Why I'm not an Atheist

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I dont know how to break this to you, but you are an agnostic and not an atheist

The idea of "I'l see it when i come there" is really odd to me.
People prepare better for a vacation to an unknow place.
If you feel that there is more to life than just existence and it may not end at death then how can you be so casual about it. Doesnt fit does it?

Thanks for talking about yourself, i do see that you must have had a lot of experiences before you came to this stand that you have now.
I see that i am making you think that you want to avoid thinking.

reply to post by logical7

Originally posted by logical7
I dont know how to break this to you, but you are an agnostic and not an atheist

I say what I am. Not you. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. Theism has to do with belief. I am an agnostic atheist, to be precise. Watch the video in this post to understand how agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheist and theist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The idea of "I'l see it when i come there" is really odd to me.

I understand. It was odd to me at first, too.

People prepare better for a vacation to an unknow place.

I disagree. What is an "unknown place"? How could you prepare for a vacation without knowing if the place even exists? What road map would you take? Which direction would you go? The analogy doesn't make sense. How could I possibly prepare for something I do not and can not know? There's no way I could cover all the bases. Not that I would try.

If you feel that there is more to life than just existence and it may not end at death then how can you be so casual about it. Doesnt fit does it?

It fits me perfectly. I have become VERY comfortable with it. I understand that it's uncomfortable for you, and would never ask you to accept my views.

I see that i am making you think that you want to avoid thinking.

What?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Announcing our 'labels" is all about sharing with others who we are (or aren't) and what we think (or don't).

Of course :-)

We are social creatures after all - and sometimes it pays to do some 'splainin' of ourselves

I am also a birdwatcher, Zeppelin fan and lover of pie - but that mostly just gets a chuckle or a nod

Tell people you don't think there's a god - and stand back! The hell you say?

For some (not all) of the faithful - those are fightin' words. For others it amounts to arrogance - or some kind of manifesto

ah, well...

:-)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't feel that labels correctly sum up the entirety of the beliefs (or lack of) on any given topic. And I don't have a "strong" support for them. But when they fit, I have no compunction about using them. For example, one of my labels is "Obama supporter" as I voted for him both times and generally support his positions on issues. However, that does not even come close to describing the entirety of my political opinions. AND I disagree with him on some positions.

Exactly my point! And the items you disagree and agree with will be different than other "Obama supporters." But in ascribing the label, it creates the tendency to focus on those who do not give themselves that specific label. I think we all understand that they do not describe any given standpoint in its entirety, but after long enough, the standpoints contained within a label are subject more to the label than individual thinking.

PEOPLE do that, not labels. To simply state that I'm a ______ does not create an "us vs them" mentality. It's a statement of fact. It's people's assumptions and judgments (as illustrated in the OP) that creates the divisive mentality.

The stance of an "agnostic atheist" is one that is generally derived from debate. It is a standpoint where one can make positive claims, label them as beliefs which dont actually exist, and then retreat into agnosticism for the defense.

And yes, people do that. I thought we were talking about human psychology, and the repercussions of labels. It would be a given that we were talking about human behavior. Though, I have had this discussion before and it went exactly this way. So, I will freely take my responsibility in the miscommunication.

Labels, like any tool, are used by the hands that hold it. So, we dont disagree there. Where we are disagreeing is on semantics and not the core of the issue I was attempting to point out. Its all good, Im done with it for now until I can figure out a better way to approach and communicate the position without running head-on into a wall of semantic play. After all, any word is just a label. We just label some labels.

Thanks for the conversation.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Serdgiam
I think we all understand that they do not describe any given standpoint in its entirety, but after long enough, the standpoints contained within a label are subject more to the label than individual thinking.

