An Indictment Of Atheists

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
She seems to have bought into the same mythology so many others have. That atheists have a "bible", a code we live by. That we are a cohesive group with a grand agenda, and are conspiring to rule the world with a "rod of iron". When in reality, the only thing that connects us is what we lack.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, if you go back and read it, you'll see where they make this claim:

Atheism is a male institution predicated on the idea that disbelieving in a god while simultaneously benefiting from the woman-oppressing power structures created by a belief in god makes one superior not only to women, but also to god-believers in general.

The author then goes on to state this is why he (or she) feels they are a "anti-theist" versus "atheist." I would go even further in simply saying if you are a non-believer, you don't need any label at all - "anti-theist," "atheist," or what have you. All of those labels originate from "believers."

This is the sort of claim that is somewhat possible on a venue such as the Internet, but the moment you leave the computer you find nothing of the sort, like most non-issues.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

No, I saw that, but the point is that feminist atheists seem to think they are more authentic in their disbelief than male ones.

Basically, my takeaway is that male atheists pay lip service to being disbelievers because they don't also disavow the societal structure. The feminist here is also blaming the entire societal structure on theism, so she then neatly claims that if the male atheist only goes so far as to disavow belief, but does not then disavow all of the social order, presumably for some kind of radical matriarchy, those men are simply anti-theist, ie they only hate god but are perfectly happy to continue to benefit from all the feminist in question perceives as being the fault of theist belief which includes all of society. This makes them only anti-theist.

And if they aren't willing to overturn all of society to suit the feminist, they are obviously misogynist.

There is a problem in this logic. It presumes that all of society evolved as a direct result of religious belief and not because of very real survival needs or any other pressures that had nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. This is where the feminist in question rides right off the rails.

Once again I'm seeing people trying to make atheism into some kind of "thing" when it's actually the absence of anything.

Religious people can't wrap their heads around how someone can just have no belief at all -- none. They can't comprehend how someone can walk around through life never thinking of "God".

This is why you see these "atheism is a religion!" or whatever. No, it's not. It's not having any beliefs at all, and just carrying on with your life without devoting any mental energy on faith in God. It's not there, it doesn't exist.

Atheists don't pray to nothing, atheists don't venerate people like Dawkins with shrines in their homes -- complete with paintings, candles and incense.

This to me reads like a thinly veiled religious hit-piece -- someone who "claims" to be atheist but is most likely a religious person in disguise.

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Oh she's definitely an anti-theist/feminist/misandrist. Click on the name of her blog at the top to go to her home page. There's plenty to read. Religious she isn't. ETA: Although I suspect at one time, she probably was.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: ketsuko
Atheists didn't used to be organized until the Internet came along. Then they started to form their own organizations to prove they can be just "holy" as the "holy ones."

????????
Erm, do you understand what atheism even is?

Oh we do, we just do not see any measurable difference in outlook based on objective observation, and upon how they act.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
Atheists didn't used to be organized until the Internet came along. Then they started to form their own organizations to prove they can be just "holy" as the "holy ones."

Why would individuals who don't believe in gods try to appear to be "holy" again?

Or are you just sniping with no evidence as usual?

Why are you asking this question ??

The statement is clear, the atheists like it or not, to those of us who are neither religious OR atheist, see that you are now much the same in every way, as the religious.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
Atheists didn't used to be organized until the Internet came along. Then they started to form their own organizations to prove they can be just "holy" as the "holy ones."

Why would individuals who don't believe in gods try to appear to be "holy" again?

Or are you just sniping with no evidence as usual?

Why are you asking this question ??

The statement is clear, the atheists like it or not, to those of us who are neither religious OR atheist, see that you are now much the same in every way, as the religious.

Well, number one, I was responding directly to another poster's comment, on the content of their post.

Number two, the statement is patently absurd. I don't think many atheists (or theists, or whatnot) have much of an emotional reaction at all when comments are so clearly meaningless and irrational.

I was merely taking exception to the comment mainly from a logical standpoint.

Is your next statement about me, personally, or about atheists in general?

Either way, your point is as absurd as the comment you're defending.

Religions have dogma, rituals, credos regarding a god, gods and goddesses, some supernatural power, etc.

The word atheism means "no belief in gods."

This continual assertion that no belief is actually belief is ... obnoxiously mistaken.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Religious people can't wrap their heads around how someone can just have no belief at all -- none. They can't comprehend how someone can walk around through life never thinking of "God".

What is 'belief'?

The word is from the German 'To love' and has been changed to 'those ideas we hold on to'.

I 'believe' that no thoughtful person is without any beliefs. If you regard scientific process to be the primary source of wisdom, then one needs to believe in the results of that process. I mean, it's easy to believe in gravity when an apple falls off a tree and clunks you on the head, but I challenge anyone here to explain what gravitons are.

We believe in results, but fail to explain the deep science behind it.

Everyone believes in something, even if it isn't the 'Big Guy', Creator of the universes.

a reply to: masqua

Scientific understanding is based on observable, measurable, reproducible results.

Belief is not generally based on anything but tradition.

That's the most obvious difference.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But what is it that leads scientists to question and formulate hypothesis to test in the first place?

They have to first believe that this, that or the other might or might not be the case.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
This is the sort of claim that is somewhat possible on a venue such as the Internet, but the moment you leave the computer you find nothing of the sort, like most non-issues.

That is because people are more honest and feel more free to say things on line they only wish they could say to your face.

My husband is an atheist and a good and moral man, but he thinks he rules and I let him, most the time.

There are a lot of angry men out there that are tired of the way women act, I don't think it is just atheist.

They don't respect them.

Plus I have always noticed women are more spiritual, some can't even leave spirituality out of atheism,

Every church I have attended always had more women.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

But what is it that leads scientists to question and formulate hypothesis to test in the first place?

They have to first believe that this, that or the other might or might not be the case.

Perhaps if "to believe" were conflated to "to think that" or "to consider" ... but if used in its normal sense of "to accept without proof" the difference becomes fairly clear.

The generally accepted difference between knowledge and belief is the element of proof there in the former, missing in the latter.

I don't really believe anything, I just go along and accept things. The things I accept and choose to make part of my reality are constantly changing based on my observations.

For example: If it suddenly stopped being painful to burn myself, I'd accept that fire no longer caused pain.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
This is the sort of claim that is somewhat possible on a venue such as the Internet, but the moment you leave the computer you find nothing of the sort, like most non-issues.

That is because people are more honest and feel more free to say things on line they only wish they could say to your face.

My husband is an atheist and a good and moral man, but he thinks he rules and I let him, most the time.

There are a lot of angry men out there that are tired of the way women act, I don't think it is just atheist.

They don't respect them.

Reality is not what people say or what they think. Imagine someone who throughout his life was a good man, charitable, friendly, accommodating, a good husband, an all-around good chap, but after his death his journal reveals he was a closet racist, homophobe and sexual deviant. What do we consider to be the reality of who he was? What he thought and wrote? Or what he did?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The opposite of belief is doubt, not lack of belief. To lack belief would be something more like ignorance.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The opposite of belief is doubt, not lack of belief. To lack belief would be something more like ignorance.

So, practical example, to lack belief in unicorns is to be ignorant of the existence of unicorns?

Please note the question mark at the end.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Basically.