Advantages of becoming an Atheist

[hypervalent_iodine]

It was copied from here http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

[JustinW]

No, it does not make sense at all when you understand that atheism can be defined as lack of belief. As such atheism is the default condition. Before anyone thought up the existence of gods everyone was an atheist but would not have understood the term. As soon as the first person to think up a god started believing in that god nothing changed for anyone else – they did not suddenly have a belief in the non existence of this god that someone just thought up. How could they before the idea was even communicated to them. Once this idea was communicated to them they then could take the position that they thought that it was true that this particular god did not exist, however, even before that decision they would still technically have been atheists.

I might agree with you here except for one little detail. The scenario you discribe doesn't give them a choice because they haven't heard of or thought of a God yet. Atheists today make a choice establishing a belief. A belief opposite of someone elses belief is still a belief.

 

 

Then you should be able to explain what ideological comprehensive vision it is that all atheists hold because of their atheism. What philosophical tendencies or political ideologies that all atheists hold because of their atheism. What set of ideals all atheists hold because of their atheism. etc. etc. etc.

 

This is exactly why I said it could be arguable. While I was going through the links looking for organized atheism, I thought about a scenario where atheism was the rallying point for a "free thinkers" movement. Here are some links that intail an organization of atheism. If organization doesn't inspire idealism, then what does?

 

http://relijournal.com/religion/organized-atheism-as-a-religion/

 

http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-atheism-is-not-organized-movment-why.html

 

http://www.secularstudents.org/highschoolsuccess

 

http://www.quora.com/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-organized-atheism

 

there is alot more.

[Tres Juicy]

Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not.

 

It's rule 2

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's rule 2

Indeed. Queen of Wands, if you want us to read an article on another site, please just provide the link. Future plagiarism will simply be deleted.

[Divagating the Future]

Where have you copied this from?

 

It's not written in your style/vocabulary

 

 

 

Look at the grammar and spelling in this last paragraph compared to the main body of the text.

 

 

Very intuitive of you to notice. Have you looked at the links that were within the article?

Sorry, I am not old enough to have written the Christian Bible.

[Halucigenia]

I might agree with you here except for one little detail. The scenario you discribe doesn't give them a choice because they haven't heard of or thought of a God yet.

Precisely you just aren't getting it yet, are you?

Atheists today make a choice establishing a belief.

Do they?

A belief opposite of someone elses belief is still a belief.

Disbelief of someone else's belief is not a belief.

there is alot more.

...bullshit out there on the interwebs.

Why don't you respond to the actual content of my post?

 

Sorry, I am not old enough to have written the Christian Bible.

If, as you claim, you are a deist, why do you take any stock in the biblical mythology of the christian's religion?

[Moontanman]

Lets get this straight, Queen of Wands, talks like a deist, quotes scripture from the Holy Bible and has a pagan symbol as it's avatar... interesting...

[doG]

I might agree with you here except for one little detail. The scenario you discribe doesn't give them a choice because they haven't heard of or thought of a God yet. Atheists today make a choice establishing a belief. A belief opposite of someone elses belief is still a belief.

False. Some people believe there is in fact one or more deities. They are theist. Some people believe there are no deities. They are not-theist, i.e. atheist. Some people lack belief either way. They are also atheist because they are not theist. It DOES NOT mean their lack of belief is a belief.

[Divagating the Future]

Is your nonbelief in Zeus a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in Thor a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in Allah a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in Poseidon a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in Ra a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in santa claus a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in the easter bunny a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in unicorns a belief system?

Is your nonbelief in leprechauns a belief system?

 

Is your nonbelief in all of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology a belief system?

 

 

If not, then why would you claim that nonbelief in the abrahamic, judeochristian god, yahweh, a belief system... or why would you claim that the nonbelief in a deistic "god is a term referring to everything and equivalent to the idea of cosmos" a belief system?

 

This answer makes to me no sense at all.

