Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Hawk one]

No member of any organisation that's particularly atheistic. Not sure there are such things around here, it's mostly about secular organisations. Closest thing I can think of right now is that we have "Human-Etisk Forbund" (Human(e)-Ethic Foundation). You don't even have to be atheist to join that group, you just have to agree that for example religious indoctrination should stay out of science classes. And that it's a pretty damn good idea to act honestly and ethically, of course.

 

[calebprime]

Quick poll for the atheists in this thread - are you a member of AA?

nope. Automobiles Anonymous?

btw, there was an article in the NYT Sun. mag last year proposing that we ought to create a different arrangement with respect to separation of church and state.

It said, let the religious folks have their creches and their prayers before football games. Take away funding for faith-based initiatives. In other words, more freedom of speech, less government sponsorship of religion. I agree.

 

[Jensen]

If that was true they should of said that to the Supreme Court (see previous post) instead of giving a long detailed definition full of specific beliefs.

DOC, can I quote any outrageous statement made by any religious organization, and then you would have to defend it? Please say yes, it would be so much fun...

 

[Bob Klase]

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows.

You fail to note that the beliefs given are those of the "petitioners" and not those of all atheists.

If that was true they should of said that to the Supreme Court (see previous post) instead of giving a long detailed definition full of specific beliefs.

No. Once again, they were petitioning the court and giving the court 'their' beliefs, not 'atheist' beliefs.

 

[H3LL]

Not a member of American Atheists.

I'm not American.

If there is/was a UK version I wouldn't be a member of UKA either.

I'm a member of the Cat Herding UK Meeting People Society, but so far I'm the only one.

 

[Darat]

H3LL - I can asure you you aren't the only Member.

 

[KingMerv00]

DOC absolutely loves arguments from authority doesn't he?

If you are an atheist, you can be:

Humanist
Anarchist
Facist
Communist
Capitalist
Republican
Democrat
Socialist
Pro-life
Pro-choice
etc.

Atheists can believe in:

The afterlife
Souls
Psychic Powers
Dowsing
Aliens
Ghosts
Pixies
etc.

Do you understand yet or should I go on?

Edit: Also not a member of AA.

 

[Furi]

There is a Cat Herders Soc. and no-one told me.

Well I am as much a member of that as I am the UK Atheist org or whatever (if it exists, I know a certain person that thinks athiest means CofE when entered on personnel forms)

 

[joobz]

DOC absolutely loves arguments from authority doesn't he?

If you are an atheist, you can be:

Humanist
Anarchist
Facist
Communist
Capitalist
Republican
Democrat
Socialist
Pro-life
Pro-choice
etc.

Atheists can believe in:

The afterlife
Souls
Psychic Powers
Dowsing
Aliens
Ghosts
Pixies
etc.

Do you understand yet or should I go on?

Edit: Also not a member of AA.

You're forgeting DOC's basic logic function:
If X is good, then it proves the christian god is good.

If X is bad, then it proves that atheism is bad.

where X = anything done by anyone one at anytime.

 

[Ocelot]

I'm an atheist and also a humanist. I'm a member of the British Humanist Society.

Sorry to fuel DOC's position but the BHA does regard atheism as a belief. However that's more than a little bit a political stance. Rights to religion and belief are protected under various legislation whereas non-belief is not.

Is not beliveing in God the same as believing there's not a God - really its just semantics and we should be able to get past it.

The BHA also states a number of the other beliefs of Secular Humanism though these are related to Humanism not intrinistic to Atheism alone.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm an atheist and also a humanist. I'm a member of the British Humanist Society.

Sorry to fuel DOC's position but the BHA does regard atheism as a belief. However that's more than a little bit a political stance. Rights to religion and belief are protected under various legislation whereas non-belief is not.

I seem to recall that the US Supreme Court once stated atheism isn't a religion in the philosophical sense but it was a religion in the Constitutional sense and therefore deserved legal protection.

