What are atheists?

[Humanist_Activist]

This is actually quite simple, an atheist is anyone who answers this question; Do you believe God(or insert deity here) exists? with a no then no belief exists, hence they are an atheist, if yes, then a theist. Other than that, any other values or implications, outside of lack of worshiping said deity, don't exist.

Oh, and just to be clear, everyone is, to some extent, an atheist about some god or another, those who call themselves atheists just take it further and include all gods.

Its very hard, or very easy, to articulate what it means to be an atheist, because it is just a lack of belief in god(s). Frankly I don't see why people have difficulty with the concept, all Christians are atheists about the Roman, Greek, Hindu, Taoist and Shinto Gods. Does this atheism define Christians? No of course not, atheism cannot, by definition, encompass anything more than one position on a very narrow topic.

This means that just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean anything really. Knowing someone is an atheist informs you of nothing about their other beliefs, because while those beliefs may inform their atheism, the reverse isn't necessarily true. As said above, everyone is an atheist about some type of deity or another, as such, everyone seeks out their own beliefs in whatever they think is right, whether its in Christianity, or any of the various other religions out there(mostly they are raised in these), or in one of many different philosophies, and these end up informing and influencing the others, pigeonholing anyone's various beliefs is an exercise in futility, its a muddled mess. I'm a Secular Humanist, a Socialist, an animal right's activist, and studying to become a scientist. Look at what's missing, my mention of my atheism, that's because it doesn't define me, hell it would be like a Christian stating they are a theist too, it makes no sense, one can be implied by the other, however, more importantly, being a theist doesn't mean anything either, not by itself at least.

It doesn't matter what one website says from one advocacy group, because the simple fact is that you can't take the word of one advocacy organization about a group as diverse as atheists, or use their own, unique, definition of what it means to be an atheist. Frankly I wonder what they call the many Buddhists out there that don't believe in any gods.

[millych3]

1. I Understand

I have for a long time understood very clearly what atheist means, although I am not one myself. It is, however, the religious right that doesn't seem to understand this very simple thing.

[trotsky]

2. It's a pity there is such a lack of understanding about this word...

even among liberal believers... that we have to keep revisiting this topic. Or even be told that we're wrong, that a Christian will tell us what we really believe. I don't think liberal believers would do this to any other group, but some of them are quite happy to do it to atheists.

[Iggo]

3. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods.

I wish people would stop trying to make it harder than that.

'Cause it ain't.

[dmallind]

4. No! People who just don't believe never existed before 1869

Which is when Huxley coined the word "agnostic" and wrote at great length that he did so to object to a position of certainty without evidence. Before then you either believed gods existed as described by some religion or other, or you took it on faith that none could ever possibly exist in any shape or form. The simple just "don't buy it - show me if you can, but you probably can't" stance was impossible before after the US civil war, because the word to "accurately" (on DU at least) describe it did not exist.

[Taverner]

5. No god. Next question? nt

[reggie the dog]

6. what i dont understand is that people think athiests are evil

but in reality most evil people in the world are religious, there is no evidence that atheists commit crime at higher rates than believers and most rapists, murderers, child molester etc in the usa are christians, but in the eyes of many christians theses murderers ect are better than me and will make it to heaven because they 'have got'.... that just blows my mind

[Taverner]

8. I've always had a problem wit6h the 'perpetually forgiven' concept of Christians

Ted Bundy, according to Christian theology, is sitting in heaven playing a harp

Gandhi, according to Christian theology, is sitting in hell

If you ask me, that sounds like a broken value system

Add to it that anyone can ask for forgiveness from god and get it and you've got a perfect petri dish for sociopathy

[Deep13]

15. Religions do a very good job of convincing people that they are the source of virtue...

...and a bulwark against evil. So religious values become synonymous with good and anything contrary to them is synonymous with evil.

[Permanut]

7. What a great subject...

If I say that I believe that no god exists, that's different than if I say that I see no evidence of the existence of a god or gods. Since proving the negative is so difficult, then saying that no god exists is a strong statement. Since there is order in the universe, and since I didn't create that order, the Swiss watchmaker allegory makes it difficult for me to dismiss the idea of any kind of first cause - we refer to it in AA as a higher power. The idea of a god who talks to people (oh, I don't know, say, to Pat Robertson) is ludicrous, and the idea that there is a god who requires worship is even more ludicrous.

