• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Finally something we can all agree on! @lewisnotmiller is ignorant.

I'm kinda loosely responding to some weird false equivalency stuff I've seen floating around here in the last month or two. Its always happened, but seems like flavour of the month in some ways.

So...

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began.
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence I'm an atheist

There. Simple, right? For any who aren't simply nodding along with my brilliantly succinct argument, I'll break down a few of it's points. Keep in mind that it's self-evidently true though. I am ignorant.
I'm also trying to deal with a serious topic in a light-hearted-ish manner, so we'll see how that plays. But anything to break the current cycle of miscommunication I seem to be seeing between 'different' groups.

FAQS

You're not an atheist, you're agnostic! You just admitted you haven't got a friggin' clue!!!

Me not having a clue is (frankly) self-evident. I have at times briefly wrestled with this question. But ultimately I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't prove there is no God, and frankly have no interest in doing so. I find God unlikely, but you can claim that's a position of faith if you like. That's fine with me, although I'd make the point then that not all 'faiths' are equal.

But what I find useless (at best) are any claims to know God, or to understand God, or to be able to predict the 'right' actions to take to please said God. I don't believe anyone holds this knowledge. I don't believe anyone knows how we were created. Therefore, atheist. God's existence, frankly, is almost un-involved in this decision. Please consider why I say that before rejecting what obviously looks like a nonsense at first glance. I have a strange sense of humour, but do have some measure of intelligence.

If you're ignorant, you're saying theism and atheism are equally likely.

First off, that's NOT a question, it's a statement. Please try and do better next time. Secondly, no, I'm not. When given a list of possible responses to a question, these should not falsely be considered equally likely. And when one of those answers is as flat out non-committal as atheism, you're kinda stacking the odds. I like stacked odds, so I'm placing my bet there.

Woah, there. Back it up. Since when is atheism non-committal?

Since...well...forever. The meaning has changed, but ultimately it only states what you don't believe. Originally, it was non-belief in certain paganisms, and now it commonly (but not universally) relates to non-belief in anthropomorphic Gods, although many atheists go further than this, obviously (including me, case you're wondering).

I blame the anti-theists here (kinda), but let's just put it on the table;
1) Atheism is a lack of theism, not a positive claim of ANYTHING
2) All atheists make positive claims of some sort. Even non-committal buggers like me. But that is atheists making claims. Atheism is NOT a claim.

I see weird conflations between atheism and science, atheism and rationalism, atheism and materialism, atheism and anti-religion...
These are, at best, over-generalizations.

Go back to that crap you wrote about atheism and stack odds. That made no sense at all.

Yeah, I just re-read it, and I haven't quite got my message down effectively. Let's look at it a slightly different way.
I am yet to meet a theist who doesn't make claims above and beyond mere theism. I mean, deists would be the closest, and I have almost no interest or inclination in debating them.
What I generally have issue with is not theism, but instead the various forms it takes. These forms make claims about how we should live. About what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. About how we were created. About who and what and why we should worship.

So, you are an anti-theist after all!!

Nope. See, religion is a culture transmitter, in my opinion. Culture isn't 'good' or 'bad'. Nobody is 'anti-culture'. But you can certainly be anti-certain cultures or aspects of culture, and that's kinda where I sit with religion.
Hopefully, for any who have persevered to this point despite thinking my characterization of religion was unfair, this is somewhat redeeming for me. I don't see religion as 'good' or 'bad'. I see it as a culture-carrier, and, just like culture, there are vast differences, and all sortsa different stuff I see as 'good' or 'bad'.

I would defend the right of Latvian Folk Dances to keep on truckin' despite having no interest in Latvian Folk Dancing.
But if they are baiting polar bears as part of the act, I'm probably changing my mind.

(Ultimately I'm a secularist.)

Meh. More to come as my brain vomits it up, I guess, but I'll leave it there. Feel free to shred my points as you see fit, but grumpiness is banned. I wanna see creative destruction of my ignorance here, people!!
 

