I cringe more when someone says they're an Atheist

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

The only people who believe in "God" and are not religious are the ones who have made up their own god.

Anyone else, if they take a god from a religion, are being religious. If they take their ideas of what this god is, his characteristics, and what he wants from a religion they are being religious.

Just because they don't associate with other religious people or current religious teaching does not mean they aren't religious.

You get this a lot on the Christian forum, people saying "I'm a Christian but I'm not religious, I can't stand religion I just follow what is in the Bible".

I know plenty of people who aren't even this religious. They're culturally Christian - that is, they may partake in mass and that, and they may even say they believe in God, but by-and-large they don't let the religion influence their lives in any way other than as part of a community.

A case in point is what Nuala O'Faoláin called 'Irish atheists': In Ireland (particularly a decade or two ago) it's easier and safer to just go through the motions of being a Christian and never really confront the question, than to assert atheism.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the most negative propositions around, but if, as a believer, you say that nobody can ever be truly convinced by such negative propositions, well, there's hope for the world yet!

Now I think about it - an atheist isn't convinced by a negative proposition - just unconvinced by a positive one.

Rb

I'm quite happy using the term Atheist to describe myself.

Fighting Irish

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

how old are you, around 18 to 22 or there abouts? I think a lot of people go through a phase where they don't like to think that they fit into some bracket or definition. But as you get older you will want to define yourself more and more by your opinions and principles.

I was the same, I didn't like the term Atheist. I went through a period where I just wanted to be free of fitting into any bracket. But that has since changed.

All I can I say is to just remember that you are unique and an individual... just like everyone else :pac:

25 and i don't think i'm trying to be unique

Húrin

Excelsior wrote: »

Which is a major problem for atheists since no one can ever be truly convinced by a negative proposition.

That's clearly not the case; there are plenty of atheists around who are pretty certain about it.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

Hey, there are hundreds of millions of people out there who think they're hopelessly damaged beings in constant need of something called "saving".

A lady once tried to convince me that I should pray because she found it to be a great "crutch" in life.

Crutches are for the crippled my dear.

Goduznt Xzst

Valmont wrote: »

not wanting to be associated with the arrogant anti-theists, they annoy me more than pro-theists.

I'd love to know who created this definition and is propagating it. I see a common misunderstanding happening alot with the position of Atheists.

An Atheist will say to a theist "you're wrong" and the Theist will instantly assume the Atheist is arrogantly saying "I'm right". When this rarely is the case. The Atheist is merely saying "both of us can't know what is right, so by assuming you are right, you are wrong".

I'd love to know how arrogance can be applied to an Atheist who tries to say that nobody knows if God exists and is pushing for the neutral position, when it is rarely applied to a Christian who says they "know" their God exists. Surely, thus, every Christian should be re-labeled as the Arrogant Christian.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

25 and i don't think i'm trying to be unique

hmm... ok perhaps you could expand further on why you are of the opinion that someone calling themselves Atheist is cringe worthy. Is it connotations that you tie to people who would be confident enough to call themselves such?

Valmont

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'd love to know who created this definition and is propagating it. I see a common misunderstanding happening alot with the position of Atheists.

I just meant general smart arses who think it was their supreme intellect that brought about their non-belief, like it's an achievement or something. It doesn't take that much deliberation to reject god.

GallowsGhost

Valmont wrote: »

I just meant general smart arses who think it was their supreme intellect that brought about their non-belief, like it's an achievement or something. It doesn't take that much deliberation to reject god.

I disagree. It took a lot research and self examination before I was willing to let go of religion. It was something I'd always believed whole heartedly "There must be a good, how can there no be? Millions of people believe in him, how can they be wrong? He has to exist!"
Becoming an atheist was not something I took lightly and as a result it's something I'm very passionate about.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'd love to know who created this definition and is propagating it. I see a common misunderstanding happening alot with the position of Atheists.