Maybe it's not a black and white thing.

[dmallind]

9. anthropic principle eh? nt

[laconicsax]

10. What constitues a god?

You imply that you accept the idea of a "higher power," so what differentiates that from a god?

I recommend reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It addresses the Swiss Watchmaker allegory in several forms. Also, here's a video of a simulation which produces clocks through natural selection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

[Humanist_Activist]

11. You assumption that the order of the universe requires a consciousness is flawed...

there is no reason to come up with that assumption, and until it is proved that such a consciousness exists, why believe it does?

Not all rules require a rule maker. Do you automatically assume that snowflakes have to have a snowflake maker? Look at one, its beautiful, symmetrical and ordered, doesn't mean anyone made it.

[Permanut]

12. I have great difficulty with the idea of a consciousness..

running things. Just hypothetically, if that is so, he/she/it is doing a pretty crappy job. I have difficulty, though, as well with the idea that we and other living things are no more than an organized collection of chemicals. I think I have more questions than answers, and I still think this is a great thread.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Of course we are more than an organized collection of chemicals...

we are an organized collection of chemicals that have consciousness, we are a way for the universe to know itself, no woo or supernatural stuff needed. We are, all of us, about 13.7 billion years old, products of fantastic processes from subatomic particles cooling to form protons, neutrons and electrons which then formed hydrogen atoms that condensed through gravity to form stars and fusion took place.

These stars, most of them, where big and had short lives, measured in tens of millions of years, and when they died, it was with a bang, and all the other elements formed in this death, and one of the aftermaths is smaller stars and planets forming from the debris left behind by these supernova.

We formed out of just this very process, 4.6 billion years ago, and the organic chemicals needed for life were already in the Solar System. And when Earth cooled(after the big splash/whack that created the Moon), in the oceans, some of these organic molecules started to self replicate, took advantage of lipid formed bubbles in the water, and then, eventually, they were able to self regulate their internal bodies, becoming the first life on the planet. They mixed their genetic materials together in various different ways, some of these cells banded together to form larger, multi-cellular organism that reproduce mostly sexually and evolution took place. A billion years later, you were born, an unbroken chain from all the way back to the beginning of the universe to today is represented within you.

The fact that we have more questions than answers isn't something to lament, but something to rejoice, why should we want to have all the answers, when being uncertain is more exciting, its having room to grow and learn, that makes life worth living in the first place.

Anyone or anything that promises all the answers is lying, its best to try to live honestly, with both ourselves and with others.

[Deep13]

14. Among atheists, there are two varieties that are generally recognized.

The so-called weak atheist: I do not believe in god. That's the negative proposition as it relies on a failure of proof. Frankly, I think this is indistinguishable from agnosticism.

The so-called strong atheist: I believe there are no gods. That's the affirmative position based on either affirmative disproof or just a subjective feeling that gods are made up by humans.

[dmallind]

17. Agnosticism is an epistemological position - nothing to do with belief

It's a word coined only in 1869, and we have extensive writings from the man who did so. Agnosticism is a position that the truth cannot be known by mystical revelation (gnosis - go figure). Applied to the question of divine existence, it leads to the obvious conclusion: Since no gods are giving us any evidence for their exiatence that is NOT gnosis, and since we lack complete knowledge of the universe, we cannot say any gods exist, or no gods exist. Perfectly rational stance. It does not however say or imply squat about whether we BELIEVE (not the same thing as know) any gods exist based on anything from indoctrination to hope to hedging our Pascalean wagers.

Ask a diehard Yankess fan if they believe the team will win the next series. Almost certainly yes. Ask a sober one with some basic knowledge of logic (if one can be found) whether they KNOW the team will win it and they will eventually admit no. (I've found the offer of a $10 to $10,000 bet clears any confusion. If you truly KNEW you would take such a bet - say if I magically found myself in 1927 - because it's a free $10. If you simply BELIEVE, then you don't want to risk a large sum for a small return).

Knowing the difference - not just believing what you think the words mean - is important to these discussions.

[Deep13]

18. So, we are not camable of knowing as a matter of principle...

...that is to say that we don't know and we never will.

I don't buy it. I don't think the distinction between knowledge and belief is so clearly delineated in practice.

[dmallind]

19. Without evidence, correct.

There are a huge number of ways in which any putative god could make themselves known. There are even ways in which humans could conceivably discover a god. But while all potential gods seem to prefer the silent approach, there truly is no way to know objectively.

I am 100% agnostic, because I don't accept "I just know in my heart" OR "it just doesn't make sense" as proof of presence or absence.

I am also 100% atheist, because I do not for one second accept that any stories about any gods I have ever come across are true.

These positions are no more in conflict than the statements, true, that I am male and I am married to a woman are in conflict. They say different things about me. They often apply to the same people even, but are not requisites OR exclusions. Men may be single or married to other men. Women can also marry wome. Most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists when properly defined, but some of each are not the other (I confess I have never actually met a gnostic atheist, but I am pretty sure they are out there).

Belief and knowledge are very different concepts. That some people confuse the two does not change this.

[bananas]

16. LOL - no amiguity there "Do you believe God(or insert deity here) exists?"

Simply aggregate your responses to varies meanings of deity and exists and flip a coin...

[Humanist_Activist]

20. No, its much simpler than that...

this is a question about whether someone is a theist or atheist, no more, no less. The difference is that there are only a few varieties of atheists, but a huge variety of theists. What those theists believe, beyond this question, about their deity or deities of choice, is irrelevant.

[tortoise1956]

21. doesn't agnosticism count as a third option?

I don't believe in a supernatural deity that runs the universe and controls everything, everywhere. There are too many contradictions in that supposition. However, I do believe that there is order in the universe, and that this order stems from a primal force, existing prior to the Big Bang, that set the whole shebang into motion.

However, this is simply my belief. I can't prove or disprove this belief, and I'm pretty sure that no one will find out what the answer is in my lifetime.

For these reasons, I include agnosticism as a third option between theists and atheists.

If you don't think that agnosticism is a valid option, please reply and let me know why. I am always open to constructive criticism of my beliefs. (The key word is constructive...) There is even a possibility that I might change my mind, if confronted with a strong enough argument. Remote, I grant you, but possible...

[Humanist_Activist]

22. No because belief doesn't equal knowledge...

they are two different questions. If you were to ask me if I KNOW a god doesn't exist then my honest answer would be I don't know, which is the agnostic position. However, that doesn't assume that I believe a god exists, I don't, that makes me an atheist.

What you speculate on, I'm not sure how to respond to, I'll try not to make assumptions about your beliefs, however, I will say that if this "primal force" has a consciousness of some sort then you are forwarding a deistic position, which would make you a type of theist. If it doesn't have a consciousness then such a force could simply be an unknown natural phenomenon, in which case you would be atheistic in your beliefs, but without knowing what you belief is the nature of this primal force, I'm only speculating as to what your beliefs are.

I will say that if such a force existed before the Big Bang, then it most likely still exists in the universe today, and can someday be detected, quantified, and measured using the scientific method. It wouldn't be impossible to know, just an unknown at this time. However, if this force acted on the universe from outside it, then it would be impossible to detect from within the universe, and hence while we might be able to mathematically describe what it did to cause the universe in the first place, any speculation on its true nature would remain just speculation.

There are quite a few interesting ideas(some don't even qualify as hypothesis) about what kick started the universe, it could have been the result of a collision of two other universes in a differing dimension, or it could have been a science experiment from within a different universe by an alien species in that universe. But again, without some more concrete evidence, these are but speculations, the one thing we shouldn't do is use the fact that we don't know something about the universe yet as an excuse to form baseless conclusions, nor should we claim that we can never know about it, even the so called "First Cause" which may not have been necessary in the first place, another possible, and oddly enough, stronger hypothesis than the ones I mentioned above.

Even saying that we can never know if a god existed that kick started the universe would be baseless, its certainly possible, however unlikely, that we can find evidence of an intelligence that was behind the big bang, for example, a type of message embedded in the microwave background radiation, who knows? Then again, the message, when decoded, could read: "Hi, this is Zyko of Oerth, I created your universe for my 5th grade science fair, I got 1st place, cool huh?"