Question for the Atheist

[_Ceeboo]

Hello people,

I just returned home from a delicious evening out that involved the gorgeous bride, a rather large T-Bone, a few cold Heineken's, and the enjoyable company of three other couples. (We have all been friends for some time)

Among the many things that were discussed, the topic of Atheism came up (Of the 8 of us that were there, 3 are Atheist)

As we all offered our thoughts on the subject of Atheism, it became clear that we couldn't even agree on what the word (Atheism) means (Perhaps what was most baffling to me was that the 3 who were Atheist didn't/couldn't seem to agree on the most simple explanation of what the word represents)

Soooo, I thought I would ask my Atheist friends here:

How would you describe what it means to be an Atheist?

for what it's worth, I have long understood (Perhaps wrong?) that an Atheist lacks the belief in a God/Creator.

What say you?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_just me]

I would say it is a lack of belief in any gods.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Ceeboo,

I hope this doesn't sound overly dismissive, but I have to wonder that a Catholic who spends time on a Mormon message board would not quickly turn to the opposite question - given three theists of different bents, how would they collectively define theism in a way that made sense to someone who did not share their view?

I doubt a Venn Diagram attempting to depict atheist views would really be all that different from one trying to depict the realms of thought that could be categorized as theism. On the face of it, it seems that there would be a lot of shared space in the middle. But then you start looking at the details, and even the words that sound the same end up being in different places. At some point, it seems attempting to chart overlapping beliefs would become an artistic venture at best whose results will say much about the artist though little about the subject itself.

[_keithb]

Hello people,

I just returned home from a delicious evening out that involved the gorgeous bride, a rather large T-Bone, a few cold Heineken's, and the enjoyable company of three other couples. (We have all been friends for some time)

Among the many things that were discussed, the topic of Atheism came up (Of the 8 of us that were there, 3 are Atheist)

As we all offered our thoughts on the subject of Atheism, it became clear that we couldn't even agree on what the word (Atheism) means (Perhaps what was most baffling to me was that the 3 who were Atheist didn't/couldn't seem to agree on the most simple explanation of what the word represents)

Soooo, I thought I would ask my Atheist friends here:

How would you describe what it means to be an Atheist?

for what it's worth, I have long understood (Perhaps wrong?) that an Atheist lacks the belief in a God/Creator.

What say you?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I would rather describe myself as a skeptic, especially since "atheist" is a loaded term. I actually remain skeptical of all things not verified by science, and I want scientific proof before I believe in any of them. This would include all religions, psychics, homeopathic remedies, fantasy creatures, etc. It would even include claims as mundane as conspiracy theories and X-files type stuff.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How can an atheist disagree with another atheist on what atheist means? It's very simple.

Theist <- Atheist isn't that.

You're welcome, brother.

-DC4Me

[Guest]

Hi Ceeboo,

Picking up the idea of Venn diagrams, and entirely consistent with the above responses, I would start by suggesting two mutually exclusive circles or sets. One is the set of those who actively believe in a supernatural God or gods. The second set is comprised of those who do not believe, including those who not believe to the extent that they feel that worship of some supreme being is necessary or advisable.

Included in the second set (atheists and agnostics) are those who are reasonably certain that there are no supernatural beings who interact in or control the affairs of humankind, as well as those who simply do not care about the issue all that much.

At different times in one's life, one can be a bona fide member of either the theist set or the atheist and agnostics set. Deists, by this classification, would fit best in the second set.

As for myself, I prefer the term "extremely low probability agnostic" to atheist. I certainly cannot prove that the Christian God, or even the Mormon Elohim for that matter, do not exist. I also cannot prove that Zeus, Neptune, Thor, Horus, and hundreds of other deities do not (or did not) exist.

However, based on the available data, I can estimate the probability that any of them exist, and it is exceedingly low. In fact, the more data one considers the lower the probability becomes. These estimates seldom come out with a probability higher than something like of 1 in 10 exp 18 or so.

Given the exceedingly low probability that supernatural beings exist as described in Christianity or Islam, and given the characteristics ascribed to them in myth and scripture (the imaginations of humankind), I simply choose not to waste the time, effort and capital (human or monetary) on religious nonsense.

Religious belief (unfounded belief) is antithetical to the scientific enterprise and method. Since science has proven an effective and efficient way of gaining useful knowledge, while religion seems to mainly generate ignorance, bigotry, tribalism and animosity, (and since I am a scientist) I chose to develop a science based secular worldview.

