Any Atheists?

I've seen all of these threads for christians and theists, but wondered if there were any non-believers?

My good friend and I (both of us atheists) were talking the other night about how and why it is that atheists never really "unite." He complained that he doesn't think that atheists are vocal enough. He said that he thinks they all just stay silent and mum whenever the topic of god/gods/deities come up. I argued that it is sort of pointless to form a group centered around what people believe does not exist. I mean, no one is motivated to form a group that believes that unicorns or leprechauns don't exist.

Any thoughts? Any god-does-not-exist-ers?

Just curious.

I'm an atheist as well. I don't know if it's really necessary for us to have any kind of organization (although there are some); however, I sometimes wonder what the general public would think were people to be aware of just how many of us there are.

I'm an atheist agnostic. If you are looking for an interesting "community"-type feeling, you might try the Church of Reality.

Plenty!

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/post/100 435.html

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/post/101 651.html

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/post/994 65.html

There's been a recent flurry of religion vs. non-religion threads/posts lately - I'm surprised you didn't notice them.

Atheists tend to not "unite" for the reason you state, in addition to the fact that atheists have wide varieties of beliefs, despite the tendency for others to simply categorize them as "non believers." 

on edit:  And the term "non believers" is not entirely descriptive, either.  Christians can be described as "non believers" in reference to any other religion outside of Christianity.

There is no central text or "unifying code" that is used by most atheists - most religions have their holy book, but there is none for Atheists (despite the claims of some who seem to think that Neitzsche and Darwin are our "saints.")

However, that doesn't mean that atheists don't seek out groups with common interests and beliefs.  There are humanist societies, freethinker groups, and even a group called "Atheists for Jesus."

I'm a "god-does-not-exist"er...

spiritual atheist here.

I could be classified as an atheist. I believe there is divinity in the universe - that is, I believe that there is an utter 'coolness' about the universe that transcends the mundane, one cool enough to deserve a kind of worship - but I don't think there's a personality out there I can appeal to.

I know two 'more traditional' atheists, of the kind that believe everything is more or less driven by random chance (which I don't entirely disagree with, by the way) - and as far as uniting, they don't seem to think it particularly important to unite with other atheists. Rather, they choose associations based on other interests. In the case of my father, he seems to choose associations based on 'cultural' things, like plays and books. My college friend seems to choose associations based on social philosophies - polyamory, liberalism, that kind of thing. My point is that atheists don't seem to put 'not believing in a god' at the top of their list of things to talk to people about; rather, they collect in groups based on interests, rather than beliefs (or lack? of beliefs).  I get the distinct impression that most atheists are far more tolerant of people who don't share their beliefs than most 'religious' people - they accept religious people a lot more easily than religious people accept them.

Original Post by santonacci:

There's been a recent flurry of religion vs. non-religion threads/posts lately - I'm surprised you didn't notice them.

 Oh, thanks! I'd been away from the forums for awhile, due to their addictive and dissertater's-worst-nightmare nature.

Oh dissertation, shmissertation!  It can wait!  ;)

J/K.  As one who has, herself, had to write a master's thesis, I understand, and applaud your self-control.

jitterro: yeah, I was wondering that, too.

trustwomen: I'm not really looking for a community. It was more of a general sort of abstract curiosity about the topic.

And as for atheist agnosticism: I guess I'm only agnostic insofar as I'm a skeptic about our knowledge about anything in general. I mean, it is just as hard to confirm, epistemically, that the world is the way we think it is--that we are in front of the computer right now, that we have a body, that the sky is blue, etc.--as it is to confirm that God exists or doesn't. Since I don't qualify any of my other beliefs in this way, I don't do it with my belief that God doesn't exist either.  

santonacci: true, the terminology is unfortunate. I guess I meant anyone who doesn't believe in any sort of God that most traditional religions posit. But even this definition no doubt has some problems. And you're right that the separation of morality and God for atheists makes it even more difficult for atheists to unite (if indeed that is what is desired)--i.e., just because we all believe there isn't a god, this gives us absolutely no insight into our moral views.

pgeorgian: what's a spiritual atheist?

lionpaw: good point about atheists not putting 'not believing in god' at the top of their lists of things to talk about. I think that's related to what I was trying to point out to my friend. Also, were you kidding about the utter coolness of the universe? That's hilarious! (Which is not to say it's not true!)

I agree with lionpaw. I don't really put my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, at the top of my priority list. I focus my life around other things. I think "atheists" tend to do that. For religious people, it's a large and very important part of their life and for some, something they are truly passionate about. I'm just passionate about other things and I get just as much fulfillment and pleasure out of those things as a religious person would from their religion. 

alibunch: good point. Also, you don't have atheists going door to door selling their non-beliefs; they surely have better things to do.

But I think my friend's point was that this was dissapointing, since if we (atheists) really think that it is true that there is no god (however defined) then we really should be outraged, even just intellectually, that so many people are spending so much of their time mired in falsehood.

I personally don't see what the big deal is. But his point was: if we were in a population where everyone thought that the earth was flat and ruled by fairy mice, and this belief was very important to them and motivated many of their day to day actions, wouldn't you as a non-beleiver, feel obligated to show everyone the error of their ways? If you really think there is no god, in other words, then in not being vocal, you are allowing so many to be deluded into thinking something is there that isn't. And that is supposed to be intellectually repugnant, I suppose...

 

Well, we all think our beliefs are the best, right? Christians think their way is right, Jews think theirs, etc etc. I don't see it as my place to show people the 'error of their ways' no more than I like having Christians trying to show me the 'error' of my ways, as they see it.

