I am tired of a lable that says what I am not.

[Revoltingest]

Does it involve revolting or becoming revolting?

It could.
That's up to the individual.

 

[Yerda]

Why does atheism have to carry any intelectual weight?

I suppose not. But, you'd really hope it would, wouldn't you?

Listen, obviously Dawkins get his fair share of air time, here an elsewhere. And we discuss his ideas, and agree and disagree, and exchange and sometimes build up concepts among ourselves. And this is good, even if some theists hate him he has contributions to make and we can learn and build upon some of what he says. I got into guys like Russell through reading posts here. Someone once mentioned Shelley and I went off and found one of my favourite essays ever (The Necessity of Atheism). Sometimes works by non-athiests are just as good. Tom Paine, man. He said, "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." and then went on to write a fantastic "atheist" pamphlet. Arguments he makes in The Age of Reason are still used by atheists now.

There was meat there. Good chewing. And it involved a lot of ruminating. Perhaps that isn't important to you. To me, however, atheism deviod of thought culminating in the conclusion that the evidence available does not warrant belief in the proposition is not atheism. It's just ignorance, or contrariness, or stupidity...or something.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I suppose not. But, you'd really hope it would, wouldn't you?

Not really, I don't expect a title that describes what someone is not to hold much relevance other than to inform others of their religious position. I don't know why you expect atheism to be anything more than 'not theism'.

Listen, obviously Dawkins get his fair share of air time, here an elsewhere. And we discuss his ideas, and agree and disagree, and exchange and sometimes build up concepts among ourselves. And this is good, even if some theists hate him he has contributions to make and we can learn and build upon some of what he says. I got into guys like Russell through reading posts here. Someone once mentioned Shelley and I went off and found one of my favourite essays ever (The Necessity of Atheism). Sometimes works by non-athiests are just as good. Tom Paine, man. He said, "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." and then went on to write a fantastic "atheist" pamphlet. Arguments he makes in The Age of Reason are still used by atheists now.

There was meat there. Good chewing. And it involved a lot of ruminating.

Indeed, good information is still good regardless of who is saying it. Something a lot of people are unaware of but helps make this point. Adolf Hitler heavily supported one of the first anti-smoking campaigns. I reject concepts for their content not their author.

Perhaps that isn't important to you. To me, however, atheism devoid of thought culminating in the conclusion that the evidence available does not warrant belief in the proposition is not atheism. It's just ignorance, or contrariness, or stupidity...or something.

What is it then? Why is it not atheism? If the evidence available does not warrant belief in a proposition, wouldn't it be reasonable to reject the proposition? I personally feel this way about the God hypothesis.

 

[HonestJoe]

I suppose not. But, you'd really hope it would, wouldn't you?

I think you missed my point. I'm fully in favour of intellectual weight but almost by definition, a raw, simple concept can't carry it. These writings you talk about aren't just atheist. They go much wider and deeper than simply saying "I don't believe in gods". That's what makes them intellectual (at least part of it).

The problem is that when those complex discussions are simply labelled as "atheism", it can be (and often is) used to dismiss them out of hand and also used to attack (or at least unfairly challenge) other people who happen to not believe in gods but from an entirely different perspective and reasoning to these more popularist writing.

An atheist is presented as someone who agrees with everything Dawkins (for example) writes. An HonestJoe is someone who doesn't believe in gods but thinks a lot of what Dawkins writes is commercial trash.

I basically want to carry my own intellectual weight (it's fine as long as you balance the load and bend at the knees when lifting ).

 

[Yerda]

Oy veh!

 

[Perversity]

I can't even comprehend the concept of 'god' at this age. At age eight, 'god' was Santa Claus and at age ten 'god' became something completely foreign to me. But I never called myself an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic, however. I like this more creative version of theism.

 

[Ungrateful]

....the only reason it is talked about is because of theism.

Bingo

I don't believe the world is supported on four elephants standing on a giant turtle swimming through space either. If lots of people did, there would have to be a word for that too... umm non-turtlism?