An Atheist will say to a theist "you're wrong" and the Theist will instantly assume the Atheist is arrogantly saying "I'm right". When this rarely is the case. The Atheist is merely saying "both of us can't know what is right, so by assuming you are right, you are wrong".

I'd love to know how arrogance can be applied to an Atheist who tries to say that nobody knows if God exists and is pushing for the neutral position, when it is rarely applied to a Christian who says they "know" their God exists. Surely, thus, every Christian should be re-labeled as the Arrogant Christian.

I think a better equivalent would be those Christians who insist that every atheist is actually just suppressing their knowledge of the existence of God.

Many atheists are certain that there is no God, and no Christian/monotheistic God. People who are in a position of not feeling that they know are called Agnostic.

Zillah wrote: »

A lady once tried to convince me that I should pray because she found it to be a great "crutch" in life.

Crutches are for the crippled my dear.

I'm sure she understood that. She surely recognised that she is weak, flawed and full of doubt. You're lucky to be such a smart, strong übermensch!

ynotdu

first sign of a health problem atheists transistion to agnostic !

seanybiker

kiffer wrote: »

Darkness doesn't exist... it is merely the absence of light.

Thats nearly same as quote from hellboy the movie.
In the absent of light, darkness prevails.

Cool . Im happy now cos I dont like religion but do like movies.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

I'm sure she understood that. She surely recognised that she is weak, flawed and full of doubt. You're lucky to be such a smart, strong übermensch!

Ah, vapid sarcasm. Touche.

Valmont

GallowsGhost wrote: »

I disagree. It took a lot research and self examination before I was willing to let go of religion. It was something I'd always believed whole heartedly "There must be a good, how can there no be? Millions of people believe in him, how can they be wrong? He has to exist!"
Becoming an atheist was not something I took lightly and as a result it's something I'm very passionate about.

I suppose it's different for everyone. I found it very straightforward to be honest and I didn't have a "moment". Although reading Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian. helped me along to learning more about the whole thing.

philologos

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose it's different for everyone. I found it very straightforward to be honest and I didn't have a "moment". Although reading Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian. helped me along to learning more about the whole thing.

I think it is reasonable that you read material from an atheistic point of view, but did you consider Christian defences of the Gospel in your reading also, or was it just a one way look into a path you were already inclined to go down. Just curious.

allabouteve

Mena wrote: »

What usually gives me away is one of the three shirts I have that have "Raging Anti-Theist" sprawled across the front and back

I got one that says ''Rabid Atheist - keep back!''

Valmont

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is reasonable that you read material from an atheistic point of view, but did you consider Christian defences of the Gospel in your reading also, or was it just a one way look into a path you were already inclined to go down. Just curious.

Well I initially decided I didn't like the Catholic church, so I called myself a Christian for a while as I still believed there was a God and heaven. The problem is I don't remember exactly how I even rejected this in the end. I was about 16 or 17 at the time and to be honest I wouldn't have read any Christian defences because a large part of it was my own little rebellion but after I read up on the subject I found that I really agreed with the whole thing (more or less) and then I joined boards when I was 18 and started reading this forum which helped me refine my opinions on the subject.

Personally, I found dispensing with the idea of eternal life in heaven to be the hardest part. If I got anything out of religion it was the concept of heaven as my folks would tell me about it when relatives died etc when I was younger. That said, I felt, and still feel supremely liberated realising that I don't have to believe in this and worry about getting in and all that if I didn't want to. Helped me to focus more on the here and now I suppose.

JimiTime

achtungbarry wrote: »

In theory, we shouldn't even need the word "atheist".

I mean do we need words like.....

afairyist

agoblinist

apixieist

azeusist

asantaist

?


Atheists must be the only group of people that are have a word to describe what they don't belive in. Weird really.