I think religion, or lack thereof, is a personal thing for people to explore on their own.... not package in a pretty, little box and give it away, going door to door, etc.

I would respect people's right to believe in fairy mice just as much as I respect their right to believe anything else. Whatever gets you through the day, y'know? I am sure that I also have some comforting beliefs that would not hold up to objective scrutiny (e.g. that I'm good enough, smart enough, and that doggone-it, people like me).

Original Post by trustwomen:

I would respect people's right to believe in fairy mice just as much as I respect their right to believe anything else. Whatever gets you through the day, y'know? I am sure that I also have some comforting beliefs that would not hold up to objective scrutiny (e.g. that I'm good enough, smart enough, and that doggone-it, people like me).

I agree with the spirit of your claim, but there are some beliefs I just don't and won't respect: that some races are superior to others, that women are unequal to men, that murder is right, and abusing children should be tolerated. Etc. (I don't mean to be uncharitable; I'm sure you didn't mean these kinds of beliefs. But that's kind of the problem with trying to have a principled approach to what others believe and don't believe. )

So I won't respect people's right to believe in just anything they please; respect isn't handed out willy-nilly. But I don't believe my friend is right either. I don't feel I need to go out and convince every theist that there is no God.

I guess I sort of hold a middle ground: if someone has beliefs--whatever they are--that I think are false, but these beliefs are not harming anyone, then I see no need to interfere. (Granted "harming" here is no doubt a vague and controversial matter.) But as soon as someones beliefs are infringing on others, then intervention might be necessary. I guess it's sort of a consequentialism tolerance.

I'm an atheist.

@alibuch

I agree. People can believe whatever they want as long as they leave me out of it, but some metaphysical models are falsifiable.

Original Post by alibuch:

Well, we all think our beliefs are the best, right? Christians think their way is right, Jews think theirs, etc etc. I don't see it as my place to show people the 'error of their ways' no more than I like having Christians trying to show me the 'error' of my ways, as they see it.

 

Fair enough. But we can't all be right. Either god exists or god doesn't, and I for one am interested in which one it is.

I am happy to have anyone show me the truth. In fact, I'm always game for someone to show me that god exists, or that my views are wrong, etc. The problem for me is that most atheists and most theists aren't even playing the same game. If I ask a theist to show me that god exists, I usually get told its about faith. But that's putting the cart before the horse. You have to believe something exists before you can have faith in it. But I want to know WHY I should believe god exists in the first place. So far, no good answer has been given, whereby "good answer", I mean a valid argument, that guarentees to take me from true premises to a true conclusion.

But most theists think that giving an argument for god's existence is besides the point. "Faith and reason don't mix!", they might cry.  But then it seems we're at a standstill since I then don't know what it means for them to "show" me that god exists...

phimegaphi, good response to my post and I agree. I, too, will respect others' beliefs to the extent that they are not inherently harmful to others and that they make the person function better in the world, not worse.

And it is rather unfair to ask people to "prove" something they have faith in. Mark Twain said, "faith is believing in something you know ain't so". I would be hard-pressed to "prove" the existence of love as I define it, yet I believe that it exists and I hold it as an article of faith. I would say, as would the theists, probably, that they know it because they feel it. Not something you can explain or share.

But that's the thing with religion. There is no proof. It cannot be proven. You have to have faith that a god exists. Some people can have that faith. The others of us cannot.

And I understand you wanting to know which one is right but if we knew which one was right, do you think religion would be such a hot button issue? The Middle East would sure be a different place right now if we all had the magic answer...

trustwomen: is it really so hard to prove love exists? I mean, if it is an emotion that we feel, then we can have first person experience of it. Moreover, if you are a materialist (non-dualist) about the mind--if you don't believe in souls or spirits or anything immaterial--then you probably think that all there is are neurons firing in the brain. Some certain pattern of neurons firing is just what love is, and thatis surely empirically verifiable by a neuroscientist.

alibunch: not all theists think that religion is unprovable. Plato, Aquinas, St. Anselm, and many others thought that because rationality is a gift from god, it could be used to prove his existence. Although your point is taken: most do not think this.

But funny, isn't it? If theists do think that some people can have faith and others cannot, then why all the effort to change those that can't into those that can? Isn't that sort of pointless? Also, it seems cosmically unfair, if faith is a pre-determined ability, to then to dole out eternal reward or punishment based on something that we (according to the theist's picture) intrinsically can or cannot do.

And fair enough, alibunch. It's true that if we knew which one was right, it wouldn't be such a hot issue. But why think that it's a 'magical' bit of knowledge? Why is belief in god any different than any other question we might ask about the world? There is an answer, so let's sit down and figure out how would be the best method of arriving on this answer. Surely we should be able to agree on this meta-question, right? I mean, we're all after the truth, supposedly. So I guess I'm just confused about why many of us disagree about how to get at the truth, for this methodology should come before we arrive at any answers. Ideally, anyway.

BTW: thanks everyone for all of your thoughtful responses and discussion. This is fun!   

Original Post by phimegaphi:

I am happy to have anyone show me the truth. In fact, I'm always game for someone to show me that god exists, or that my views are wrong, etc.

I consider myself a Christian but I'm always the one who questions a lot of Christians or theists and their thoughts on religion ;p

I always had this thought though: say theists cannot prove God exists. Fair enough. Can you prove he doesn't exist? It kind of goes both ways.

 

I also would like to add that I agree with a lot of you who say that religion/spirituality/non-religion/anything else, should be for yourself and that you shouldn't really force it on people. I'm totally with you. :)