That's why a label is not all that important. It's a starting point. A small and nearly insignificant glance into who I am. And that's why it's important NOT to judge and make assumptions based on a label. Other people making assumptions and judgements about me because of a label I choose is THEIR failing, not mine. If they want more information, all they need do is ask (or with me, just hang around for a while - I'm bound to write a book). They will find out that I am an individual and their generalizations and judgments they made based on that label may have been wrong. I think that's wonderful! And it actually encourages individual thinking.

Because I'll bet you dollars to donuts (although I do love donuts) that the next time LesMisanthrope hears someone say their an atheist, he's not going to be so quick to judge. He will know that individuals exist within the label.

The stance of an "agnostic atheist" is one that is generally derived from debate. It is a standpoint where one can make positive claims, label them as beliefs which dont actually exist, and then retreat into agnosticism for the defense.

I have no idea what that means. Really. That is the most confusing paragraph I've read in a while. All "agnostic atheist" means is that I don't KNOW (agnostic) if there's a god and but don't BELIEVE (atheist) that there is. I am not falling back on anything or defending anything.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I disagree. What is an "unknown place"? How could you prepare for a vacation without knowing if the place even exists? What road map would you take? Which direction would you go? The analogy doesn't make sense. How could I possibly prepare for something I do not and can not know? There's no way I could cover all the bases. Not that I would try.

you answered it yourself, you already decided not to find out and ofcourse not to try and prepare.
I meant vacation to a new place but ok its not a perfect analogy.

"I see that i am making you think that
you want to avoid thinking." What?

you have chosen not to think about the topic we are discussing to prevent stress and yet discussing it here, thats a conflict.
Why would you even visit this section if you dont have a belief, you cant take any stand here unless you believe something.
Its like "i believe that i dont have a belief" the initial "i believe that" being silent.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Because I'll bet you dollars to donuts (although I do love donuts) that the next time LesMisanthrope hears someone say their an atheist, he's not going to be so quick to judge. He will know that individuals exist within the label.

Something tells me he was already well aware of that.. I could be wrong.

I have no idea what that means. Really. That is the most confusing paragraph I've read in a while. All "agnostic atheist" means is that I don't KNOW (agnostic) if there's a god and but don't BELIEVE (atheist) that there is. I am not falling back on anything or defending anything.

Lets see if I can explain it a bit better. "Agnostic atheism" is essentially one type of result from a combination of both internal and external debate. This position is generally arrived at after a decent amount of time is spent deducing the position which has the highest percentage of "winning," even in an internal debate. This position is then labelled the "most logical and rational," and it is even frequently inferred that it is the "most natural." The position itself is indicative of the preceding thought processes and limitations that have been placed, generally through words and labels, on the process of deduction. There are other results as well, obviously.

Much like in a scientific experiment, the results will be dependent on the testing method.

reply to post by logical7

Originally posted by logical7
you answered it yourself, you already decided not to find out and ofcourse not to try and prepare.

Honey, I'm 55 years old. I spent the first 30 years of my life deeply entrenched in religious dogma. I was "saved" - a born again Christian. I have probably forgotten more than you will ever know about religion. So, it is not that I have "decided not to find out". That's just an incorrect assumption.

you have chosen not to think about the topic we are discussing to prevent stress and yet discussing it here, thats a conflict.

The topic we are discussing is atheism. I assure you that I have thought long and hard about the subject.

Why would you even visit this section if you dont have a belief, you cant take any stand here unless you believe something.

I have already said that religion is a favorite subject of mine. You may not be able to understand that, but it is what it is. And I don't visit the religion forum. I have MyATS set up to show all new threads. This one popped up, talking about atheists, so I opened it and read it.

Its like "i believe that i dont have a belief" the initial "i believe that" being silent.

I don't know where you're getting this. I have TONS of beliefs. I have never claimed not to have beliefs. I just don't believe in a deity.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Honey, I'm 55 years old. I spent the first 30 years of my life deeply entrenched in religious dogma. I was "saved" - a born again Christian. I have probably forgotten more than you will ever know about religion. So, it is not that I have "decided not to find out". That's just an incorrect assumption.

ok i did assume, so the correct fact is "you gave up"
it also bugs me that how can you not care about "whats after death" after being a christian that long unless you have concluded that what christianity claims is completely untrue.
Btw, just to clear up, i am a muslim, maybe you already know.

