Atheism is "cool"

lostexpectation

god is stupid, it is a good reason. i don't think not believing in god requires any explanation, it pretty bleeding obvious.

you're an atheist aren't you, don't you think god is stupid.

that believing in god is stupid, i thinks its perfectly good 3 word answer.

so you don't doubt their atheism? you don't doubt their lack of belief in god?

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

god is stupid, its is a good reason.

No, it isn't really. If their only reason for becoming an atheist is the phrase "because God is stupid", then I seriously doubt their sincerity to atheism. That would be the same as a theist saying they believe in God because "he has to be real". I doubt you'd take any theist as serious if that was their only reason for belief.

I understand that they shouldn't have to justify their lack of belief in a god. But, with all honesty, "because god is stupid" is a pretty pathetic reason for not believing.

your an atheist aren't you, don't you think god is stupid.

No, I don't really. I think the idea of a god is implausible, improbable, and in light of current scientific data, unlikely. I don't think it's stupid though.

that beleiving in god is stupid i thinks its prefectly good 3 word answer.

Perhaps for some. But, it's a very weak reason.

so you don't doubt their atheism? you don't doubt their lack of belief in god?

I doubt their atheism because I think they've become atheistic for the sake of being an atheist. I think they've become atheistic because of the intellectual image it portrays; I think they've become atheistic to be rebellious; and, I think they've become atheistic to seem somewhat cool, as anything rebellious is considered to be cool.

I doubt they've become atheistic for sincere reasons.

Edit: Actually, I don't think it's "pretty bleeding obvious". If it was, I doubt there would have been religion in the first place. And, I doubt that the majority of earths population would remain theistic if it was so obvious.

lostexpectation

why am always argueing with supposed atheists who use arguements the theist always use,(eg look how many of us there are...its gotta be right) you're expecting people to justify their atheism (to you), it doesn't need to be justified, god and religion are false. simple as. what more do you need to say, you be better off asking the people who continue to profess an active faith in god for their justifications, they're one adding the supernatural to the world, these atheist don't have anything to answer for.

well either they're saying they are atheist and they are not or they are atheist. which is it.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

why am always argueing with supposed atheists who use arguements the theist always use,(eg look how many of us there are...its gotta be right) you're expecting people to justify their atheism (to you), it doesn't need to be justified, god and religion are false. simple as. what more do you need to say, you be better off asking the people who continue to profess an active faith in god for their justifications, they're one adding the supernatural to the world, these atheist don't have anything to answer for.

well either they're saying they are atheist and they are not or they are atheist. which is it.

Ok, look, you're just getting lost in the story that I posted in my original comment.

This thread was intended to discuss whether atheism is now considered cool; and if so, what factors might result in it now being considered cool.

I didn't start it to attack my atheistic friends, nor did I start it to have a rant about them becoming atheists.

I was meerly stating that their reasons for becoming atheists do not seem to be genuine. Let me explain this: I don't think they're actually atheists, I think that they still believe in a god - but, maybe, they're saying they're atheistic because of the image it portrays - if this was so, they wouldn't have any genuine reasons for being atheistic; and guess what? They didn't. So now, this leads me to question why they would call themselves atheists. Perhaps one of the reasons is because it may be considered cool, so, I wanted to know whether it portrayed a cool image: And so, this very thread was born.

Valmont

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, it isn't really. If their only reason for becoming an atheist is the phrase "because God is stupid", then I seriously doubt their sincerity to atheism. That would be the same as a theist saying they believe in God because "he has to be real". I doubt you'd take any theist as serious if that was their only reason for belief.

I understand that they shouldn't have to justify their lack of belief in a god. But, with all honesty, "because god is stupid" is a pretty pathetic reason for not believing.



No, I don't really. I think the idea of a god is implausible, improbable, and in light of current scientific data, unlikely. I don't think it's stupid though.



Perhaps for some. But, it's a very weak reason.

so you don't doubt their atheism? you don't doubt their lack of belief in god?

Excellent points there. A thanks might have sufficed but you're too spot on. I'm going to save this post:D

pepsicokeacola

im an atheist and im cool.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote: »

god is stupid, it is a good reason. i don't not believeing in god requires any explanation, it pretty bleeding obvious

The only thing that's bleedin' obvious is that you are beating a dead horse with this complete non-issue.

