An Indictment Of Atheists

Atheism is simply the lack of belief or disbelief in Gods, nothing more.

Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are equal.

^
Lot of people will disagree with at least one of these.

All I'm going to say is that it's getting increasingly difficult to be an individual among modern semantic and cultural wars. More and more I just want to live in a cave by myself.

a reply to: Pinke

I for one agree with both.

It's terrible that gender equality is indeed a radical stance. Historically. Globally.

As oxymoronic as it might sound, you should invite others to that cave! There are many that feel this way.

originally posted by: Annee
I posted 2 paragraphs of someone else's explanation of why it's lack of belief, not disbelief --- because you don't seem to get it. Or don't want to.

But the article fails miserably to explain it.
He claims that theist influence defines atheism as a disbelief, while it shouldn't because it's just a lack of belief.
HE is totally WRONG on that because without any theist influence there would be no atheist term at all.
You can't add the A- privative on a non existing word. Theism is what defines A-theism either he likes it or not.
I only agree with the situations described in the article and not his silly rant on the disbelief.

Furthermore, why should someone else's explanation (authority on atheism?), convince me of what I should think/believe if I want to be an atheist, and what words i should use? and why I was supposed to ''get it''?
Doesn't that sound a bit like religion?

Anyway from the little I know, disbelief and absence of belief are inextricable in atheism,
Also ''lack'' sounds more like a deficiency rather than total absence.

Of course atheists have absence of beliefs, but they also disbelieve the claims of theists.
A lack of believe (without disbelieving) would make sense if you never had heard of a god in your life.
If you were born in a world of no religions, and no beliefs what so ever.
In that case there would be no atheism, and no need for such term.
Atheism was born when man started doubting,later questioning, and finally disbelieving the claims of a God.
As long as you've heard of God(s) at least once in your life and didn't believe it or stop believing it,
it's a disbelief.


Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, are indisputably expressing their disbelief, when criticizing the claims of theists, and not their ''lack of belief''.

This is where i disagree with you and the author of your quote,
Also it's a discussion in an atheist thread, and long verbose posts are to be expected.

In the end if you ask five atheists to define atheism and you’ll get five different answers.
And that's a good thing because every one has his own, different way of thinking.
and sites like ''Atheists.org'' are just sharing their take on things that concern us,
they are not authority in atheism, and not necessarily correct.

Although atheism shouldn't be organized to a movement,
Various organizations try to capitalize on that, gain supporters and sell books, that's why they try to pass it like an ideology independent of theists.
But without disbelief atheism as a term, wouldn't exist and ''Atheists.org'' wouldn't exist.
Yet they claim it's not a disbelief because that indicates that they exist because of theists.
For me they are either ignorant or deceivers.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

Also ''lack'' sounds more like a deficiency rather than total absence.

How should atheists words things to satisfy things for you?

How can we properly express our disbelief? How would you word it?

And that's a good thing because every one has his own, different way of thinking.

How is it a good thing that there is no agreement on what a term means? That all these different definitions of what atheism means should hold equal weight. How would that be a good thing applied to any term? Surely, we need some precision in definitions.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Also ''lack'' sounds more like a deficiency rather than total absence.

Damn these words. So limiting language is.

How should atheists words things to satisfy things for you?
How can we properly express our disbelief? How would you word it?

You can express it however you like, that's my point. I am not dictating.....
I am arguing because other atheists like ''Annee'' don't like the word ''disbelief'' (because it's involves theists)
and want to replace it with ''lack of belief''.
For me atheism is both.

I explain everything above.

How is it a good thing that there is no agreement on what a term means? That all these different definitions of what atheism means should hold equal weight. How would that be a good thing applied to any term? Surely, we need some precision in definitions.

Thinking differently and expressing your self freely is a good thing, even if confusion in definitions is inevitable, as proved earlier in this thread.
The only common definition is the disbelief, or the ''lack of belief'' (as some prefer it) in the divine.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

I think I may have missed key things in my haste. I'll re-read these pages before responding so I don't misrepresent anyone.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well in the end, it is all about evidence. The better quality evidence you have for something, the more likely an agnostic is going to form an opinion about it. The simple fact is that subjective evidence, anecdotes, and legends are not definitive enough evidence to form an opinion on something SOLELY based on just those types of evidence. With the legend of god, that is all we have though. Therefore, the safest choice to make is one of not knowing or refusing to form an opinion. Present better evidence (objective evidence) then we can revisit this conversation.

originally posted by: Pinke
Atheism is simply the lack of belief or disbelief in Gods, nothing more.

Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are equal.

I don't think calling feminism radical really fits the bill here. The idea that men and women are equal is not radical, it's logical. Don't get me wrong, you have plenty of radical feminists, mostly the extreme ones like the blogger in the OP, who blame men for all the problems in the world and thrive on making scapegoats rather than addressing the root of the issue.

originally posted by: Pinke
Atheism is simply the lack of belief or disbelief in Gods, nothing more.

The term "disbelief" makes me feel like I have to recognize something first so I can say I disbelieve it.

That's simply not the case.

originally posted by: Pinke

Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are equal.

A beginning movement needs to get attention. Often the founders of a movement tend to be radical, then "as the pendulum swings", more moderates tend to become the leaders.

Equal rights/opportunities is not the same as being Equal. Men and women are different. But, gender should not hinder rights/opportunities of a capable person.