I have already said that religion is a
favorite subject of mine. You may not
be able to understand that, but it is
what it is.

something common again its interesting, an atheist who's favorite subject is religion. I feel i could learn a lot from you.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
"Agnostic atheism" is essentially one type of result from a combination of both internal and external debate.

Well, yes. Aren't ALL positions and stances? Even "believer" is a result of internal and external debate. Positions on abortion, world peace, dog training, personal hygiene... they all come about from internal and external debate. If I understand your point...

This position is generally arrived at after a decent amount of time is spent deducing the position which has the highest percentage of "winning," even in an internal debate.

I don't see it as winning. I see it as the position that most closely describes how I feel and think, just as with ANY debate subject. I don't see others' positions as "losing" or wrong... They're just not mine.

This position is then labelled the "most logical and rational," and it is even frequently inferred that it is the "most natural."

I don't do that. It is the most logical, rational and natural position FOR ME, but I would never imply that others should agree. To do that would be to disrespect the very path that got me to where I am! Because each person has his own path (one of my beliefs) and is in the driver's seat of his life. It's none of my business what others believe. Although I do enjoy discussing it, if they are willing.

The position itself is indicative of the preceding thought processes and limitations that have been placed, generally through words and labels, on the process of deduction.

That's how ANY position in life is established, right? I mean, we have to operate within the limits of language to arrive at ANY position. That is not unique to being an atheist. Or an agnostic atheist.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, yes. Aren't ALL positions and stances? Even "believer" is a result of internal and external debate. Positions on abortion, world peace, dog training, personal hygiene... they all come about from internal and external debate. If I understand your point...

Yup, you seem to understand it, insofar as another can of course! Its also why I added: "There are other results as well, obviously."

I don't see it as winning. I see it as the position that most closely describes how I feel and think, just as with ANY debate subject. I don't see others' positions as "losing" or wrong... They're just not mine.

I don't do that. It is the most logical, rational and natural position FOR ME, but I would never imply that others should agree. To do that would be to disrespect the very path that got me to where I am! Because each person has his own path (one of my beliefs) and is in the driver's seat of his life. It's none of my business what others believe. Although I do enjoy discussing it, if they are willing.

Right, and the process I describe is one specific to the individual, or in the metaphor, the "testing method." For you, there is one viewpoint that wins out, one that is most natural for you. I never said anything about it applying to others. We both agree that it does not, other than in the meaning we derive individually.

That's how ANY position in life is established, right? I mean, we have to operate within the limits of language to arrive at ANY position. That is not unique to being an atheist. Or an agnostic atheist.

Correctamundo. But any given result will be indicative of the process that lead to it, and essentially the equation that contains it. An "agnostic atheist," is just one of the results. But, in my opinion, a very interesting one when taking actions into consideration alongside the beliefs.

edit: The point being that words are labels themselves, and are enough of a limit. When we start using them to group "like-minded" individuals, we inevitably create a division. It is an idealist notion, but I see no reason that people who are not "like-minded" are not capable of carrying out just as fruitful and productive discussion as "like-minded" individuals. Because, in my perspective, "like-minded" is a complete misnomer. There will still be distinct differences. Even if we happen to agree on one item, it just means that certain variables come into play on that specific process to give that specific result. I actually think that the more differently someone thinks from me, the more there is to learn. But, culturally, the idea is more to "win" than it is to learn. Which, in the same vein as you said, is a situation where no one really wins. Labels within labels end up defining individuals as groups. After a time, the group starts to define the individuals and this is where I see atheism start to steer towards religious mistakes of the past.

reply to post by logical7

Originally posted by logical7
... so the correct fact is "you gave up"

If that's how you wish to think of it, it's fine with me. I "gave up" trying to determine something that is impossible to determine, IMO.

it also bugs me that how can you not care about "whats after death" after being a christian that long unless you have concluded that what christianity claims is completely untrue.