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

god is stupid, it is a good reason. i don't not believeing in god requires any explanation, it pretty bleeding obvious.

your an atheist aren't you, don't you think god is stupid.

that beleiving in god is stupid i thinks its prefectly good 3 word answer.

so you don't doubt their atheism? you don't doubt their lack of belief in god?

Did you have a stroke recently or something?

pH

Zillah wrote: »

Did you have a stroke recently or something?

It's great to see that mocking lostexpectation can bring theists and atheists together, bravo!

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

Excellent points there. A thanks might have sufficed but you're too spot on. I'm going to save this post:D

Haha, why thank you!:pac:

ZondaChai

What are the main reasons for becoming an atheist
Either a genuine religious disbelief based on logic and science
Or to use it as a way to differentiate yourself from all the other believers and be unique.

Why do you care about their reasons Mr Dodger, are they not strengthening the atheist community, adding support to your anti religious values. Maybe deep down they don’t truly believe in atheism, but who are you to criticize what they believe or don’t believe. Are we witnessing the birth of a new breed of religious zealot, or in this case, anti religious zealot. Are you an atheist extremist hell bent on attacking anybody who doesn’t conform to your own atheist values. That’s a bit hypocritical isn’t it. I thought the point of atheism was believing what you want to believe and not what your thought to believe. And now your teaching people what to believe, well all hail JammyDodger, the prophet of empty beliefs, lead us beyond this life and into nothing. Why don’t you write an unholy scripture of atheist beliefs and parables that all atheists should and must conform to, or else they be excommunicated from the atheist community and forbidden from ever calling themselves atheists.

Or here’s the more likely scenario, maybe you conform to the second reason, maybe you want to be different. Perhaps all of these new atheists are taking the shine off your uniqueness, making you just another disbeliever. You resent them for again making you a nobody and so try to disqualify their beliefs so you can be a somebody. Do you think it’s cool to be atheist or do you really think it’s cool to be different. Why don’t you look at what you really believe before commenting on what others believe.

ZondaChai

ZondaChai wrote: »

What are the main reasons for becoming an atheist
Either a genuine religious disbelief based on logic and science
Or to use it as a way to differentiate yourself from all the other believers and be unique.

Yes, Mr. Chai - this is what I was getting at. But, from here on, you lose me.

You're points are so good, infact, I'm going to respond to them one by one.

Why do you care about their reasons Mr Dodger

I don't, to be honest.

are they not strengthening the atheist community

Yes... Because we need more strength. Today, a few 6th years in secondary school; tomorrow, the world.

adding support to your anti religious values.

I'm sure there is some kind of condradiction embedded in this sentence - somewhere deep, very deep down. I don't have anti religious values. How would that be possible? I have values that aren't based on religion; but, the term "anti religious" implies opposite to that of religion - now, my values might be different from the values of religion - but they're certianly not opposite. Unless you consider me to be some kind of anti-christ? It wouldn't be the first time, Mr. Chai.

Maybe deep down they don’t truly believe in atheism, but who are you to criticize what they believe or don’t believe.

Did I criticize what they believe? Ok, let me explain what I did Mr. Chai. In my original post, I used a certain method of making a point that some might call an anecdote. You see, I told a small, insignificant story to help portray my point. That certainly isn't criticism, Mr. Chai.

Are we witnessing the birth of a new breed of religious zealot, or in this case, anti religious zealot.

Oh yes, Mr. Chai, yes we are. Tell me, how did you extrapolate this from my original post? I'm just curious. Because from here on in, I think your post just turns to complete insanity. But, extremely entertaining nonetheless.

Are you an atheist extremist hell bent on attacking anybody who doesn’t conform to your own atheist values.

Yes Mr. Chai. How did you gain knowledge of my evil plan? You see, I plan to get every single person on earth to conform to my idea of atheism! Don't you see its genius? A global dictatorship, with me in control. It will be beautiful Mr. Chai. And you, good Sir, shall be in a prominent position.

But anyway, to answer this sentence properly - atheism doesn't give people values. Wherever they get their own values is their own business - you see, Mr. Chai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but, atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a deity. Now, how would one get any values from that?

That’s a bit hypocritical isn’t it. I thought the point of atheism was believing what you want to believe and not what your thought to believe.