Popcorn

What is it?
Faith is like a voltage, it can be shocking at times. Faith is like a magnet, that attracts or repels others according to their polarity. Maybe that is the issue, maybe not. Discussing faith ought to be a challenge, think outside the box a little. If you're up against a group of people who are convinced everything you believe in is a bunch of nonsense and fairytale, and if all they're willing to discuss is how you're obliged to prove it to them, then it's just not worth the effort. A good conversation to have would be about the emotional and intellectual investment, and how much effort it takes to sign into a website and type out a good paragraph or two, who is the audience, and is it something that others really should be allowed to know.

For example, there's another thread about Moses, and I can see how there are some good vibes and some bad vibes in there, and I have to ask just how much information is too much information because it doesn't hurt my feelings if/when others are legitimately critical of my comments, but where mysticism isn't always best served in public there's just not a lot of detailed explanation possible to make, and that is frustrating when it's a very interesting topic.

Well educated people seem to want to over-think, and there's some idea that religion is religion as if one could just buy it off the rack at a shopping mall like a new age self-help book, but that's probably an American consumerism thing. I assume, anyways. And the academics, good grief, just because a student pays a high price for tuition doesn't mean that the professors have any real authority outside the classroom. So it's always a good idea to post on forums the stuff that will get the student flunked if they dare plagiarize.

So, yeah, ignorance... bliss? Boats float. Had there never been any naughty priesthoods out to hoodwink fools with snake oil and otherwise artificially flavored false gods, there would be no atheists. Does that seem logical? I don't even know what the hell is a Latvian Folk Dance, I don't mind ignoring it. Ultimately it's about politics. How many Christians fear God enough to petition the government, such as marriage laws or abortion laws? Somehow secularism became an ideology unto itself in America and elsewhere, what I'd call the Babylon effect, a bunch of people trying to climb up to the next level on the proverbial tower to claim they can see further over the curvature of the earth and therefore claim a status as a higher authority.

Enjoy the munchies.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Faith is like a voltage, it can be shocking at times. Faith is like a magnet, that attracts or repels others according to their polarity. Maybe that is the issue, maybe not. Discussing faith ought to be a challenge, think outside the box a little. If you're up against a group of people who are convinced everything you believe in is a bunch of nonsense and fairytale, and if all they're willing to discuss is how you're obliged to prove it to them, then it's just not worth the effort. A good conversation to have would be about the emotional and intellectual investment, and how much effort it takes to sign into a website and type out a good paragraph or two, who is the audience, and is it something that others really should be allowed to know.

For example, there's another thread about Moses, and I can see how there are some good vibes and some bad vibes in there, and I have to ask just how much information is too much information because it doesn't hurt my feelings if/when others are legitimately critical of my comments, but where mysticism isn't always best served in public there's just not a lot of detailed explanation possible to make, and that is frustrating when it's a very interesting topic.

Well educated people seem to want to over-think, and there's some idea that religion is religion as if one could just buy it off the rack at a shopping mall like a new age self-help book, but that's probably an American consumerism thing. I assume, anyways. And the academics, good grief, just because a student pays a high price for tuition doesn't mean that the professors have any real authority outside the classroom. So it's always a good idea to post on forums the stuff that will get the student flunked if they dare plagiarize.

So, yeah, ignorance... bliss? Boats float. Had there never been any naughty priesthoods out to hoodwink fools with snake oil and otherwise artificially flavored false gods, there would be no atheists. Does that seem logical? I don't even know what the hell is a Latvian Folk Dance, I don't mind ignoring it. Ultimately it's about politics. How many Christians fear God enough to petition the government, such as marriage laws or abortion laws? Somehow secularism became an ideology unto itself in America and elsewhere, what I'd call the Babylon effect, a bunch of people trying to climb up to the next level on the proverbial tower to claim they can see further over the curvature of the earth and therefore claim a status as a higher authority.

Enjoy the munchies.

