i can create a logical argument that shows god does not exist.

Of course you can produce a logical argument that a god does not exist. What you can not possibly do is prove that a god does not exist.

quote:to be an atheist you have no god. you believe there is no god, and can justify it to yourself. this is not an empirical evidence discussion, this is about personal point of view.

I have no belief in any god. I do not live my life with any expectation of eternal reward or punishment. I hold no positive belief in anything supernatural.

quote:an atheist does not say 'i believe there is no god' and then ummm and ahhhh about evidence and proof and the possibility that they are wrong. the key word is believe.

As previously stated, I do not believe in any god. I also do not "ummm and ahhhh" about the possibility that I may be wrong. As far as wanting evidence or proof: belief without proof is called faith. I prefer to leave that to the religious among us.

quote:an agnostic does not know. he realises that the existence of god cannot be proven conclusively, but recognises that it may not rule out his existence. to be agnostic is to realise that there is no profit in believing one way or the other, as to do so would be foolish. an agnostic deliberately sits on the fence, waiting perhaps for some new evidence to come along, or death even, before making up their mind.

It is a very common misconception that agnosticism = undecided. Although it may be the case in many instances, it is not always so. The only requirement to qualify as agnostic is to understand that something (god, in this case) cannot be proved or disproved.

quote:to be an agnostic and believe completely that there is no god is not following the idea that the existence of god cannot be known. it is a silly thing to do to say "the existence of god cannot be known in our lifetime" and then say "but i completely believe he does not exist". to admit you can never know something, and then announce that you have made a conclusion is mutually exclusive. it is completely illogical and incorrect.

Nowhere do I assert that "the existance of god cannot be known in our lifetime". I state that the existance of a god cannot be disproven. As I previously said, being unable to disprove something does not mean that it has an equal chance of being true. The chances of a god existing are so minute that they border on zero. Bordering on zero does not equal zero.

There is nothing illogical or incorrect in my position.

quote:for example, i belive that there is no god. i reject entirely that we cannot know if god exists, because he doesn't. i take the complete absense of something to be evidence it does not exist. i have justified in my mind the complete non-existence of a god, and i reject any agnostic view point that he _might_ exist, that we can't know.

Textbook definition of "Strong Atheist".

quote:atheism means 'no god'. not 'no god but.... maybe....'

there is no middle ground, those who class themselves between the two are yet to make a decision if they wish to fit in with either of those two terms (of course, the option is always open to belive whatever you want, there are dozens of labels around if thats your thing. you just won't be atheist or agnostic).

Yes, there are several lables around. Whether or not you agree with their use is irrelevent, and does not alter the validity of their use.

quote:thats your reality. not mine, not a christians, just yours. we have established that you are agnostic and i am atheist.

Reality is reality. You don't live in your own little cosmos where you can pick and choose the rules that apply.

The only requirement of atheism is lack of belief in god.

The only requirement of agnisticism is knowing that god's existance cannot be proven.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 03-07-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Drox:

I think a big misconception is that atheism is a religion.