No, it certainly isn't. See my previous definition of atheism, good Sir. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Whatever people chose to belief after that isn't anything to do with atheism. Atheism isn't chosing to believe what ever you want, that would be associated more with religion, Mr. Chai.

And now your teaching people what to believe

Yes. The JammyDodger school of atheism. It will be beautiful. I plan to have large, open gardens at the front - and, I'm not sure if you agree with this - a large pool towards the east end of the demesne. What do you think? Pools and atheism go together don't they?

But anyway, where have I attempted to "teach" people what I believe? I think you should refer to the definition of atheism again, Mr. Chai. It's quite a simple definition - I don't know where the problem is arising.

well all hail JammyDodger

That's Mr. Dodger to you, Mr. Chai.

And, why thank you - perhaps my dreams of a global dictatorship are still plausible, would you think so Mr. Chai?

the prophet of empty beliefs

That's quite a catchy slogan - mind if I use it? That shall be my new sig from now on. Thank you Mr. Chai.

lead us beyond this life and into nothing

Don't get so down over it, Mr. Chai. Pessimism isn't the way forward for my new anti-religion. I thought you would have known that, being so prominent in my plans - You've disappointed me, Mr. Chai.

Why don’t you write an unholy scripture of atheist beliefs and parables that all atheists should and must conform to

It's a dream. But, I'm sure you know how hectic life is in this day and age. I barely get time to post here, on this very website, let alone write the book that shall hold dominion over future generations. But, it is a dream of mine Mr. Chai, a dream which someday, with the hope of God (excuse the extreme contradiction, Mr. Chai), I'll get around to it.

or else they be excommunicated from the atheist community

No, Mr. Chai. You see, the brilliance is that when somebody choses to leave my global dictatorship/religion - we baptise them into Christianity. Don't you see the brilliance? The genius?

and forbidden from ever calling themselves atheists.

Yes, they shall have to refer to themselves as "Christians". What do you think? Brilliant?

Or here’s the more likely scenario, maybe you conform to the second reason, maybe you want to be different.

Oh Mr. Chai, you cut deep into my soul, you know me so well. How does such a man, like yourself, look deep into my lies and false ideas? I'm amazed.

Perhaps all of these new atheists are taking the shine off your uniqueness, making you just another disbeliever.

Yes, Mr. Chai. I'm jealous to keep atheism all to myself. They take away from my rebellion. That isn't fair, is it Mr. Chai?

You resent them for again making you a nobody and so try to disqualify their beliefs so you can be a somebody.

How do you do this? How do you gaze so deep into my thoughts? Into my soul? My God, you are powerful Mr. Chai. Powerful. You shall have a position of great importance in the soon to come global dictatorship.

Do you think it’s cool to be atheist or do you really think it’s cool to be different.

I think it's cool to be like you, Mr. Chai.

Why don’t you look at what you really believe before commenting on what others believe.

I believe in you, Mr. Chai.

ZondaChai

If we're having a global dictatorship, I might just overthrow you and pass a law for mandatory bible classes and mass

ZondaChai

ZondaChai wrote: »

If we're having a global dictatorship, I might just overthrow you and pass a law for mandatory bible classes and mass

Indeed.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Check out the notion of falsifiability. Outside of the private world of maths, you cannot confirm that something is true, the best you can do logically is to prove it false.

Hence any genuine inquiry -- especially an inquiry into something which declares itself to be Truth with a capital 'T' -- should submit itself in all humility to being falsified. Hence also, the regular appearance of falsifiability as a notion here.

I think it's fair to say that few, if any, exegetes spend any time at all on any genuine attempt to disprove their pov. By which lack of interest they disbar themselves as serious interpreters, and lapse instead into a position not all that different from a cheerleader.

I'm well aware of falsifiability. I doubt even Descartes intended that it be extended to every area of human enquiry. It works for science. There are too many uncertainties in theology. If falsifiability was used exclusively in the study of religion, and indeed many other branches of the arts, less would be known.

PDN has explained repeatedly that exegesis does not concern itself with whether the text being interpreted is true or not. Unless you are thinking of attempting an interpretation of say, the epistles of Paul demonstrating that he was an atheist. People welcome to do that, but I disagree that no other method should be used to interpret it.

