11.29.07
Not a True Atheist?
Recently a remark by a Christian visiting here reminded me of something peculiar I have encountered from time to time that I had never known about before I started reading and discussing things on line, the notion of the “not real Christian.”
I have heard several people who identify themselves as Christians say that because other people who identify themselves as Christians do not believe in such and such, or don’t agree with so and so, or haven’t done whatever, that they are not really Christians, and some even contend that these counterfeit or phony or somehow not qualified “Christians” (with their scare quotes) will burn in hell. Sometimes the differences they cite sound at least theologically significant, sometimes it’s too subtle or esoteric for me to fathom, and sometimes it sounds like they just don’t go to the same particular church.
To me as an outsider this is bizarre and ridiculous. On the news I hear Muslims dismissing other Muslims as “not good Muslims,” or “not true Muslims” for disparities only they can comprehend. How can theists of any flavor ever hope to attract outsiders when so many differences are cited as disqualifying all the others but their specific variety of religion, differences that seem indistinguishable to anyone not already inside their camp? From the eyes of the uninitiated, their micro-controversies discredit them all as a whole.
It seems as if religion is a thing that spreads out forever like heat, continuously splitting into ever smaller sub groups with ever subtler differences, yet those differences often (not always) remain significant enough to the sub group members to cause disdain and even enmity toward those of other sub groups.
Now the point of this post:
Can this happen to atheists? Has it already? We have several terms that non-god-believing folks use to identify themselves to emphasize other aspects they feel are important. Is there a looking down the nose from those using one term toward those using another? Do humanists look askance at freethinkers? Do skeptics roll their eyes about brights?
Has anyone ever been accused of not being a true atheist by another person calling himself or herself an atheist?
Richard
Popularity: 6% [?]
jared said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:42 am
Yeah I know who you are talking about. (shy grin). I don’t know if this will shed any light on your dilemma, or if it is relevant. But I think a true Christian is a person who believes he is sick with sin and lives trying very hard to repent, hoping first in the God who has promised to make things right again. That takes different forms and it gets expressed different ways, but Jesus never taught that a Christian votes republican. Sadly some think they are Christians because they faithfully bomb abortion clinics and drag homosexuals behind trucks. It’s important to those of us who live the faith of Jesus that we distance ourselves from what one biblical writer called “false religion.”
Now as that speaks to your issue… I was once an atheist, so I might be able to have an opinion here. Some people think that an atheist is a loud, obnoxious punk (similar to many “Christians”). But I can’t think of a single characteristic that sets a true atheist apart from a false atheist unless he really sort of believed in a deity and didn’t admit it. And I would just call that intellectual dishonesty. Sure there are different strains, but I don’t really think can consider yourself an atheist and not really be one. But I am no longer in that camp, so that could just be ignorance speaking…
Hope that helps, and hey, if my “not really Christians” thing ticked anyone off… I really am sorry, but if you drag people, burn buildings, or even think you HAVE to vote for the GOP (or the DEMS for that matter) in the name of Jesus, maybe you should check back in at headquarters, I think you got some bad orders.
[GBG] said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:43 am
What christians mean when they say “not a true christian” is “they don’t happen to have selected the same parts of the scripture to believe in as i have”, it;s a way of distancing themselves personally from any action that exposes their faith as corrupt and divisive.
As for “not true atheists”, There is no doctrine one has to follow to be an atheist other than a disbelief in god, So as long as one disbelieves in a god they are an atheist and as true an atheist as is possible to be.
I have also heard the religious say things like “atheism is a religion” and “Darwin is your god” so it seems part of their tactic is to drag us down to their level as if to say “well if i am an easily fooled imbecile who worships entities and believes in something written in a book, So are you”.
Skeptical Skeptic said,
November 29, 2007 at 4:13 am
Sure, look at Sam Harris; he is drifting into somekind of “find your inner self” sprituality that some characterize as metaphysical nonsense bordering on theism.
Of course, he is also the guy who claims, on page 53 of his End Of Faith book that some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be OK to KILL PEOPLE for holding those beliefs. BELIEFS, not ACTIONS, beliefs.
No wonder atheists don’t want to claim him
Or look at the drunken sot Hitchens, and his banging the drum for war. (Not that atheists have ever been particularly against violence.)
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:21 am
If a group (e.g., the Mormons) has additional “revelations” and sacred texts not accepted by other Christians, would you consider them true Christians?
Is a person who believes he is sick with sin and lives trying very hard to repent a true Christian if he does not believe in the divinity of Christ?
Arlen said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:24 am
Christianity has a long history of schisms, but it’s important to note that that’s neither new nor particularly unexpected. People think of the Protestantism as the first major schism, but the truth is that before the Catholic Church held a virtual monopoly on Christianity and dating back as far as the time of the Apostles, there were lots and lots of early Christianities. The Bible is a wonderful book, but it’s not a constitution; there is no well-defined, all-encompassing credo or instructions on how to run “The Church.” So it’s natural that people, through the generations have disagreements about their beliefs and interpretations of scripture. With some frequency, groups of splintered denominations will come together, reconcile their differences, and merge; so it’s not an infinitely expanding number of different Christianities.
Can someone be “not a true atheist?” To me that would depend very heavily on what is means to be an “atheist.” In this blog, I’ve heard people say over and over that to be an atheist just means “I don’t believe in the existence of a God or gods.” If that’s really it, then I don’t see how, semantically, one could be a false atheist (unless you were just lying).
Daniel said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:28 am
While there are some misled people who call themselves atheists who will still profess some belief in psychics or spirits or some wacky gaea theory, for the most part a non-believer is a non-believer. However, one thing that I am sick and tired of is the assumption that any American atheist or skeptic is automatically then a cheerleader for the left wing of American politics. No, wrong, and the next blogger I run across that casually tosses in some casual jab at conservatives can die in a chemical fire. Ramen.
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:31 am
What if someone said, “I don’t believe in the existence of God, but neither do I believe in the non-existence of God”?
C. L. Hanson said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:41 am
Like Gary said:
Some atheists aren’t particularly accepting of those who have no active god-belief but prefer to identify as agnostic (or humanist or Buddhist), and call them “atheists without balls” or something. That’s kind of along the same lines of saying “you’re not a real or true atheist.”
Bad said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:59 am
It’s simply the No True Scotsman fallacy writ large: first you claim that such and such ideology (Christianity, in this case) is great, and then you discount every possible counter-example out of hand almost by definition.
