Atheism – A religion people join to appear smarter

I’m just going to put it out there, I’m an Atheist. Honestly, you are right. Most of the Atheists I encounter are absolute idiots. They flaunt their belief like some sort of status symbol, like we’re superior to all. I’m not all knowing, for all that I know, there very well could be a god somewhere in this universe. I for one, do not believe there is.

I used to be a full blown Christian before. I started asking questions, and the answers never added up. My preacher told me to have faith. Faith, as I define it, is just another word for blind devotion…

I don’t even know what religion you are, but you seem smart enough to respond intelligently to this.

This is one of the things I never understood as a Christian. God is all knowing. That’s pretty simple right? So God knew that when he created Satan, all he would do is cause pain, suffering, and death to his creation, us. In fact, he knowingly crafted the most evil thing in the universe. Call this a leap, but does that not make God equal to, or even worse to Satan himself?

I did not become an Atheist to “appear” smarter, I became one so I could come to the realization that I am not blind.

I look forward to the end. Maybe we can see who is truely right. Oh, and you do have to admit, even a 16 year old can be a pretty deep thinker.

I have a quick thought, if I can interject.

Your reply is well thought out, and it seems you know a bit about your religious doctrine. So good on you for actually having some clue about what you are defending.

My thought is, doesn’t it sound strange? I mean, if I found myself arguing the finer points of magical snakes and apples, good super beings versus bad super brings… at some point I would begin to question the validity of my words. I mean, I get caught up in debate about who would win between Boba Fett and Batman (Batman, clearly) but in the end we all walk away from the conversation knowing that it is all fantasy. All be it fantasy that we really enjoy.

So, do you periodically stop and think “do I really believe that there is a magical acorn called a ‘soul’ in each of us, put there by an extra-dimensional super being?”

I realize you never called a soul an acorn, I’m just being wordy. But the question stands: clearly you recognize the fantastic and bizarre nature of the claims you are defending. Do you ever recognize this and say to yourself “what the hell am I saying?”

Does it sound strange? Absolutely. Yet, coincidentally enough, that’s the point.

If you strip away all the “disputable matters”, as Paul said, you can see the congruency in both the OT and the NT of bringing the Kingdom to Earth. Now, I’m not talking about the vision in Revelation 21 (a book I have issues with), but something so radically different than what we’re used to that it’s shocking in its weird-ness.

Fact is, if I didn’t question my sanity, I’d be a horrible believer. Blind faith is dangerous and, well, un-Biblical. Even Jesus learned and grew in understanding during his time on Earth. One of the problems with Western Christianity is its tendency to take the words and stories in scripture literally. This causes the deeper, more esoteric, meaning to be missed… and most Christians miss the forest for the trees.

I apologise for the interruption but I just thought I would seize the seeming pause in the fervor to say that these various conversations have been a pleasure to observe thus far. Most definitely a breath of fresh air compared to what I’m used to seeing. I personally am more in the boat with cousinavi, but I think that you (csalafia) take a uniquely enlightened view on religious doctrine that I’m not used to seeing. I appreciate that very much as I used to possess many of your same views.

I also agree with Mike, many atheists can be rather boorish and endowed with a sense that they are immeasurably superior to those who disagree with their views. Since these characteristics are painfully apparent in both theists and atheists alike, it would appear that a majority of people (regardless of belief, or disbelief) lack sufficient ability to self-reflect and appreciate irony. I say all this as a means to illustrate the stark contrast between what I am seeing here, as opposed to the general belligerence I observe elsewhere.

Anyways, I apologise again for the interruption.

Please, don’t feel the need to apologize, I appreciate you coming by and commenting. Thank you.

I love civil discussion…. I don’t have to agree with you, but as long as were calling each other “dumb piece of sh**”, we’re cool.

Thanks again for coming by and hope you visit again!

On the internet, people come off as jerks when they’re talking about things that don’t even matter. People call each other nasty names when they’re arguing the finer points of fly fishing!

In my experience, most atheists don’t care to have this conversation at all. The people you are seeing on the internet getting into this stuff are very moved by the subject. Those who aren’t will never do the google searching or link hopping to lead them to a blog like this. It’s just not important to them. They reject the core belief in the supernatural… then they have their coffee and go to work. They don’t think about it, and they don’t argue about it. The fact that I do is considered strange to them. “why do you care?” is more their approach.

