What is atheism?

Atheism is nothing more nor less than a single disbelief. Besides the disbelief that there is a God, atheists can and do have little in common, and atheists can and do have things in common.

You can’t disprove God.

Burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement. Many atheists don’t believe simply because of lack of evidence. However, some believe they have disproved God, such as Sartre, who believed God was a manifest contradiction by definition. Again, atheists can and do have little in common, so ask each one personally.

How do atheists explain the universe?

Some believe the universe has always been, some say they don’t know, some don’t care, and some say the big bang.

Can you prove the big bang and evolution are not just theories?

Yes, but I’m not going to because that’s science, it has nothing necessary to do with atheism. Some atheists have low opinions of science, some are logical positivists, and some are instrumentalists.

Why do atheists hate Christians?

Don’t confuse atheism with antireligion or antitheism.

Why are atheists so arrogant and cruel about other people’s beliefs?

Why are you so quick to generalize? Some are very outspoken and in a harsh way, while others, such as Bertrand Russell, are much more soft spoken. Others respect religion, such as Arthur Schopenhauer, while others don’t give it a second thought and just go about their lives.

Atheists have no morals.

That’s not true, some are utilitarians, some are deontologists, and yes, some are relativists. You should really ask the individual what his views on morals are.

If atheists are so diverse, isn’t an FAQ silly?

Yes it is. You never see people who don’t believe in unicorns being defined by their disbelief and labelled aunicornists. Sadly both a fair amount of the religious and a small group of atheists, who I call Dawkinists, which is not to say Richard Dawkins doesn’t comprehend how silly it is, don’t seem to get this.

Good post, there are indeed as many sorts of atheists as there are atheists.

That needs to be stressed.

Well... I can't complain....

... Well save that it lacked bias, WHERE'S MY BIAS!

If atheists are so diverse, isn’t an FAQ silly?

Yes it is. You never see people who don’t believe in unicorns being defined by their disbelief and labelled aunicornists. Sadly both a fair amount of the religious and a small group of atheists, who I call Dawkinists, which is not to say Richard Dawkins doesn’t comprehend how silly it is, don’t seem to get this.

Two things you can count on in at least one of every five of Hare's posts: A shitload of philosopher name-dropping and at least one good jab against Richard Dawkins.

+1 for consistency!!

You seem to be isolating Dawkins just because he tends to SPEAK OUT about his disbelief. If this is the case, then I think the other "small" group of atheists you pointed out above is going to have to be broadened a bit to include the Brights, the Secular Humanist Council, Humanists.org, and a shitload of other scientists, lobbyists, policymakers, and more than just a "small group" of individuals who call themselves atheists, but believe that speaking out against religion in order to keep it out of public schools and government offices is both wise and necessary.

I hardly think all of the above groups take part in such organized endeavors just to be able to define themselves by their disbelief. Also, I don't think the 'Dawkinists' would have any need for a verbal platform at all, were it not for the fact that religion in mainstream society IS affecting laws, public policy and education.

It's funny how you point out how diverse atheists can be, but then group all the ones who push for a secular agenda into a neatly labeled package of "those who define themselves by their disbelief".

These people define themselves not as atheists first, but as mothers, fathers, scientists, doctors, office workers, humanitarians, humanists ... the list goes on and on. Usually the only time it is even relevant to bring out that they are atheists is when they are speaking their views on why they feel religion is harmful or dangerous when placed in government or public schools.

Ever seen an atheist parade, Hare? What about an atheist talk-show? Or an atheist sitcom? Or a concert that benefits atheism?

YOU are the one defining them by their disbelief.

I don't define myself by other people's stupidity, but I will speak out against it when it affects me.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

I am just wondering Hare, how YOU feel about theism attacking America for control of certian things. Control of what children are taught. Control of scienctific research like stem cells. Control of the voting public through the religious right.

I am just wondering Hare, how YOU feel about theism attacking America for control of certian things. Control of what children are taught. Control of scienctific research like stem cells. Control of the voting public through the religious right.

I could honestly not care less anymore, to be perfectly honest with you.

PS, I don't consider humanism secular, I'm anti-humanism, and if you look at my posts, AngryFemme, you would see I drop philosopher's names far less than you believe. I also would like it if you delete your post, for putting words in my mouth and then knocking them down does not become you.

I could honestly not care less anymore, to be perfectly honest with you.

I guess those issues aren't worth caring about, considering there are far more pressing issues to fret on, like say ... having a canine blessed in a church. I guess the human beings can defend themselves, while our mutts can hardly muster up the language needed to ward of the silly rituals a Christian may force them through. :rolleyes:

if you look at my posts, AngryFemme, you would see I drop philosopher's names far less than you believe.

But I do look at your posts, Hare. You're one of my favorite posters. I make it a point to read all your posts, and that was a given even before I helped jackketch moderate this forum.

I also would like it if you delete your post, for putting words in my mouth and then knocking them down does not become you.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

I could honestly not care less anymore, to be perfectly honest with you.

PS, I don't consider humanism secular, I'm anti-humanism, and if you look at my posts, AngryFemme, you would see I drop philosopher's names far less than you believe. I also would like it if you delete your post, for putting words in my mouth and then knocking them down does not become you.

You honestly do not care? You do not care if children are reared believing in religion instead of science? You do not care if even a psuedo theocracy springs up? Historically theocracies have not been very good for a society. Theocracies create a dangerous climate and endanger non-believers historically.

Yet, you care if someone is (as you label them) a dawkinist. You believe (by your own posts that are IN FACT filled with philosophical name-dropping) dawkinism endangers or leads itself to a dangerous climate by labeling theists insane. Locking up the crazy bible thumpers as I recall.

