"5 stupid things about atheists"

[Manopolus]

I think you are making a mistake by trying to generalize from what you experience around there. Compared to the South it sounds downright "Free Thinking".




The Baptists of 17th and 18th century New England were a very different beast than those of the 19th century South. Unlike the Puritans, who were Congregationalists with a specific credo of central authority, and had come here to build a theocracy so they could make other people pay attention to them instead of ignoring their religious admonishments, the Baptist were a truly persecuted group in England and the rest of Europe.

Their beliefs were founded in the concept of individual worship and the following of faith.





The Baptists around here, which is to say the historic South, quite formally and deliberately split away from northern Baptists when they formed the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. They did this because they felt that the proper interpretation of their religious beliefs supported slavery and white supremacy. There was nothing wishy-washy about it. That was their upfront purpose for the division.

Needless to say this put them hand-in-glove with the political machinery of the day, and that relationship continues even now.

One of the more ironic results of this is that keeping religion out of schools was a premise for which which Southern Baptists were strong supporters ... until around 1954. (Yeah, right about the time of Brown v. BOE. What a coinky-dink, eh?)



That's just it. They're not. Not down here in the Below the (Mason Dixon Line) Bible Belt.

If anything the opposite is true. The church-on-every-corner Southern Baptists (that's a proper name, not a description) define and maintain the political issues, and they do it based on their religious tenets. When churches which had been members of the SBC refused to go along with a recent set of declarations which included things like wives having to be subservient to their husbands those churches were promptly booted out of the Convention. Likewise ordaining women, and marrying gays.

This. coming from a group which splintered from the mainstream specifically because they believed that each congregation should be able to believe and worship in the manner they chose, without the oversight and control of a higher ranking organization.

Ironic, isn't it.

Politicians around here don't hijack the religious. It's entirely the other way around. Very vocal conservative fundamentalist religious leaders set the agenda which the politicians purportedly on the right have to follow if they want to make it out of the primaries. (Or mebbe even into them in the first place).

This is taken as serious stuff around here, and if anything the fervor is getting worse as they see the general tide of public discourse and opinion passing them by in less intolerant parts of the country.

(Damned Yankees!)

Hmm...

Okay. I guess I don't know the intermediate history much. I lived in Texas (Beaumont area) for three years and worked in many Southern states during that time, but I'll have to admit that I never saw the inside of a church down there. I did get invited to quite a few (particularly by Pentacostals), but I wasn't particularly interested. I was also on the road too much (due to work) to really get to know much of anybody.

Anyway, yeah... I suppose it does exist, but that's not the whole of the religion... just the worst part of it. It's sort of the "Southern Gothic Horror" part of the religion. The only notable influence from that here at the Northern border of Kansas is not from the churches, but from right-wing media, as far as I've been able to tell. We're still considered part of The Bible Belt though, last I knew (probably depending on who you ask).

 

[quadraginta]

My atheism is a belief. I was once a Christian, so my choice to now be an atheist (and somewhat anti-religion) is a positive belief.

<snip>

I too was once a Christian. Born and baptized into the Episcopal Church.

I took it pretty seriously when I was young. Altar server and all that.

I didn't change my beliefs. I didn't gain any new ones to replace the ones I abandoned. As time progressed my way of evaluating things became more evidence based and I came to the conclusion that no evidence existed which supported the idea of a supernatural deity.

 

[quadraginta]

A couple of thoughts... I happen to be the latter (believes there are no gods), and I consider it a belief in the same sense I believe we evolved from other primates. In other words, an evidence-based belief rather than a faith-based one, subject to change based on further evidence. Theists, in particular, will get the camel's nose in the tent by saying positive atheism is a belief... just like theism... so you can't claim you're any better than a theist.

It's an equivocation between evidence-based belief and faith-based or emotion-based belief--both legitimate meanings of belief, but coming from very different places.

"Equivocation" might be the right term in this instance, but maybe not for the reasons you intended.

"The phrase "evidence based belief" in this context is very nearly an oxymoron because what we are really talking about is an absence of evidence to support a belief.

Absence of evidence equals absence of belief, not belief of absence.

