Atheism is "cool"

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

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

100% 'certainty' is just not possible. I'm fairly certain about it - but I'm still technically an agnostic.
That is, I really believe that gods don't exist (i.e. atheist), but I also accept that the truth is inherently unknowable.

The existence of this overlap stomps out a lot of the arguments like atheists also require "faith", or that agnosticism is the only tenable position.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

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.

I think that is the whole point.

There would be a lot less people claiming to know things they don't actually know.

Húrin

MackDeToaster wrote: »

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?

I didn't say that they had been indoctrinated. Authoritarian methods of teaching do not work on a lot of people, especially when it is situated in a culture like ours which ostensibly rejects authoritarian thinking. Thus, such forms of teaching is likely to cause outright rejection of the religious claims, because they were never internalised in the person. The disinterest that many such churches show in scrutinising their own beliefs is also a major factor. The Catholic Church is a great example here.

In my experience, the Christians who were brought up in more liberal denominations tend to stay Christians more often.

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.

In a society like a conservative church?

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.

I agree that such a conversion would probably involve less thought than an explicit atheist's conversion. However, the implicit atheist's conversion still demands a rebellion against his intuition.

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.

I live in Dublin, and I am in my 20s. The overwhelming majority of my peers are not Christians, and most of my peers are in fact atheists by intuition. Then there are others who think that simply believing in God makes one a Catholic. Indeed, the title of this thread highlights the fact that atheism is considered 'cool'.

If people in this country were genuinely unembarrased about their religious beliefs, then they would talk about them much more openly. Currently very few people seem to do this besides the "born-agains" and the Africans. The majority of people who have belief think, or know, that they would be ridiculed for it if expressed.

Isn't it held in consensus on this forum that the rates of believing Catholics are utterly over-reported in this country?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Isn't it held in consensus on this forum that the rates of believing Catholics are utterly over-reported in this country?

I support that idea, sure.

But the whole thing is really a generation game. The last big generation of Irish Catholics are still at the helm of the Mothership Ireland, but 30 years from now you'd have to think it'll be a different story.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

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.

I don't believe it is. Do you think that there is less than a 99.99% chance of Russell's teapot, or the infamous FSM, not existing? I don't think you could; I just place the idea and the concept of a theistic (not deistic) god on par with concepts such as the FSM.

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?

I hope that you weren't being serious in that comment!

lostexpectation wrote: »

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

You're continually missing the point and purpose of this thread.

Of course atheists don't have to explain or justify their lack of belief - if they're genuine atheists. My hypotheses is that these very people are actually theistic, but pretending to be atheistic because of the image it portrays. What leads me to believe that they're theistic is their weak arguments against the idea of a god.

lostexpectation

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Of course atheists don't have to explain or justify their lack of belief - if they're genuine atheists. My hypotheses is that these very people are actually theistic, but pretending to be atheistic because of the image it portrays. What leads me to believe that they're theistic is their weak arguments against the idea of a god.

wow conveniently circular for you except for the first bit which states of course atheists don't have to explain or justify their lack of belief.

can you can not for moment conceive that these teenagers never really believed in god.

'the idea of god', are we discussing deism now?

ETA lets put it this way, atheist don't have to explain the lack of belief in god and atheism doesn't require much explanation either.

i asked you on the first or second page for you to explain why you think they believe in god, i read the first 6/7 pages where you didn't answer that question afaik after 20 pages of discussing pdn's lalaland you finally have begun to explain your opinion on their belief in god.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

wow conveniently circular for you except for the first bit which states of course atheists don't have to explain or justify their lack of belief.

How "convenient" of you to selectively quote. After the quote you took from me, which you kindly highlighted, I said "If they're genuine atheists".

And how is that circular?!

can you can not for moment conceive that these teenagers never really believed in god.

No, because the year earlier they did believe in a god, or at least they said they did. And now, very magically, they don't - which I've no problem at all with. But, I just suspect that they're now "atheistic" because of the image it portrays.