Most of the “you’re not a true atheist” stuff I’ve heard has come from Christians claiming that really, really deep down we know that God exists, and really we just want to be able to steal cookies out of the cookie jar and hope that God won’t notice.
Chas said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:02 am
I just saw a youtube video where Pat Condell called any atheist who wants to engage with polite debate with theists a “hobbiest,” inferring a less than “true” status to them.
It’s human nature to slice and dice ouselves into ever smaller groups, theists and atheists alike.
Just call me “less than true atheist”
Jeff said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:08 am
I view someone as not being a real “X” if their beliefs or behavior is aligned with a distortion of X or (a faux X). For example, I believe Christianity is really all about living a selfless compassionate life. I also think that Christianity has been corrupted by notions of a heavenly reward in an afterlife. It is therefore possible for “Christians” to “fake” being selfless and compassionate in order to get that heavenly reward. I would not call these people real Christians. The ultimate in greed and selfishness is wanting to live forever. Of course Christianity has been corrupted in many other ways as well.
I can imagine one scenario where someone similarly would not be a real atheist. Take a look at my comic where I present a little thought experiment where God changes the rules for getting into heaven. Only righteous non-believers can get in. You would then have a lot of people faking being an atheist in order to get into heaven. They would not be real atheists.
HappyNat said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:28 am
The one way I have seen this happen is with people who have converted to theism. Recently I read an article by a PhD who was an atheist all her life, met a nice Christian, and converted to Christianity due to the wonder of life and a warm feeling in her heart. One of the comments said she wasn’t really an atheist because she hadn’t thought about her lack of belief in god and was convinced very easily there was a god. I would strongly disagree.
A lack of belief in god is all it requires to be an atheist. How much thought you put into it or how well you can argue points doesn’t matter. I would consider my 4 month old daughter an atheist because I see it as the default position. She hasn’t heard about god and can’t mentally comprehend the idea currently so she lacks a belief. She obviously lacks a belief in a lot of things. I think many atheists, including myself, took a long road filled with critical thinking and breaking down institutions we were taught from birth to get to atheism. It is tough for us to think of someone not believing without critical thought, but this is not required to lack a belief in god(s).
writerdd said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:41 am
Um, they’ve been doing it very successfully for centuries. And it seems like the more splinter groups there are, the more people are willing to sign up for the group that suits their own preferences. So I don’t think it’s a problem in any way.
Linda said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:42 am
Richard Wade,
From my experience with atheists in the past few months, I absolutely do think that their beliefs differ as much as the Christians. I think sometimes, the two sides overlap. The people in the grey area seem to be very much alike, other than the labels that we put on each other. That’s my observation.
Linda said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:03 am
I have to disagree completely! The way I see it, a true Christian is a person who is born again in the Spirit of Jesus Christ as a new creation. It is a person who is renewed with a new identity in Him. All of mankind died (spiritually) with Adam in the garden, and all of mankind is rebirthed with Christ in his death and resurrection. It’s not about believing in the sin, but believing in the forgiveness (which was finished once and for all on the cross) and our new Spirit life as holy and perfect beings.
We continue to live out our lives on this earth trying to always choose truth when faced with a truth and a lie… always choosing life when faced with life and death… always choosing love when faced with love and fear… and always choosing freedom when faced with freedom and bondage.
In my view and in my belief, that is true Christianity and the true meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who ultimately came to free us from the bondage of our own self-made religion - which came from believing the lie that we can be “like God.” The lie keeps us on this endless and hopeless quest of trying to reach perfection on our own.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:19 am
I haven’t experienced it with the majority of the various groups of non-theists, but several years ago, when I started researching the answers to my questions and spoke my thoughts, the more extreme Christians would throw me in the camp of atheists, infidels, and heathens, when I had not even decided myself what I was. At the time I was still attending the Episcopal Church and that was pretty much the only Christian sect that didn’t shove me into a group I had not yet chosen for myself. I still can’t say I am 100% pure atheist. I don’t know if anyone is, but I can say I am a non-theist.
I know I don’t believe in any metaphorical being or an anthropomorphic Zeus-like deity. However, if I mention even the slightest possibility of ’something’ that is part of us, this earth, the universe, some militant atheists shove me back into the religious camp. So, I keep my mouth shut, in most groups, of the possibility that scientists may discover something that is like the wind or oxygen or similar. I’m not saying it’s God, but it’s something vital to everything. Maybe it’s Dawkins’s slight probability. I don’t know. I do know it is not something anthropomorphic, it is natural to us, the environment we live in, and is totally unrelated to any religious text- except maybe the Tao.
I like how a fellow Humanist on another board put it when he said he saw a scale of atheism and gave a few of us a percentage on how sure we were there is no god. He gave me a 95% certainity there is no god. I can live with that and he was not shoving me back and forth as though I were a 1/2 breed or something, like the militant ones on either side do. It also fits with leaving room for any scientific possibility, which I can also live with.
I think we will find people on all sides who have their own definition as to what it means to be a Christian, Muslim, or even atheist. We just have to deal with it and figure out for ourselves what we are and find the best label that fits our worldview to claim for ourselves. Not let others claim a label for us.
stogoe said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 am
That person is then an agnostic, not an atheist (though he’s more than welcome in the greater freethought community). And it’s not about exclusion, it’s about correct definition. If Bob believes in the divinity and saving power of Jesus, and Tom believes in casting spells and supplicating the Earth Mother, then Tom is not a Christian. The “No True Christian” fallacy comes in when believers in Jesus split themselves up over iconography or selling indulgences or baptism or the like, and then try to state that the other group doesn’t really believe in Jesus because of their strange and unfamiliar add-ons to Jesus-belief.
What I think Pat Condell was getting at is that he thinks debating dogma is a time-waster, like model trains or video games, not that you’re any less ‘true’ of an atheist.
As far as I’ve noticed, I don’t see atheists calling humanists or brights or other categories ‘not atheists’. They may call them misinformed, deluded, idiotic, hippy-dippy, perhaps, but I don’t see “You say you don’t believe in gods, but you really do believe in gods because of your stupid name! Neener!”
Frank Mitchell said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:32 am
I grew up Catholic in the Bible Belt, so I’m very well acquainted with the “not a real Christian” label.
Unfortunately, I’m not really plugged into the atheist community, but on its face schisms in atheism seem absurd. How can you disagree on core beliefs, when the core beliefs of atheism are an empty set? Then again, there are memes like “No tolerance for theism” (cited above) and “No tolerance for supernaturalism”, so maybe we do have the beginnings of an ideological split.