I'm sorry you are bothered by my thoughts. And I BELIEVE that most of what Christianity and other religions claim is completely untrue. I let religion go about 20 years or so ago and have never looked back. Just before you make more assumptions, I think Jesus was a real person. I think I would have liked him a lot. I think many of the stories and ideals in the bible (and other religious and non-religious texts) are VERY helpful in getting through life. I use them, myself. But I don't believe it's "real".

Btw, just to clear up, i am a muslim, maybe you already know.

I didn't know. But thank you for sharing. I know very little about the specific religion.

... an atheist who's favorite subject is religion.

It's not actually my favorite, but it's one of them. I'd certainly rather discuss religion, theism and atheism over gun control and government conspiracies.

I feel i could learn a lot from you.

Well, we can certainly learn from each other. I'm all for that.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I'm sorry you are bothered by my thoughts. And I BELIEVE that most of what Christianity and other religions claim is completely untrue. I let religion go about 20 years or so ago and have never looked back. Just before you make more assumptions, I think Jesus was a real person. I think I would have liked him a lot. I think many of the stories and ideals in the bible (and other religious and non-religious texts) are VERY helpful in getting through life. I use them, myself. But I don't believe it's "real".

Jesus pbuh was sure real. I love him for his teachings, his parables are my favourite in terms of simplicity yet depth. He was a man, not god, not son of god rather a prophet with a message to be good and do good.

I didn't know. But thank you for
sharing. I know very little about the specific religion.

maybe knowing about it will add to one of your favourite subject, i'l like you opinion on my other threads.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Great response. There's not much I can debate with you here.

I was obviously making a very sweeping generalization when using the term 'atheist,' thereby offending many, perhaps wrongly, in the process, but I'm glad you've seen through that. I was mostly aiming the OP at those 'ass-hats.'

I appreciate your views on religion, as I hold many the same views; and I can understand, since you enjoy the topic, your need to take the label atheist, as it shows your position in this area of discussion. That, in itself, is rational.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Your OP is a passive aggressive rant - accusatory, judgmental and insulting

I love a good rant, but I prefer an honest one - even when it isn't pretty. Don't cop out - you meant to provoke. Why not enjoy the fruits of your labor?

:-)

I cannot deny this. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree. I designed it in this manner to entice both the rational and irrational into deeper conversation once they get past their own superficiality.

Too funny. Do you mean for us to accept that your position is not superior? If so, why bother promoting it? If not - then this whole chat we're having is a silly waste of time (you egoist you)

My position is superior to me only, hence the title with which I used the pronoun ‘I.’ The use of this word should allow one to assume that I am speaking from only my viewpoint. It is opinion. One not blinded by their need to defend their banner, their religiosity and the dignity of their chosen position would see this immediately and probably walk away.

The atheist finds comfort - in their beliefs? Do you even know any actual atheists? I have to ask - because atheism isn't even a little bit about finding comfort - or belief. Atheism is entirely based on not finding any evidence of a god, gods or magic to believe in - then past that, finding no reason to entertain the idea that there might be

The idea :-)

You want to claim that the opposite of faith gives faith legitimacy - as if denial of something means there's something to deny. You're not an atheist - so you can't renounce atheism. Your OP is a ruse

When atheists do make declarations it's usually to do with not being forced to live their lives based on beliefs they don't share. And declare we do - out of necessity - not vanity.

I’m not sure if you’re an American or not, but if you ever venture outside your own country, and you go to places such as Sweden or France or the Czech republic, you will meet ‘real atheists’. I’ve lived a year there and atheism amounts to being indifferent to religion. They don’t even declare themselves atheist unless they are asked if they believe in God, which is basically never.