In conclusion, religion isn't science, so it is futile to enforce the scientific method against it.

Religious posters here seem unaware of the existence of general cognitive bias, and are certainly unwilling to confront it, if they are aware of it.

So have atheists.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

quite

Don't you guys see that atheism is not self-evidently true to everybody? I'm sick of these implicit accusations of dishonesty. Being a Christian is not my job anyway.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Happily for me, you invalidate this point with your next quote:

Therefore, I can never be wrong about how I interpret the bible, since the whole thing is open to individual interpretation.

Your interpretations of the Bible must be supported by Bible quotes, or else you are not interpreting it. You are just imagining things. And what I clearly meant was that you regularly misrepresent the theological views of Christians in general. In other words, you lie about their interpretations of the Bible.

If you actually getting around to using the Bible in your "interpretation" of it, your views will be open to refutation.

What I meant was it's hard to justify using a book as a basis for a system of religion to dictate their lives when each person finds their own meaning in it, ie it cannot be applied to large populations successfully and consistently

I agree. This is why politically or socially enforced religion is a bad idea.

pH wrote: »

Oh and if you can get Hurin to type "Ethnocentric" once more in this thread you get a Euro.

Do I get one the next time somebody mentions Zeus?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, it isn't really. If their only reason for becoming an atheist is the phrase "because God is stupid", then I seriously doubt their sincerity to atheism. That would be the same as a theist saying they believe in God because "he has to be real". I doubt you'd take any theist as serious if that was their only reason for belief.

Indeed. The best way to interpret these kinds of explanations is that the individual is simply an atheist or a theist intuitively. And has not subjected said intuition to scrutiny.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

In conclusion, religion isn't science, so it is futile to enforce the scientific method against it.

Of course thats why atheists exist.

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

The only thing that's bleedin' obvious is that you are beating a dead horse with this complete non-issue.

I was meerly stating that their reasons for becoming atheists do not seem to be genuine. Let me explain this: I don't think they're actually atheists, I think that they still believe in a god - but, maybe, they're saying they're atheistic because of the image it portrays - if this was so, they wouldn't have any genuine reasons for being atheistic; and guess what? They didn't. So now, this leads me to question why they would call themselves atheists. Perhaps one of the reasons is because it may be considered cool, so, I wanted to know whether it portrayed a cool image: And so, this very thread was born.

look it nots a non issue,excuse me but im the only one here actually discussing the topic of the op, he just finally got around to answering my question, that he believes his classmates still believe in god.

which is what i have been asking him about.

i doubt they ever did believe in god. and its that that needs to be questioned not their atheism.

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Of course thats why atheists exist.

Indeed. I don't know why more atheists don't just cut short the debate and say that they think there is no valid knowledge that is not gained by the scientific method, and that nothing exists other than physical nature.

That however would make atheism itself untenable. You'd have to be agnostic, which is pretty much Greek for ignorant.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed. I don't know why more atheists don't just cut short the debate and say that they think there is no valid knowledge that is not gained by the scientific method, and that nothing exists other than physical nature.

No what I was attempting to say was that I as an atheist believe that the only valid knowledge to be gained comes from the scientific method, We learn things in a scientific manner. No? Nothing exists except the physical.

Húrin wrote: »

That however would make atheism itself untenable. You'd have to be agnostic, which is pretty much Greek for ignorant.

Untenable because matters of God are inaccessible through science and its following discoveries? But if you tried to discover the truth about god then you wouldn't be an atheist because first you'd have to admit to that which theists claim is outside of the physical exists?

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No what I was attempting to say was that I as an atheist believe that the only valid knowledge to be gained comes from the scientific method, We learn things in a scientific manner. No? Nothing exists except the physical.

Indeed, and these are the premises with which I disagree.

Untenable because matters of God are inaccessible through science and its following discoveries? But if you tried to discover the truth about god then you wouldn't be an atheist because first you'd have to admit to that which theists claim is outside of the physical exists?

Yes. Agnosticism is the only serious choice for the true naturalist.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Yes. Agnosticism is the only serious choice for the true naturalist.

But, atheism is truely a form of agnosticism. Any rational atheist would never say they're 100% sure that there's no god; their lack of belief should lie around the ~99.99% mark, or wherever. This, in my opinion, makes atheists technically agnostic. But, in the same way, religious people are agnostic too; they can never be 100% there is a god (at least the rational ones).