Thought I would toss out there, I a thought or two about those snake oil salesmen. Sure I have run into one or two in my lifetime, but I am not bitter, disheartened, or resentful of any religion. Still not a believer, though.

Climbing the tower? Maybe...seems to be the story of life. But, adding another story to the tower hardly means we are invested in this rat race to the top.

Religious consumerism? An interesting idea to kick around on a rainy day, but I believe the op was suggesting just the opposite. However he is not from u.s. so maybe that fits.

Anyway, despite some disagreement, I thoroughly enjoyed your post.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Finally something we can all agree on! @lewisnotmiller is ignorant.

I'm kinda loosely responding to some weird false equivalency stuff I've seen floating around here in the last month or two. Its always happened, but seems like flavour of the month in some ways.

So...

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began.
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence I'm an atheist

There. Simple, right? For any who aren't simply nodding along with my brilliantly succinct argument, I'll break down a few of it's points. Keep in mind that it's self-evidently true though. I am ignorant.
I'm also trying to deal with a serious topic in a light-hearted-ish manner, so we'll see how that plays. But anything to break the current cycle of miscommunication I seem to be seeing between 'different' groups.

FAQS

You're not an atheist, you're agnostic! You just admitted you haven't got a friggin' clue!!!

Me not having a clue is (frankly) self-evident. I have at times briefly wrestled with this question. But ultimately I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't prove there is no God, and frankly have no interest in doing so. I find God unlikely, but you can claim that's a position of faith if you like. That's fine with me, although I'd make the point then that not all 'faiths' are equal.

But what I find useless (at best) are any claims to know God, or to understand God, or to be able to predict the 'right' actions to take to please said God. I don't believe anyone holds this knowledge. I don't believe anyone knows how we were created. Therefore, atheist. God's existence, frankly, is almost un-involved in this decision. Please consider why I say that before rejecting what obviously looks like a nonsense at first glance. I have a strange sense of humour, but do have some measure of intelligence.

If you're ignorant, you're saying theism and atheism are equally likely.

First off, that's NOT a question, it's a statement. Please try and do better next time. Secondly, no, I'm not. When given a list of possible responses to a question, these should not falsely be considered equally likely. And when one of those answers is as flat out non-committal as atheism, you're kinda stacking the odds. I like stacked odds, so I'm placing my bet there.

Woah, there. Back it up. Since when is atheism non-committal?

Since...well...forever. The meaning has changed, but ultimately it only states what you don't believe. Originally, it was non-belief in certain paganisms, and now it commonly (but not universally) relates to non-belief in anthropomorphic Gods, although many atheists go further than this, obviously (including me, case you're wondering).

I blame the anti-theists here (kinda), but let's just put it on the table;
1) Atheism is a lack of theism, not a positive claim of ANYTHING
2) All atheists make positive claims of some sort. Even non-committal buggers like me. But that is atheists making claims. Atheism is NOT a claim.

I see weird conflations between atheism and science, atheism and rationalism, atheism and materialism, atheism and anti-religion...
These are, at best, over-generalizations.

Go back to that crap you wrote about atheism and stack odds. That made no sense at all.

Yeah, I just re-read it, and I haven't quite got my message down effectively. Let's look at it a slightly different way.
I am yet to meet a theist who doesn't make claims above and beyond mere theism. I mean, deists would be the closest, and I have almost no interest or inclination in debating them.
What I generally have issue with is not theism, but instead the various forms it takes. These forms make claims about how we should live. About what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. About how we were created. About who and what and why we should worship.

So, you are an anti-theist after all!!

Nope. See, religion is a culture transmitter, in my opinion. Culture isn't 'good' or 'bad'. Nobody is 'anti-culture'. But you can certainly be anti-certain cultures or aspects of culture, and that's kinda where I sit with religion.
Hopefully, for any who have persevered to this point despite thinking my characterization of religion was unfair, this is somewhat redeeming for me. I don't see religion as 'good' or 'bad'. I see it as a culture-carrier, and, just like culture, there are vast differences, and all sortsa different stuff I see as 'good' or 'bad'.