Anatoly said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:32 am
I don’t know if atheism can split into several groups but I have been tempted to call a few atheists - like a UFO-believing, Holocaust-denying, one I met online, or some people who claim to have been atheists before they converted and then show their ignorance to anything atheist every time they talk about their times without faith which makes you wonder how honest they really are with you (case and point - Lee Strobel).
I wondered much about the issue of “true atheism” myself and despite any comfort I, and I think other, atheists would receive - we can’t use it. Atheism simply means “without a belief in God,” so how can somebody have a wrong form of nothing? They might certainly have a philosophy that we disagree with - we might have a not true humanism or a not true existentialist or a not true skeptic, based upon the tracts that they might not follow in that particular line or method of thinking.
But atheism? Never. It’s too broadly and too simply defined to cause division, it incorporates anyone from the most spiritualistic, new-agey Buddhist to the most nihilistic brat like the school shooter in Finland just a few weeks ago. Regardless what we may wish they are still atheists, they still don’t believe in God, and despite the ease with which we could write them off as false, it cannot be done in a practical sense.
The best we can do is say is a bad human being, not particularly a bad atheist.
Linda said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:44 am
We can discuss the differences in beliefs until the cows come home; but I think fundamentally, we are all the same.
When your speaking of morality, there is no difference between a Christian and an atheist, in my opinion.
A Christian’s morals are based on what will make them feel good by doing something pleasing to God, and an atheist’s morals are based on what they thnk will make them feel good about themselves…period. They both ultimately point to self. No difference. I had this discussion with my brother who is an atheist over Thanksgiving. When we dig deep enough, all humans are basically motivated by self-interests. Even being totally selfless, even martyrdom, becomes a selfish act in the end. We are all the same.
The only thing that can cure us of that is unconditional love, but what human do you know that can claim their love as completely and utterly unconditional?
the chaplain said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:17 am
All that’s required to be a “true atheist” is a lack of belief in a deity. Atheism is not a philosophy, it is simply one belief (perhaps more appropriately designated a non-belief) that can fit into a world of philosophies: Marxism, humanism, Objectivism, pragmatism, etc.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:30 am
Anatoly said:
Anatoly, I do believe you we share the same definition.
I can’t disagree with anything you said, at least.
Linda said:
Physically, maybe, but quite honestly, can you really say I am the same as you, in worldview, since I do not believe the god of religion exists? Can you say we are the same when I do not believe there is a historical Jesus- at least not as depicted in the Bible, the Bible is fiction. Can you really say we are the same when I see any definition of God, heaven, hell, Satan… as human concepts and do not exist? By any definition that is an atheist and many a religious person is quick to shove such a Freethinker out and into the non-theistic group.
Depends, Linda. Are you looking at Richard Roberts of Oral Roberts College who truly believes God is talking to him? (I still can’t stop laughing about that one) If so, I don’t know of any non-theist who would agree. We don’t throw things on Casper and say He did it or told me to do it. Most non-theists take responsibility for what we do without blaming it on some invisible friend. No insult intended, Linda, but it’s not quite the same.
Chas said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:45 am
I think atheism can fall into a number of camps:
-Those that define atheism in slightly skewed ways such as not believing in a Christian-type uber-god, but believes in other types of spirituality
-Those that believe “pop-culture phenomenom” such as ufo’s and chiropactrics
-Those that tolerate other’s belief systems
-Those that don’t tolerate other’s belief systems
I’ve tried to order this list in such as way that an atheist that is described in the following item may not agree that the atheist described in the previous item is an atheist.
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:04 am
As many have said, it doesn’t make sense for someone not to be a “real atheist”. Atheism can come from different appoaches, worldviews, or no worldview, no thought. If you lack belief in god, you’re an atheist, it’s that simple.
However, there is a “my kind of atheist”, sometimes called weak atheist, or agnostic atheist, grounded in rationalism, methodological naturalism, science, scepticism. Atheism isn’t really important to me, it’s just that theism is important to so many people, thus has implications for me.
I have come across “not a real Christian” numerous times. Every time it’s invoked I get more confused about what a Christian is. I thought I knew what one was, until they say that, now I have no idea. One conservative Christian basically ruled out everyone but him (one true message), and a liberal Christian said that Islam and Christianity were compatible belief systems which could mean that everyone who ever existed was a Christian (no true message).
The first type, generally conservative, including fundamentalists, have a clear view that they can answer are true or not about what they call Christians. It’s usually more narrow than is commonly meant by “Christian”, but they can explain what they mean. Liberal Christians use meaningless language and terms, i.e. “God is love”, and generally can’t give a definition of what a Christian is, they’ll accept self-definition whatever a person believes.
athenebelle said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hemant, have you be watching too much South park? *j/k*
Seriously, I don’t know if it would actually happen. Like someone else stated earlier, how can you separate a negative?
As a Christian from a denomination that MERGED with three other somewhat separate sects in Christianity (all from various different schisms from the past) I find your confusion over someone saying that you’re not a “True” Christian to be the same as mine. In a church were there is only testaments and not tests (beyond the belief in God and Jesus Christ) there is no way to say that and not show yourself to be judgemental and typically called out on it.
Don Pope said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:24 am
It doesn’t matter how you reached your atheist conclusion: deep study, brainwashing, gut feeling, makes you feel good, seems reasonable, lack of evidence to the contrary, you think nobody can be superior to you or you just like to piss people off. If you don’t believe in gods, then you are an atheist.
All you could say is “he/she is an atheist for the wrong reasons”.
Don Pope said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:31 am
How about someone who follows Christ’s teachings but doesn’t believe in his divinity. (I don’t know anyone like that, but they might exist.)
Would that be a Christian Atheist?
Mercredi said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:31 am
There are two people I’ve encountered who were deeply unhappy as atheists, and insisted that everyone else was either (a) a happy and stupid, blindly-optimistic theist, or (b) a wise, smart atheist and deeply unhappy. Anyone who claimed not to fit into these two categories was taken to be either a liar or in group (a) but too “blind” to realize it - a happy atheist was not a “true” atheist in their books.
One of them has since converted to Christianity, and started insisting that only Christians can be happy, and everyone else is unhappy and foolish.
