More to atheism...?

Scofflaw

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

well if by more to atheism you mean that it can go deeper from the "i dont believe in man made religions" to " we are all connected sentient beings that must strive to live in true harmony so that the universe can come to peace with itself and stop its expansion so time can finally slow down where the multiple dimesnions, the past future and present will be alingned at one point in existence.......back to a singularity"


Sure there must be more to atheism. But i dont really understand the question being asked:eek:

toiletduck

No, I really don't see anything more to it than that. I mean I know atheists who believe in an afterlife, reincarnation etc. Perhaps an outside opinion might differ, am I missing something?

allabouteve

toiletduck wrote: »

No, I really don't see anything more to it than that. I mean I know atheists who believe in an afterlife, reincarnation etc. Perhaps an outside opinion might differ, am I missing something?

I'm a longtime atheist myself and my unbelief is based on reason and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. It is hard to concieve of an atheist who finds the concept of a god irrational, yet can believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. In my experience most atheists have no supernatural belief.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please Scofflaw, call me Fanny.

OK, I've moved this below post from the Darwin and Evolution thread.

---

Dades wrote: »

If that is clear to you it's clear to me you don't understand what the term atheist means....

But I'd be interested to hear what you mean.

Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

I speak generally here - I do realise that you don't all hold the same beliefs or opinions, so please bear that in mind.

If atheism was merely not believing in God(s) then that should be that really. You could all go on about your lives as happy as Larry - eating babies and mugging Christians and so on. Indeed, it is often said on this fora that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby - like it is some sort of a passive, quaint mindset. But I do think this isn't quite true.

Naturally belief in the non-existence of God leads many atheists to form an identity with similarly minded people. And as is your right, some of you deciding to gather together to form pressure groups that push your agendas (almost exclusively at theism's cost), listen to atheist music (still listening Tim?), have atheist weddings (get her to the church on time!), go to atheist conferences, and discuss the intelligence levels of theists - and this is to mention but a few things. None of this seems particularly passive in a 'not collecting stamps' sort of way. To my mind atheism - in its broadest sense - is a community based upon common beliefs and common goals and which is often proactive in attempting to achieve those goals.


Yes, I realise that it is unlikely that one of you will agree with anything I say. I'm used to that, though.


Dades, please feel free to move this if it is detracting from the OP.

---

Zillah

No.


There's usually a lot more to Atheists though.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please Scofflaw, call me Fanny.

OK, I've moved this post from the Darwin and Evolution thread.



Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

I speak generally here - I do realise that you don't all hold the same beliefs or opinions, so please bear that in mind.

If atheism was merely not believing in God(s) then that should be that really. You could all go on about your lives as happy as Larry - eating babies and mugging Christians and so on. Indeed, it is often said on this fora that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby - like it is some sort of a passive, quaint mindset. But I do think this isn't quite true.

Naturally that belief in the non-existence of God leads many atheists to form an identity with similarly minded people. And as is your right, some of you deciding to gather together to form pressure groups that push your agendas (almost exclusively at theism's cost), listen to atheist music (still listening Tim?), have atheist weddings (get her to the church on time!), go to atheist conferences, and discuss the intelligence levels of theists - and this is to mention but a few things. None of this seems particularly passive in a 'not collecting stamps' sort of way. To my mind atheism - in its broadest sense - is a community based upon common beliefs and common goals and which is often proactive in attempting to achieve those goals.


Yes, I realise that it is unlikely that one of you will agree with anything I say. I'm used to that, though.


Dades, please feel free to move this if it is detracting from the OP.

There are atheist conferences? Anyways I think you might be getting mixed up with atheists and anti-theists.

Fanny Cradock

There sure are!

Schuhart

I'd see two potential questions of interest. One is whether there are people to whom atheism has no significance beyond its what they put on the census form (all 929 of them - us Jedi Knights are a far more significant movement but guess who gets all the airplay).

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people .

I think the other question is are there implications that flow from an atheist conception of the world. I think the answer has to be yes - but this assumes the person is interested in pursuing those implications, instead of taking himself off to the fairway. If we consider questions of morality it seems to me that we do start from a different basis if we say ethics is something that we collectively or individually invent and place upon the world, rather than something put into it by God for us to discover. While we may derive a broad framework that looks morally similar to the basic framework of a religion from whatever first principles we choose, I feel there are still likely to be differences. For the sake of argument, I think an atheist approach to morality is less likely to be dogmatic about questions relating to human life, like assisted suicide or abortion. Similarly, I'd expect atheism would be less likely to create taboos around sexuality.