Also, I'm not sure one can say a lack of belief in (god)s contains no belief, once a person is exposed to some god-stories. The person may be abstaining from a statement about gods in general, but he would still have a specific belief about God or Allah or Zeus, etc., once he was told about them.

 

[quadraginta]

I do consider belief a choice, just as opinion is a choice. Which is why I consider my atheism a positive, active belief, and not a passive one.

This is not to imply that everyone arrives at belief or choice based on an examination of evidence. For many (most?) it may be something they feel in their gut, or never examined.

Time and again I see a statement like "I am an atheist, but if I'm provided adequate evidence, I would change my belief." How is evidence based belief not a choice?
<snip>

Because evidence isn't a choice. It just is. What you do with it may be a choice, but the evidence itself either exists or not.

In the case of atheism though it isn't that there is evidence to persuade someone to believe, it is that there is an absence of evidence of anything at all.

Thus ... no belief.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I too was once a Christian. Born and baptized into the Episcopal Church.

I took it pretty seriously when I was young. Altar server and all that.

I didn't change my beliefs. I didn't gain any new ones to replace the ones I abandoned. As time progressed my way of evaluating things became more evidence based and I came to the conclusion that no evidence existed which supported the idea of a supernatural deity.

My evaluation process, as yours, similarly changed, which is why my beliefs changed.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I can't see how you didn't change beliefs. You still believe in god(s)? Certainly, being an atheist pretty much requires that belief to change, or minimally, disappear, no? I see no way for them to co-exist.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

For those that claim new borns are atheist, and if this is true then they have not arrived at that condition rationally. For those atheists (rare, I expect) that have never heard the of the concept of 'god(s), they too would not have arrived at their atheism rationally.

<snip>

They wouldn't have arrived at it irrationally either. They just wouldn't have arrived at it at all.

Atheism isn't always a goal (although it might be in the sense that it can be arrived at), it is a state. The state of not believing in a deity. It isn't something that has to be thought of unless you start from the position of being a believer in religion or deity/ies or an agnostic. If you are not then you are already an atheist. It is the default condition.

Your dichotomy is false.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Because evidence isn't a choice. It just is. What you do with it may be a choice, but the evidence itself either exists or not.

I don't see how this is anything than quibbling. I never said evidence is a choice, I said evidence based belief is a choice.

In the case of atheism though it isn't that there is evidence to persuade someone to believe, it is that there is an absence of evidence of anything at all.

To quote you above, evidence isn't a choice.

There certainly is evidence for god(s). That it is of poor quality (In *my* opinion) or based on personal experience, is an important feature in weighing the importance of said evidence. I weigh such evidence as worthless, as apparently you do.

Thus ... no belief.

If that is how you choose to characterize your atheism, cool. It's not how I characterize mine.

 

[The Greater Fool]

They wouldn't have arrived at it irrationally either. They just wouldn't have arrived at it at all.

True. I didn't state or imply otherwise.

Atheism isn't always a goal (although it might be in the sense that it can be arrived at), it is a state. The state of not believing in a deity. It isn't something that has to be thought of unless you start from the position of being a believer in religion or deity/ies or an agnostic. If you are not then you are already an atheist. It is the default condition.

Again, true. And again, I didn't say otherwise.

Your dichotomy is false.

I never stated a dichotomy, you assumed it. When I stated specific atheists didn't arrive at atheism rationally, it doesn't mean that all other atheists did.

Really, you seem to want to argue points not made.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

We're still considered part of The Bible Belt though, last I knew (probably depending on who you ask).

Maybe the stitching, or some tooling. We are the buckle.

The SBC even has a breeding program in Wake Forest, less than 40 miles from here. The Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

[Beanbag]

I don't agree with any of the points made, except perhaps some apply to the new atheist 'presence' on the net.

Personally I am a rather gloomy atheist. I feel no pride in it, just a bit sad that there is no afterlife and no god to look after us, which clearly there isn't. *sigh*

Can we call you Eyore?



Beanbag

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Who's mind are you reading? Mine? Leumas? Anyone else? Do let us know.

As far as I can tell, no one recently has done this 'concern trolling', but I may not have been attentive as I should.