The other had a habit of taking in “new” (and especially depressed or uncertain) atheists under his wing and estranging them from their friends (especially their atheist friends who aren’t depressed), and I haven’t really heard what he was up to since a friend of mine finally got out of that situation. But he doesn’t seem that much different in M.O. from an abusive religious cult leader, except for his choice of tool.
Chas said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:35 am
This issue is one part definition and one part psychology. We can define both Christian and atheist in pretty definite terms:
Christian: one who professes belief in the divinity of Christ, a person who lived about 2000 years ago.
Athiest: one who professes a lack of belief in any god.
Using these definitions, we can easily sort people into Christian and non-Christians; or into atheists and theists.
However, as humans, it doesn’t end there. Each one of us has opinions and philosophies that have either led us to align with these definitions and/or have grown out of them. We share ideas and affinities with others who share similar views and exclude ourselves from others who don’t share those views. We form groups, join groups and don’t join other groups. We start defining others as not exactly “us,” and they become “them.” We start defining those groups as how close they are to our philosophies. Some of these group’s philosophies may be too far away from us and we define them as “not” a part of our philosophy at all.
Classic us and them. We are social animals. We are hardwired for it. Atheists can’t avoid it.
Karen said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:46 am
The “no true Christian” thing is a very convenient and predictable excuse to cover up the bad actions and attitudes and morals of Christians. It comes up every time someone points out that Christians (supposedly guided by the magical holy spirit) are no better or worse off than non-Christians on any number of measures (social, criminal, educational, financial, etc).
Q: So, why don’t we see a measurable, positive difference in the lives of Christians the world over? Why do Christians hate and war and cheat and lie just like everyone else? Where’s the holy spirit’s influence?
A: Oh, you mean THOSE people!? No, no, they’re Not True Christians. Don’t lump me in with them! They don’t have Jesus in their hearts/don’t follow the right sacraments/don’t acknowledge the True Church, etc. etc.
In terms of atheists, I don’t think one sub-group accuses another of not being atheists exactly, but there seems to be a lot of infighting about styles and approaches of atheism.
For instance, those “in your face” atheists who want to attack religion and don’t acknowledge anything good about it are often impatient and dismissive of those atheists who encourage dialog with moderate and liberal Christians and acknowledge that there are some good results from religion.
Allison said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:19 am
I do agree here:
I think there is infighting, but I’ve very seldom seen it erupt into a “you’re not a true atheist” sort of thing.
I have seen backtracking when (IMO) atheists overreach and say “an atheist state would never do x,” then when you show them an example of a controlling regime that purported to be atheist and did exactly what they say an atheist state would never do, they say “oh, but that’s not an atheist state because they saw [usually insert power for the regime here] as a form of God.” I see that as similar to what Christians are doing when they say someone’s “not a true Christian.”
miller said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:26 am
I really like this appropriate Cectic comic.
With atheists, the problem isn’t that anyone is accusing others of not being true atheists. The problem is that people tend to accuse themselves of not being true atheists. They look at the stereotype and at the people, and they feel they don’t belong.
MikeClawson said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:28 am
There is a difference between exclusion and disagreement. It’s not up to me to decide who is or is not a true Christian. Everyone can be in who wants to be in, as far as I’m concerned. However, I have my opinions about the kind of lifestyle Jesus taught us to live, and the particular ways that I think the Bible should be understood, and of course these opinions will occasionally disagree with the opinions of other Christians about the same matters. Hopefully we can respectfully disagree and dialogue about it without needing to exclude the other.
Hopefully atheists can do the same regarding their differences.
Siamang said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:56 am
This comic reminds me of recent discussions here:
http://cectic.com/064.html
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I’ve never heard that before, that doesn’t seem defensible. Theists bring up states with atheistic governments doing bad things. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are always brought up, even though Hitler was not an Atheist.
I’ve never heard an atheist advocate atheism itself, it wouldn’t make sense. So whether a state is atheistic or not doesn’t seem like something someone would advocate, or say something about like “they wouldn’t do x”.
Hitchens says something similar in wording, but very different in content. He says something like “A country founded on [and presumely following] the philosophy/principles of Spinoza or [insert someone involved in the enlightenment] wouldn’t do x”, and “name me a state that’s become worse for being more rational”.
Dawkins and Harris say things like “imagine a world without religion and irrational beliefs, the superstituion, the faith, the wishthinking” and advocate an end to such things. Not that it’ll make the world perfect, not that it’ll stop all bad things.
Atheists still do bad things, a state could still do bad things , not for atheism, for some other reason, Dawkins usually mentions authoritarian regimes, like communism (atheistic) and fascism (religious), as examples of governments doing bad for secular reasons, counter to theocracy doing bad things for religious reasons. Religion is a reason for doing bad things, and if it ended there would be one less reason for people to harm each other.
Siamang said,
November 29, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’ve heard it expressed as that these folks were advocating rationalism.
It can be said that however atheistic Mao’s China was, it was manifestly not rationalist.
As can be said, I do not advocate a government based on atheism any more than I advocate a government based on a disbelief in the existence of dragons or unicorns.
I do, however, advocate rationalism and humanism and principles derived from a rational examination of the world we find ourselves in. If it turns out that there is indeed an actual God, rationalism is no insult to that entity either.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm
What? This doesn’t make sense? How can one be an atheist for all the wrong reasons? You make no sense at all.
Deos this mean that if one researches and studies and believes they reached X-ianity or any other religion for the right reasons? That is rediculous. I’m sorry, but I hardly wish to piss anyone off, but IF one REALLY researched the subject they would find it is all one more myth. This does not make me feel superior to any other human though. How many religious people disregard true knowledge in favour of belief? They say if you get an education you will lose faith. I’ve heard this so many times and it has lead me to the conclusion it is those who refuse knowledge and/or an education, believe out of ignorance or they need that security blanket or something.
Now IF they really did do the research (not just stick with apologists because your mother and/or other family members and supposed friends told you to) and actually studied the topic and came to the conclusion that there is a god, even after studying all the evidence, well then that is their choice. At least they did not come to the conclusion out of lack of an education.
I know many former ministers who are now atheist. Even some who went into Theology School believing and came out not believing. To say that a non-theist who did their homework and in the process decided there is no god and/or no historical Jesus came to the wrong conclusion is not justifiable.
The truth of the matter is, I scare a lot of the religious away when I show them just how much I do know. They don’t want to hear it because they fear it will lead to disbelief. Those are the ones who are insecure about their belief. Those who can actually read/hear what I have to say are either very secure in their beliefs or they are still seeking answers to their questions.
