10 myths about Atheism

You haven't proved any of your claims nor have have you even addressed anything regarding "evolution."

If your concept of ID is that a god could have possibly designed the universe, that idea is fine.

But if that's the case, why are you trying to remove the teaching of evolution in schools? How does your idea relate to science?

No, you're either a tool or a fool.

Your motives shine through clear as day, you're not tricking me with this garbage.

If you want to convince me otherwise, why don't you ANSWER my questions instead of dodging them?

Delia, I was directing the discredit comment at Saladin.
Saladin, I never said I don't believe in evolution. What are you talking about?

Oh, my bad then. Makes me look stupid. >_<

You quoted ID, which while only literally meaning that the universe could have been created, is an idea that was created and is used as a wedge by creationists to get rid of evolution in schools.

Sorry for the confusion, I haven't run across anyone that uses that term differently.

No worries, it's all good. I didn't mean to be a troll on this post.
Be careful not to brush ID aside too quickly though. It does abide by the scientific method, albeit with a hunch that God exists. That shouldn't be mistaken for bias though - they have to honor the data they receive.

I've always wondered how particle physics (quantum physics, right?) could help us figure out whether there was a god or not.

Isn't quantum physics so small that it doesn't really affect reality? Like wouldn't things still be...determined?

"better safe than sorry", LOL!

My god is obvious- clarify??
Almost everybody on earth is religious-just not all of them believe in a god.
Faith is a good thing- morality is a good thing
Evidence proves my god real-what evidence?
Only my god can make me feel significant-Prozac might cure that condition.
Atheism is just another religion-religion is just another atheism with a dogma, and an executive.
Evolution is bad-but still proven.
Our world is too beautiful to be an accident-like a planned pregnancy. ABORT!!!
My god created the universe-mine too?
Believing in my god makes me happy-Valium will make you happier.
Better safe then sorry-always use safer sex practices.
A sacred book proves my god real-Harry Potter proves wizards are real.
Divine justice proves my god real-now we have penance...GO WILD!
my god answers prayers-Google answers mine.
i would rather worship god then Satan-they're both fine choices, whatever floats your boat.
My god heals sick people-so does my pediatrician.
Anything is better then being an atheist-what about being a NAZI with AIDs?
my god made the human body-my parents made mine, where's their church?
my god sacrificed his only son for me-my neighbor sacrificed his son, he's facing life.
Atheists are jerks- Personal results may vary.

I think EatDisco proves the last line, current89.
he says, "results may vary" On what, you wonder? the very flippant attitude he uses to address you current89, especially, since there is no original doctrine to atheist morality that offers anything significantly new than more peurile constant denial for what they simply do not seriously entertain. Yes results may certainly vary, and "VARY" badly at that...

Also remember that there are atheists who don't declare themselves as such for fear of political repercussions.(I'm heavily involved in local politics however I don't go around telling people I'm an atheist because I've had very bad responses from stating as such).

true, you shouldn't have to hide it, but when (a)theology is not relevant it is better not to bring it into focus.

Your right Disco, I shouldn't have to hide it, but like you said "it is better not to bring it into focus."

clearly the general platform of atheism, no matter how you personally practice it, is to replace religion. It is anathema to most religion. And that's why so many particularly anti-Christian people embrace it exclusively.

Don't deny the obvious.

You have to be religious to get elected (to get the votes) creating a sort of glass ceiling for non-theists thus far.

LOL

( this one too )

some of these points are a far cry from universal but #3 might be the closest thing to it.

Agreed, like I said I can hardly speak for everyone but I figured I'd have a go at it. Like you said, Disco, #3 is sort of the basics- Atheism is explaining what we don't believe in, not what we DO believe in, as that is determined by the individual.

add the term {it is a myth that} at the beginning of all of these points. I think are really no points that all atheists can agree on.

Yes, there are.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "western intellectual"...

Yeah, exactly what is a Western "intellectual"? How does the litmus test work for something like that?

By the way, malathion, when did 'being someone who likes to think and apply themselves' become a detriment?

lol... wtf.

Absurdism.

Well, I looked it up on wiki, and this is what it said:
"Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to humanity. The word "absurd" in this context does not mean "logically impossible" but rather "humanly impossible".

I understand this, but I'm not entirely sure that all of our efforts will fail or that there "is no meaning"- I guess that is too subjective for me. For example, I think that science is looking to find the "meaning" of the universe, as in, how did it start, what makes it function, etc.
I can't assert that we'll never figure it out, indeed I see no reason why we can't.
I'm not fully familiar with absurdism though, maybe I'm missing the larger picture?

I interpreted absurdism as the belief that its very well possible that there is a god but the chances of us ever discovering its will are so remote and uncertain that there is no possible way to find or definitively prove any theological purpose.

That sounds more like agnosticism. Absurdism is more like existentialism in the sense of a philosophical interpretation of human interactions with the mundane (and its' subsequent detachment from it). Agnosticism takes more of the same approach from a theological standpoint. They are definitely related, though.

i think existentialism is more of a philosophical alternative for those who are not theistic. I don't really understand the connection to absurdism, because they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

No, they don't exactly go hand in hand, but there are similarities between 'atheistic' existentialism and absurdism. Both technically do believe meaning exists to life, and that we creating the meaning for ourselves. Both assert that the pursuit of that meaning is futile, though they do differ on whether the pursuit itself has any meaning (absurdists, maybe(?), atheistic existentialists, nope).