'the idea of god', are we discussing deism now?

No? Does deism concern itself with "the idea of a god"? That's funny, I've always understood deism to be something completely different.

ETA lets put it this way, atheist don't have to explain the lack of belief in god and atheism doesn't require much explanation either.

And yet again you miss the entire point of this thread. I didn't start it to discuss this, I started it to find out whether people considered atheism to be cool.

Where is the problem?

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

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

Ah hold on a second here now! Are you admitting to being agnostic?

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

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

But you can't deny the evidence is in favor of my position. That which is physical exists and that which exist is physical. Or am I completely of the mark?

Húrin wrote: »

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

Why?

CerebralCortex

-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).

I have to disagree with that. The god you refer to is different to the god Hurin refers to as far as I can tell.

lostexpectation

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How "convenient" of you to selectively quote. After the quote you took from me, which you kindly highlighted, I said "If they're genuine atheists".

And how is that circular?!

because you desingated yourself as the person who decides whether they are genuine atheist or not and whether there reasons meet your standards.

No, because the year earlier they did believe in a god, or at least they said they did. And now, very magically, they don't - which I've no problem at all with. But, I just suspect that they're now "atheistic" because of the image it portrays.

the only magic is the belief in god. it does not ruire magic to not believe in god

And yet again you miss the entire point of this thread. I didn't start it to discuss this, I started it to find out whether people considered atheism to be cool.

Where is the problem?

you said atheism was so cool that believers would lie about not believing but the example you gave is bogus, because atheism doesn't require any explanation then its virtually impossible to fail to give a good justification for it, which you accused them of doing.

thats a huge accusation and not something that can be ignored in your 3 sentence opening posts.

you need to justify your belief that they believe in god, they do not need to justify their lack of belief.

you have not shown how they are just doing it because its cool. for an atheist you continuously putting the burden of proof on atheism rather then belief.

movingsheepdip

IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS POST WAS A WORD, AND THIS WORD WAS 'its'. AND THE READER SAMPLED THIS POST, AND FOUND IT GOOD. AND THE STARTER OF THIS THREAD CURSED IT INTO THE FIRES FROM WHENCE IT CAME. AND THE POSTER, HE DID SPAKE......

its amazing how these 'athiests' demand answers for others not believing, as if they marvel at how anyone as lesser as the others in the year can come to their own conclusions. Athiests, such as the jammydodger, declare their athiesm as a guise to show of all their scientific know how and big words that everyone else find boring as ****. and anyone who uses the word 'predantic' shall be hung from our spire to appease our gods!
THEN CAME AN ALMIGHTY URGE TO URINATE, AND THE POSTER DID OBLIGE.

movingsheepdip

movingsheepdip wrote: »

IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS POST WAS A WORD, AND THIS WORD WAS 'its'. AND THE READER SAMPLED THIS POST, AND FOUND IT GOOD. AND THE STARTER OF THIS THREAD CURSED IT INTO THE FIRES FROM WHENCE IT CAME. AND THE POSTER, HE DID SPAKE......

its amazing how these 'athiests' demand answers for others not believing, as if they marvel at how anyone as lesser as the others in the year can come to their own conclusions. Athiests, such as the jammydodger, declare their athiesm as a guise to show of all their scientific know how and big words that everyone else find boring as ****. and anyone who uses the word 'predantic' shall be hung from our spire to appease our gods!
THEN CAME AN ALMIGHTY URGE TO URINATE, AND THE POSTER DID OBLIGE.

Right... And, it's JammyDodger, not the JammyDodger. Sorry for being pedantic.

lostexpectation wrote: »

because you desingated yourself as the person who decides whether they are genuine atheist or not and whether there reasons meet your standards.

Well if they actually believe in God then they're not atheists, are they?

the only magic is the belief in god. it does not ruire magic to not believe in god

Well in a society where it is so embedded into our minds, it kind of does. But, I wouldn't call it magic, I'd call it "looking for the answers", or something similar.

cos the example you gave is bogus, because atheism doesn't require any explanation then its virtually impossible to fail to give a good justification for it, which you accused them of doing.