In fact, my mother asked me point blank once just how studying religion has affected my faith, because she fears an education will lead me to disbelief. It hasn’t affected my faith, because I never really had it in the first place- she just doesn’t know. Not to mention, she abruptly cuts the phone call off- whether she called me or I called her- if I even try to share with her what I learned in this Hindu class I’m taking. She can’t handle that the story of Krishna sounds so much like the story of Jesus. I’d tell her why, but she can’t handle the truth. Unfortunately, there are many people out there like her. They get disturbed and upset about the truth and don’t want to hear it.
Truth is, Jesus is just another series of midrashes (Krishna, Moses, Elijah, etc), a pure and ingenious work of fiction much like John Jakes North and South, and was force upon people for centuries- sometimes by means of violence. Dig deeper and you will also find astrotheology. Thing is, I would not want to worship a god named Jealous if I believed in a deity. Too cruel and hateful. Of course, Jealous does have some qualities of Shiva, come to think of it.
brian t said,
November 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm
These days, that statement also fits a “weak atheist” position. It’s not strictly Agnosticism, because it doesn’t say anything about whether the question (of the existence of “God”) can be answered, or not. Agnostics, by Huxley’s original definition, hold that the question can not be answered, even theoretically. Bertrand Russell explained the difference quite well, but I like the way Robert G Ingersoll put it: “The Agnostic does not simply say, ‘I do not know.’ He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know.”
Others, such as myself, think it’s possible to arrive at a usable answer, if the question is about “God” in the Judeo-Christian sense we are being expected to believe in. That is, a god who knows we’re here, communicates with us, and does things in this world that (by definition) can be detected by us. If the claim is of anything detectable, then it’s a scientific claim, something that can be examined by scientific methods. In the useful sense that matters to me (my life), that question can be answered, and without supporting evidence the answer is No.
Back to the original question: I’ve even seen some American writers saying things like “Catholics are not Christians“. Makes me want to grab them by the… ears and remind them that Catholics were the original Christians. Or is it vice versa?
godma said,
November 29, 2007 at 2:48 pm
It’s an interesting question. Different people definitely mean different things when they call themselves or others “atheist”.
For example, there’s the common belief that all atheists are what I would call “strong atheists”, and that the weak atheists are actually not atheists at all, but agnostics.
Many (most) people who call themselves agnostics but not atheists, are in actuality atheists by my reasoning. They just don’t like to call themselves that.
So there is a lot of potential disagreement regarding who is and isn’t an atheist. Some specific points of disagreement are:
- the particular definition of God (e.g. is pantheism actually a brand of atheism?)
- the distinction between strong/weak atheism
- the distinction between explicit/implicit atheism
- does one actually have to call himself/herself an atheist in order to be one, or can others decide based on an evaluation of one’s beliefs?
Old Beezle said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Kudos to Mriana for her forthright friendly atheist views!
I think the chaplain , in a prior post, got it right also: Atheism is “one belief that can fit into a world of philosophies.”
I think that if one were to attempt to turn Atheism into a philosophy unto itself, then it may be structured as the following:
One whose world view is shaped by facts rather than faith and uses the scientific method as a tool to arrive at those facts.
If a fact is defined as a concept whose truth can be proved, then this works very well for asserting that god does not exist.
And, when in doubt, apply Occam’s Razor:
-There is no god or god is a “bearded white man from Oxford”?
The simplest ideas are usually the best ones.
Linda said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Mriana,
When I said we’re the same, I meant when it comes to the matters of the heart. …whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy… Aren’t those things what we are trying to achieve?
That makes us same, regardless of our beliefs. Don’t you think?
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Thank you. I came by them via a real and honest education.
I can’t argue with that.
Pustulio said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm
As an atheist, I think that there are instances where people who do believe in god label themselves as atheist because for whatever reason they’re angry with their deity of choice and are “getting back” at it by denying their beliefs. They are of course not true atheists, and as they get over their anger they “convert” back to whichever religion they already believed in.
You can generally spot these “former atheists” because they tend to assume that all atheists describe themselves as such for the same reasons that they did; that deep down they really do believe in god and just need to get over their anger.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:52 pm
If you mean that on a purely secular view, I agree. Douglas Spotted Eagle has a saying on the main page of his website that says:
Regardless of his beliefs, whatever they maybe, he is dead on about that. So, yes, there is always something we can agree with that is shared by all.
Monty said,
November 29, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I tend to see this a lot with Prostetants claiming that Catholics are apostates or evil or reject the Bible or silly crap like that. Also, this reminds me of the colusseum scene from “The Life of Brian”- “The People’s Front of Judea!!”
MikeClawson said,
November 29, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Yes, and some atheist states have done bad things for atheist reasons - as when Communist regimes persecute religious groups based on the Marxist/Maoist belief that religion is poison.
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 5:25 pm
MikeClawson,
Atheism doesn’t say anything about religion, poison or not. It doesn’t say anything about anything. It’s a lack of belief in a deity. Is the logic area in your brain badly damaged? How could someone possibly use that as a motivation to do anything. No one ever shot someone because of a lack of belief in fairies or gods.
Believing religion is poison doesn’t necessarily lead to violence, if you believe individual freedom is important, or persons have a right to life (under most circumstances, or all the time if you’re Ghandi or Buddha), there are many alternative possibilities. Marxist (more accurately Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Titoism etc…) and Maoist states of the 20th century were authoritarian in nature and their response to many things they were against was violence and supressive.
Since my original post directly addresses your points, but you were unwilling to read it, I probably shouldn’t even take the time to respond to your willful ignorance. For someone who advocates dialogue, it’s strange that you would regularly not take the time to listen to or read from others, to the point that you don’t even know what atheism is while posting on a site about atheism.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 5:34 pm
And as a philosophy prof said, Marxism itself is not bad. What the people did with it was bad. He also made the comment that Marxism itself is a good theory, it’s just that the people screwed it up. A history prof said the same thing.
Now, I’m not saying I support Marxism, I’m just saying was not the problem, but rather in the wrong hands it become a bad thing. If placed in the right hands, it might be a good theory. I have some of Marx’s writing in my own library, thanks to a philosophy class that I had to take.
Darryl said,
November 29, 2007 at 5:35 pm
The tendency to categorize self and others says more about a person’s psychology than their beliefs or dis-beliefs. Suspicious Christians will likely be suspicious atheists when they de-convert. Pompous atheists will probably be pompous theists when they convert. People who simply have to make distinctions and set themselves apart from others will do that no matter what they believe. Someone who loves to stump others will logical arguments is a bore no matter what they call themselves.