So keep this in mind when considering the cross section of people you get the opportunity to discuss this stuff with. Us angry atheists are actually pretty few and far between from what I’ve seen. By the time we get angry (or interested) enough to start blogging and responding on the internet, your selection of people has narrowed down to those of us with a really strong opinion.

The Christian end, on the other hand, are bread with an opinion. It is part of the religion to pass their knowledge on to others and to not do so is irresponsible. After all, if they do not do their part in converting lost souls like me, they ignore the fact that I will burn in hell for all eternity. Many Christians reject this detail, but it remains as a part of their core doctrine and tradition. So it is built in, the need to talk about it and argue for the opportunity to be “right”.

That’s not to say that all of them do. Just that there is a support structure already in place to encourage it. Atheists don’t have this kind of encouragement. We don’t have any beliefs that unify us. So for each atheist with an opinion, you have a person that got their wholly on their own and for most likely starkly different reasons.

athiesm isnt a religion, so whom ever the fuck make a poster is a dumb ass.

There’s nothing for him to debate, as you haven’t made an argument, and instead have posted a stupid image with a poorly worded and misspelled insult underneath. This sort of thing generally occurs when someone is too much of a slobbering, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing slope-brow fuckwit to make an actual argument. I thought I’d toss in that insult to keep this on a level you’d understand, considering the content of your posts.

First off, the guy in the picture is a fucking douche bag. He soils the good name of atheists everywhere. Secondly, atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief either. It is a truth. Until I am given one piece of evidence to support the theory of a deity of any kind, I will continue to support it as truth.

4. demetri b. | October 24, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Look…I don’t want to call you an idiot right off the hop, but your idiotic multiverse / string theory bullshit has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with atheism.
That you come in here blithering nonsense about a facet of advanced physics you clearly DON’T understand pisses me off in the first instance. That you tie it to atheism (the LACK of belief in a(ny) god(s)) only makes your stunning ignorance MORE offensive.
ATHEISTS take no position on string theory OR multiverses because ATHEISM has NOTHING TO DO with string theory or multiverses, you yammering fuckwit.
People who know something about physics MIGHT take a position on string theory and multiverses, but only the goddamn stupid ones think such a messy, ridiculous, untestable, cluttered notion might possibly reflect reality.
Nevertheless, you pretentious shit stain, the ONE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.
Now STFU and go read another dime store novel by David Deutch, you brainless asswipe.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a religion or philosophy. It is simply ones failure to reject the obvious. Atheism is the default. The word “atheist” should not even exit. Likewise, we do not have special words for non-astrologers. An atheist is simply not believing in the divinity of any religions in the world. Atheists are simply people who do not believe things without evidence. And as everyone in the scientific community knows, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

My personal view, whether it be correct or not, is that there is no god, but this is merely for the sake of simplicity. What I have come to conclude in my limited education yet great philosophical curiosity is that whether there is or isn’t a god is actually irrelevant. I believe there is no god because it makes more sense, but the truth is that most humans NEED a god figure in their lives. We as humans are the dominant species in this planet, we are at the zenith of power when it comes to Earth. Yet it is a human condition to recognize someone who’s more powerful than ourselves, someone who holds the key to our world. Children have their parents and teachers, and so when we have outgrown them being our father figures, or when they die, who do we have left? who is our father figure?

The great thing about the human mind is that it can readily adapt to any given situation, and so when a person no longer has a father figure, he merely creates one. Someone who is infinitely wise, powerful, and just happens to value human life. He also has the same morals as the people he first meets, (or gets invented by) Yahweh had the same morals as the Jewish, or the first Jew to invent such a character, Allah to the Muslims, and God to the Christians. Since we have created this father figure, we readily share him with others who lack this same person, and soon, the sensation is soon sweeping the community and is developed into a religion. I’d go more in depth with my explanation, but it is getting long. I’m sure there will be people mad at my beliefs and also claim that i may be either an “ignorant shitface” or maybe some other vulgar term, but I think that in order to debate, we all need to set aside those vulgarities and communicate like human beings. Besides, Humans were the animals that have reason, and reason should be our guide in uncovering problems.

