With brief exceptions when public favor has swayed in a particular direction (for example: anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11), atheists are mistrusted by the highest percentage of Americans for something like over half a century.
I've done extended bits on this idea, but the severity of prejudice against certain groups - say, LGBT - is worse than it is against atheists. But empirically, proven over dozens of studies over decades, more people mistrust atheists than LGBTs. So on severity, they're a distant runner-up to several other maligned groups. But on prevalence, they're setting the pace.
There's some semantics juggling that can be done around even "a belief in something not existing." You don't have a belief, positive or negative, in the Almighty Deity that is the piece of fuzz in my pocket. On that, you simply lack a belief. Similarly, I'd define my atheism - and many others would as well for themselves - as a lack of belief in a God. It's an absence of something, not a positive belief in anything, even if that thing is a lack of existence of something.
On the latter, it was an interesting moment when I realized I didn't believe in anything that's commonly referred to as supernatural. It's a different feeling that leaving organized religion or even the belief in a deity. But yes, determinism has a lot to do with it, at least for me. But no study or credible hypothesis that I'm aware of suggests anything other than a deterministic universe (including human action).
Yes, you're right. This is probably more of a sentiment about stances, many atheists are more or less forced to explain themselves about their lack of belief, by pushing them towards a rationalisation people can fit them into a category of belief that is critical for their understanding of the world. However, rationalizing can be like making excuses, the hard fact is a lack of belief and dressing it up with conviction might be besides the point. Atheism doesn't need to justify itself, by that premise, fake justifications are not really transforming what atheism is from the get to go.
For me determinism is an after the fact realization. It's a good explanation for a universe that does not hinge on concepts I no longer find valuable (pure freedom, time).
I read all this years ago in The Salmon of Doubt (a posthumous assembly of a bunch of his writings and his aborted final novel) which I'd recommend to anyone, it being an unintentional assembly that amounts to an attempt to build a secular philosophy that, despite Adams being such a Dawkins fan, is far less abrasive than the way Dawkins has gone of late.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jan 30th, 2015 at 09:52 AM
Believing that there is no god is a contradiction in itself.
For as long as you believe, your mentality is confined without the laws of space-time and matter.
I, for one, do not 'believe'.
I do NOT 'believe' that there is no god nor there is a god.
For this reason, I view atheism as a belief system. The belief that there is no god.
This belief clashes with theism, in a never-ending cycle.
IMO, to be truly free, is to eliminate the confines of 'beliefs'.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
Last edited by AsbestosFlaygon on Jan 30th, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Not sure if I understand the extent of your definition of belief. Do you mean that believing is having a fixed set of notions which is in detriment of understanding?
Because that statement on itself is a fixed set of notions
Cool, I'll check out that interview, and possibly the collection as well.
This is close to semantic word soup, and discussions of these sorts rarely produce anything productive anyway. Far better to focus on the practical differences than trying to parse whether it's a belief or a lack of belief. I'd side with the latter of those as an atheist, but it hardly matters when converting it into practical, real-world applications of my worldview.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
I personally dislike nihilistic atheism. As an agnostic theist who prays to what I call "the objective God", I do see the benefits of believing in the metaphysical and a higher purpose. I don't believe in an afterlife, as I believe how one's behavior and contribution to society is remembered after their death is the true heaven or hell. I also believe in karma. I do 100% believe in a God though, and while I do not believe in what I consider obsolete religions with discriminatory dogmas and inaccurate science, I do support belief in a higher power that exists beyond our physical realm and guides us on a chosen path in life, although it is up to us if we follow it. I also view God as somewhat of a consequentialist altruist who causes tragic events to happen so we can observe and rectify our wrongs, although as stated the choice is up to us. For instance, the Holocaust swayed US public opinion towards racial discrimination. While I do believe God blesses those who believe in him, I think he is ultimately concerned with blessing those who are morally good, and will bless the latter even if they are not the former, and not the former if they are not the latter. IMO God gives us the tools and knowledge to better the world through empathy and ultimately unlock it's secret inner workings through science, but it is up to us to abandon our past ignorance and realise our true potential.
A few months ago, I was still an agnostic theist.
Until it dawned on me that believing or disbelieving in the existence of a deity was nonsensical. It was like an enlightenment. (true story)
Believing or disbelieving in a god does not change your fate.