So, we're all agnostic, really.:pac:

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, atheism is truely a form of agnosticism. Any rational atheist would never say they're 100% sure that there's no god; their lack of belief should lie around the ~99.99% mark, or wherever. This, in my opinion, makes atheists technically agnostic. But, in the same way, religious people are agnostic too; they can never be 100% there is a god (at least the rational ones).

So, we're all agnostic, really.

But both groups mostly act as if they were certain about it.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

But both groups mostly act as if they were certain about it.

Yah, I suppose that's just out of convenience, though. And anyway, debates wouldn't be any fun if both sides considered themselves agnostic.

lizzyvera

The only reason it seems to be "cool" at the moment is that most atheists weren't open about it before, and now it has become more socially acceptable they're coming out.
I'm a closet atheist!

Dave!

Húrin wrote: »

But both groups mostly act as if they were certain about it.

Can you say for certain that there's no unicorns?

MackDeToaster

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And when asked why, they just give stupid reasons like "believing in God is stupid!", backed up with no reason why it's apparently so stupid.

I think it's simply an attitude from someone who hasn't grown up in a religious environment. They are atheists because everybody is born atheist and they simply haven't been indoctrinated.
God and religion play no part in their lives, thus god is utterly unimportant and irrelevant to them, and they have no need to justify it beyond the 'believing in god is stupid'.
God is just the same as all the leprechauns, banshees, will o' the wisps and other such things.

Of course this is tarring them all with the same brush. Perhaps some have also thought about it on a deeper level and they can't be bothered justifying themselves, if you really pressed them they could come up with several reasons, but as it is they simply dismiss it in the same way as you and I would probably dismiss discussing at length why banshees don't really exist, it's simply a ridiculous idea worthy of no further thought.

They are probably also the same people who make up most of the the group that say "I used to be an atheist but then I found god/x religion". They just never gave it any thought until they suddenly find themselves in a circumstance where they find they need a belief to cling to for whatever reason.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yah, I suppose that's just out of convenience, though. And anyway, debates wouldn't be any fun if both sides considered themselves agnostic.

99.99% certainty is unacceptably high for someone who believes that we cannot find out if there is anything outside nature. However, theists believe that things exist outside nature, so I would not think it insane to have that level of certainty.

Dave! wrote: »

Can you say for certain that there's no unicorns?

No. There are still areas of planet earth unexplored. Unicorns might live under the sea, but then would they be unicorns in the sense that we are thinking of?

Húrin

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I think it's simply an attitude from someone who hasn't grown up in a religious environment.

I have found it most common among those who grew up in an authoritarian religious environment that allowed for little spiritual growth.

Those who grew up in an atheistic environment, like me, are often more calm and open-minded about it.

They are probably also the same people who make up most of the the group that say "I used to be an atheist but then I found god/x religion". They just never gave it any thought until they suddenly find themselves in a circumstance where they find they need a belief to cling to for whatever reason.

This doesn't match my experience. To embrace religion after being an atheist is something that requires serious thought and confidence in a society like this where such a move invites ridicule. It is typically characteristic of people who are frequently re-assessing their beliefs.

lostexpectation

you can have fireside theoretical arguements about it but be clear lacking a belief in god requires no explanation of justification.

MackDeToaster

Húrin wrote: »

I have found it most common among those who grew up in an authoritarian religious environment that allowed for little spiritual growth.

So you are contending that someone who grew up in an authoritarian religious environment, who has been indoctrinated into belief from infancy, can come to the conclusion that god is stupid without actually thinking about it in any great depth ? That doesn't follow. Making use of your subsequent statement, to embrace atheism after religion is something that requires serious thought and confidence in a society like this where such a move invites ridicule.

Húrin wrote: »

This doesn't match my experience. To embrace religion after being an atheist is something that requires serious thought and confidence in a society like this where such a move invites ridicule. It is typically characteristic of people who are frequently re-assessing their beliefs.

To embrace religion after being an explicit atheist would certainly require that, but not for an implicit atheist, which is what I believe the op was talking about.
Also, in what is commonly accepted to be a mostly Christian, if not actually Catholic society, I don't think it invites widespread ridicule at all.