I would defend the right of Latvian Folk Dances to keep on truckin' despite having no interest in Latvian Folk Dancing.
But if they are baiting polar bears as part of the act, I'm probably changing my mind.

(Ultimately I'm a secularist.)

Meh. More to come as my brain vomits it up, I guess, but I'll leave it there. Feel free to shred my points as you see fit, but grumpiness is banned. I wanna see creative destruction of my ignorance here, people!!
I will admit I have some issues with this whole non committal thing. Sure we can play semantics, but at the end of the day when we tuck ourselves into our little hidey holes, and rest far away from from those whom might debate, is there really a middle ground? I do not believe my lost keys are in the room is really saying that I believe my lost keys are outside the room. I suppose it is technically possible to be in a non committal state, but can anyone sit in such a state beside the "implicit atheist?"

I am certainly not an anti theist, but I am a realist. I am making a positive claim in my atheism. Perhaps, this was your point with your comments that atheists make positive claims but atheism does not...I am still marinating on that one. But, as you said, "not all beliefs" are equal.

Just because one sees other possibilities does not mean one doesn't fall on one side of the fence or the other. And, just because one vacillates between beliefs doesn't mean that at any given moment in time they do not fall on one side of the fence or the other.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I will admit I have some issues with this whole non committal thing. Sure we can play semantics, but at the end of the day when we tuck ourselves into our little hidey holes, and rest far away from from those whom might debate, is there really a middle ground? I do not believe my lost keys are in the room is really saying that I believe my lost keys are outside the room. I suppose it is technically possible to be in a non committal state, but can anyone sit in such a state beside the "implicit atheist?"

Hurrah for someone responding with some detail and directly to my points. I'm still rereading (and not discounting) @Popcorn s post to try and make the connections. I'll get there, but possibly not in a flight lounge (where I am currently)

I get what you mean re: semantics. I'll try and clarify using your example.

Keys are missing. Not believing they are inside the room IS the same as believing theyre outside. But outside is a very non-specific claim, and that is the sense in which I see atheism as being non-commital.

Many (but not all) atheists would go further, if I can stretch the analogy, and say that scientific method is our best chance of finding the keys.

And some would go further still and suggest science is already telling us we left them down the back of the proverbial couch.

But atheism is simply that we don't think they're in the room.
I am certainly not an anti theist, but I am a realist. I am making a positive claim in my atheism. Perhaps, this was your point with your comments that atheists make positive claims but atheism does not...I am still marinating on that one. But, as you said, "not all beliefs" are equal.

I'll leave you some space on this for now, but be interested in your thoughts when you are done marinating. But basically you seem to understand my point regardless of whether you agree.

Just because one sees other possibilities does not mean one doesn't fall on one side of the fence or the other. And, just because one vacillates between beliefs doesn't mean that at any given moment in time they do not fall on one side of the fence or the other.

Totally agree with this. I'm an atheist for this very reason, and despite years of testing a wide variety of life experiences against this, I've actually never varied from this view.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Finally something we can all agree on! @lewisnotmiller is ignorant.

I'm kinda loosely responding to some weird false equivalency stuff I've seen floating around here in the last month or two. Its always happened, but seems like flavour of the month in some ways.

So...

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began.
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence I'm an atheist

There. Simple, right? For any who aren't simply nodding along with my brilliantly succinct argument, I'll break down a few of it's points. Keep in mind that it's self-evidently true though. I am ignorant.
I'm also trying to deal with a serious topic in a light-hearted-ish manner, so we'll see how that plays. But anything to break the current cycle of miscommunication I seem to be seeing between 'different' groups.

FAQS

You're not an atheist, you're agnostic! You just admitted you haven't got a friggin' clue!!!

Me not having a clue is (frankly) self-evident. I have at times briefly wrestled with this question. But ultimately I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't prove there is no God, and frankly have no interest in doing so. I find God unlikely, but you can claim that's a position of faith if you like. That's fine with me, although I'd make the point then that not all 'faiths' are equal.

