Thread: Why I’m not an atheist

Originally Posted by three and four

British author Martin Amis wrote:

“The opposite of religious belief is not atheism or secularism or humanism. It is not an 'ism'. It is independence of mind - that's all.”

So “atheist” is the label for a person who doesn’t believe in a god who made us all, keeps an eye on things, and decides who gets eternal flames or eternal bliss (and even a bunch of virgins in some cases). Fine, but is there a label for someone who doesn’t believe in Father Christmas? Is there a label for someone who does not believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or in astrology? No, there isn’t. And do you know why? Because it’s absurd to define something by referring to something else which does not exist.

People who reach conclusions with the help of their own critical faculties, without blindly accepting what they are being handed down by their parents or society are simply reasonable people who use their minds independently, that’s all.

I don’t feel I need to accept a label given to me by a group whose ideas should qualify them as mentally unstable.

Also, religious people probably enjoy labeling non-believers “atheists” as it gives them a way of then attributing all sorts of negative qualities to them. It’s a lot harder to criticize people who don’t have an easy label.

So this is why I don’t accept the label “atheist”. I just want to be able to think for myself, that’s all.

Oh, and there is no word for someone who’s “not yet decided” about the existence of Father Christmas, therefore I also reject the label “agnostic”, thank you.

Well, i label myself as atheist, because if i tried to be grammatically correct, it would confuse people, and there is enough ignorance in the world already.

I agree with what you're saying, but unfortunately we're probably stuck with it for a while.

Wait, so god will give me a bunch of virgins when I die?

Originally Posted by Michael

Wait, so god will give me a bunch of virgins when I die?

Only if you blow yourself up.

Don't try and label me, man!

He's trying to unlabel you.

I know. I was speaking to 'the man', in this case.

Sticking it to him, if you will.

Oh that man.

the difference between the label "atheism" and a label for someone who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy is this: no one fucking cares who believes in the tooth fairy and who doesn't.

the question of whether or not there is a God is MUCH BIGGER. I understand "atheist" to mean someone who doesn't believe in God, most likely, the christian God.

I see your point, oh, definitely. but my point is, people with "independence of mind" shouldn't be afriad of labels. I mean if they choose not to label themselves, hurray +confetti+

but because of their "independence of mind", they should feel free to label themselves if they so please, because, a person with independence of mind knows that labels are meaningless and so they do not assume anything about anyone with a label. right?

yesterday I called myself a satanist, today I call myself a luciferian. does it mean anything? not really. but I know that people who have an open mind will not assume things about me, and can reason with me. and those who are close-minded, will assume things about me whether or not I have a label. if I say I'm nothing, just a person with "independence of mind", they're still going to assume things about me, they will simply base it on something else, like what I'm wearing or the activies I enjoy or something else.

Originally Posted by three and four

British author Martin Amis wrote:

“The opposite of religious belief is not atheism or secularism or humanism. It is not an 'ism'. It is independence of mind - that's all.”

So “atheist” is the label for a person who doesn’t believe in a god who made us all, keeps an eye on things, and decides who gets eternal flames or eternal bliss (and even a bunch of virgins in some cases). Fine, but is there a label for someone who doesn’t believe in Father Christmas? Is there a label for someone who does not believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or in astrology? No, there isn’t. And do you know why? Because it’s absurd to define something by referring to something else which does not exist.

People who reach conclusions with the help of their own critical faculties, without blindly accepting what they are being handed down by their parents or society are simply reasonable people who use their minds independently, that’s all.

I don’t feel I need to accept a label given to me by a group whose ideas should qualify them as mentally unstable.

Also, religious people probably enjoy labeling non-believers “atheists” as it gives them a way of then attributing all sorts of negative qualities to them. It’s a lot harder to criticize people who don’t have an easy label.

So this is why I don’t accept the label “atheist”. I just want to be able to think for myself, that’s all.

Oh, and there is no word for someone who’s “not yet decided” about the existence of Father Christmas, therefore I also reject the label “agnostic”, thank you.

Eureka! This is an example of how atheism is becoming like a religion in and of itself.

Originally Posted by CymekSniper

Eureka! This is an example of how atheism is becoming like a religion in and of itself.

Euh, why?

Originally Posted by three and four

Euh, why?

Because it's also a critical position instead of an objective one.