Looking forward to a good debate.

Atheism IS NOT a religion. Maybe you’re just stupid.

So, you’re saying religious people aren’t smart? Seems to me that viewpoint is not only intellectually dishonest, but intolerant, bigoted, and discriminatory as well.

first of all, its not a religion, its the lack of a religion, and we join it because we ARE smarter.

We join what exactly bob? We join a not religion?

Smart and dumb are really not useful distinctions when it comes to identifying what god belief or lack there of “says” about someone. There are plenty of smart and dumb people on either side of the issue, I don’t think it’s very descriptive.

So, saying that someone is dumb, stupid, or not smart because they believe in extra-dimensional super-wizards isn’t necessarily very accurate. Saying that this person is not skeptical of the information they are fed and probably have mastered the art of intellectual compartmentalization might be much more useful (and more colorful, imo). One could also go so far as to say that if a person really believes… like actually believes that they are the magical brain children of the extra-dimensional super-wizard which created the entire universe out of an apparent whim and desire to be worshiped by hairless apes not even enlightened enough to keep from destroying their own planet… if they really believe… that they are schizophrenic.

So, no, not dumb or stupid. Just lazy.

Very energetic post csalafia. You have a way with words and it seems that you have a very good grasp of the rhetoric involved in rationalizing something like god belief. It’s no small task, so kudos.

You said a great deal so I’ll just pick the main theme.

The meat of your argument is entirely centered around the presumption that god, in whatever mutated description, exists. The discussion can’t start there, it has to start with identifying god belief as something reasonable or something that is entirely wild speculation. It is not reasonable and is entirely wild speculation. This is why it is absolutely true that god belief and the scientific mindset cannot mesh. The scientific mindset insists that an assumption have some kind of testable, repeatable, and falsifiable parameters before it can even really be considered. Sure, we can fancy about a wild idea all day long, but saying that this is in sync with the scientific mindset… well that’s just really strange to me.

This is the problem I have with the statement that you question faith, god, etc. You are going under the assumption that god exists, and you are looking skeptically at the details surrounding that absolute truth. This is not intellectual honesty, it’s the opposite as far as I can tell. You try to distance yourself from the rude fundamentalists but all you are distancing yourself from are the unpleasant parts of your doctrine which are no longer convenient to worship. While this is a good thing (because religious doctrine contains some real nightmarish advice), it is hardly an honest look at your core belief. It is an academic review of doctrine and traditions, and deciding which ones better reinforce your personal version of a god.

To assume that God belief is “not reasonable and is entirely wild speculation” is to completely dismiss thousands of years of human history, philosophy, theology, and science (which was considered by Aristotle to be the first philosophy).

This is why it is absolutely true that god belief and the scientific mindset cannot mesh.

Try telling that to Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Plank, Kepler, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, and Kelvin among others.

The scientific mindset insists that….
I love it when atheists try to tell me what the ‘scientific mindset’ is. I think my 15 years as a chemist, trained in nuclear, environmental, and analytical chemistry, US Patents, and internationally published papers should be enough “evidence” that I know what the ‘scientific mindset’ is.

Scientists often “fancy about a wild idea” and even spend their entire lives trying to determine ways to test their hypotheses…. sometimes succeeding, sometimes not. One doesn’t have to look any further than superacids and superbases. We know they’re real, yet there isn’t a scientific way to measure their acidity or alkalinity, as the current pH scale is insufficient. Does the fact that we can’t measure their characteristics mean they don’t exist?

You try to distance yourself from the rude fundamentalists but all you are distancing yourself from are the unpleasant parts of your doctrine which are no longer convenient to worship.

Ahhh… a less strict version of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. What you’re saying here, essentially, is that if one doesn’t toe the fundamental line, then it’s not true Christianity. This claim doesn’t hold water, sorry.

That argument is often used by atheists when the run into a Christian that doesn’t fit neatly into their prejudice. Dawkins has used it, Harris has used it, Hitchens has used it…..and, quite honestly, aside from being a logical fallacy, it’s intellectually dishonest.

I often wonder why atheists, and fundamentalists, stick to a strict, literal reading of Scripture as their foundation. Doing so ignores the fact that, uh, we can increase in wisdom not only in our singular lifetimes, but over generations. Yet when it comes to theology, this is (in their myopic view) an ‘unforgivable sin’, so to speak.