But what I find useless (at best) are any claims to know God, or to understand God, or to be able to predict the 'right' actions to take to please said God. I don't believe anyone holds this knowledge. I don't believe anyone knows how we were created. Therefore, atheist. God's existence, frankly, is almost un-involved in this decision. Please consider why I say that before rejecting what obviously looks like a nonsense at first glance. I have a strange sense of humour, but do have some measure of intelligence.

If you're ignorant, you're saying theism and atheism are equally likely.

First off, that's NOT a question, it's a statement. Please try and do better next time. Secondly, no, I'm not. When given a list of possible responses to a question, these should not falsely be considered equally likely. And when one of those answers is as flat out non-committal as atheism, you're kinda stacking the odds. I like stacked odds, so I'm placing my bet there.

Woah, there. Back it up. Since when is atheism non-committal?

Since...well...forever. The meaning has changed, but ultimately it only states what you don't believe. Originally, it was non-belief in certain paganisms, and now it commonly (but not universally) relates to non-belief in anthropomorphic Gods, although many atheists go further than this, obviously (including me, case you're wondering).

I blame the anti-theists here (kinda), but let's just put it on the table;
1) Atheism is a lack of theism, not a positive claim of ANYTHING
2) All atheists make positive claims of some sort. Even non-committal buggers like me. But that is atheists making claims. Atheism is NOT a claim.

I see weird conflations between atheism and science, atheism and rationalism, atheism and materialism, atheism and anti-religion...
These are, at best, over-generalizations.

Go back to that crap you wrote about atheism and stack odds. That made no sense at all.

Yeah, I just re-read it, and I haven't quite got my message down effectively. Let's look at it a slightly different way.
I am yet to meet a theist who doesn't make claims above and beyond mere theism. I mean, deists would be the closest, and I have almost no interest or inclination in debating them.
What I generally have issue with is not theism, but instead the various forms it takes. These forms make claims about how we should live. About what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. About how we were created. About who and what and why we should worship.

So, you are an anti-theist after all!!

Nope. See, religion is a culture transmitter, in my opinion. Culture isn't 'good' or 'bad'. Nobody is 'anti-culture'. But you can certainly be anti-certain cultures or aspects of culture, and that's kinda where I sit with religion.
Hopefully, for any who have persevered to this point despite thinking my characterization of religion was unfair, this is somewhat redeeming for me. I don't see religion as 'good' or 'bad'. I see it as a culture-carrier, and, just like culture, there are vast differences, and all sortsa different stuff I see as 'good' or 'bad'.

I would defend the right of Latvian Folk Dances to keep on truckin' despite having no interest in Latvian Folk Dancing.
But if they are baiting polar bears as part of the act, I'm probably changing my mind.

(Ultimately I'm a secularist.)

Meh. More to come as my brain vomits it up, I guess, but I'll leave it there. Feel free to shred my points as you see fit, but grumpiness is banned. I wanna see creative destruction of my ignorance here, people!!
The OP is so complete & clear that you give me nothing much to comment on...ya table wipe'n, dingo pet'n, doily folder!
All I can add is that tis better to embrace than fear ignorance.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
To me, there's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. The former implies that one has not studied a subject sufficiently as to appear competent to speak to it, while the latter indicates one was offered the opportunity to learn yet opted out. There are some folks I place in the latter category, typically creationists (looky looky, she revealed a bias) because I have yet to speak to one about evolution who has bothered to learn much about it, and that's often obvious from the argument they present. I'm no evolutionary biologist myself and thus, I shouldn't be considered competent to teach it, so I generally just avoid that conversation. The vast majority of people, however, I place in the former category. Being religious doesn't mean one is stupid any more than being an atheist means one hasn't studied religion, yet those are two common assumptions made when a theist and an atheist begin a conversation. Maybe it would benefit us in terms of actually learning about each other if we were to refrain as much as humanly possible from making assumptions and focus rather on asking questions and bothering to listen to the answers we are given instead of simply following the script in our heads.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
There are two levels of ignorance.
Those who are not informed are ignorant.
Those who chose to ignore are profoundly ignorant.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a touch confused. What does (a)theism have to do with what one feels about the origin of life? They are completely unrelated to me:

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began (nor do I really give a damn)
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence... well... yeah. That's it, really.