I understand this is difficult in the US, where atheism is promoted as a counter position to the prevailing theism, instead of being merely an adjective. Theism pushes their beliefs, atheism pushes back with their ‘disbelief.’

I will agree with you that this is a result of necessity, but what I’m questioning is whether this is the correct course of action, as it requires a certain fundamentalism in order accomplish, hence the billboards, rhetoric, t-shirts, and so-forth. We all know what fundamentalism breeds.

“Why I'm not an Atheist”
Ahem... Why should we care?

You do get my point don't you? :-)

Then why do you care?

This is the point of the thread. One shouldn’t care at all what my opinions on atheism are, simply because it is irrelevant. Yet, here you are, pleading your case, debating something you yourself questioned the relevancy of. In short, why the hypocrisy and double standards?

Lead? You do mean to proselytize then - in a one hand clapping kinda way. So, you are godless - but don't want any atheist cooties? You want all atheists to follow your lead? You're on some kind of milquetoast crusade to make the atheists more palatable - tolerable? Please - explain your point. Now would be a good time

No, I said “lead by example.” It’s an expression some use to mean ‘walking the walk, instead of talking the talk.’ No proselytizing is needed whatsoever. Convincing then comes naturally and by one’s own accord because it is shown, not argued, to work. I shouldn’t have to explain this unless you are perhaps unfamiliar with the idiom.

No where did I mention I want atheists to follow my lead, I was only being critical by sharing my observations and opinion. You can take it for what you will. But I can understand why you’d want to paint me with that brush, put words in my mouth in a feeble attempt to discredit me, as I’m looking negatively on something you find precious enough to defend, much like the Christian and Muslim do when we speak ill of their position.

Why are you telling us how to be, what we should or shouldn't think, explaining what we believe, how we believe, what we should believe - and what we should or shouldn't do? It's a fair question

I’m not telling you how to be. I’m posing questions and arguments for us to contemplate. But, once again, I understand the need to paint me with that brush.

Also, who are you? (Seems like I've heard this spiel before)

I am LesMisanthrope, ATS board member. Behind that, it doesn’t matter.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I spent the first 30 years of my life deeply entrenched in religious dogma. I was "saved" - a born again Christian.

... and you escaped.

Originally posted by logical7
ok i did assume, so the correct fact is "you gave up"

BH rejected religion .. that's different than 'giving up'.

reply to post by FlyersFan

BH rejected religion .. that's different than 'giving up'.

yes and she had full right to reject any or all religions. She gave up believing or searching.
So whats your point, has she offended you or my choice of words have offend you or both?

Originally posted by logical7
So whats your point, has she offended you or my choice of words have offend you or both?

None of that. It just seemed that you didn't get what she was saying.
So I posted it very simply. She didn't 'give up'.... she 'rejected'.
That's two very different things.
She made an educated decision to reject fundamentalist christianity.
That's all.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

My position is superior to me only, hence the title with which I used the pronoun ‘I.’ The use of this word should allow one to assume that I am speaking from only my viewpoint. It is opinion. One not blinded by their need to defend their banner, their religiosity and the dignity of their chosen position would see this immediately and probably walk away.

Well, let's look at what you said earlier: It’s difficult to find what separates, if anything, one form of dogmatism over the other. This need to promote one's doctrine as superior is merely a plight of petty vanity, one I no longer wish to take part in.

Your words. You'd have us believe you're above the fray - and yet, here you are...promoting your views, pointing out that how others choose to define themselves or express themselves is somehow beneath you. You're here defending your banner, your religiosity and your dignity - but you can't seem to do it without judging everyone else

I’m not sure if you’re an American or not, but if you ever venture outside your own country, and you go to places such as Sweden or France or the Czech republic, you will meet ‘real atheists’. I’ve lived a year there and atheism amounts to being indifferent to religion. They don’t even declare themselves atheist unless they are asked if they believe in God, which is basically never.