Radical means Radical - - simple. It can be attached to anything.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well in the end, it is all about evidence. The better quality evidence you have for something, the more likely an agnostic is going to form an opinion about it. The simple fact is that subjective evidence, anecdotes, and legends are not definitive enough evidence to form an opinion on something SOLELY based on just those types of evidence. With the legend of god, that is all we have though. Therefore, the safest choice to make is one of not knowing or refusing to form an opinion. Present better evidence (objective evidence) then we can revisit this conversation.

The legend of God is plenty of evidence. The fact that the books in which this character is found has elements of fantasy is a testament to its fictional nature, like every other book that contains similar elements. Angels, demons, resurrections, walking on water, parting seas with magic, and yes, gods—is this not any sort of evidence towards its mythical status?

Has not the discovery of other forces behind the wind, lightning, the tides, draughts, rain, thoroughly refuted the notion of a divine hand governing nature, as Franklin's lightning rod did? Has the theory of evolution not shown that we are in fact not made in the image of God? Has the fact that our exploration of the earth, the atmosphere and the solar system not turned up any trace of any other beings, let alone all-powerful ones, not constitute evidence? What about the fact that man has utilized metaphorical beings and fiction to explain natural phenomena since the beginning of recorded history; does this not lend credence to its mythological status? What about the contradictions? The paradoxes? Anything?

What kind of evidence would constitute "better quality" "objective evidence"?

a reply to: Pinke

Atheism is simply the lack of belief or disbelief in Gods, nothing more.

Repetition does not make something true.

Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are equal.

Women are not equal.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I would take it on step further and say we can't be sure that somewhere, sometime we won't come up with something that proves the divine in general.
Not necessarily related to known religious myths about it.

But since we've no yet come on that evidence, and religious evidence of current Gods are at least, laughable,
We disbelieve them all.

For. ex. of course we know the God of Bible doesn't exist... why? because nothing in genesis is true and it proves it was a forgery made from cosmological knowledge of the desert people of that time. (flat earth, a dome above, stars being just some sort of candles in the sky.
by that time Pagans already knew the earth was a sphere.
They talked about it from 600ad and prove it's shape in 3rd century BC, their pantheon was also shaped accordingly to their knowledge.

That proves that the bible writers where not only ignorant and naive compared to our society, but also to the advanced societies of their time.

My point is that it's safe to disbelief all known God's because of the scientific evidence that prove they're made up,
but what if our scientific exploration finds something amazing, proving a completely new concept of the divine?
What if our ancestors tried to explain that with their own way and made up the false stories?

We can't know everything, and in that essence we are all agnostics to something
But we are atheists (disbelievers) to all known Gods because of the poor current evidence of the divine.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Pinke

Atheism is simply the lack of belief or disbelief in Gods, nothing more.

Repetition does not make something true.

Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are equal.

Women are not equal.

As Are Superior.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The legend of God is plenty of evidence. The fact that the books in which this character is found has elements of fantasy is a testament to its fictional nature, like every other book that contains similar elements. Angels, demons, resurrections, walking on water, parting seas with magic, and yes, gods—is this not any sort of evidence towards its mythical status?

I'd say that, yes, it certainly presents a strong case for being mythology, but one can't be sure. They could be telling the truth as well, but if I extend this courtesy to a mainstream religion, I also have to extend it to religions such as the Greek Pantheon or the Kamis of Japan.

I am not a spiritualist though, so I'm more likely to side with it being all mythology before I side with it being real. Which means that my bias is going to seek out the strongest evidence to overturn it. Which is objectivity.

Has not the discovery of other forces behind the wind, lightning, the tides, draughts, rain, thoroughly refuted the notion of a divine hand governing nature, as Franklin's lightning rod did? Has the theory of evolution not shown that we are in fact not made in the image of God? Has the fact that our exploration of the earth, the atmosphere and the solar system not turned up any trace of any other beings, let alone all-powerful ones, not constitute evidence? What about the fact that man has utilized metaphorical beings and fiction to explain natural phenomena since the beginning of recorded history; does this not lend credence to its mythological status? What about the contradictions? The paradoxes? Anything?

What kind of evidence would constitute "better quality" "objective evidence"?

But then again there could be an unseen hand working through the laws of the universe to manipulate things. Or maybe the super fundamentalists are right, maybe all of science is lies and it is really Satan trying to deceive us. We can only know what we see. Everything else relies on trust.

female atheists being harassed by many of their fellow male atheists.

Is anybody surprised by this, looks like their enlightened intellectual state doesn't do any good for them with women.

Maybe survival of the best of humanity to propagate the species is working after all.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

female atheists being harassed by many of their fellow male atheists.

Is anybody surprised by this, looks like their enlightened intellectual state doesn't do any good for them with women.

Maybe survival of the best of humanity to propagate the species is working after all.

I've signed into forums as both male and female.

Yes, you are treated differently.

Males, in general, get more respect for their posts. Probably from the women too.

So an atheist, a feminist, and a vegan walk into a bar...stop me if you've heard this one...

a reply to: Barcs

I don't think calling feminism radical really fits the bill here. The idea that men and women are equal is not radical, it's logical.

That's not how I interpreted her words. So just to clarify what I was agreeing with it wasn't that gender equality is radical. I meant that the notion there should be gender equality has historically been a radical one to so many people. Which is very unfortunate. I also don't agree most of the time in regards to discussion about "extreme feminists" and "femnazis" and "tumblr feminists" blah blah. Those examples usually refer to a woman who's not actually advocating equality and therefore they're exempt from being a feminist to begin with.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So an atheist, a feminist, and a vegan walk into a bar...stop me if you've heard this one...

Is this a dive bar or 'mixology bar'. You forgot the Theist was already seated (waiting in anticipation) hours before their arrival time; drunk on tequila shots or scripture recitation.