I don't think that anybody here is a stealth Christian, if that's what you're thinking. Every persecuted minority group has members of that group who think that persecution is well-deserved. There are African-Americans who think that most blacks are lazy and uneducated. Of course, they are the exception. There are homosexuals who think that gay people are persecuted because they act so flamboyant and behave so offensively. Of course, again, they are the exception. Oh, if only other gay people were honorable, upright citizens like they are, then straight people would see the error of their ways, and everything would be okay! Don't laugh. I knew a gay guy like this. They're out there.

So, naturally, you have atheists who hate other atheists for their "smugness" and "arrogance". When they try to tell us how badly we're behaving, for some reason they are met with hostility. For some reason, we don't thank them for their helpful suggestions, which only serves to prove to them even more that we are really arrogant and rude, and Christians are right for hating and persecuting us.

Now, you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that the person who is actually smug, arrogant, and rude is the person who has gotten up on their high horse and is telling other atheists that they have a bad attitude. Now, I know what you're thinking. "But Axiom_Blade! That's not really 'concern trolling' because it's not a false flag!" I think that's just splitting hairs. The message is the same, whether the person is secretly a Christian or not. I'm not a mind reader, either, so I'm just going to call them all "concern trolls".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't think that anybody here is a stealth Christian, if that's what you're thinking. Every persecuted minority group has members of that group who think that persecution is well-deserved. There are African-Americans who think that most blacks are lazy and uneducated. Of course, they are the exception. There are homosexuals who think that gay people are persecuted because they act so flamboyant and behave so offensively. Of course, again, they are the exception. Oh, if only other gay people were honorable, upright citizens like they are, then straight people would see the error of their ways, and everything would be okay! Don't laugh. I knew a gay guy like this. They're out there.

So, naturally, you have atheists who hate other atheists for their "smugness" and "arrogance". When they try to tell us how badly we're behaving, for some reason they are met with hostility. For some reason, we don't thank them for their helpful suggestions, which only serves to prove to them even more that we are really arrogant and rude, and Christians are right for hating and persecuting us.

Now, you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that the person who is actually smug, arrogant, and rude is the person who has gotten up on their high horse and is telling other atheists that they have a bad attitude. Now, I know what you're thinking. "But Axiom_Blade! That's not really 'concern trolling' because it's not a false flag!" I think that's just splitting hairs. The message is the same, whether the person is secretly a Christian or not. I'm not a mind reader, either, so I'm just going to call them all "concern trolls".

I find it more credible that atheists are a diverse group and that there are some who are smug, arrogant and rude, some who are not, a whole bunch who are in-between both in terms of degrees of smugness, arrogance and rudeness and in terms of what percentage of the time they exhibit those attitudes, and that you will find people from all over this spectrum in each of the categories that you describe. I would suggest that finding any particular category to be filled exclusively with only one type of person and the other category to be filled exclusively with only one other type of person is more likely to be the result of confirmation bias than of an impartial assessment of the facts.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I find it more credible that atheists are a diverse group and that there are some who are smug, arrogant and rude, some who are not, a whole bunch who are in-between both in terms of degrees of smugness, arrogance and rudeness and in terms of what percentage of the time they exhibit those attitudes, and that you will find people from all over this spectrum in each of the categories that you describe. I would suggest that finding any particular category to be filled exclusively with only one type of person and the other category to be filled exclusively with only one other type of person is more likely to be the result of confirmation bias than of an impartial assessment of the facts.

Agreed. We have one thing in common, a lack of belief. After that we could be anybody. The statement "all theists are just alike" is absurd, but some folks think "all atheists are just alike" is absolutely true.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I don't think that anybody here is a stealth Christian, if that's what you're thinking. Every persecuted minority group has members of that group who think that persecution is well-deserved. There are African-Americans who think that most blacks are lazy and uneducated. Of course, they are the exception. There are homosexuals who think that gay people are persecuted because they act so flamboyant and behave so offensively. Of course, again, they are the exception. Oh, if only other gay people were honorable, upright citizens like they are, then straight people would see the error of their ways, and everything would be okay! Don't laugh. I knew a gay guy like this. They're out there.

So, naturally, you have atheists who hate other atheists for their "smugness" and "arrogance". When they try to tell us how badly we're behaving, for some reason they are met with hostility. For some reason, we don't thank them for their helpful suggestions, which only serves to prove to them even more that we are really arrogant and rude, and Christians are right for hating and persecuting us.