Here's a good quote to support the original post:

"You must never believe in a credulous way anything that you are told. You must not disbelieve it either, for that would be foolish. The only method to adopt is to accept as a possibility the things that you are told, then to set about finding out the way to prove these things for yourself."

My position is slightly different from the quote in essence but, aye, the "isms" are somewhat close-minded in themselves.
The question of whether a deity exists or not doesn't matter, just like the question of the tooth fairy's existence, because we are all conscious self-aware beings and have ultimate potential. It doesn't matter if a god created this world and us in it, we are now all equal to any god or deity that might exist, just not in power, but in potential.

The point being: no conscious self-aware being is ultimately "better", "higher", more powerul, etc. than any other.

Personally, I'm a destructive re-constructionist; but thats more of a philosophy than a religion.

Oh, ok Merlock, thanks (but I'm still not 100% sure what position CS was taking, I guess).

I like the idea of conscious beings having unlimited potential. I'd definitely agree with that (but how many realize just how much potential they have?).

Originally Posted by three and four

I like the idea of conscious beings having unlimited potential. I'd definitely agree with that (but how many realize just how much potential they have?).

Technically, we don't realise how much potential we have ultimately because we only have our current world to base our understanding and ideas on.

But, in essence, the point is that there is nothing impossible.
Anything is possible, it simply requires a way to be achieved.

Kind of puts a new meaning into "knowledge is power", doesn't it? Heh.
Just to clarify: if you want to become a blacksmith, you go and learn from a master smith; if you want to become an airplane pilot, you go and learn from teachers and pilots that know how to fly planes; and so on.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Personally, I'm a destructive re-constructionist; but thats more of a philosophy than a religion.

Humm, how does that work?

[quote=Merlock;553195]Technically, we don't realise how much potential we have ultimately because we only have our current world to base our understanding and ideas on.
quote]

I think that this is one of the reasons I like LDs so much: it's like were at the limits of our undersanding of our own minds, and that mastering LDs could lead to the unlocking of huge potential.

Actually, the idea of this thread comes from Sam Harris, and here he is, telling way better than I can:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrtOZdJitA

Dont believe 100% in yours, or anyone elses bullshiat

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Dont believe 100% in yours, or anyone elses bullshiat

An admirable statement, expressed in the most refined of terms. Congratulations.

^^^

Those videos are really good, and worth watching even tho they're long. Sam Harris has made me re-think things that I thought I had made up my mind on a long time ago. For example, he's right that it's OK to point out the stupidity of certain religions or parts of religions, even to other religious people--I just always put it all in one category with the Easter Bunny and called it all silly, but it's true that some ideas are much more dangerous than others, and therefore should be singled out for special examination. It's obvious when you think about it, but I was always like, "It's no sillier for them to blow themselves up than it is for you to say god bless you when someone sneezes." Duh.

I've tried "not calling myself an atheist" for a little while. Luckily I have someone who every once in a while accusingly calls me that.

Glad you enjoyed them, Moonbeam. Sam Harris has a really clear way of putting things and makes total sense. Very difficult to find fault in his logic. His two books, The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation are excellent, very readable, and should be looked at by anybody who has the courage to see if their beliefs stand up to critical thought.

Originally Posted by Merlock

we are all conscious self-aware beings and have ultimate potential.

What about a guy with no arms or legs who lives in the middle of the congo and is allergic to all native food sources?

"Ultimate potential" seems like one of those warm-and-fuzzy deals which are ultimately untrue. Neurologically speaking, a person only has the potential to learn and understand so much in life. Societally speaking, a person only has the potential to climb the social ladder so far. Physically speaking, a person only has the potential to accomplish what their genes will allow them to do (determination and the will to practice could safely be lumped into the 'genes' category - even if someone has brought them up to have more of this, their genes have to be receptive.)

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What about a guy with no arms or legs who lives in the middle of the congo and is allergic to all native food sources?

Wow, that poor guy.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

"Ultimate potential" seems like one of those warm-and-fuzzy deals which are ultimately untrue.

I tend to agree. All we can do is the best we can with what we've got.

I second 3&4's comments about Sam Harris' books; buy a few extra copies to give to your favorite theists. Especially "Letter to a Christian Nation"; if anyone can read that and still believe that Christianity is a good thing, they don't have a brain. I think I'll give it to everybody I know for Xmas.