My theism comes from this:

1) Let us define "gods" as that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship
2) Let us understand "worship" to be showing respect and gratitude for something; holding something in high regard, in a position of honor, or as sacred
3) There are many things in this world that I find worthy of worth-ship, that I consider valued and sacred
4) Therefore, these things are my gods, and my gods are an expression of my values
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Atheists just don't have a God.

Theists have a God but cant prove it.
Anyone who lacks a belief in the existence of God = Atheist
Anyone who holds a belief in the existence of God = Theist

"Belief" is a better word choice than "have" in this context, don't you think?
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
Anyone who lacks a belief in the existence of God = Atheist
Anyone who holds a belief in the existence of God = Theist

"Belief" is a better word choice than "have" in this context, don't you think?

Amoral ... anyone who lacks a belief in morals...Gotcha
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Amoral ... anyone who lacks a belief in morals...Gotcha
Not sure where you got "belief" from, as being moral has nothing to do with belief, whereas "theism" is based solely on belief.

"Amoral" means "without morals", just as "atheism" is being without "theism" or a belief in the existence of God.

Were you being serious with your erroneous definition?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
There are two levels of ignorance.
Those who are not informed are ignorant.
Those who chose to ignore are profoundly ignorant.
Ignorance is simply the "lack of knowledge or information". How would those that "choose to ignore" be classified accurately as "ignorant".
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
"A" prefix means without. SOOO an A-theist is without a God.

Chart of English Language Roots - PrefixSuffix.com
You are mistaken. You are using an incorrect definition of the term "theism". The "A" prefix means without, I agree. "Theism" is a BELIEF in the existence of God. Thus "atheism" is being without a belief in the existence of God.

Theism does not mean "having God". That is where your confusion is coming from. It merely refers to a belief in the existence of God.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
You are mistaken. You are using an incorrect definition of the term "theism". The "A" prefix means without, I agree. "Theism" is a BELIEF in the existence of God. Thus "atheism" is being without a belief in the existence of God.

Theism does not mean "having God". That is where your confusion is coming from. It merely refers to a belief in the existence of God.

Nope....Now on ignore...I will NOT argue and get BANNED....BYE BYE
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Nope....Now on ignore...I will NOT argue and get BANNED....BYE BYE
Hmmm ... OK. I'll take that as a win. So, I guess you have a problem with the definition of the term "theism". I would suggest in the future trying to be a bit more mature. This is a debate site, so I would expect you to at least be able to provide an argument of some kind instead of storming off like an adolescent. Poor form, buddy.

Ignorance is bliss I guess ... ironically enough.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I haven't got much of a clue how life began.
That is no reason to be an atheist. For answer of the question as to how life began one should see what is latest from science. For answers to the questions who created life and for what purpose, that is beyond science to inform anything. This is the domain of religions where truthful religions helps only.
Atheism does not help to solve any of the above so there is no case of Atheism.
Regards
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I'm a touch confused. What does (a)theism have to do with what one feels about the origin of life? They are completely unrelated to me:

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began (nor do I really give a damn)
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence... well... yeah. That's it, really.

My theism comes from this:

1) Let us define "gods" as that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship
2) Let us understand "worship" to be showing respect and gratitude for something; holding something in high regard, in a position of honor, or as sacred
3) There are many things in this world that I find worthy of worth-ship, that I consider valued and sacred
4) Therefore, these things are my gods, and my gods are an expression of my values

You skipped over a prior consideration....IS there a God.....

What cause have you....to say there is?
 
Last edited:
Top