Now, you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that the person who is actually smug, arrogant, and rude is the person who has gotten up on their high horse and is telling other atheists that they have a bad attitude. Now, I know what you're thinking. "But Axiom_Blade! That's not really 'concern trolling' because it's not a false flag!" I think that's just splitting hairs. The message is the same, whether the person is secretly a Christian or not. I'm not a mind reader, either, so I'm just going to call them all "concern trolls".

Gotcha, and agree. Apologies for the peevishness.

Agreed. We have one thing in common, a lack of belief. After that we could be anybody. The statement "all theists are just alike" is absurd, but some folks think "all atheists are just alike" is absolutely true.

As a quibble, atheists don't even agree on the definition of atheist: 'lack of belief' / 'belief there are no', discussions of which have spawned and derailed threads for years.

 

[tsig]

I find it more credible that atheists are a diverse group and that there are some who are smug, arrogant and rude, some who are not, a whole bunch who are in-between both in terms of degrees of smugness, arrogance and rudeness and in terms of what percentage of the time they exhibit those attitudes, and that you will find people from all over this spectrum in each of the categories that you describe. I would suggest that finding any particular category to be filled exclusively with only one type of person and the other category to be filled exclusively with only one other type of person is more likely to be the result of confirmation bias than of an impartial assessment of the facts.

IOW atheists are human.

 

[The Greater Fool]

IOW atheists are human.

If atheism = 'lack of belief in god(s)' then I would think it is safe to say that all the rest of creation* is atheist.

* ETA: other than human theists.

 

[tsig]

If atheism = 'lack of belief in god(s)' then I would think it is safe to say that all the rest of creation* is atheist.

* ETA: other than human theists.

Not according to the bible:

King James Bible
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not according to the bible:

King James Bible
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

What would the stones say?

"I can't get no satisfaction!"?

 

[Leumas]

Gotcha, and agree. Apologies for the peevishness.

As a quibble, atheists don't even agree on the definition of atheist: 'lack of belief' / 'belief there are no', discussions of which have spawned and derailed threads for years.

No... only pretend atheists pretend to not agree.... and perhaps gut-feeling-atheists since they have no brain-feeling and thus have not arrived at their atheism through logic or study but through gastrointestinal movements.

The sophistry of trying to redefine the English language might be an amusing GAME.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking.

Poly-Theo-Ism

Poly = many in number

Theo = God

Ism = Ideology​

Thus polytheism = many gods ideology


Mono-Theo-Ism

Mono = one or single

Theo = God

Ism = Ideology​

Thus monotheism = one god ideology

A-Theo-Ism

A = Lack of

Theo = God

Ism = ideology​

Thus atheism = lack of a god ideology.

Also note that lack of belief is not belief.

So atheism is not... belief in lack of gods .... it is .... lack of a god ideology which is lack of belief in gods.

A-theo-ism is lack of a god ideology which means LACK OF BELIEF in theos (gods).....

Not

Belief in lack of theos (gods).​

That is it.... there is no more need for PLAYING sophistry games with words and the English language.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No... only pretend atheists pretend to not agree.... and perhaps gut-feeling-atheists since they have no brain-feeling and thus have not arrived at any thing through logic but through gastrointestinal movements.

The sophistry of trying to redefine the English language might be an amusing GAME.

Poly-Theo-Ism

Poly = many in number

Theo = God

Ism = Ideology
​

Thus polytheism = many gods ideology


Mono-Theo-Ism

Mono = one or single

Theo = God

Ism = Ideology
​

Thus monotheism = one god ideology

A-Theo-Ism

A = Lack of

Theo = God

Ism = ideology
​

Thus atheism = lack of a god ideology.

Also note that lack of belief is not belief.

So atheism is not... belief in lack of gods .... it is .... lack of a god ideology which is lack of belief in gods.

A-theo-ism is lack of a god ideology which means LACK OF BELIEF in theos (gods).....​

Not​

Belief in lack of theos (gods).​

That is it.... there is no more need for PLAYING sophistry games with words and the English language.

Again, I am a faux atheist. Great.

Damn those sophistry game players at Mirriam-Webster:

atheism

noun athe·ism \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity