I hate the word atheist/atheism.

Good point Will. I guess the issue is whether we are discussing the use of the words to define a belief or a cultural set of standards. I think the terms are probably more often used more in cultural reference, at least in todays society. In that case, the term atheist might imply any number of things about an individual, assuming that atheism in a cultural sense means one who believes in no intrinsic set of moral laws defined by a supreme being, and who therefore believes that in a very real sense, nothing is right or wrong. You might then, in the same way, have more luck getting an atheist to enter a brothel when compared to a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc...

I'm beginning to think the entire argument is merely a semantical one, and is therefore useless. When we change these words to mean what a person adhering to a specific belief should or should not do, as opposed to what that person is professing to believe, the words themselves lose all their power. So let's leave it at this: an atheist believes in no god, and a theist believes in a god. How these people will act in most cases will be quite similar, despite what one would assume given each different religions set of moral guidelines.

 

Please keep in mind that I am responding to the statements you made and this is not a personal attack on you or the beliefs you do or don't hold.

The word defines a narrow minded class of person who presumes to deny me the the same rights I freely grant to you. That right is free will.

An Agnostic I can respect. They grant me the same rights I grant them; free will.

An Atheist presumes to tell me what I should believe. That I can not and never will accept.

I am neither, nor do I fit into any of the defined religions.

 

This is actually a commonly held misconception about Atheism. Atheists, in general, believe that "god" is completely unnecessary for the existence of moral laws. Atheists have morals, they just don't base their morals upon imaginary creatures.

 

I would never argue that every atheist has no sense of moral value. I would however argue that from an atheist perspective, morals are necessary only as a means of maintaining order withing society, rather than based on belief in some idea of right or wrong. To quote perhaps the most renowned atheist in modern times, Sigmund Freud,

I would also add that the term 'imaginary creatures', in this sense, would appear an incredibly ignorant statement. Although I'm sure your intentions were pure.

 

I'm pretty sure that I don't want my religion, Atheism, being represented by Mr. Sigmund Fraud.

I'm an Atheist and I base my moral system on something objective and real -- far more real than any of the thousands of imaginary gods that mankind has plagued itself with.

Purely scientific. YAHWEH, Jesus, Allah, The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Spaghetti Monster -- choose your favorite imaginary friend. Most kids grow out of having imaginary friends, your mileage may vary.

 

80% of the world believes in God. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

If you'd like to discuss this further, I think an email correspondence would be a better forum. I fear that you may drastically misunderstand the concept of God, and judging by how quickly your arguments have turned to personal attacks, I doubt you would be open to an actual discussion on the subject with any semblance of a logical argument. If I'm wrong, feel free to get in touch.

 

At one time people believed that the Earth was flat, tomatoes were poisonous, and flies were created spontaneously from rotting meat.

 

I think that referring to the concept of God as being something fictitious is not misunderstanding the concept. the whole idea of the all powerful God, is that he is so much more powerful than us, and we cannot possibly prove he does not or does exist. Which, by definition, means that we are committing a fallacy (fallacy of arguing from ignorance) no matter which stance we take. And by that, it is certainly fictitious, because it cannot be proven to be either, so we must assume fictitious. Especially when considering something that will have such a large impact on one's life.

 

True, albeit useless information regarding this discussion. I assume you're saying that it is worthless for people to consider anything to be true, based on the idea that one day it might be proven false?

Sam, I think you misunderstand the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Perhaps Wikipedia can enlighten us both:

I believe, given this definition, that what the fallacy actually states is this: Just because we currently cannot explain, or understand the concept of a God who created existence... does not provide ample evidence to declare that it must not be true.

So at the very best, speaking logically, you might argue that God may or may not exist. But if you take it any farther than that, you lose all power of reasoning.

 

@jorgy:
Right. I didn't explain the fallacy because I assumed it was understood, but I was implying that fallacy. I am simply saying that if we use the logic that we must assume that God may or may not exist, then we should* assume that he does not. Only because believing in God is a costly endeavor (and has been all throughout history, and I am saying "costly" means time, energy, money, life etc..) and if it is costly, we should not believe in him.

So I cannot say that God does not exist, or that he does, so I will assume that he does not because of the positive impact it has on my* life. And following that same logic, I can understand believing in God for the pragmatic positive effects it might have on someone's life.

In conclusion, I would say you do not lose all* power of reasoning, you simply lose the deductive power of reasoning but that is no reason to not consider the pragmatic effects and reason based on those.

 

G. K. Chesterton

 

That may be true for some people. But I don't think it is true that one has to believe in something more than pragmatism. That argument follows along the same lines of the argument about needing to believe in God or have a religion to have morals. People who believe in something more than pragmatism normally cannot see that it is possible not to believe that. (I am not insinuating that is the case with you, but I know a lot of people like that) There are a lot of people who don't believe in something and their mind does not... implode? The claim that Chesterton is making is not one that has any proof.

 

You missed the point fabulously!

I am not going to believe in anything just because a bunch of emotional cripples and intellectual failures believe in it.

That is an Argumentum ad populum and it is possibly the most retarded argument I have ever heard.

Facts matter; beliefs do not.

 

Facts matter to the pragmatist, beliefs matter to the confused. The scientist will chart a course based on the knowledge of the time, and if further facts prove a new way of looking at the world is better, then he will change his views. Believers will not. They will adhere to the old teachings because it hurts their brains to have to think, and they prefer to let uneducated preachers ( insert any other term) tell them how the world is, based on old myths used to explain the cosmos when humans were young and dumb. We aren't so dumb anymore, we know much more how the universe works, and it is absurd to continue kidding ourselves we don't.
Consider this: omniscience means knowing the end result of everything. Why bother if you already know the ending? We know the universe is expanding, therefore it had a beginning at some really small starting point. So what did "god" do for all of the earlier eternity before deciding to create this universe, twiddle his enormous thumbs? I find that what we are learning about how the universe really works is fascination enough for a thousand lifetimes, but if anyone else must add some supernatural elements to make it even more puzzling that is fine with me. But religions won't let it end there. They absolutely must make you believe it too. So many have died or been tortured beyond belief to force you to believe too. Thus, religion is the main roadblock to true freedom in all of history and if for no other reason than this, we must rid ourselves of this persistent and lethal plague on humankind.
If you want to label this atheism, go right ahead, it is a good enough word. But it is the only truth that can help ensure our survival as a species. I refuse to accept religion as our only road map to morality because history has shown it to be a horrible teacher, allowing for butchery, enslavement, and murder down through the ages. It is the morality of sociopaths, you only have to look at the zealots and fanatics who seem to be running the show to know this is true. I'll take the morality of a thousand atheists over one religious, god-fearing nut any day. Believe in one and only one god as being right, and you condemn yourself to a life of close-mindedness and bigotry.

 

This response is beautiful. Way to go, DRB.

 

People tend to place labels on everything.

 

They do place labels on everything. That is a way that we use to survive. We, as humans, need to use labels and definitions to keep our minds in order. Without labels we would be lost I would think.

 

Or achieve the true equality that humanity so ponders to achieve.

 

This is a pretty good video about labeling people by what they reject. It is quite interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

 

A majority of atheists are agnostic btw. They don't claim to know whether their is or isn't a god... they just lack a belief in one.