BTW…did I also mention I have a degree in Theology..so it’s hardly “distancing myself”, it’s an in-depth, detailed study of language, cultural and historical context, societal patterns, literary styles and forms. To paraphrase a Pastor I heard once “It’s those that don’t understand the historical context that are likely to thump you with the Bible.”

[A common mistake]

There are different kinds of Atheism such as ‘Positive Atheism’,
but in its normal sense Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, originating from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without gods”.

It is important to understand that to ‘lack belief’ or ‘not believe’ in something is not the same as believing that the existence of such a thing is an impossibility.
For example, you probably do not believe in Unicorns, yet none of the educated among you would claim it is impossible that a Unicorn could exist.

[Why is this?]

Because due to the inductive nature of the way we gain such knowledge we can almost never know for certain that anything does not exist, despite how incredibly improbable its existence may seem.

[So if it’s possible Gods and Unicorns exist, should we believe in them?]

The short answer is no. The fact that we cannot know for certain that something does not exist provides no evidence that it does, or reason to believe it does. To think that it does provide evidence would be to appeal to ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

[Why is this a logical fallacy?]

An appeal to ignorance is when someone tries to use an ‘absence of evidence’ or ‘ignorance’ as evidence. For example: “Aliens exist because no one has been able to prove they don’t”, or “Aliens don’t exist because no one’s has been able to prove they do”. It should seem obvious when someone is trying to use a lack of evidence as evidence, which seems to equally support two contradicting conclusions that something illogical is going on.

If we were to base our beliefs on appeals to ignorance we would be forced to accept the existence of almost anything anyone could make up simply because we cannot know that what they have made up does not exist for certain. For example if I were to assert that the flying spaghetti monster exists, you would have to believe it does simply because you cannot prove it doesn’t.
Would this be rational? Of course not. There is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because the absence of evidence (or counter-evidence) cannot count as evidence for something.

That is why appealing to ignorance is a logical fallacy.
The fact that the existence of something is possible is not evidence for the existence of something, which is why you probably do not believe in Unicorns and it would not be rational to until sufficient evidence is provided.

[So why is it that Theist’s have to provide evidence for God?]

The fact is that the burden of proof lies with whoever is asserting that something does or does not exist and until evidence is given for the existence of something, there is no reason to believe it exists and it is actually rational not to.

In the case of God the burden of proof rests on the Theists because they are asserting that God exists.
As such, until they can provide evidence for their specific God and factual claims, there is no reason to believe them.

[Why don’t Atheists need evidence for their position?]

The burden of proof does not rest on the Atheists because they are neither asserting that God does or cannot exist just as someone who does not believe in Unicorns is neither asserting that they do or cannot exist.

[But Atheists don’t believe in Gods, isn’t that the same as asserting that they dont exist?]

No it is not, because again; someone who does not believe in Unicorns or God does not necessarily believe that their existence is impossible, so they do not need to prove it is.
They simply lack belief in those things because they know that the possibility of their existence alone is not sufficient evidence for them and that aside from that possibility there is currently no sufficient evidence for them. They do not need to prove that Unicorns or God do not exist because there is already no reason to believe that they do and they do not believe that their existence is impossible.

[Conclusion]

To lack belief in something such as Unicorns until evidence is provided is the default and most rational position because again, although it is possible that that thing could exist, if there is no evidence it does then there is no reason to believe it does and more importantly, no need to prove it doesn’t.

Thus a lack of belief in God, Unicorns or anything else until sufficient evidence is provided for it is the most rational and the default position and is not dogmatic or close minded at all. People who think that requireing evidence for belief is close minded should refer to this video: – Youtube Video about Open-Mindedness

Furthermore lacking a belief in something is not a belief system, Atheism is as much a religion as not believing in Unicorns is.

To fully understand this it is important to have an understanding of formal logic, epistemology and standards of evidence.

It is also important to note that even if it could be proved some kind of designer exists, every individual religions individual claims to knowledge about that designer would also require individual proof, and until such evidence is provided, even with proof that a designer exists those religions would still be unfounded and irrational.

Nice post — thanks for sharing.