And how do you know it's "bogus"?

Because, I think they're actually theistic, so they're explanations weren't anyway good. When someones grows up in a theistic society, and they choose not to believe in God, they should have a better reason than "cos God is stupid".

thats a huge accusation and not something that can be ignored in your 3 sentence opening posts.

What are you talking about here?

you need to justify your belief that they believe in god, they do not need to justify their lack of belief.

Because they've openly said in debates that I've had with them that they did - I've argued with some of them over it for hours. Now, all of a sudden when atheism is seen as somewhat intellectual, and perhaps "cool", they suddenly change their mind? And, for no good reason too.

you have not shown how they are just doing it because its cool. for an atheist you continuously putting the burden of proof on atheism rather then belief.

I don't! My God (pun), how hard is this for you to understand? They believed in God last year; now they don't - and they've no apparent reason for this change of mind? That's suspicious.

Of course atheists don't have the burden of proof on their shoulders. I agree. But, these people were theistic last year, and strongly theistic too - but now, they're not: and for no good reason.

I really don't see where your problem lies?

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah hold on a second here now! Are you admitting to being agnostic?

No, not in the normally used definition of the term. I am not saying that Jammy Dodger is an agnostic either, because he is quite sure that there is no God.

To use analogy, scientists have hypotheses about the world, and some are disproved. But none are proven, only thought to be very likely. There's a huge difference between that and saying that the lack of certainty means that they don't know anything about how the physical world behaves.

I am saying that a true naturalist should be agnostic. This is because the naturalist believes that no information can be obtained outside of the scientific method. This method can only be used for understanding questions about the physical universe. When asked questions about things beyond the universe, and beyond physics, it is a useless method.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But you can't deny the evidence is in favor of my position. That which is physical exists and that which exist is physical. Or am I completely of the mark?

When I say that I am not a naturalist, I don't mean that physical matter does not exist or that I do not respect and value the scientific method. I'm saying that physical matter is not the only thing that exists, and that there are methods of inquiry other than the scientific method.

I think I have already explained why I think this in some other thread and I don't care to type it all out again. I'll try to link to it.

lostexpectation

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't! My God (pun), how hard is this for you to understand? They believed in God last year; now they don't - and they've no apparent reason for this change of mind? That's suspicious.

Of course atheists don't have the burden of proof on their shoulders. I agree. But, these people were theistic last year, and strongly theistic too - but now, they're not: and for no good reason.

I really don't see where your problem lies?

you're asking them to explain their atheism not there (previous) theism that's the problem.

you putting the burden of proof for you on their atheism

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

This method can only be used for understanding questions about the physical universe. When asked questions about things beyond the universe, and beyond physics, it is a useless method.

Which is why no one knows anything about things beyond the universe or beyond physics.

Religious people pretending to have answers about this stuff is not the same thing.

I can sit in a room for 5 days and emerge believing that the universe floats on the back of a giant turtle. That has got nothing to do with reality, even if it turns out to be true.

Húrin wrote: »

I'm saying that physical matter is not the only thing that exists, and that there are methods of inquiry other than the scientific method.

There certainly are. The problem is that none of them work.

Not at least in determine what is real and what isn't real. They certainly work in providing answers that we hope to be real, but that isn't the same thing.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

you're asking them to explain their atheism not there (previous) theism that's the problem.

you putting the burden of proof for you on their atheism

I think we're disagreeing over something very small.

I agree with you that atheists don't, and shouldn't, have to provide the proof for their views; the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the theists. I've never doubted that.

But, the people who I'm talking about were strongly theistic a year or two ago. I've had long debates with some of them, and they would never budge in their views. But now, when atheism is connotated with intellectualism, they've suddenly become atheistic. And when I've asked them why (as I'm curious, as I've had long debates with them previous - and they've said they'd never dare become atheists), they're responses were unbelievable (in the literal sense of the word). You'd imagine that somebody who was very theistic previously, then suddenly became atheistic, would have very good reasons for doing so - which they hadn't.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why no one knows anything about things beyond the universe or beyond physics.

