• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Characterization of Atheism

But did you, or anybody you know of, come to be an atheist because there was no scientific proof of god?

I didn't start out that way, but I ended that way.

I started from an emotional base, but the science was just too big to be ignored. Once I paid attention to it, it became overwhelming, from an evidentiary standpoint.

And once I reached that point, my emotional foundation no longer mattered. What I now think about the non-existence of god rests firmly on a scientific foundation.

So, I can answer your question with: "Yes, definitely. I am one such."

Pretty much the same for me.

It started emotionally, as I saw various things in the bible that made me go "WTF? Is God a psycho?". Like bear mauling children for laughing at a bald man. Like commanding genocide whiel later preaching peace and love, and all that combined with the various "will of the lord never changes" verses.

My first reaction was to find out if I was missing something, which led to a deep study of the Bible. This, in turn, led to finding secular references on the history of those times, and similar things. Which, in turn, led me to the conclusion (after much study and application of scientific principles) that it's all so much hogwash.

So there's more than one of us.

Hellbound
Preacher's kid
 
I didn't start out that way, but I ended that way.

I started from an emotional base, but the science was just too big to be ignored. Once I paid attention to it, it became overwhelming, from an evidentiary standpoint.

And once I reached that point, my emotional foundation no longer mattered. What I now think about the non-existence of god rests firmly on a scientific foundation.

So, I can answer your question with: "Yes, definitely. I am one such."
It sounds like you had already developed an atheistic viewpoint and used scientific reasoning to solidify or justify that viewpoint
 
It sounds like you had already developed an atheistic viewpoint and used scientific reasoning to solidify or justify that viewpoint

It would sound that way to a believer, but it's not that way.

Feel free to twist what I say into whatever malformed creature you need it to be, to keep shoring up whatever it is you believe. I'm used to that, and it doesn't affect the actual truth at all. :)
 
So there's more than one of us.
Considerably. It's probably also the main cause of ironic usernames.

We should all get together some time and have an apostate party. No godbotherers or virtuous pagans allowed.
 
A friend commented that she thought it was ill-advised to get a tattoo that signified atheism, as that was "a spiritual issue, and people's spiritual beliefs change all the time".

I wonder, does your friend know anyone that has religious tattoos, and advise similarly?

I see religious-themed tattoos fairly regularly.
 
ETA: Responding to post 42 and 43

I suspect it's similar to my own experience.

You begin to have doubts. You start doing research and investigating, with an eye to what the evidence supports.

That leads to the conclusion that the Bible is no different from any other religious text, and Christianity no different from other religions: man-made.

I didn't become an atheist until I did that study, and from slingblade's post it sounds the similar.

I wouldn't call it "using science to solidify or justify". Emotional responses lead to doubt, which leads to investigation. The investigation is what led to atheism. I can't speak for slingblade, but for myself I can say that if the science did support Christianity, I wouldn't have become an atheist.
 
Considerably. It's probably also the main cause of ironic usernames.

We should all get together some time and have an apostate party. No godbotherers or virtuous pagans allowed.

I'm more than willing to sacrifice some cattle (well, choice cuts from same, anyway) and partake of some noxious brews (i.e.-beer) to celebrate our impending eternal demise :D
 
I wouldn't call it "using science to solidify or justify". Emotional responses lead to doubt, which leads to investigation. The investigation is what led to atheism. I can't speak for slingblade, but for myself I can say that if the science did support Christianity, I wouldn't have become an atheist.

Emotion leads to doubt.
Doubt leads to study.
Study leads to contradiction.
Contradiction leads to questioning.
Questioning leads to dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction leads to investigation.
Investigation leads to implausibility.
Implausiblity leads to disaffection.
Disaffection leads to science.
Science leads to empiricism.
Empiricism leads to disbelief.
Disbelief leads to atheism.
Atheism leads to suffering.
 
Last edited:
ETA: Responding to post 42 and 43

I suspect it's similar to my own experience.

You begin to have doubts. You start doing research and investigating, with an eye to what the evidence supports.

That leads to the conclusion that the Bible is no different from any other religious text, and Christianity no different from other religions: man-made.

I didn't become an atheist until I did that study, and from slingblade's post it sounds the similar.

I wouldn't call it "using science to solidify or justify". Emotional responses lead to doubt, which leads to investigation. The investigation is what led to atheism. I can't speak for slingblade, but for myself I can say that if the science did support Christianity, I wouldn't have become an atheist.