How can you honestly seem to care about one and NOT the other?

P.S. I will let angryfemme tell you the words she did not put in your mouth.

But I do look at your posts, Hare. You're one of my favorite posters. I make it a point to read all your posts, and that was a given even before I helped jackketch moderate this forum.

I enjoy Hare's posts as well, as he is the ONLY person who can shut Obbe up.

How can you honestly seem to care about one and NOT the other?

I dunno, I don't care about much anymore.

I dunno, I don't care about much anymore.

Well damn...

Well damn...

He just might be in a bad mood today. I wouldn't read too much into it.

I see this one a lot, so I thought I'd contribute.

Isn't being an agnostic better than being an atheist? Atheism is a religion too! You can't say you know there is no God!

No. These terms are often confused as being two points on a spectrum: an atheist being someone who believes they've disproved God or their definitely is no God, an agnostic being someone who doesn't advocate a position either way. This is, however, incorrect - if you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Period. You don't have to "know" there is no God to be an atheist, though some probably do feel that way. "Atheist" simply means "not a theist", not "someone who definitely thinks they know for sure there is no God at all for sure certainly!" Some Buddhists are atheists, to use a good example.

Agnosticism, philosophically, is the position that human knowledge is fallible and certain things, or all things, are unknowable. You can be an agnostic atheist - you don't believe in God in the same way you don't believe in unicorns, but you don't know. You can be an agnostic theist - you believe in God the same way you believe in atoms, but you don't know for sure. You can even be a gnostic atheist, or the common gnostic theist (not to be confused with the Christian Gnostic sect). The terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" are often used in place the aforementioned terms, because of all this confusion: "Strong" atheism being gnostic atheism, "weak" atheism being agnostic atheism.

Well said Hare. Great post.

Where'd you go man? I haven't seen you forever.

You can be an agnostic atheist - you don't believe in God in the same way you don't believe in unicorns, but you don't know.

That's simply an inversion of religious faith. Fundamentally no different from saying you do believe in something but don't know - which is exactly what the average Christian will tell you. From your explanation, tagging "agnostic" unto atheism makes no difference to the claim that atheism is in itself a belief system, it just adds a degree of uncertainty.

You can be an agnostic theist - you believe in God the same way you believe in atoms, but you don't know for sure.

How can you not know for sure that atoms exist, given that they can be seen, measured and identified - when was the last time anyone could claim that of God? God is a metaphysical being, but atoms, when there's enough of them, can be used to hit you over the head.

Your comparison is invalid.

His point is that "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive. He made his point. It is true; they are not mutually exclusive. You can have agnostic atheists, non-agnostic atheists, agnostic theists and/or non-agnostic theists.

Good post, there are indeed as many sorts of atheists as there are atheists.

That needs to be stressed.

This is a stupid fucking post.

Everyone knows this, and anyone who doesn't know this an asshole that doesn't need to be respected or listened to.

His point is that "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive. He made his point. It is true; they are not mutually exclusive. You can have agnostic atheists, non-agnostic atheists, agnostic theists and/or non-agnostic theists.
Thanks, Rust. Got it in one. :) I'll attempt to defend my reasoning below, but in any case this was the main point of the entire post. The part of atheism not being "just like a religion" might have been better in a completely separate post.

That's simply an inversion of religious faith. Fundamentally no different from saying you do believe in something but don't know - which is exactly what the average Christian will tell you. From your explanation, tagging "agnostic" unto atheism makes no difference to the claim that atheism is in itself a belief system, it just adds a degree of uncertainty.
Rather, the average Christian has "faith" in God's existence. They believe without evidence, and that's what makes it a religion. A gnostic atheist, or strong atheist, is the inversion of that: they have faith there is no God. Agnostic atheism is the lack of a belief; no faith required.

How can you not know for sure that atoms exist, given that they can be seen, measured and identified - when was the last time anyone could claim that of God? God is a metaphysical being, but atoms, when there's enough of them, can be used to hit you over the head.

Your comparison is invalid.
I can't see, measure, or identify atoms. Perhaps if I was trained and had high-powered microscopes, but religious folk will say the same of God - if you just meditated long enough, perhaps!

For the record, I think it's a ridiculous comparison as well. Science and scientists have a good track record, atoms explain a lot of stuff, and you know that if you were trained and so forth you could. Meditation has no such guarantee, or guarantee that you won't just hypnotize yourself into a false belief or whatever. In my opinion, there is no need to include God to explain anything, so why would you?

I'm just trying to explain what an "agnostic theist" might think. Many theists think a God is necessary. Doesn't make them right, and I never claimed it did.

How do atheists explain the universe?

Some believe the universe has always been, some say they don’t know, some don’t care, and some say the big bang.

I really wish people would realize that the big bang IS NOT a creation theory. Only uneducated retards would use it that way. It's an explanation for why objects in our universe are dispersed the way they are. I hate that people don't realize that.

If atheists are so diverse, isn’t an FAQ silly?


By your language I assume that you pronounce FAQ as "eff-ay-cue," am I correct?
That would be the only reason to use "an" rather than "a."
I've only ever heard of it being referred to in any way other than "fack."
But I think all of you atheists do it like that, right? ( ;

I really wish people would realize that the big bang IS NOT a creation theory. Only uneducated retards would use it that way. It's an explanation for why objects in our universe are dispersed the way they are. I hate that people don't realize that.

I know what you mean. The big bang is an event. Science DOES not hold it to be the beginning of the universe. There is no evidence to suggest this and it does not make sense. Unless of course you spew out "God did it" like so much verbal diahrrea.

Atheism ???????????

Atheism ???????????

?????