Its one of the main reasons I don't accept the explaination that it is a 'non' belief. To say you are atheist emplies thought and opinion, and in turn a belief. Basically that being the belief that no God/s exist. Its also 'part' of the reason why I reject the burden of proof arguement. The reason atheism exists, is because of the need to express an opinion that goes against the grain of human history. For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

Schuhart

JimiTime wrote: »

For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

I actually think this is a reasonable point. Atheism is the aberration, only recently popular. It requires us to maintain that most folk are deluded.

It sort of struck me again reading that Humanist Association advert about there being 250,000 non-believers in Ireland. Presumably that means there's 3,750,000 who believe in some kind of a deity.

Atheism is the contention that those 3,750,000 are labouring under a massive misconception of what reality is.

coffee_cake

Schuhart wrote: »

I actually think this is a reasonable point. Atheism is the aberration, only recently popular. It requires us to maintain that most folk are deluded.

It sort of struck me again reading that Humanist Association advert about there being 250,000 non-believers in Ireland. Presumably that means there's 3,750,000 who believe in some kind of a deity.

Atheism is the contention that those 3,750,000 are labouring under a massive misconception of what reality is.

Thankfully popularity and numbers are never necessarily a measure of actual truth

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Its also 'part' of the reason why I reject the burden of proof arguement. The reason atheism exists, is because of the need to express an opinion that goes against the grain of human history. For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

I think there's a certain logic to your point. To put it in my own words; we need the word atheist because it is a contentious issue in modern society. If there were a great deal of powerful people who believed in fairies and belief in fairies was integrated into many parts of our culture then yes, we'd be using the word afairist a great deal.

However, I contend that this in no way alters the burden of proof argument, it is merely a linguistic practicality. Popularity and degree of scandal have no bearing on such matters. A theist is one asserting that they have knowledge of a powerful entity that created the universe, an atheist asserts that this claim is baseless without evidence. The fact that a huge number of people are not claiming that fairies exists makes it no less ideal a comparison; If I told you I believed fairies exist you would expect evidence before you agree with me. The burden is on the theist.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

Its one of the main reasons I don't accept the explaination that it is a 'non' belief. To say you are atheist emplies thought and opinion, and in turn a belief. Basically that being the belief that no God/s exist. Its also 'part' of the reason why I reject the burden of proof arguement. The reason atheism exists, is because of the need to express an opinion that goes against the grain of human history. For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

Quick thought experiment ...
A large group of Atheists, having rejected God(s), Magic(k) and so on are sent to live on an Island. On this island they are forbidden from ever mentioning even the concept of God, gods, souls or magic...
Over time they have children and raise them with out ever mentioning gods not even to say they don't exist (which atheist parents in real life often have to when little Johny comes home crying cause some other children tell him he's going to burn in hell), when questions such as where do we come from arises as honest an answer as possible is given. The children learn that "We/I don't know" is a valid answer to some questions...
These children grow up and become adults ... what do we call them?
The don't believe in god... they don't even have the concept*.
What do we call them? Atheists? Innocents? The Ill-informed? ... [add your own term here].



* I do recall something about children assigning imaginary agents to events during language developments and of course many children have imaginary friends so perhaps the children could develop their own ad-hoc spirituality...
So considering this lets say there are two islands and this is suppressed/doesn't happen and one and is allowed to run free (all though not necessarily encouraged).

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

However, I contend that this in no way alters the burden of proof argument, it is merely a linguistic practicality.

It is interesting that some people would think it does though. There is obviously comfort to be had in thinking that most people think like you. This is possibly a strong motivation for evangelicalism.

As for the word atheist we have always had words for people who are a minority of a set, even if that word describes something they don't do. For example vegatarian, someone who doesn't eat meat. When you think about it that is a bit weird, a word describing something someone doesn't do, but when the norm is to eat meat we just accept that as not needing an every day term and need a word to describe people who buck that trend.

The same with atheist. When it is part of human nature to imagine supernatural agents as the norm we need a word to describe people who don't do that.

Though originally I think atheist meant rejection of God (and "atheist" came before theist). I do shake my head at the arguments that atheists reject God. How can you reject something you don't think is real?