Old Beezle said,
November 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Well put, Aj! Bravo!!
The atheist state of former Communist Russia was largely propaganda anyway. The rhetoric at the top was atheist per Marxism-Leninism, but the reality amongst the masses was something else entirely. Add to that the polarization efforts by the American propaganda machine to paint the Reds as ‘Godless Communists’ and the real picture becomes a little clearer.
The Russian Eastern Orthodox Church never went away. Soviet citizens never ceased engaging in baptism or the occasional mass. The unwashed masses retained their faith (along with two millenia of superstition) and Communism came and went. Certainly there was a resurgence when the regime fell, but an Orthodox Russian is about as active and overtly religious as a Catholic Kennedy. I was there for a couple of years in the 90’s and witnessed it first hand.
All of this is scholastically ironic considering that the first Christian Russians were forced into a river and baptized en masse. Accept Jesus or die by the sword (my favorite conversion technique)! There then followed years of infighting and slaughter due to the fact that some crossed themselves with two fingers and others used two fingers plus a thumb.
Religious authoritarian regimes have the upper hand to “atheist” regimes when it comes to oppression and slaughter. All the more reason to keep religion far away from government and to champion science and education in the hopes that a second Renaissance may begin.
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I’ve never been much taken with the notion of “weak atheism.” Since the so-called weak atheist does not deny the existence of God, why call him an atheist? Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable (or unreasonable) to call him a “weak theist” as a “weak atheist”?
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Oh, surely not. How could one reasonably say that an atheist is a Christian, and therefore “in”? In order to be “in” as a Christian, doesn’t one have to be a Christian and not an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew)?
Jeff said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Monty,
I’m partial to the “Popular Peoples’ Front”!!!
Yes just “Look on the bright side of Life!!!”
Thanks for bring that up. Great movie!!!
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The notion of “implicit atheism” is another one that I have a little difficulty with. I find myself wondering, at one point in time does one become an ‘implicit atheist? At birth? At conception? Can the case be made that abortion amounts to persecution of “implicit atheists”?
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“At a time when the West is debating the teaching of religion in schools on the pretext of manufacturing social solidarity … it seems to me that we might prefer the teaching of atheism.” — Michel Onfray, Atheist Manifesto: the Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, p. 36.
Maria said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Okay, my parents having come from the former soviet union, having been there, and still having family there, just wanted to throw some comments in:
Yes, the masses were largely religious.
No, it never did officially, but people were not allowed to practice for the most part. And it wasn’t just the russian orthodox-they may have gone a bit easier on that particular church for appearances sake. But catholics, Jews, etc were barely allowed to practice at all, and had to set up many underground churches. Just ask anyone who was shipped off to the gulag for being caught in a church, or for being overheard saying they believed in god. It did happen, and quite a bit. It is true that nowadays there’s a lot more laxity in religiousity like you said, b/c the “novelty” of the resurgence has worn off. Atheism and agnosticism is on the rise in that part of the world now and has been for quite a while.
Are you talking about the mass conversion in the year 988?
I agree with the second part. As for the first, that’s true too, and I’d add that I wouldn’t want to live under either “regime”. I’d prefer to live somewhere like Western Europe (without the influx of Muslims!)
Maria said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I’ve been accused of not being a freethinker b/c I’m an agnostic deist, and someone actually tried to tell me I can’t be a humanist (nevermind I’ve met plenty of deist humanists). Something similar happened to a pantheist friend of mine. I’ve also had friends who are atheists and agnostics who went to the RRS board who were told they weren’t “atheist enough” if they expressed some sort of sympathy for theists.
I think it’s really stupid to accuse someone of not being a “true atheist”-all that is required is not believing in a god/gods. Anything else is up for grabs. Atheists are the most diverse group of people I have ever seen, and I actually like that.
That’s a really good point. I have kind of wondered that myself. The line starts to blur between weak theist and agnostic and agnostic and weak atheist sometimes……
well said
Greta Christina said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Like others here, I’ve never seen an atheist accuse another of not being a “true atheist.” But I have seen atheists and other godless people accuse each other of having the wrong kind of godlessness: atheists accusing agnostics of being wimpy, agnostics accusing atheist of holding an untenable position, etc.
It’s usually very irritating. Sometimes it’s valid — we have real disagreements within our community, and we shouldn’t pretend that we don’t — but often it’s ridiculously nitpicky and counter-productive.
Mostly, though, I want to say that I’m very entertained by the Christians in this thread insisting that their version of Christianity really IS the right one. They’re proving Richard’s point exactly.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I would too, but I don’t know how that can be done.
I would have to disagree with them too. I would question just how thoroughly they have studied Humanism also. There are a variety of Humanists and while the majority are non-theists, there is such a thing as Christian Humanists- ie Spong, Cupitt, and the Sea of Faith. The thing is, they are considered atheists by Christians. Why? They redefine the Christian religion in a non-realism sense. Love is God and not a metaphysical being. Love is not unprovable nor is much else they say either, but what they do say is a stretch. Not to mention the suggestions Spong gives to bring Christianity to the modern world. His 12 theses were the basis of people labelling him an atheist. He does say he is a non-theist, yet he says things the make me question that, but I would not push him back and forth though, because he does say things I can agree with- like living life fully, love wastefully, and alike. Can’t dispute that.
If there is such a thing as Christian atheists, the Sea of Faith would be the closest thing to it, but they lose me with the God talk.
and don’t get me started on the URS.
Linda said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I missed that post before. I agree. Even if we were all Christians or all atheists, we would still find dividing lines. Humans are addicted to conflict. We always seem to need to pick a side and oppose another. So will there be a resolution? Probably not. We will always have conflict, sad to say…
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Gary Charbonneau,
a) It’s a translation from french by someone else, so there might be an error or inaccuracy.
b) He might mean an unbelief in God, i.e. strong atheism, belief in the non-existance. The context might suggest this, or as some philosophers do when writing books, define terms at the introduction of subject, or in footnotes/glossary.
c) If he does mean a lack of belief, I’d like to see him try to teach that! When did you learn a lack of belief in fairies?
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:03 pm
There’s no doubt that Onfray’s a “strong atheist” (and one who advocates atheism):
I don’t think he’s ever heard of this thing called “weak atheism,” which seems to be mainly a product of Anglophone online discussion groups in which, I suppose, he does not participate.
