Any atheists here?

Post Reply New Topic

Buddhism is often called a religion because it often involves belief in supernatural 'gods' every bit as implausible as an overarching creator-god, any form of Buddhism that is truly atheistic shouldn't be called a religion. If I don't believe in any gods it is because I think none exist, & therefore I think belief in any gods is wrong. So I can't be said, & I don't see how any atheist can be said, to be neutral with regard to religion. Really though, I think our disagreement seems to hinge on different definitions of the word 'religion - in that you don't seem to think a religion needs gods before it can be called a religion, & I think that the idea of a god is the only diagnostic criterion of religion.

I actually decided to look back in the thread and I'm amazed I didn't come across this.

Yes, I'm 15, what do I know about anything? That's really all you can say. You're 28 (Or 29 I think), and you appear not to know much at all about anything outside of your very much close minded Judeo-Christian theology, which I'd go as far as to say you don't even know much about that. You've consciously said you lack care in what's actually true and if you can live life why question it. Why even waste your time in this thread then? This is clearly a discussion of Atheism, something you wouldn't touch with a ten meter pole, same goes for any other belief contrary to your own. Then of course, you always try to play the victim. Saying the big bad Atheists are trying to belittle you to feel better about themselves or whatever senseless excuse you can come up with. Perhaps you'd like to speak with someone three times my age that shares my current views, which unlike yours' happen to be very open to change and discovery. But yeah what do I know about anything at all, being a mindfully ignorant Catholic is by slowmutant's advice the best way to go.


You could be right, although I will look into it later. Perhaps Buddhism as a philosophy is more Atheistic. Regardless though I would say religions above all require supernatural components. However, as crazy as it is there are Atheists that even believe in karma and ghosts. Atheism in itself is merely disbelief in supernatural higher powers of any sort. But don't ask me, ask the dictionary. And for the record only strong Atheists feel one hundred percent that Gods do not exist. I myself would be open to the idea if supplied with reasonable proof or evidence, therefore I am a weak Atheist. At the same time though I in general oppose the belief (Not those who follow it) so I consider myself an Anti-Theist as well.

I had come to suspect from other threads that Slowmutant was like this. Now I know.

Everything you say here is fine, but even the weakest atheist would have a hard time maintaining a neutral attitude towards religion: I don't have to be 100% sure God doesn't exist to be able to say to a Christian 'I reckon you're wrong'.

As to atheists believing in ghosts & similar foolishness, there was a recent survey conducted which returned the result that 10% of atheists in America are certain there is a personal God. These anomalies say more about people's ignorance about what atheism means, than they do about the meaning of atheism.

actually, Buddhism is often called a religion because it is institutionalised, at least in some countries. Buddhism allows you to believe in any God you wish to believe in, but it has no Gods per se.

Well of course any religions that endorse a God or Gods an Atheist would have to at the very least think that part to be wrong. If it actually is a requirement of a religion to have a supernatural higher power of some sort than I would say it is indeed impossible for an Atheist to have a religion. Although you do see such examples of Atheists following religions with such higher powers even if they reject it. (Take Christian Atheism for example).


Well that's America for you. But while I and most other Atheists take religion and supernatural stories as nonsense, it still doesn't necessarily contradict the definition if an Atheist believes in spirits, karma, ghosts etc. As long as it's not a deity, higher power or a god it would still fit. (It's my personal opinion they should revise the definition.) It's still undeniable though that an Atheist believing in a personal God is oxymoronic and a little more than just ignorant.

I think the only real difference between us here is you think they should revise the definition, & I seem to have gone ahead & acted as if they already have.

I have found an atheist once that believed in astrology, I went ...


If that's true, I suppose the Invisible Pink Unicorn thing should be considered logically invalid if used in a serious manner in an argument, in such case, which I wonder, if only strong atheists would support that.


The question is why opposing it, are the reasons concrete or debatable, and justified?

Last edited by greenblue on 24 Jan 2009, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I never said the universe was "objectively" beautiful. I just made that statement of my own opinion. It don't claim none of my motivations are emotion driven. If I thought the universe was an ugly formless thing of no interest to me, it still wouldn't justify me making s**t up because I want to believe.

Basically Atheist means what it means. It does not mean one claims there is no God. For that reason, I don't choose to identify myself with that word alone because it does not describe me enough. I use "skeptic" or "rationalist" because those things are philosophies. They are philosophies of relying on empirical evidence to construct a model of what is real. I would argue empirical evidence (and reasoned arguement/logic etc.) is all we have to determine reality and anything else is irrational.

I don't see why it should be considered logically invalid. I'd believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn too if supplied with reasonable proof or evidence for it's existence.


The reason why I oppose it is for the same reason I oppose fairy tales and myths, which I equate religion with.

There's nothing about Atheism that says you can't believe in astrology. It only says you don't believe in deities. Find a skeptic who believes in astrology, then go "huh?".

As far as I know the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument exists only to counter the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" fallacy because you cannot disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or anything else really. It's also used when saying for example, the evidence for God is about as much as the evidence for the aforementioned unicorn.

As to why "strong" atheists oppose beliefs in deities is simply because we (or at least I personally) oppose believing things for no good reason. Your beliefs inform your actions. We didn't get to the moon by praying for it to happen, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened without faith in God.

Last edited by Transplantman on 24 Jan 2009, 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Meh, I pondered on using the terms Rationalist or Skeptic but really I don't see it as practical considering barely anyone uses those terms to describe themselves with, yet they might follow the very same principles you list in the latter of your second paragraph.

Well would you not also believe in the invisible pink unicorn if it existed? I'm aware of why the argument exists but I was merely stating a point. I don't believe really it's possible for god to exist but if it were somehow proven I would of course change my mind was my main point.

I don't think you're getting it. Those are arguments for rejecting a belief in gods. NOT arguments for the non-existence of gods. There IS a difference. How many times have I made this point? Atheism is not a movement, belief, ideology or philosophy. It is a lack thereof. Rejecting a proposition due to lack of evidence is not negative. It is neutral. There may be people who identify themselves as an "atheist movement" but that doesn't mean all atheists share their beliefs. People who claim there are no gods are strong atheists, anti-theists, rationalists, or skeptics. There is a difference.

Yes, I see your point there, the thing is that the person didn't find the belief reasonable and in fact, found christianity un-natural, then with the astrology thing I kinda got surprised why not finding this ilogical.


well, the thing is that I once heard an atheist giving the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument against the position of agnosticism, stating that only atheism was reasonable and agnosticism and theism were not, he demonstrated a good level of certainty about his desblief in the existence of God, hence providing the IPU thing as a logical proof. And that is something that made me wonder if that is actually a position that few atheists hold, in my perspective it seemed something like this: "IPUs can't exist, therefore, God can't exist".


That is sort of like an answer I was expecting to get, the social and political reasons why being against a belief system, and I understand that, in spite of that, and all the progress gained because of the scientific method, religion hasn't died out, it has lost a political power to some degree, though not completely it seems, but then, as long as freedom of religion is defended in western countries, that belief would be mantained and secular principles defend the right to have these beliefs.

Not fully, but in all western societies the number of atheist and agnostics is raising. In Sweden about 80% of the population are agnostics or atheists, in the UK rough 40% and even in the US the number is raising (but on a much lower level). Mentioning religion to much in public is in the most western European countries a vote looser. Even Tony Blair, how converted to Catholicism after leaving office, gave avoided religious arguments in public - at least so long he was PM.