Sure, it may help you have a sense of belongingness or security, or make you conscious about your actions. But ultimately, it will not change what you will become or what will happen to you.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
Let's be careful not to conflate nihilism with atheism. The two are entirely separate ideas. If someone is a nihilist, or ascribes nihilism to his atheism, it's a personal addition, nothing more.
I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't say that at all. In fact, I'd say exactly the same thing you would. I see my atheism as a lack of belief. I'm also far from alone in this interpretation.
That's not the difference between atheism and nihilism, it's the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Atheism has two primary routes. "Nihilism" is something of an umbrella term.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Pretty much. My 'belief' in gods (from any pantheon, not simply Judeo-Christian, Crom gets the too) and the 'supernatural' is essentially the same position I have with all fictional characters and concepts. I 'don't believe' in the actual real world existence of fairies, goblins, werewolves, minotaurs, cyclopsi, etc. as well. It's not simply reserved to theistic concepts. I think that's what people get hung up on. It's the special pleading that occurs when the deity of their specific beliefs isn't accepted by others. They can't reconcile that they themselves hold essentially the same position on every other proposed deity and/or supernatural being that isn't the one exception they are personally making. If you can accept that, for example, Thor is just a creation of fiction versus an actual causal entity in our reality, I really can't grasp why it's so hard for you to accept that others hold that same position on all the other proposed deities, including your 'deity' of choice.
I thought you'd like it! It pretty much covers a lot of the ground in this thread. Douglas Adams actually made a few references to the difference between "not believing in God" and "believing there is no God" in his writings- and always identified with the latter. He was surprisingly strong-willed about it.
There's a video doing the Youtube/Facebook rounds right now of an very eloquent answer Stephen Fry has recently given when asked what he would do if he met God upon dying. The answer is very strongly influenced by Adams (it conencts to that interview I linked very well)- Fry was a huge devotee. He wrote the Foreword for Salmon of Doubt and was very sure that we'd lost a huge intellectual presence when Adams died.
He's right though- there is no big deal about being an atheist here, and really we do indeed tend to get puzzled by the anti-atheist perspective. It's not something that occurs to us. It's probably one of the biggest transatlantic cultural gaps.
(He's also right about the major drive being simply avoiding thinking too much about anything here though..)
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Feb 1st, 2015 at 05:54 PM
I prefer more descriptive terms (and I strongly dislike the unnecessary injection of "implicit atheism" and "explicit atheism" by George H. Smith).
I like terms such agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. But you can be sure that atheists and philosophers do not like those labels because the latter label is quite an illogical position.
And, yes, nihilism, in this context, is almost assuredly always referring to existential nihilism. While that might be a very common trait with strong atheism, it is not explicitly atheism. A person who says, "I reject all metaphysical religions and identify as atheist" might also logically conclude or hold that existential nihilism is correct. In fact, it seems like a logical "must" to make that conclusion (consequentia). But it is not necessary.
I think the general apathy isn't necessarily just British. On statistical average, I wouldn't say people here give their beliefs a ton of scrutiny. But the cultural norm is to fall on some sort of unspecified Christianity, rather than unspecified agnosticism. There's the difference.
That, then, allows the more radical Christians to create the Christian umbrella around the whole group. Penn Jillette has actually talked a lot about this; 50 years ago, the term "Christian" wasn't used. You were Catholic, or Protestant, or whatever. The "Christian" umbrella has actually helped to considerably diffuse tensions between Christians in the country, which is a good thing. But it's also left other groups out in the cold. Statistically marginal groups, granted, but still.
But, for example, that's what allows politicians to call this a "Christian Nation" and other such terms that are historically inaccurate, but pander to their constituency and support the in-group/out-group mentality that leads to the increased mistrust of atheists (and others).
KMC Community Forums
Jan 29th, 2015 09:28 PM
too) and the 'supernatural' is essentially the same position I have with all fictional characters and concepts. I 'don't believe' in the actual real world existence of fairies, goblins, werewolves, minotaurs, cyclopsi, etc. as well. It's not simply reserved to theistic concepts. I think that's what people get hung up on. It's the special pleading that occurs when the deity of their specific beliefs isn't accepted by others. They can't reconcile that they themselves hold essentially the same position on every other proposed deity and/or supernatural being that isn't the one exception they are personally making. If you can accept that, for example, Thor is just a creation of fiction versus an actual causal entity in our reality, I really can't grasp why it's so hard for you to accept that others hold that same position on all the other proposed deities, including your 'deity' of choice.