[Tres Juicy]

This answer makes to me no sense at all.

 

 

How does this not make sense?

 

It's quite straightforward

[Halucigenia]

I might agree with you here except for one little detail. The scenario you discribe doesn't give them a choice because they haven't heard of or thought of a God yet. Atheists today make a choice establishing a belief. A belief opposite of someone elses belief is still a belief.

All right, I’ll try to explain in detail now that I have some more time.

The scenario I described does not give them a choice to become theistic until they hear or think of a god to be theistic about. Just because they do hear or think about a god and voice the opinion that they do not believe in one does not change them – they remain atheistic. If they also additionally make the positive claim that a particular god that they have just heard of or thought about does not or can not in fact exist only then could they said to be claiming a belief. (To me a belief in the non existence of something seems quite a peculiar thing to believe though.) This positive claim does not however change them into being an atheist as they do not change from what they were in the first place (already being atheistic) to something else. Atheists that do make this positive claim make it over and above their original atheistic lack of belief.

 

Atheists today that chose to become atheistic after being theistic do change, they make a choice from believing in something to not believing in something but they do not gain a belief, they lose a belief. What they do is to make a choice establishing that they no longer believe in a god. I would additionally claim that they are reverting to the default position of atheism as I think that everyone is intrinsically atheistic, i.e. lacking in belief of gods, until they are taught about gods and make the positive decision to believe that they exist.

 

Atheism is not necessarily an opposite or opposing belief to theism (an opposite or opposing position, stance, view or opinion would be a better claim). Even if the atheist also makes the positive claim that it can be shown by evidence or reasoning that a particular god does not in fact exist this does not define their atheism as they may also be non committal (lacking in belief) about the actual existence of the other claimed gods (or ones that they do not even know about) that they also lack belief in. The point is that they do not have to make this positive claim to become or remain atheistic.

 

Personally I consider myself to have remained atheistic all my life, never having actually believed in any gods. If I am told about a particular god and have this god’s characteristics defined to me and find that these characteristics appear to be incompatible with reality as I understand it, then I may additionally claim that this god does not in fact exist, however, it is not at this point of claiming that this particular god does not exist that I become atheistic as I was atheistic before making this claim. I would still be loathe to state that I have a belief that this god did not exist though as I just can’t get my head around having a belief in the non existence of something.

I have a hard enough time understanding why I would need to believe in anything when I tend to gain knowledge of things through understanding the evidence used to explain things, never mind believing in the non existence of something.

 

Of course in normal conversation I will use common language by stating things such as “I don’t believe in gods, fairies or invisible pink unicorns” etc.

Or alternatively “I believe that the sun will rise in the morning, that aliens might exist or that evolution explains the biodiversity of life on Earth”. But that does not mean to say that I have a belief in these things in the same way that a theist has belief in a god or gods.

However, it must be stated that I have arrived at these conclusions through knowledge gained by the understanding of the evidence for or lack of evidence and evaluating the possibility of these things existing or not.

 

 

I do like the aphorism:-

 

“I only believe in that which is impossible”

 

Which I take to mean that I would only have to believe in something that I thought that was impossible to have knowledge of through an understanding of evidence used to explain it.

 

As far as I can tell it’s a matter of belief and faith that enables one to be able to believe that gods exist. It’s not really possible to have knowledge of gods existence through understanding any evidence used to explain their existence as there is generally a dearth of evidence or even logical reasoning brought forward for their existence. Even when evidence or reasoning is attempted to be put forward, in my experience, on investigation it just does not stack up. Therefore, due to this lack of convincing evidence or reasoning I remain at the default position of lack of belief rather than actively believe in them or actively believe in their non existence (if actual belief in something’s non existence is actually possible at all).

 

I admit that it is difficult to put these points across to theists but hopefully I have gone some way to convincing you that you don’t have to hold a belief to be an atheist.

[iNow]

This answer makes to me no sense at all.

Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

[TonyMcC]

Most people in this thread (perhaps all of them) consider themselves atheists or theists. However there are other classifications. There are agnostics and even agnostic theists. These are people who, basically, can't find enough evidence to absolutely prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. Reading through the thread I get the impression that some of you should describe yourselves as agnostics or agnostic theists.

 

Examples of what I mean:-

 

"Some people lack belief either way. They are also atheist because they are not theist." (doG)

 

"Atheism is not necessarily an opposite or opposing belief to theism (an opposite or opposing position, stance, view or opinion would be a better claim). Even if the atheist also makes the positive claim that it can be shown by evidence or reasoning that a particular god does not in fact exist this does not define their atheism as they may also be non committal (lacking in belief) about the actual existence of the other claimed gods (or ones that they do not even know about) that they also lack belief in. The point is that they do not have to make this positive claim to become or remain atheistic". (Halucigenia)

 

" I remain at the default position of lack of belief rather than actively believe in them or actively believe in their non existence (if actual belief in something’s non existence is actually possible at all)." (Halucigenia)

Edited February 16, 2012 by TonyMcC

[Halucigenia]

Most people in this thread (perhaps all of them) consider themselves atheists or theists. However there are other classifications. There are agnostics and even agnostic theists. These are people who, basically, can't find enough evidence to absolutely prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. Reading through the thread I get the impression that some of you should describe yourselves as agnostics or agnostic theists.

Agreed, there are several possibilities:-

Theist - believing in god/gods

Atheist – lack of belief in god/gods

Gnostic - with knowledge of ...

Agnostic - without knowledge of ...

 

Therefore one could be a:-

Gnostic theist

Agnostic theist

Agnostic atheist

Gnostic atheist

 

So for example one can be an agnostic atheist i.e. one that lacks a belief in god/gods but does not claim to have knowledge that no gods could possibly exist.

 

Anyway the thread should be about atheism and the advantages thereof according to the title.

So if we can clear up what atheism actually is and is not then that should help the discussion as there do appear to be many misconceptions regarding exactly what atheism entails.

[iNow]

Atheist = Not theist. Does not believe in god or gods. Certainty in that position or whether it's an active disbelief (or active belief in nonexistence) is irrelevant. It just means not theist.

[TonyMcC]

Atheist = Not theist. Does not believe in god or gods. Certainty in that position or whether it's an active disbelief (or active belief in nonexistence) is irrelevant. It just means not theist.

This link indicates things aren't that simple:- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

 

The attachment is an excerpt from the link.

Edited February 16, 2012 by TonyMcC

[ydoaPs]

Yes, because a definition that assumes the existence of at least one god is going to give you an unbiased definition.

[First↔Cause ♀]

You crack me up! "Science just learned...." What's your source for THAT?

 

There are a LOT of things wrong with this. First, there are two conflicting Genesis accounts of the sequence of events at creation. Second, science did NOT just learn that a watery Earth was first, followed by light and then a separation of light/dark. Science has evidence to support the theory that the universe was already nearly nine billion years old when the Earth was formed, and our Sun was here before that. And Earth started out fiery and molten. Watery happened much later.

 

So I suppose that's one of the biggest advantages to becoming an atheist. You get to toss the dogma and misinformation out the window and build your knowledge on firm foundations rather than hearsay and ethereal wishes.

 

 

 

I am fully cognizant this is out of context; so make another red hit upon me.

Never in my life have I just backed down and took the easy way out. Perhaps by reading my lettre "Freedom" you would better learn of the real me.

 

 

 

I am adamently serious, ..>>.. if you haven't read it, I so wish you would, and make message to me regarding any feelings/thoughts you may have after reading it. After all, you were my inspiration.

 

 

 

To your great surprise, upon reading "Freedom", you will discover I am a sweet lady, or so I am very often told. A lady very abject to your conception of me.