But there are certainly plenty of other examples of atheists advocating atheism. For example, there’s Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, who describes his “evangelical atheism” project of engaging in public debates with William Lane Craig: “As I saw more instances of religion’s controlling politics in disreputable ways,I grew angry. It seemed so unfair for people to suffer because others held indefensible views. I wanted to do something about it, but what? … I felt as if I was doing something important. At least I was trying to do something about an important problem, and I had fun doing it.” –Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, pp. 76-77.
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:41 pm
-Gary Charbonneau
Atheism has been used to mean lack of belief for over one hundred years in philosophy, and more famously later by Russell. In my experience the vast majority of self-identified atheists don’t claim knowledge of the nonexistance of gods.
That quote doesn’t support the claim he’s “advocating atheism” itself, and the existance of the term “evangelical atheist” doesn’t either. Someone might even say “I want more atheists”, but that doesn’t mean they want atheism itself, but as a product of something else.
Harris doesn’t use the term “atheist” (he tells us, it was absent in his books) because it’s not important. Dawkins does, but he agrees with Harris, it’s not important. Dawkins’s talk was about advocating “militant atheism”, it’s clear from his book a lack of belief in God isn’t the goal, it’s a product of not having faith, in this case God, but in anything.
I haven’t come across someone yet where there end or foundation was atheism. It makes as much sense as advocating the lack of belief in a teapot orbiting saturn. Sure, it’s unreasonable to believe that there is a space pot without evidence to support it, but the problem isn’t the space pot itself. The problem is believing in things without evidence, or counter to evidence, people are advocating against faith not for atheism.
Some atheists narrow this to “harmful beliefs”, but they don’t include beliefs supported by evidence in the “harmful beliefs” pile.
monkeymind said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Wow, Richard, you certainly know how to spark a discussion!
Aj said:
Aj, how would you deconstruct the phrase “Neville Chamberlain atheist” which I think was coined by PZ Myers and much popularized since then? Doesn’t that imply that atheism is more than simply a non-belief in God? Doesn’t it imply a conflict of some kind between atheism and its enemies, and that the Neville Chamberlain atheists are doing it wrong?
Also, consider this quote from Steven Weinberg:
Now, I know that this an off the cuff remark by a Nobel Laureate, and I don’t know the context. But it is often repeated uncritically by opponents of religion. Now, in response to such simplistic thinking, I think it is appropriate to cite examles of crimes committed in the name of noble-sounding ideological goals (the Bolshevik Commissariat of Enlightenment), or in the name of scientific research (the Tuskegee Experiment.)
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:28 pm
monkeymind,
I’ll keep it short so you can’t grossly misinterpret what I write.
No.
No.
Does Weinberg think there are good people and bad people? I say it’s probably not wise to take it literally. I’d bet against it, but that’s only my judgement.
To be fair scientific research, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. An experiment is done for knowledge, but the God of scientific research doesn’t demand knowledge at any cost.
The God of scientific research, a.k.a Cthulmeter the observable: I demand knowledge! Anyone who denies me knowledge will know the fiery furnace of bunsen burner, and the nashing of buret clamps. Surprisingly doesn’t eat souls, isn’t concerned with the supernatural.
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Russell would not have claimed knowledge of the nonexistence of his famous celestial teapot, either, if by “knowledge” you mean “absolute certainty.” At the same time, however, I don’t think that Russell would have claimed that he therefore had absolutely no choice but to be a “weak a-celestial-teapotist,” neither believing in the existence of the teapot, nor disbelieving in it — not disbelieving in the existence of a teapot he himself had made up as a deliberately absurd example! Rather, he think he would have been — and was — a “strong a-celestial-teapotist.”
That would depend. For example, it would depend on whether the claim that there is a teapot orbiting Saturn were to be used as the basis for an argument in favor of adopting some misguided public policy or advocating some misguided personal behavior.
It seems to me that to assert that it makes no sense to advocate atheism is to imply that the dominant forms of theism (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) on balance do more good than harm, or at worst do no more harm than good –an implication that people like Russell, Dawkins, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Onfray would certainly reject.
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Gary Charbonneau,
That was the whole point of his celestial teapot argument!
Disbelieving in something includes lack of believing in something.
Such a person would have claimed knowledge of the nonexistence. That’s what strong atheists claim about God.
They would only be advocating against the claim because it lacked evidence. If the public policy was logically consistant with the teapot (and inline with their moral views), and the teapot had strong evidence to support it from top scientists, then Dawkins et al wouldn’t think it was harmful. My best guest*, the teapot is actually an alien bomb thousands of times more powerful than our H-Bombs… and headed for earth!
It’s still advocating against those, but atheism is just a logical product, not a goal or a foundation.
*Sorry, my imagination isn’t great.
monkeymind said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Aj, what do you think is meant by the term “Neville Chamberlain atheist”?
monkeymind said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Hmm, what was that prompt the lab-coated research assistants used in the Milgram experiment to get the subjects to apply what they thought were lethal levels of electric shock? Oh yes, I remember now:
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 10:45 pm
An atheist who appeases. Refering to atheists that advocate appeasement with those who believe in God. The term doesn’t seem say anything about atheism at all.
I know PZ Myers has used Neville Chamberlain, it’s in The God Delusion, quoted by Dawkins and (I think) attributed as well. It didn’t have atheist in the term.
monkeymind said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Well, what is the opposite of appeasement? Isn’t it confrontation?
Jen said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I tend to find Christian in-fighting to be hilarious. I find that generally speaking, if I ask a Christian what a “Christian” is, they will offer me a stock answer about believing in the divine Christ, etc, and believing in salvation through him. All right. Now, if I then ask about, say, the gays, I will often get an answer along the lines of, “they are going to hell/ they are sinners/ they are misguided.” If I then ask them for the specific sin, it usually revolves around sexual immorality. If I then ask the Christian why she can have premarital sex, they will shut down. If they still have their v-card (an ever-dwindling number of Christians I know) I ask the same thing about hooking up, and they will say it isn’t sex, and I will point out that Jesus didn’t hook up, and they will shut down.
As for not-real atheists, I don’t know. I would question some “former atheists” along the lines of Kirk Cameron, who is a moron who has clearly never spoken to an atheist besides Hermant, and we all know how that went. It seems like formers atheists tend to get converted fairly easily, which seems… strange. I don’t want to say they weren’t atheists prior to that. After all, a former vegetarian clearly didn’t eat meat back then, so their actions were vegetarian, but I am not sure how convinced they could have been of, say, animal suffering and the problems with that if they went back to cheeseburgers. So, someone may “live the atheist lifestyle” or whatever, but if they move quickly to theism, I am not sure how convinced they were in the first place. As always, YMMV.
