From today I can call myself an atheist

Glowing wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with you only for religion being a huge cause of death and unrest around the world. The way you word it, you're making it sound like a person or groups beliefs don't have any consequences ...

Anyway I've been reading this thread with interest. I'm an atheist myself - can't fathom how people can 'disbelieve' evolution and deny that the world is as old as it is. I actually thought it was more of a US based thing but I'm so surprised that so many people here are so sure that god is involved in how the earth and life developed and put so much trust in 'creationism' (that word on it's own fills me with frustration!!) Argh!

It's certainly fun to read through any thread that a creationist pops up in, I'll give you that but I've been reading this thread where a deist and an agnostic atheist (both atheists yes? I mean neither are theists? I hate the terminolgy of all this stuff!) have been arguing over a point that neither of them will likely ever know. Personally before the big bang I think any guess/belief is as rational/irrational as the next. If your hypothesis is that there was a cause that 'sparked' it (a method to the madness if you will) and you're open to your hypothesis being wrong (if there is ever a way of testing for it, which I don't imagine there will be), then what's the harm? I have no clue personally, but if someone believes in something having caused it then that's cool too.

As for religion causung death and conflict, yep you're right, but if religion was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be another reason taking its place the next day. Money/politics/land etc.

Do you think you'll be able to change their mind?

MRPRO03 wrote: »

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief. They are basically doing the same thing that religious people or groups do. For Instance, lets look at Dawkins, I would call him a preacher, cause what he does is the equivalent of what a pope, pastor or high religious figure would do and that is to convert the people to their belief via speeches, TV, Books, Internet etc.

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?, its a strange one for me, I am not trying to argumentative here, but atheism is belief of no god or diety, so there is nothing to discuss and yet, it has over 1000 threads, It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

The world isn't black and white. Your post is very myopic in its view of atheism. Atheism is defined by one thing and one thing only; a lack of belief in deities. This definition includes those who actively believe there is no God and those who doubt there is a God. In some cases atheism can be a form of a religious or spiritual viewpoint. Buddhists don't believe in deity, but depending on their "school" of buddhism they have different doctrines of faith to follow. The Pirahã tribe are a group of people in the amazon who don't believe in a supreme deity but are extremely spiritual and superstitious. The tribe has never heard of suicide and they thought the suggestion or idea of one taking their own life was hilarious! Both the groups I mentioned are atheists. There are many more. The key point I'm trying to make here is that atheism can be a part of a religion, it can also be a part of a belief system or even a political one, but it doesn't necessarily have to be part of any. For a person to be an atheist all they need do is tick one box : lack of belief in a deity. They can be homophobic, superstitious, cannibalistic, pacifists,spiritual, flat earthers, etc. As long as they don't have belief in a deity they are atheists.

Hopefully by now you understand that atheism has nothing to do with letting a person make their mind up for themselves. Nor, does it have anything to do with a person being against theism and religion. These positions are known as anti-theism and anti-religion, which a large proportion of the posters here would subscribe to. In fact, judging by your original post I'd say you are also anti-religious. "Let people believe what they want, but don't shove your beliefs in their face" am I right? That's anti-religion because on of the key characteristics of any religion is getting its members to proselytise the doctrines and beliefs of that religion to non believers. It's a two sided coin, if you let people belief what they want then for all religions that includes letting those people believe that it is their spiritual mission to spread their beliefs. The vast majority of posters here wouldn't care about religion if it wasn't for how prevalent it is in society.

Regarding the question of why atheists have forums and activist groups, well why do vegetarians have a forum? You used the analogy of golf, so I'll extend it a bit. Imagine, if you're the biggest the fan of golf. Imagine that because of this, your kids are not allowed a place in the local primary school. Imagine if someone comes knocking to your door regularly about the beauty of golf. Imagine if because of the fact you don't play golf you are least trusted member of society and constantly misunderstood. I could go on and on...It's basic human nature if one perceives their beliefs to be under threat or impinged on then they'll form activist groups to preserve their beliefs. This is why in America certain atheists groups tend to be more vocal and perhaps dogmatic than say in Denmark where there is little impeding on their way of life. With specific regard to this A&A forum the reason is simple the forum is Irish, the folks posting here tend to be likeminded individuals who share a lot in common and leads to some stimulating threads. That, and atheism is still a bit of taboo in Ireland poorly understood and, in my opinion, AtheistIreland is only making things worse. If only they could change their bloody name.

Finally, Dawkins and Hawkings promote science because they are scientists, there tonnes of religious scientists who promote science too. Evolution is the central theory on which nearly all of modern biology is based so it has to be promoted. Not promoting it would be a crime akin to not promoting Einstein's relativity.

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like claiming that if cigarettes were removed from the planet, then people would find something else to smoke.

It's more like claiming that if cigarettes were removed, people would continue to smoke all of the other stuff that they smoke instead.

Malty_T wrote: »

Aren't all debates this way?. In my opinion, debates are an almost useless format for communication. Most of the people who attend the debates will already have made their minds up and will probably concede afterwards that although one side "won" their own position remains unchanged. In cases of debates with highly emotive content almost nobody switches sides and biases such as conversation blindness start coming to the fro.

Debates : useless.

I like to think that visitors / onlookers of that monstrosity of a Creationism thread look at both sides of the debate and conclude for themselves that J C is a nut.

Are you suggesting we kill those who oppose us?

Here's a bit of Einstein to keep you all happy. Yes, all sides use him, but this bit looks pretty good:

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

Boulevardier wrote: »

Here's a bit of Einstein to keep you all happy. Yes, all sides use him, but this bit looks pretty good:

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

The child may know that someone had to have written the books as all books are written by someone, but that is not akin to man knowing someone had to create the universe. Two things wrong with than analogy are that it presupposes someone existing, and presupposes creation, neither of which have been established.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Oldernwiser, those other Einstein quites are fine with us deists.

So be it, however, you didn't answer my question. Who cares what Einstein said about God? Is it supposed to be some kind of evidence for your position?

I suppose some of us are like the child who "dimly suspects..." and others are not.

No, Einstein is not infallible, but his views are worth respecting. Not killer arguments, but an interesting contribution.

sink wrote: »

Don't forget that while Einstein was brilliant in some areas (relativity) in other areas he was dead wrong (quantum mechanics). No one is infallible, being correct in one area does not qualify ones opinion in another.

It's probably worth noting that he won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, where he put forward the quantised description of light (photons). That's certainly more than I've done in the field of QM!