Religious people pretending to have answers about this stuff is not the same thing.

I can sit in a room for 5 days and emerge believing that the universe floats on the back of a giant turtle. That has got nothing to do with reality, even if it turns out to be true.


There certainly are. The problem is that none of them work.

Not at least in determine what is real and what isn't real. They certainly work in providing answers that we hope to be real, but that isn't the same thing.

Thanks. You have articulated our disagreement quite well.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

No, not in the normally used definition of the term. I am not saying that Jammy Dodger is an agnostic either, because he is quite sure that there is no God.

To use analogy, scientists have hypotheses about the world, and some are disproved. But none are proven, only thought to be very likely. There's a huge difference between that and saying that the lack of certainty means that they don't know anything about how the physical world behaves.

I am saying that a true naturalist should be agnostic. This is because the naturalist believes that no information can be obtained outside of the scientific method. This method can only be used for understanding questions about the physical universe. When asked questions about things beyond the universe, and beyond physics, it is a useless method.


When I say that I am not a naturalist, I don't mean that physical matter does not exist or that I do not respect and value the scientific method. I'm saying that physical matter is not the only thing that exists, and that there are methods of inquiry other than the scientific method.

I think I have already explained why I think this in some other thread and I don't care to type it all out again. I'll try to link to it.

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry Hùrin but I read that as saying people make up methods to study things they've quite obviously made up although in fairness it sounds a little bit more intellectual than that in my head. Kind of echoing what Wiknight posted.

Dades

-JammyDodger- can correct me if I'm wrong, but the original post was concerned with whether atheism had developed a certain amount of social prestige amongst the young. i.e. Is it now "cool" to be an atheist.

So why certain posters seem to be so hell bent on accusing the OP of declaring some burden of proof on atheism, I don't understand. You are all guilty of overthinking what was really a simple question just for the sake of an argument (or maybe because deep down you think you're cool ).

In his view, people in his class who were previously believers, now weren't, citing only teenage soundbites like "god is stupid" as a reason. End of story. The OP was looking for other peoples' experience on the matter, not a challenge to his own credibility. The irony is, one all this is beaten to death - we'd probably all agree that, for teens at least, there is an element of "coolness" attributed to non-belief.

Personally I find it ridiculous that I even feel I have to post this.

pH

Dades wrote: »

So why certain posters seem to be so hell bent on accusing the OP of declaring some burden of proof on atheism, I don't understand. You are all guilty of overthinking what was really a simple question just for the sake of an argument (or maybe because deep down you think you're cool ).

Allright then! back on topic

I appreciate that for the average 18 year old, "cool" is tres important, but there definitely was a hint of "You say God is stupid ... OMG you're soooo stupid" in the OP.

Jammy has clarified that he now means that he believes his peers are lying, and are pretending to be atheists, when deep down they really believe in God. His justification for this seems to be that when asked for a reason they have nothing better than "God is stupid".

I find this interesting, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Sometimes we have very simple not easily expressed reasons for things we really believe in. The average 15 year old girl might attempt explain her infatuation for the Boy Band de jour without much intellectual rigour, a 17 year old metal fan might explain that he doesn't like Bach because "It's stupid", neither would lead me to believe they're lying just to appear cool to their friends.

I appreciate that some teenagers might be hiding their religious feelings to appear "cool" but I'm not convinced that you can spot them that easily.

studiorat

Cool

Not Cool

I rest my case..

Dades

Dades wrote: »

-JammyDodger- can correct me if I'm wrong, but the original post was concerned with whether atheism had developed a certain amount of social prestige amongst the young. i.e. Is it now "cool" to be an atheist.

So why certain posters seem to be so hell bent on accusing the OP of declaring some burden of proof on atheism, I don't understand. You are all guilty of overthinking what was really a simple question just for the sake of an argument (or maybe because deep down you think you're cool ).

