An Indictment Of Atheists

Back to the OP:

Atheism as such is simply a descriptive noun of a state of mind. It means "no gods" or "the absence of belief in gods."

It is not an institution, male or otherwise. This is not countered by the fact that there exist organizations where people of like mind gather. This is not to say that there aren't some individuals who are dogmatic in trying to impose their way of understanding the world on others, but that is a function of their personality, not atheism.

"Disbelieving" is an utterly misleading verb form used in this sense because it is really just another way of saying "believing in the negative" or "believing that something does not exist" which is not only absurd on its face but again is not what atheism is generally defined to mean.

Even if there are "woman-oppressing power structures" associated with belief in gods, the absence of that belief would, perforce, create a state of undermining whatever those "structures" are perceived to be (which, as with many radicals, this author utterly fails to prove.)

There is nothing intrinsic in atheism that implies a superiority of either sex.

There is nothing intrinsic in atheism that implies a superiority of any kind over anyone.

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Atheism isn't as bad as feminism. But both are 'isms' and both require blinkered adherence to the respective platforms' tenets. In this sense, neither are any better than any given godtard institution of delusion.

Have you read anything in this thread? Atheism has been defined numerous times. Atheism doesn't have a platform to adhere to. It's a lack of belief in deities. Period. Nothing else. Nada. Zilch. There are no priests, bibles, secret handshakes, and no plot to take over the world. Now if you wanna talk anti-theists, that's a whole other matter.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

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."

Indeed.

They are a very loud vocal minority, only three percent of Americans are Atheist, and I think every last one of them posts on ATS.

General Social Survey reported that 21% of American had no religion with 3% being atheist and 5% being agnostic.

There are far more atheists in this world than any poll could uncover. The stigma created by people like you towards minorities that you obviously have no love for, tends make it an un appealing label and makes those who would normally fall into the atheist category, want to hide in fear of the critisism and scrutiny that bigots such as yourself load onto them.

a reply to: Woodcarver
I'll second that. I have a friend(female) who won't use the "A" word to describe herself, unless she's around someone she's close to. She says it's dangerous where we live. She's afraid being a known atheist female wouldn't bode well for her physical health. I don't blame her. This is a "guns and god" area.

I just want to comment on statements like this:

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Atheism isn't as bad as feminism.

There is an "extreme" sub culture within EVERY cultural group.

There are extremists in atheism, feminism, Christianity, Islam, cops, teachers, conservatives, liberals and more. MOST of any one group are fine. You'd never know their cultural group unless you had a discussion about it with them. But then, there is a minority of that group, who have a "cause". They want to force their way of life on others and convince everyone to agree with their point of view, by whatever means necessary, even to the point of making laws or having wars!

You can't compare atheism to feminism. There are extreme atheists and extreme feminists and they both suck. But the majority of those groups are just people and they don't deserve to be lumped in with the extremists any more than the Muslim family next door deserves to be associated with ISIS.

The majority of atheists AND feminists are good, loving, honorable people. The bad reputations of both groups are the sole responsibility of the extremists, and those who buy into the stereotype.

a reply to: Klassified

And I'll "third" it. There's not only a conscious rejection of the word, I have asked many people if they believe in God and when they answer 'no, not really', I'll ask if they're an atheist and they say NO! LOL! It's like there's some sub-conscious fear that owning their position with that word will bring the black death or something.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Woodcarver may be right about the percentage of atheists being much higher, simply because of the stigma attached to the word. A holdover from when it really was dangerous to your health to be labeled such. People of all religions and walks of life conjure all types of horrid imagery when they hear the word.

As an aside. I looked up the etymology of the word a while back, and found its history quite interesting. I think the lady in the OP could stand to do a little research herself.

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods", instead of the earlier meaning of "impious". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist". Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".

Etymology of the word atheist

This is why you see people posting things like 'I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic'......

I have always been amused by people of faith explaining what atheism is all about, rather than believing what actual atheists tell you it is...as has CONTINUALLY been said by atheists, it is simply not believing in mythical beings....to me, this is rather simple to understand, but for people of religious faith unfathomable

a reply to: jimmyx

Christians were considered atheist at one point, thousands of years before nonbelievers took a church invented word and started wearing it as a badge of honor.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx

Christians were considered atheist at one point, thousands of years before nonbelievers took a church invented word and started wearing it as a badge of honor.

The Christian Church existed in ancient Greece? (Edit: I added Christian anticipating that you will conflate "church" to mean any organized religion.)

EDIT: The word itself is Greek in origin. Atheism was one of the charges laid against Socrates. Denial of the gods of Rome in favor of the Hebrew God and Jesus Christ as replacement gods while levelled as a charge against the early Christians is not the same as the modern use of the word.

And you know this.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
This is why you see people posting things like 'I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic'......

Exactly! If the question were, "Do you believe in the Christian God of the bible"? Then we'd have a more accurate idea of how many atheists there are, regardless what label (if any) they use.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx

Christians were considered atheist at one point, thousands of years before nonbelievers took a church invented word and started wearing it as a badge of honor.

Did you not read what I posted above? www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx

Christians were considered atheist at one point, thousands of years before nonbelievers took a church invented word and started wearing it as a badge of honor.

Did you not read what I posted above? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Woodcarver
I'll second that. I have a friend(female) who won't use the "A" word to describe herself, unless she's around someone she's close to. She says it's dangerous where we live. She's afraid being a known atheist female wouldn't bode well for her physical health. I don't blame her. This is a "guns and god" area.

That's me too, I just know from experience it upsets people, makes them freak out and scream at me, if they know I'm atheist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

But there is 5% agnostic and that number I actually think is higher, because the over 22% that don't have any religious affiliation are drifting that way too. Agnostics are the smart ones because they say "we just don't know, either way".

If I didn't know what know, I would be agnostic for sure. To the most logical critically thinking minds when you analyse world religion and it's history and what it has done. And you also dive into deep analyse of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution it would be very easy to come up with a world view that neither make total sense.

Thus the I don't know ideology.

I was agnostic for a certain period of development as well.

There's nothing about that position that reflects any great intellectual prowess (and nothing about it that diminishes intellect either)

It's fair to say "I don't know." Speaking of Socrates, that was his great advice to the world.

However, what some believers refuse to understand or can't quite comprehend ... many if not all atheists were believers at some point. Experience, evidence (and the lack thereof), logic, reason and time are what produced what we call "atheism" which really points to an absence of something.

An absence of "belief" in gods, God and for many (but not all) the so-called "supernatural" ... and for many, this is an acceptance of reality after years of struggling against irrational early indoctrination by their parents and the culture at large.

I hold nothing against agnostics. Further, if pressed, I have to say that if any evidence of any degree of validity were presented for gods, God, etc., I'd be the first to change my mind ... based on EVIDENCE.

Agnostics can say the same thing.

Believers ... can't say that.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If I didn't know what know, I would be agnostic for sure. 

An agnostic atheist to be sure.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
There's no more or less logic in agnosticism than there is atheism. In fact, most agnostics are more likely agnostic atheists, and likely most atheists are also agnostic atheists. An agnostic is one who claims there is no way to know for certain, and therefore lacks belief in deities, by extension of the fact they don't know. Atheists lack any belief in deities, and most will tell you, as Gryphon says above me that if enough evidence came to light, they would change their mind. The difference between the two is infinitessimal. One is unwilling to commit, and the other isn't.

I'm willing to state I don't believe in the stereotypical unicorn. An agnostic will say there is no way to know for sure if a unicorn exists. How can you believe in something you don't even know for sure exists? You can't. Therefore...agnostic atheist.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Indeed

They are a very loud vocal minority, only three percent of Americans are Atheist, and I think every last one of them posts on ATS.

They are? Do you honestly believe they are more vocal than religious folks today? Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. 90% of the threads in O&C section are religious attacks on science. Claiming atheists are a very loud minority because they debunk the young earth creationism nonsense is silly. It's the religious folks that constantly fight to have their religion taught in school, or treated as fact, or speaking out against homosexuality with no justification for the view in the first place.

Drive down route 81 for 3-4 hours and count all of the religious billboards, then count all the atheist ones and get back to me.

Also non religious folk make up way more than 3%. Plus Buddhism is an atheistic belief system so you have to count that. Basing it on what people arbitrarily describe themselves as on a survey doesn't do it justice.