Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Helgoland]

atheist beliefs

Inb4 definition circlefap

[Arx]

We need to sort out the definitions somehow.

[Levi]

We need to sort out the definitions somehow.

That way lies madness. 

Let us define with song. 
_{Just kidding, I'm not one.  Mostly.}

Edit:

I'm an Atheist.  Nothing to explain about my beliefs, I just don't believe in god/gods/supernatural/anything that can't be explained by science.  I dislike religion because it often causes people to not think rationally, but I think people have a right to their beliefs no matter how crazy I think they are as long as their beliefs don't hurt others.

[MonkeyHead]

As before, Humanist/Atheist. If you want to, you can label me "Angry Atheist" or "New Atheist" or "Dawkins Atheist" or whatever. I have no use for the supernatural whatsoever.

As a Christian (Presbyterian) what books and other media do you recommend to learn more about atheist beliefs, and to learn where an Atheist worldview is based off of?

I shall overlook the "belief" bit....

This is not an easy thing to answer, as Atheism is not "centralised" around any set of ideals or figureheads.

Well, anything by Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Hitchens or David G. MacAfee would be a good starting point. Atheism is not like theistic thinking, in that there are no real guidelines, or core dogmatic principles, save for the rejection of gods as a hypothesis. That is the sole world view. Everything else is optional and down to the individual. Basically, for me, my agnostic Atheism is a secondary function of being a rationally sceptical scientific thinker. It is a conclusion based on evidence, or a lack of evidence for competing claims. Maybe hang around on David G MacAfee's facebook page (it is a lot less unpleasant than most other theist/athiest discussion pages, and more concerned with rational scepticism rather than picking holes in any particular religion - you might even find me on there ), or have a look around on YouTube for some of Hitchens' legendary debates. FWIW Dawkins is a massive jerk (yeah, he says a lot of sensible things, but in a really unpleasant manner), but Hitchens had a sort of calm assurance about him that is less off putting.

[Rolan7]

atheist beliefs

Inb4 definition circlefap

A multitude of overly specific definitions can seem like egotism (or "special snowflake"), but maybe it's actually a natural consequence of abandoning an entrenched idea...

More and more people are saying "Hey, maybe *all* organized religions are a farce instead of all-1".  But in response they're challenged (by others, but also themselves) to clarify what they *do* believe in.  So they're encouraged to reach for new ideas, like transhumanism or extropianism, and clarify whether they actively disbelieve or simply lack belief, and what exactly they lack belief in...

The two most important definitions are, if I recall correctly from back when I cared a lot:
Agnostic: One who lacks belief in any god
Atheist: One who is currently convinced there are no gods

We could go on and on about what constitutes a "god", but it's mostly self evident.  For most nonbelievers, a God is an all-powerful being who actively governs the world.  Many people believe in a guiding force who (in the present day) takes no quantifiable action but provides comfort and conscience.  Most "Easter Christians", for example.  Such people are basically agnostic already.

But they still call themselves Christians or whichever, because society requires us to label ourselves.  Even, or especially, nonbelievers.  But nonbelievers aren't a unified group, which is why there are so many specific and overlapping subgroups.

Fakedit:  Yeah, Dawkins is kinda a jerk.  I used to watch videos of him just to feel better about my nonbelief.  He makes good arguments, but he's also very sensationalist and probably not good to recommend for a believer.

Actual Edit:  I do agree with Dawkins that religion is fundamentally bad for humanity, even though obsolete social instincts compel us to seek it out.

[TD1]

I also suggest Nietzsche. Why? Well, he was a brilliant man. You know what else? He had an awesome mustache.

Also, MZ, I associate the Dawkins atheist with the view that religion, whilst not only being tripe, is inherently bad for humanity. "Root of all evil" and all that. Is that what you think?

Personally, I'm sort of at the "Religion, in all its variety, is superstition." but I won't go as far as to say it's unhealthy. It can be wielded as such by those who need justification, but is not in itself inherently evil.

[UXLZ]

"The problem with asking these questions about meaning is that, when you keep asking them, you start to think that they actually have an answer."

And that's why I'm an (Agnostic) Nihilist.

The thought can still be fun to entertain, however.

[Helgoland]

I also suggest Nietzsche. Why? Well, he was a brilliant man. You know what else? He had an awesome mustache.

I fully second this.

Also I believe there's a great amount of truth in Marx's 'Religion is opium for the masses', as long as one remembers that opium can be used as medicine as well as for recreational purposes.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

So you're saying in high on god?
I'm entirly fine with that

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Helgoland]

So you're saying in high on god?
I'm entirly fine with that

I'm saying I want to push God into other people's veins.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

You're glad you're euphoric because of some phony god's blessing?

When did I say phoney?

So you're saying in high on god?
I'm entirly fine with that

I'm saying I want to push God into other people's veins.

Can I sig that?

[Helgoland]

Sure, go ahead.

And for the first part, you may want to go ahead and google 'phony god's blessing'

[Frumple]

I guess if we're throwing casual orientation stuff in there, I'd toss the nonexistent hat in as a token irreligious apatheist* that finds theology to be pretty.

I probably wouldn't really recommend Nietzsche to someone curious about atheism, though, roughly in the same sense I wouldn't recommend Dawkins. N's a bit heavier than someone wanting an initial primer probably wants to deal with. There's definitely a few folks that fall under the general umbrella of existentialism (Well, re: Nietzsche, anyway. I forget what dawkins is besides an acerbic atheist and somewhat iffy writer on the philosophy of biology) that could provide some interesting words on the subject, though. I can't actually recall any of them at the moment, but they're out there.

I'd probably say just... ask questions. Hopefully folks here can softball the subject enough to not have it turn shrill

*Predisposed against religious organization -- if not necessarily spirituality or individual worship -- and of the belief the divine, to whatever extent they do or do not exist, are irrelevant, for those that want the definition.

[Helgoland]

Oh yes, Nietzsche as an introduction to atheism is a horrible idea. The critter's great for general reading though - his prose is legible (!), and much fun is to be had with his writing style.
Camus is pretty great as well.