In his view, people in his class who were previously believers, now weren't, citing only teenage soundbites like "god is stupid" as a reason. End of story. The OP was looking for other peoples' experience on the matter, not a challenge to his own credibility. The irony is, one all this is beaten to death - we'd probably all agree that, for teens at least, there is an element of "coolness" attributed to non-belief.

Personally I find it ridiculous that I even feel I have to post this.

Thanks Dades. Yah, you're exactly right: that's what the original post was about; it was absolutely nothing to do with atheists producing proof for their beliefs.

I've explained the story behind the anecdote 4 or 5 times now in different posts, I don't understand why people can't get what the point of telling the story was!

As you said, they were strongly theistic - very strongly, now they're not. And they've no good reasons for losing their faith; when last year they had lots of good reasons for keeping it. It just didn't make sense to me, so I thought maybe atheism is now considered "cool", which would help explain it. That's all; there's nothing more complicated!

Hopefully this will be the end of it!:pac:

Galvasean

studiorat wrote: »

Cool

Not Cool

I rest my case..

Cool.

Not cool.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Cool.

Not cool.

Cool

Not Cool

Nuff said.

ZondaChai

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, the people who I'm talking about were strongly theistic a year or two ago.

This implys varying degrees of faith, using that scale could it be said that these people are now weakly atheistic, and by that rational their reasons for being atheist would not have to be as good as yours, because you, and I am making an asumption are strongly atheistic.

It's the same as having someone newly converted to christianity, and a priest. Obviously the priest is going to know more and have much stronger beliefs and reasons for believing than the newly converted person, but that doesn't make the other person any less of a christian.

Because their lack of belief isn't as strong as yours, because their reasons arn't as good as yours, that doesn't make them any less atheistic

stainluss

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Is it just me, or has atheism become "cool" in the last year or two? I mean, I'm repeating my living cert now, so I'm a bit older than the others in my year, but many of them consider themselves atheists. 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. Have any of you experienced this? Has atheism become the new "cool" thing? Or is it meerly isolated to my school:pac:

I agree. Its the same in my school. I think these people are doing it to fit in with the crew (usually 'goths').. Whats even scarier is that the first and second years are buying into this sh1te.. i would have nothing against it if they belived it because of their own thoughts.. but its so obivious some think its cool and fight for something that they dont truly belive in

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Not Cool

Nuff said.

Good to see the Dear Leader is over his recent health scare and enjoying a few cold 'uns. Even dictators need to chill out!

ZondaChai

ZondaChai wrote: »

This implys varying degrees of faith, using that scale could it be said that these people are now weakly atheistic, and by that rational their reasons for being atheist would not have to be as good as yours, because you, and I am making an asumption are strongly atheistic.

It's the same as having someone newly converted to christianity, and a priest. Obviously the priest is going to know more and have much stronger beliefs and reasons for believing than the newly converted person, but that doesn't make the other person any less of a christian.

Because their lack of belief isn't as strong as yours, because their reasons arn't as good as yours, that doesn't make them any less atheistic

Ok, I've enough of this. The onslaught against my opening post has gone on too long. I apologise to all who my anecdote may have offended: as it appears to have caused very deep offensive to a few individuals. If I could go back and edit it out, I bloody well would; because I've never seen so much over such a small detail of the point I was trying to make. I apologise sincerely to all affected by this truely shocking, terrible, tragedy. Now, my apology is out of the way: so please stop bringing up details about my opening post. Jesus, the conversation even left the topic of the OP about 20 pages ago; so please let it go. Now, it's over.

ZondaChai

Despite what you intended to ask in the OP, the off topic conversation is obviously what people want to talk about, there's already been twenty pages about it. Why don't you let the wolves have their sheep and post the original question again as simply as you can.

To answer your original question, Athiesm is only as cool as society and the prominant figures of society deem it to be, and with people such as Richard Dawkins walking around, and then people like Barack Obama walking around, then my answer is no, atheism although logical, is not cool