Well - it's true - I don't hang out where the cool kids do - Sweden or France or whatnot. Shucks - what I wouldn't give to be a 'real' atheist :-)

But here I am, stuck in this dad-blasted backassward USA with all the other cut-rate atheists. Yet - I dare to dream...one day, maybe, if I am very fortunate - I'll find myself sucking down espresso somewhere along the Champs-Élysées with the true atheist elite

Indifferent to religion - give me a freaking break :-)

I will agree with you that this is a result of necessity, but what I’m questioning is whether this is the correct course of action, as it requires a certain fundamentalism in order accomplish, hence the billboards, rhetoric, t-shirts, and so-forth. We all know what fundamentalism breeds.

Well, since you do acknowledge the differences, you should also factor in that here in the trenches - being indifferent is not a luxury we can afford. If we don't speak up - we live by the laws of the religious
think better :-)

No proselytizing is needed whatsoever. Convincing then comes naturally and by one’s own accord because it is shown, not argued, to work. I shouldn’t have to explain this unless you are perhaps unfamiliar with the idiom.

Please do explain - how is convincing not proselytizing? How does one 'convince' anyone that atheism works? And then, finally - why do you want to convince anyone of anything? What is this indifference of which you speak

But I can understand why you’d want to paint me with that brush, put words in my mouth in a feeble attempt to discredit me, as I’m looking negatively on something you find precious enough to defend, much like the Christian and Muslim do when we speak ill of their position.

I put no words in your mouth. I didn't paint anything. Your OP says it all. Live by the sword - die by the sword LesMisanthrope

:-)

reply to post by logical7


You want to tell yourself that I "gave up", that I "no longer search" and that I "gave up believing"...

I would never use those words to describe my existence, of course - and FF and I both know that (she's been a friend of mine for years). But I understand that you have the desire to criticize or somehow malign my situation... possibly so that you can feel more sure or stable or "right" about your positions... I don't know. But it's obviously important to you to use words that make me sound like some sort of loser or quitter. That's OK.

The truth is that I haven't given up anything. I found something I was looking for. I DID free myself from the chains of religious dogma, ritual, self-hatred and self doubt that organized religion imposes. I opened my mind to a host of possibilities and to the beauty and wonder of life. I am a MUCH more appreciative person. I love life. I am better off and happier, having rejected organized religion in its entirety, than anyone I encounter in life.

As far as 'no longer searching', you are simply wrong about me. I search for ways to show my love, to make others' lives better, to contribute to the good will that exists in the world. I search for ways to better myself. I search myself for character flaws, for ways to communicate my true intent... I'm searching all the time.

I have MANY beliefs, so it's not true that I have 'given up believing'. I have broadened my landscape by rejecting the bonds and limits of religion. And I CHOOSE to be the best person I can be. Freely.

This is something that I wrote years ago and 'burdened' the members of ATS with, in PODcast form. It's not complete and is changing as I learn more, but it gives you an idea...

If you want to listen to the PODcast, the link is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe that I am accountable for everything that occurs in my life.
I believe that lying is the greatest sin against myself.
I believe that happiness is a choice I make every day, not a goal.
I believe that Love is the single most powerful force in existence.
I believe that I have absolutely everything I need.
I believe that I’m a soul in possession of a mind and a body.
I believe that how I feel is always my responsibility.
I believe that if I Love, Love will come to me.
I believe that we are all one, connected by the bonds of Love.
I believe that my purpose here is to contribute to, rather than diminish, the goodwill that exists in the world.
I believe that respect is the most important foundation for a relationship of any kind.
I believe that death is nothing to fear.
I believe that two people can disagree and both be right.
I believe that everything is just exactly as it should be.
I believe that we always have a choice in any circumstance. All the choices might not be equally attractive, but we always have a choice.
I believe that the only thing that I can control is me.
And I believe in infinite possibilities.