Is not beliveing in God the same as believing there's not a God - really its just semantics and we should be able to get past it.

I don't have a problem saying that atheism is the belief there are no gods. It is the ONLY belief that atheism requires.

To me, if you have never even concidered the existance of God, you are a nontheist.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm an atheist and also a humanist. I'm a member of the British Humanist Society.

Sorry to fuel DOC's position but the BHA does regard atheism as a belief. However that's more than a little bit a political stance. Rights to religion and belief are protected under various legislation whereas non-belief is not.

Is not beliveing in God the same as believing there's not a God - really its just semantics and we should be able to get past it.

The BHA also states a number of the other beliefs of Secular Humanism though these are related to Humanism not intrinistic to Atheism alone.

I don't really have a problem with atheism being a belief, though I could argue about it (does 'I don't believe there's a car in my driveway' mean EXACTLY the same thing as 'I believe there is no car in my driveway'?). It certainly isn't a belief SYSTEM unless nowadays one thing can be a system.

I'm not a member of either AA. The petitioners were stating THEIR beliefs, not establishing some sort of atheist creed, which all TRUE atheists must believe.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Is not believing in God the same as believing there's not a God - really its just semantics and we should be able to get past it.

I do think they are two different things - "not believing in God" could mean there is a God and you don't believe in him, but "believing there is no God" doesn't leave that opening.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not to play into DOC's "gotcha" troll, but before I put you in the no category, would you join for political/social reasons or because you agreed with the tenets of "belief" listed in the AA page that DOC quoted?

No, I probably wouldn't. I've considered joining the Australian Skeptics Society, but so far I've been too cheap and miserly to fork out the lucre for a membership.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I do think they are two different things - "not believing in God" could mean there is a God and you don't believe in him, but "believing there is no God" doesn't leave that opening.

How do you figure that? God's existence is independent of belief, so "believing there is no God" could mean there is a god and you don't believe in him.

I've yet to see a way to phrase the difference that isn't just a weaselly way out of defending a position.

 

[arthwollipot]

How do you figure that? God's existence is independent of belief, so "believing there is no God" could mean there is a god and you don't believe in him.

But that's not what is being talked about - the independent existence of God. What is being talked about is whether atheism can be considered a belief. If you take atheism as "I do not believe there is a god" then no it is not. But if you take "I believe that there is no god" then it is. God's independent existence or nonexistence has no bearing on this.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Hey DOC, does the beliefs of the Catholic Church define your Christian belief?

Quick poll for the atheists in this thread - are you a member of AA?

US - no.

No.

 

[Bob Klase]

I do think they are two different things - "not believing in God" could mean there is a God and you don't believe in him, but "believing there is no God" doesn't leave that opening.

Or "believing there is no God" means that you believe there is no god but you could be wrong. Pretty much the same as "not believing in God".

 

[six7s]

The sooner you accept that atheism is NOT a belief system, the sooner you will understand how (and, perhaps/hopefully why) your view is so woefully distorted

The "American Atheists" organization would strongly disagree with you. I counted them using the word believe or beliefs about 8 times in their definition of atheism.

OK... for the hard-of-thinking, I'll rephrase what I wrote earlier

The sooner you

• accept that atheism is NOT a belief system
• accept that being an atheist does NOT require allegiance to any organisation
• start thinking (as opposed to clutching at straws)

the sooner you will understand how (and, perhaps/hopefully why) your view is so woefully distorted

If nothing else, get one SIMPLE concept straight:

atheism is the absence of theism
nothing more
nothing less​

Please, stop trying to COMPLICATE it

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I seem to recall that the US Supreme Court once stated atheism isn't a religion in the philosophical sense but it was a religion in the Constitutional sense and therefore deserved legal protection.

I want to say that was in Torcaso v. Watkins. And look at the garbage a Google for supreme court atheism religion brings up. Blech.