 

As to my taking credit for for my sent article,you as well as any of the others fully know I made no effort to show credit for the research in that article; it was blatantly in no such accord as to my style of writing.

 

My poem of which you again gave me a red mark, was not a declarative stating any facts. It was a poem I had published based upon facts as viewed through my eyes. A poem that was widely praised by many. Re-read it dismissing any politial bias and read it for its poetic tonality Re-read my former topics- introduced/posts. Compare them with other lettres { I should use the "proper" term and call them threads}

 

Take notice that most of them are of highly introspective/abstract thoughts composed well, and display a widely dispersed mix of words demonstrating mastery of a high powered vernacular that are at least as deserving of a green mark as one writing, in an awarkward fashion, "the evolution of gay anal sex." You could have been polite and complimented me upon what I and many professional writers

view as a very vivid arrangement of words, Instead, no such message was issued rather than I can rhyme words,and then marked me red. I so hate to be cornered to resort to bragging to defend what I know as being true. With receiving 12 red marks within a period of 4 days, I must hold a record upon this forum. Can't I be given some degree of credit that my posts are margianally thought inspiring, and insightful? Fine, they may be anti-establishment. But can't you see that that is what makes for a good forum? And, can't I be given some positive assement regardng I am so doing such in a language that isn't really my own? Instead I seem to be a pariah.

 

Is it my appearance?

 

Granted, I hardly think I am among the most beautiful of women; conversely, I hardy think I am among the least appealing of women either. Do you want a forum in which all merrily talk about how they all agree about everything. I don't even think that so is a forum at all. Rather than have ire of me, allow me to be a fire upon this forum. Allow me to break up the doldrums I DO see within this forum. What about the notion of falseification? You know as I there can actually be a theory without it. Uncage me. Don't stunt my credibility with ceritudes that because my ideas are discordant they are unacceptable. I welcome stirring other's minds. Declare me unorthodax, call me a rebal. Declaring me such signature exactly what I am. What I was raised to be. What I refuse not to be. I admit it! I AM a rebal { but with cause } Actually, what I achieved doing today I truly believe even you would have been proud of me. I won't elaborate, I don't want to go bragging again.

 

 

Oh, this is important.

 

The e-mail I had registared with to this forum has been compromised. I hardly see how that was possible but it so happened. My computer system is as a fortress. I have more programs to hide,alter,systematically change my IPS and URL than you could imagine. The files stored involve literally millions of dollars. { not all belonging to the company I am of, but none the least so much important} True these programs slow down my internet; they are the cause I often make duplicate replies/posts, but are vital.

 

I noticed as not long from now, the other "me" upon this forum. Oddly, it so seems, the other me has the screen name I had used { First Cause} and also has my photo on it.

 

I fully am aware this is a cardinal sin upon this forum and you may expiediently have me "expelled" ; dis-believing I didn't use some insidious and malicious tact to arange this so happening.

That does create an unpleasant mind-set to me. But, one I was surprised has not already occurred..Me being the anathema to "science" I am perceived to be. Really, I am not "gleeflul" of my eminent expulsion {I believe it is referred to as "banishment" upon this forum.} But not to appear I view this forum with slight, I am infinitely more concerned as to whom or what firm/corporation had the capability to have comromised my email {oh. not my business account, thank God..or perhaps I should message, " just be thankful."

 

In conclusion: No, I had not disarranged what I think a "Captain ?-Fresh-?" rectified. ie a second account.

 

Yes,I can't {possibely} discount there are 2 of me{Ushie Mayna/s} upon this site. Oh?..You may very well question which of us is the "real" Ushie Mayna. And, I couldn't make it your faulty blame as choosing the real one.

You choose as you best see fit. {wishfully know that it is I}

 

After all, you are the computer policeman. {just please though, police with velvet cuffs}

Sincerely,

 

Ushie

[iNow]

Why are you now posting under a different username?

[First↔Cause ♀]

It was copied from here http://www.mb-soft.c...c/genesis5.html

 

 

This is Ushie. My account has been hacked. I am NOT First Cause.

Yes that's my picture but not the one I Had.

 

??

 

What's going on?

[doG]

This link indicates things aren't that simple:- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Actually they are.

 

a-, an-

(Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of, not)

 

These prefixes are normally used with elements of Greek origin, a- is used before consonants and an- is used before vowels.

It affects the meanings of hundreds of words.

There are too many words that use these prefix elements to list all of them on this site; however, there are significant examples listed in this and the other units where they exist.

and

atheist (s), atheists (pl) (nouns)

1. Someone who does not believe in a God or gods or who denies the existence of a God, gods, or deities: "An atheist believes there is no God while an agnostic believes human beings can never know whether there is a God or not."

2. A person who denies, or disbelieves, that there is a supreme being or beings: "His friend, who is an atheist, enjoys having long philosophical discussions with the archbishop of the local church."

3. A disbeliever, an unbeliever, a nonbeliever, a denier of God's existence, a godless person: "She believes in the existence of God, but her brother is an atheist."

4. Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-), "without, no" + theos), "god".

 

A- and an- are simply 'not' modifiers. Atheist literally means not-theist. Theist is the root word. Without it there would be nothing to add a 'not' prefix to.

Edited February 17, 2012 by doG

[hypervalent_iodine]

This is Ushie. My account has been hacked. I am NOT First Cause.

Yes that's my picture but not the one I Had.

 

??

 

What's going on?

 

You're really going to claim that the pictures you've posted here are of you? Unless your name is actually Izabella Carr or Andrea Nocturna, I can say that they most certainly are not.

 

 

As to my taking credit for for my sent article,you as well as any of the others fully know I made no effort to show credit for the research in that article; it was blatantly in no such accord as to my style of writing.

 

On the contrary. By copy pasting something that is not yours and not acknowledging the actual author of your post, you are taking the credit. This is blatant plagiarism, which you should already know.

[TonyMcC]

Actually they are.

and

A- and an- are simply 'not' modifiers. Atheist literally means not-theist. Theist is the root word. Without it there would be nothing to add a 'not' prefix to.

 

Language is a living thing and develops with time. IMO As a need was found for people who neither believed absolutely or denied absolutely words were formed to "fill the gap". Again IMO, if you fall into the gap there is a special word for you.

[doG]

Language is a living thing and develops with time. IMO As a need was found for people who neither believed absolutely or denied absolutely words were formed to "fill the gap". Again IMO, if you fall into the gap there is a special word for you.

It could also be said that language is corrupted over time. Agnostic is a term that comes to mind. Look it up in dictionary after dictionary and it is clear that it indicates a belief that man can never know the absolute truth about certain things, particularly the existence of god(s). It really has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in deities, only of man's ability to know the truth. Even though the definition is clear I see it used over and over as a point on the axis of theism between one being theist or atheist. It is not that point at all yet many fence sitters wish to label themselves as such because they are not theist but not honest enough to call themselves atheist. They want to make a word mean something that it was not created for. This blurring of language actually hurts our ability to be concise in the end.

[TonyMcC]

It could also be said that language is corrupted over time. Agnostic is a term that comes to mind. Look it up in dictionary after dictionary and it is clear that it indicates a belief that man can never know the absolute truth about certain things, particularly the existence of god(s). It really has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in deities, only of man's ability to know the truth. Even though the definition is clear I see it used over and over as a point on the axis of theism between one being theist or atheist. It is not that point at all yet many fence sitters wish to label themselves as such because they are not theist but not honest enough to call themselves atheist. They want to make a word mean something that it was not created for. This blurring of language actually hurts our ability to be concise in the end.

 

(IMO) Perhaps none of us is actually quite at one extreme or the other. Those that believe in God can't prove His existence and those that don't believe can't prove He doesn't exist. Perhaps there is need of a scale and words to say where we fit on it?