 

[KittensAngel]

What would life be without labels? Or Judgments? Or opinions? In truth everyone is born an atheist. It's not a label, it's a reality. One has to choose to later set aside the rational intellect and accept what is proffered without proof, without evidence, and on faith alone. That something defined as God, exists. It's invisible. It's never proven itself to be. It's alluded to, it's subjectively identified as creator of all that exists because all that is labeled as existing is believed to have originated from it. It's invisible, all powerful, all knowing, everywhere present. And faith holds it to be true. While hope worships what is only imagined real and something to be found out once we're dead. Faith precludes fact. So for a fact the only thing that exists related to anything called God, is faith it's real. Atheist is simply the rational conscious discrimination that allows the human intellect to realize invisible things held in faith are not proof of anything but human imagination. Atheism is simply being what one was born to be. Without God. If anything called God did exist and it was all it's said to be, no thing that gives it credit would be taken on faith. If God did exist faiths, which are real, wouldn't have to promote what has never proven itself to exist by creating unquestionable straight forward rational evidence that it does.

 

[Boris56]

The natural position to take on anything is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The natural position to take on anything is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief.

Wrong. The rational position to take on anything is Uncertainty until something has been strongly evidenced. The existence of "God" is not strongly evidenced. Therefore the rational position to take is to conclude that "God's" existence is unlikely. Nothing more and nothing less.


As far as the original topic is concerned: Become a Possibilian. A Possibilian recognizes that the available evidence does not strongly evidence the existence of a deity of any kind but is willing to actively explore the probability space in making determinations about what is likely and what is beneficial to humanity. This is I think a much more positive and descriptive label than "Atheist," and if I were to give myself merely one label at this point in time I would be happy to call myself a Possibilian.

MTF

 

[Yerda]

The natural position to take on anything is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief.

Just in case anyone is lying awake, wondering about some obscure gibberish Jaiket posted...years ago..this is exactly what I was talking about.

It is true but only insofar as it is trivial. Look inside and it's empty.

 

[s2a]

I have never believed in any of the standard god of the Western World. I did not go around denying that any kind of god exists. I was labeled as Atheist (Lacking belief in gods) because I did not believe in the official God of the Church of Scotland. The term has always bothered me.

Would we ever call Stephen Hawking, a non-Marathon Runner? Would we call Jesus of Nazareth, a Non-Mongol.

Atheism says nothing about what I believe.

I have a belief system. Lately I have given names to scientific realities honouring them as others honour gods.

I prefer Naturalism with a Celtic Mythology imagery, because I do not believe in humanoid gods. I think that the virgin birth story of Jesus, his god-human hybrid status (minus a Y chromosome), and questionable death with magical resurrection...to be so inane as to be stupid in my opinion. Sorry but that is how I do feel.

As one who is almost obsessed with modern theoretical physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, I find the Celtic Gods to be poetically wonderful images of the causes, natural laws, and far superior to the Christian pantheon. It is simple.

The Sun is our father. He is Lugh (meaning light) and he fertilised our Mother Earth, Brigit to produce us.

We exist because of Earth compounds were acted upon by solar energy. We are the walking and talking chemical compounds that evolved into us only because Lugh the Sun impregnated Brigit our Mother Earth to produce the seeds that led to us.

Danu the Moon Goddess was the likely Mid-Wife. She stabilised Mother Earth's wobbly orbit with her balancing orbit like a gyroscope. She provided marine tides that have fostered some of the ocean life to move up onto land. Perhaps our first land ancestor came to land because of playing around in the tides.

Therefore, my Trinity is Lugh, Brigit, and Danu.

There is a super-Trinity. Obviously, Lugh had a father too. Lugh's father was the Singularity of the Big Bang whom I name Aed Álainn, the Celtic Father of the Gods.

Balor of the One Eye is the misbehaving god who kept quarks apart and prevented protons from attaching to each other with his weak atomic force. Everything remained energy in that short time universe. Balor's weak atomic force kept the energy particles from fusing into atoms.

Sila na nGig, the Matter Universe Mother was the Strong Atomic force. She overcame the weak repulsive force of protons with her strong atomic force and fused them into Hydrogen with an electron, and fused Hydrogen into Helium to make tremendous energy and form the first matter.

Therefore, our local Trinity was Lugh, Brigit, and Danu. The big big trinity was Aed Álainn, Balor, and Sila na nGig.

In every way religious people believe, I think that those forces are the closest entities to gods in the cosmos. Can I claim to be a Theist now and not get my passport to the US blocked?

Amhairghine

Welcome, with your 295,000+ frubals and coincidental banishment. Who knew?

Um, btw, it's "label".

You can always try again with a different username (um, "lable").

 

[Elusive Truth]

Sure.

You're now a theist.

Wait.....what.......your passport is blocked?

Sounds like an American... or wants to be?

In the United States one can be whatever they want to be as long as it is lawful and does not infringe on the rights of others.