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

I do shake my head at the arguments that atheists reject God. How can you reject something you don't think is real?

It is because secretly we do believe in God, we're just closing our hearts against him, or under the sway of Satan.

We secretly believe in him either because it's impossible for someone to not believe something so obviously true, or because God has made us aware of him at a deep level so that we can begin a relationship with him, which we, in our wicked hubris, reject.

Apparently.

Flamed Diving

Schuhart wrote: »

I actually think this is a reasonable point. Atheism is the aberration, only recently popular. It requires us to maintain that most folk are deluded.

Recent as in pre-dating Jesus? Yup. Pretty recent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity

Schuhart wrote: »

It sort of struck me again reading that Humanist Association advert about there being 250,000 non-believers in Ireland. Presumably that means there's 3,750,000 who believe in some kind of a deity.

Atheism is the contention that those 3,750,000 are labouring under a massive misconception of what reality is.

It can be tough to go against the grain sometimes. Especially when so many people believe they are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

rugbyman

just a question on lighter note. watched telly tonight aboutbthe burial chambers on this Island from 6,000 years ago. What is the conventional theory on where the souls of people from then until st patricks time went to.?

regards,rugbyman

Húrin

bluewolf wrote: »

Thankfully popularity and numbers are never necessarily a measure of actual truth

"Actual truth" - what a rickety ship that one is!

Zillah wrote: »

If I told you I believed fairies exist you would expect evidence before you agree with me. The burden is on the theist.

Why would you demand that someone else to agree with you that faeries exist?

Atheists generally believe that there is no God, due to lack of perceived sensual evidence. In other words, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The position of denying that such higher knowledge is either way possible is commonly known as Agnosticism, not atheism.

mehfesto2

To get pack to the original point/question:
I share the opinion of the OP. I reckon it's down to first impressions of Atheism.

The first people I encountered who 'were atheist', were 17-18 year old girls and guys, with red hair, nose piercings, skateboards and such. Atheism to them was just another "non-conformist" thing they could grab a hold of - it was nothing but a fashion statement.

And personally, I think that that's the main reason people are "skeptical" of atheists - you don't have to do anything to be an atheist. The most informed and well read atheist here, represents Atheism as much as the red haired teen hanging out around Central Bank on a Saturday. This is not the case for Christians etc., who have to attend services/ceremonies. You can't be a practicing (and therefore representative) Christian without doing certain things. To be an atheist, you just have to say you are.

And because there are no rituals or hierarchy within Atheism, those who are in your face most and who shout loudest - are heard.

It's unfortunate; there are obviously quite a lot of intelligent and rational thinking theists about Ireland, but for me (and many others, I believe) as soon as I hear Atheist, I will think of the Red Haired, Attention Seeking Girls at Central Bank. First Impressions do endure...

Schuhart

bluewolf wrote: »

Thankfully popularity and numbers are never necessarily a measure of actual truth

Absolutely, but we do need to account for why a view that seems strictly unnecessarily is popular.

I think we just need to remind ourselves now and again that we are contending that most people are deluded. To the extent that those same folk report that religion is something of great value to them, we are also contending that many folk operate best when deluded.

These are not light things to contend, but I think we've a tendency to step around them.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Recent as in pre-dating Jesus? Yup. Pretty recent.

You'll notice I said "recently popular". Indeed, atheism has been around for ages. The Bible wouldn't say 'the fool says in his heart that there is no god' unless there were folk saying 'there is no god'. However, despite atheism existing as a concept, theism thrived instead. That's, to my mind, the point of interest. Presented with an alternative, people got behind theism.

Incidently, that wikipedia article could also mention that Plato advocated a death penalty for unrepentant atheists, as was discussed here a while back.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It can be tough to go against the grain sometimes. Especially when so many people believe they are right.

It can, indeed, be very difficult to alert people to blind spots in their mindsets.

I find you have to be willing to be persistent.

the_syco

Prefer the term "pagan" myself.