That's just to scratch the surface with some (I think) obvious points. I think the key point is it would seem to me that there is a difference between conceiving of the world as something God made and places us in with a divine purpose, and us finding ourselves in a world that exists without any particular divine purpose which we can decide to relate to as seems fit.

mickoneill30

eoin5 wrote: »

There are atheist conferences?

Yeah. Must be where we eat the babys.

toiletduck

allabouteve wrote: »

I'm a longtime atheist myself and my unbelief is based on reason and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

Same as!

It is hard to concieve of an atheist who finds the concept of a god irrational, yet can believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. In my experience most atheists have no supernatural belief.

I would lean towards that aswell but have met such individuals! I suppose I was trying to get across that unlike religion, atheism comes with no "baggage" i.e. common opinions that all atheists hold (except for the only one!), do and don'ts, practices etc.

estebancambias

Schuhart wrote: »

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people.

Yes.

daveyjoe

atheism - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is there more to not believing in God than not believing in God?
Obviously atheists will tend to share similiar viewpoints on a lot of things but that is intrinsic to any minority. However, there are no real underlying principles that atheists believe in besides a lack of belief in a God. This topic wont lead anywhere.

eoin5

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

Soul Winner

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure if we can tempt Fanny Cradock to expand on the claim that there's more to atheism than simply not believing in God - but the question is open to anyone.

Is there more to atheism than simply not believing in God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

As a non atheist or theist or better still an a-atheist myself I can only assume that there is no more to atheism other than it is the position whereby someone who doesn't believe in a supernatural God would regard themselves as having a standing.

But I'm sure there is plenty more to atheists than the fact that they don't believe in God. There are many fascinating people who are atheists, some I'd have over most Christians any day in terms of interesting company. Most so called Christians I've met on the street would do your head in if you were to around them for any length of time. Jesus was (is) astoundingly amazing though Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

daveyjoe

eoin5 wrote: »

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

Out of interest, would you classify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic? Or somewhere in between?

Fanny Cradock

daveyjoe wrote: »

atheism - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is there more to not believing in God than not believing in God?
Obviously atheists will tend to share similiar viewpoints on a lot of things but that is intrinsic to any minority. However, there are no real underlying principles that atheists believe in besides a lack of belief in a God. This topic wont lead anywhere.

Fannny is trolling as far as I can tell.

If you really think that you should really use the report option instead of making claims in public. Let the powers that decide - then I can be banned or your baseless accusation need not bother me.

Anyway...

Theist - noun - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

What exactly does quoting the dictionary prove? I know that Christian faith isn't encapsulated by a line in a dictionary. Why do you think atheism is?

Fanny Cradock

eoin5 wrote: »

I think that believing in God is irrational but I think theres something beyond death for us. I dont really think is a rational belief or that is very likely but its just what I feel. Maybe its more of a hope than a belief.

I'm confused. You criticise theists as irrational for believing in God, yet you go on to say that your own belief aren't really rational either. Your post is chock full of subjective terms used to justify your own beliefs.

Sorry, that is probably dragging the thread off topic.

eoin5

daveyjoe wrote: »

Out of interest, would you classify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic? Or somewhere in between?

I'm an Agnostic Theist. I believe in the godess Eris, mainly because if there was a god I'd like it to be her because shes pretty cool.

18AD

Schuhart wrote: »

You could picture, say, nominal Catholics in a similar way. If you ask someone 'what are you' and they respond 'I'm a golfer' or 'I'm an Ulsterman' or 'I'm a train spotter', they are defining themselves in such a way that their religion (I'm including not collecting stamps as a religion for a moment) just does not feature in their minds. So its only when you actually pose the question 'what religion are you' that they have to think for a moment and say 'I suppose I'm a Methodist - at least that's what my parents are' or whatever. So, indeed, I think you'd have to conclude that religion is of little relevance to those people .

Good point!

Also, some people may say they are affiliated with a certain group, while the reality is that by that official group's standards they don't qualify.

To say 'I'm a golfer' can be verified by the practice of golf, which has a standard. I don't think I'd consider someone who goes to a field with a golf club and fires at ditches a golfer. However it has borrowed from the practice of the ritual called golf.
So one is defined by what they practice and how close it fits to the largely accepted view of the definition....?

Why is there such a heavy weight upon defining people by what they believe? Does it have a purpose beyond statistics? ...enforcing personal dogmatism.