Excellent post, and excellent final comment, especially.

You did not intentionally speak for me, but what you said is what I say, too.
 
Emotion leads to doubt.
Doubt leads to study.
Study leads to contradiction.
Contradiction leads to questioning.
Questioning leads to dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction leads to investigation.
Investigation leads to implausibility.
Implausiblity leads disaffection.
Disaffection leads to science.
Science leads to empiricism.
Empiricism leads to disbelief.
Disbelief leads to atheism.
Atheism leads to suffering.

And bull **** leads to bull ****, apparently.

signed, Non-suffering, happy atheist.
 
I am thinking about getting an invisible pink unicorn tattooed on me. In UV ink, of course, Well, not really. But it sounds kind of cool.
 
I define spirituality as coming from the word spirit, as in a spirited horse. Not a ghost horse, but a horse with vibrant burning passion. And spirituality would be the experience one has when reflecting upon a sense of profound meaning to their existence, those moments when the now is loud and apparent and one feels awe or wonder or great appreciation for one's place in reality which cannot be summed up in words adequately. Some feel this passion more than others, but it has nothing to do with non corporeal beings, disembodied consciousness which is intrinsic to the universe, or dogmatic systems of belief. Religion and new age hucksters currently have a monopoly on wonder and indescribable depths of emotion. Horse hockey.

I agree, Halfcentaur. This is one reason why I struggle with the notion that atheism is a "spiritual" concern. I tend to agree with the general comments regarding the separation of "spiritual" and "religious". I think for those that are religious, the two are more intertwined, but perhaps for those who are less religious, the distinction is more marked between them. There are some people who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious", for example. More good food for thought, thanks.
HG
 
I hadn't thought it physically possible but that is both cool and hot at the same time ;)

Aww, thanks. ;)

I've asked myself the same and find that there are different kinds of atheism.

There's the "scientific atheism" which regards the existence of gods as just another statement about reality and finds it false.
Another kind of atheism often gets overlooked because you don't find it on its own but only coinciding with "scientific atheism". Let's call that "ethical atheism". Belief in a god doesn't just mean believing that such an entity exists but also pledging allegiance to it and obeying its commands. Most "scientific atheists", in my experience, believe in human rights, democracy and all that. They're also humanists. Even if they received solid evidence of a god, they would still not commit atrocities on its command.

That kind of scientific/ethical atheist pretty much never lapses because the change is just too big, requiring abandonment of rationality and ethics.


Another kind of atheist is the "angry-at-god" atheist. That's the believer approved kind and is usually temporary. They see all the evil in the world and can't believe that a god would allow this. Clearly this is just fallacious wishful thinking. Without a rational or ethical foundation, their opinions shifts with their moods. More generally, when someone justifies their atheism with fallacious arguments, that's the type that will find god sooner or later. And perhaps all sorts of woo.


Finally there's, let's call it "religious atheism". Sometimes you encounter new agers, woo-woos, who believe in all sorts of nonsense but not god. I have no idea what goes on inside these people.

Eventually, atheism is just about what one is not. It says nothing about what one is.

Thanks, GnaGnaMan, your thoughts here are helpful to my own thought process. In reading people's responses so far, I see some recurring elements. I've also been reading the comments following Michael Shermer's recent blog post on the labels of atheism and agnosticism - some of those are interesting as well. I think I need to dig into my friend's definition of spiritual first, and also make sure she understands what kind of atheist I am (strong) and why. I'm expecting that I'll learn a lot about the answer to my question as I'm talking to her. I also expect that the answer to how to characterize it to her (and others and myself) will end up being a characterization that I develop myself. Otherwise, I'd be hard pressed to explain and defend it to others. More thinking needed. :)
HG
 
Atheism isn't a spiritual belief. It's a philosophical one. Philosophy being defined as; the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Also I characterize Atheism as the BELIEF that a God or God's don't exist. Not an absolute assertion that a God COULDN'T (or doesn't) exist.


Could I disprove the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was possessed by a symbiotic alien creature that attached itself to his brain, killed JFK and quickly detached itself from his brain? No. But do I believe it? Of course not. But it's unfalsifiable (just like God of the Bible).


I would continue disbelieving until proof was provided and a book written by a man in a tin foil hat wouldn't be adequate proof or amount to evidence of any sort. That's how I feel about God and the Bible.
 

Back
Top Bottom