By the way, thanks for the great discourse.

I got kind of confused after a college world religion series of classes that were in my opinion, done poorly. My faith was not as it had always been before... it took a few years to hammer out what to make of it all. That alone was odd for me.

I always just "knew" innately how some things in my life are.. But everything did return to better than how it was before, and to reach my own "truth" I had to learn to sift through a lot of trash that the world likes to dish.

Great point and one I support.

Though I'd argue that it's not always a movement from theism to the tangible - that implies that theism is inherent, or the default. Clearly you can come to any conclusion on god from any background.

true. i was thinking of it in terms of A-theistic, but your right it is not always a tangible deviation from traditional (i.e. theistic) thought.

there are radicals on both sides...

exactly

at the core of any form of Zen is the total abandonment of terms like "spirituality" , etc. - including the term "zen" itself . things just are , and you simply are , and you're happy with whatever pops up in the moment . for me , being an unapologetic , insufferable asshole when it comes to "atheism" is pretty much how i feel in the moment the subject is brought up .

Interesting spin, but I don't think Zen was intended to justify hotheadedness or being an asshole to people. What is it about atheism that you have a problem with? Like I said, from what I understand there is no godhead in Buddhism.

You absolutely right Delia, there is no godhead in mainstream Buddhism.

There's nothing Zen about calling people "clueless, intellectually clusterf***ed weak willed consumers" and "stupidly aspiring towards a freedom, but can't let go of their precious little egos."

So what really happened is through your supposed declaration of Zen, your ego fostered your desire to illicit judgmental comments towards atheists. I thought that Zen aspired to the death of the ego, of the "I".

By the way, I know several REAL adherents of Zen Buddhism and they would never issue insults like that. Such judgment is beyond their sphere of influence.

I don't pretend to understand Zen fully, though much more than some. And I don't pretend to aspire to the precepts of Zen Buddhism, although I can see clear analogical links between it and agnosticism--that being my standpoint.

I tried Buddhism... alot, and it didn't really work out with me. I lost my sense of being a conscious thinker. Basic meditation is cool.. just focusing on your breath, but "mindfulness" can be total chaos. Mindful of every breath, sensation, and thought is misleading and confusing to me. You can be mindfully aware of every thought, but your thinking power and life might pass you by :)

Yes i do, and I will when i get a chance.

Cool.

well you may not get that impression but it's unmistakable to others....even Antony Flew, by far Dawkins' unmistakable superior. I'm nobody, but I'm sure by Flew's gentelmanly account, Dawkins IS an asshole, especially to the religious. He's are real laugh, even to better atheists.

And not just by Flew's account...Many scientist even cozy to evolution discredit his bullshit. Distinguished people like Antony Flew of course, Gerald Schroeder, Francis Collins, Timothy Keller and David Aikman (who honestly, no shit, particularly eviscerates the mfer along with his cohorts), and there are many others who comment on the stark illegitimacy of Dawkin's anti-religious atheism.

His stupidity is already well known.

Well atheism without ideology or philosophy is no better then blind faith.

But you still have the laws of physics and reality to deal with.

I am a Taoist. There is no such thing as morality. There is no such thing as amorality.

Any moral structure that man can put into words is insufficient to cope with the true nature of reality.

A lack of moral structure is also insufficient to cope with the true nature of reality.

Actions have concequences, and this is where the stem of morality flourishes.

I've seen those guys act both ways.

Dawkins was on BILL O'REILLY of all places, and he acted quite politely, Bill was the bigger dick of both of them and failed to answer any questions legitimately.

you got it CCashman...TOO often atheism as in Dawkins case, certainly, is a charade for "anti-religious" bigotry...or really, just looking for a most plausible case of someone to blame. Atheism is the only religion i know where most half-ass proponents secretly pride prides themselves on HATING Christianity explicitly, for reasons real or imagined, cultivated and nurtured nonetheless. I know we hesitate to say for those atheists who are more tolerant and just want to live life freely without suborning anyone, but this more common kind of atheism frankly sucks ass.

Intelligent Design took that spot already.

I would say that there is a much larger percentage of arrogant religious people than atheist.

"Intelligent Design took that spot already."- ID is NOT SCIENCE!!!

Science is what it is, no need to start a religion around it, plus the word religion implies there would be some kind of deity and dogma, which would alienate atheists.

science is the the same thing as philosophy
some people think the point of science is to discredit god but that isn't true at all

scientists don't want to find god because if they did then a bunch of religious nut jobs would distort that data

ID is pseudoscience through and through. I was being sarcastic.

I disagree that science and philosophy are the same.
Science: "is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research."

Philosophy: "Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."

While they overlap in some of their study areas, science uses experimentation and repeatable evidence to assert a truth, while both philosophy and religion don't rely on that.

Khromadjo, my bad, sometimes it's hard to tell- especially on current :)

It's all good, Delia. Thanks for the post.

Delia, your right they aren't the same thing ...

they used to be the same thing but that was a couple hundred years ago