Atheism, to me, seems like the religious answer of a humanist or even a scientist. I am not implying that they are all atheists.

A golfer gets asked 'do you play chess?' I don't think people would define him as being a non-chess player because generally I think it's more productive to look at what people can do! If even for practical reasons because you'd be there all day describing something by what it is not.

This sort of labeling can only divide people. Especially since you are completely free to believe in anything you want, even santa, unicorns, levitation or living to 129. I think all children should be defined as santaists and tooth-fairists...

I'm tired and rambling...

Hail Eris!
All the best.
AD.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm confused. You criticise theists as irrational for believing in God, yet you go on to say that your own belief aren't really rational either. Your post is chock full of subjective terms used to justify your own beliefs.

Sorry, that is probably dragging the thread off topic.

Yep I'm irrational in my beliefs, I criticise theists who think that their beliefs are rational. I can justify being irrational too if you want .

Yea sorry my fault for this off-topic thing.

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you really think that you should really use the report option instead of making claims in public. Let the powers that decide - then I can be banned or your baseless accusation need not bother me.

Anyway...

Theist - noun - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

What exactly does quoting the dictionary prove? I know that Christian faith isn't encapsulated by a line in a dictionary. Why do you think atheism is?

The dictionary reference is used to provide a basis on which to ask the question. Atheism is bandied around so often in relation to so many things that we often forget what we're actually talking about. Atheism often gets confused with anti-theism or gets interpreted as some kind of social movement or moral framework. It is not!

For those reasons it was relevant to define the word, my argument stands.

pH

Whilst we're defining terms ...

MILITANT AGNOSTIC : I don't know - and you don't either!

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

No.


There's usually a lot more to Atheists though.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Dades

Fanny wrote:

Are you sure you are interested to hear my opinion? Or are you just getting ready to sink the knife? From your above statement you'll forgive me if think it's not the former, Dades.

A bit of both.

Doesn't it boil down to what criteria you need to meet to be labeled an atheist? If you stop a man on the street and he tells you he does not believe in any gods - that is enough to make him an atheist. Or would someone disagree with that?

Therefore any further opinions he holds, or does not hold make no difference to this fact. Those opinions may make him a nihilist, a secularist, a Humanist, a Buddhist, a Bright or an anarchist - but they are not a requirement for him to be atheist.

So to agree with Zillah & Wicknight - there may more to an individual atheist, but not to atheism.

5uspect

+1
I would consider myself to be a rationalist. Atheism extends from that as do my views on alternative medicine and astrology. I also consider myself to be anti theist because of what I see as religions undeserved influence in society.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

As a non atheist or theist or better still an a-atheist myself I can only assume that there is no more to atheism other than it is the position whereby someone who doesn't believe in a supernatural God would regard themselves as having a standing.

But I'm sure there is plenty more to atheists than the fact that they don't believe in God. There are many fascinating people who are atheists, some I'd have over most Christians any day in terms of interesting company. Most so called Christians I've met on the street would do your head in if you were to around them for any length of time. Jesus was (is) astoundingly amazing though Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

On behalf of His Imperial Majesty Norton I of America, I beg to differ!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if you didn't believe in Him as God you would have to concede that He was the most unusual person to walk the stage of history.

I have no idea why you guys keep saying that (ignorance of history perhaps)

Jesus (sans-deity status) was simply one of dozens of Jewish messiahs around that time. He didn't say anything particularly profound (even if one assumes the ideas in the Bible attributed to him were actually his ideas) nor did he do anything particularly remarkable. There were "messiahs" around those times who managed far more remarkable feats, such as raising large groups of followers.

Jesus simply ended up, probably by fluke, having better PR

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

On behalf of His Imperial Majesty Norton I of America, I beg to differ!

By all means please differ but tell me explicitly why or copy and paste from the aforementioned Wikipedi URL you posted instead of making me grudgingly search it to see what you are referring to.

Thanks

humanji

I think he was pointing out that Norton, rather than Jesus was the most unusual man in history. Read the first paragraph and you'll likely agree

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

By all means please differ but tell me explicitly why or copy and paste from the aforementioned Wikipedi URL you posted instead of making me grudgingly search it to see what you are referring to.

Thanks

If you went around proclaiming yourself as the king of Ireland and telling the guards to tidy their uniforms I think you might find yourself locked up, but this guys own currency got accepted and 30000 people turned up for his funeral!