Religions (especially Chritianity, Mormonism and Islam) represents wholly bankrupt worldviews. This is especially the case given that superstition is no longer needed to explain the world. Through science, humankind can explain, understand, and to a large extent control (or at least live in harmony with) the real physical world. The supernatural, demon haunted world is no longer useful or of any benefit to humankind. It is no longer where we live.

If one simply believes in what they are told to believe in, without bothering to look for objective supporting evidence, then they are wasting their time, their money, and possibly their lives. Perhaps more importantly, they are impeding the progress of the children to whom they teach their religious nonsense.

Peace.

[_Mad Viking]

Atheist = lack of belief in god(s)
Agnostic = lack of knowledge of the existence of god(s)

The difference is whether we're talking about knowledge and belief. That is why you'll find people who describe themselves as both. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether there is a god or not and I don't believe there is.

[_DrW]

Atheist = lack of belief in god(s)
Agnostic = lack of knowledge of the existence of god(s)

The difference is whether we're talking about knowledge and belief. That is why you'll find people who describe themselves as both. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether there is a god or not and I don't believe there is.

Mad Viking,

If I understand correctly, according to your model based on the meaning and derivation of words atheist and agnostic, it would seem that if there can be agnostic atheists (as you point out), then theists can (I would say must) also be agnostic.

My guess is that few theists would claim the title, because it has come to represent one who is largely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not.

What do you say? Because they have no real knowledge, are faithful theists who believe in an unseen God actually agnostics as well?

And if they are, who has the courage to tell them so?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey all,

Thanks for taking the time to reply (I really do appreciate it) :)

Rather than responding to some of the posts so far, I would like to both digest them a little longer and wait to see if there will be additional perspectives/thoughts.

Thanks again.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Dantana]

Hi Ceeboo,

Picking up the idea of ven diagrams, and entirely consistent with the above responses, I would start by suggesting two mutually exclusive circles or sets. One is the set of those who actively believe in a supernatural God or gods. The second set is comprised of those who do not believe, including those who not believe to the extent that they feel that worship of some supreme being is necessary or advisable.

Included in the second set (atheists and agnostics) are those who are reasonably certain that there are no supernatural beings who interact in or control the affairs of humankind, as well as those who simply do not care about the issue all that much.

At different times in one's life, one can be a bona fide member of either the theist set or the atheist and agnostics set. Deists, by this classification, would fit best in the second set.

As for myself, I prefer the term "extremely low probability agnostic" to atheist. I certainly cannot prove that the Christian God, or even the Mormon Elohim for that matter, do not exist. I also cannot prove that Zeus, Neptune, Thor, Horus, and hundreds of other deities do not (or did not) exist.

However, based on the available data, I can estimate the probability that any of them exist, and it is exceedingly low. In fact, the more data one considers the lower the probability becomes. These estimates seldom come out with a probability higher than something like of 1 in 10 exp 18 or so.

Given the exceedingly low probability that supernatural beings exist as described in Christianity or Islam, and given the characteristics ascribed to them in myth and scripture (the imaginations of humankind), I simply choose not to waste the time, effort and capital (human or monetary) on religious nonsense.

Religious belief (unfounded belief) is antithetical to the scientific enterprise and method. Since science has proven an effective and efficient way of gaining useful knowledge, while religion seems to mainly generate ignorance, bigotry, tribalism and animosity, (and since I am a scientist) I chose to develop a science based secular worldview.

Religions (especially Chritianity, Mormonism and Islam) represents wholly bankrupt worldviews. This is especially the case given that superstition is no longer needed to explain the world. Through science, humankind can explain, understand, and to a large extent control (or at least live in harmony with) the real physical world. The supernatural, demon haunted world is no longer useful or of any benefit to humankind. It is no longer where we live.

If one simply believes in what they are told to believe in, without bothering to look for objective supporting evidence, then they are wasting their time, their money, and possibly their lives. Perhaps more importantly, they are impeding the progress of the children to whom they teach their religious nonsense.

Peace.

Nicely done Mr. DrW. You remind me of a friend I have/had on another MSG board.

I wonder what classification a person would be assigned who didn't believe in Deity yet still did subscribe to some form of universal consciousness?