Aj said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:05 pm
monkeymind,
Indeed.
Mriana said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm
I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 11 or 12. People ask if I ever miss meat. No. I don’t even remember what meat tastes like to be honest and even before that, my mother had a difficult time getting me to eat meat. It was always, “Eat your meat.” ECK! She gave up eventually and left me alone. Now I’m a mother of two teenage boys- 16 and 18. One is a vegetarian and the other is not, even though at home I cook vegetarian. Even though I fed them as vegetarians, they have both have tasted meat and made their own choice.
By the same token, I don’t think a true atheist would be easy to convert. I think those that are converted easily, didn’t have their minds made up and only said they did.
I think those of us who question at an early age and seek out the answers as soon as we are free to do so (some can’t until they leave home and even then they maybe slow to do so until they test the waters) are more likely to choose atheism/Humanism/etc over theism. Since non-theists already question and doubt, it’s more likely that they are harder to convert.
Once people make up their minds about something, most never turn back. That’s just my thoughts.
monkeymind said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:43 pm
And confrontation implies potential conflict, no? How can you say that using a metaphor from WWII does not imply that there is some sort of campaign/conflict to be waged?
godma said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Gary Charbonneau said:
This is only barely worth dickering over, but anything that is not a theist is by definition a non-theist. “Non-theist” and “atheist” are synonymous.
The case of infants is entirely trivial and uninteresting, but technically, since no non-thinking thing (e.g. fetuses, rocks, cheese graters) can possibly be a theist (because they have no beliefs whatsoever), then they are definitially atheists (or non-theists, whatever).
By the same reasoning, infants are also apolitical, and aspherical.
The designation of “implicit atheist” only gets interesting when we consider people who do have beliefs in general, but have never considered the concept of deities in the first place.
Darryl said,
November 29, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I think many people don’t look too deeply into these matters. Many of them believe what they do for no good reasons or they just don’t care enough about it to inquire. When they are approached by someone who seems to make sound arguments they can be swayed. In brief, there’re a lot of people who never learn how to think critically and logically.
Aj said,
November 30, 2007 at 12:20 am
monkeymind,
I wouldn’t use the word conflict.
No.
Make your point.
MikeClawson said,
November 30, 2007 at 1:44 am
This is your version of atheism. Other atheists do in fact have very strong things to say about the negative effects of religion (take Christopher Hitchens for example). You may want to take a fine-tooth comb to your beliefs and isolate your lack of belief in a deity as the only part of your worldview referred to by the term “atheism”, but most people’s views don’t work that way. For most people their belief or lack of belief in God and their feelings about religion are all bound up together. For instance, I guarantee that Hitchens’ view that religion poisons everything is a consequence of his atheism. To be sure, if he didn’t lack a belief in God, it is highly unlikely that he would still consider all religion to be poisonous. Regardless of how you define atheism, there are and have been atheists for whom non-belief in God leads to violent persecution of those who do believe in God (and of course the reverse has been true too - that goes without saying.)
It seems to me that you’re falling into the same “No True Scotsman” fallacy that Richard is calling out in this post. You’re basically defining atheism so narrowly that it excludes any negative things done by atheists as a result of their atheism. It’s annoying, and weasely, and dishonest when Christians do that sort of thing to get out of responsibility for the Crusades or the Inquisition or whatever, and it’s equally so when atheists do it too.
Aj said,
November 30, 2007 at 2:27 am
What your hopefully saying is that people base their opinions of religion on whether the claims it makes are justified or not. Well done, Sherlock. Although “all bound up together” should be “a natural consequence”. CS Lewis says this in Mere Christianity:
That doesn’t broaden the concept of atheism beyond what it is commonly meant as. Different religions believe others are terrible.
Something else leads to violent persecuation. A lack of belief in something is not a motivation. At best it might be a lack of a something that motivates in a different direction to violent persecuation. Non-belief has never lead to any violence. It doesn’t make sense, check your logic circuit. My lack of belief in fairies never motivated me.
You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you, died for your sins, came back with zombies, and ate your brains. I defined what I meant by Atheist and many others on this blog have, if you’re going to adopt your own definition but still respond and argue with me you’re seriously troubled. Since you don’t actually know what “No True Scotsman” fallacy is, I’ll give you a hint, it’s about the definitions.
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 30, 2007 at 6:10 am
I consider this something of an abuse of the language. It seems to me that when English-speakers speak of an “X-ist,” they are referring to a person who subscribes to a certain doctrine (even if it is a doctrine that consists only of rejection of some other doctrine). They are not referring to persons who are to be characterized by their not subscribing to (but also not rejecting) some doctrine or other, and they are certainly not referring to inanimate objects.
Are you seriously suggesting that, when we try to estimate the number of “atheists” in the world, we need to remember to count the cheese graters?
Gary Charbonneau said,
November 30, 2007 at 6:26 am
I submit that your characterization about what “strong atheists” claim is simply false. Wikipedia declares that “Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist,” and I think that’s a reasonable definition. An explicit affirmation does not require “knowledge,” especially where “knowledge” is somehow to equated with “absolute certainty.” If Richard Dawkins had to take a stand on this issue, I’m sure he would claim to be a strong atheist, even though he has explicily denied absolute certainty about the non-existence of God. I don’t have The God Delusion in front of me at the moment, but I believe that he says that, on a scale of 1-7, his degree of certainty that God does not exist is 6.
As for Bertrand Russell, I suspect that he would also come down on the side of strong atheism, and would go on to say that this whole “weak atheism” business simply has the effect of according theism a degree of intellectual respect that it, like “celestial teapotism,” does not deserve.
Mriana said,
November 30, 2007 at 7:25 am
The belief in a deity also leads to violent persecution. Just look at the history of Christianity and Islam. They have a history of violently persecuting doubters, infidels, non-believers, heretics, etc.
Jeff said,
November 30, 2007 at 7:27 am
The church I attend recently re-did their bylaws. One item that caused a lot of discussion was how long a person must be a member of the church before they can qualify to run for a leadership position. They initially had decided on 1 year but many people objected and then they changed it to two years. The rationale being that one year is not enough time to make sure someone is a “true” Christian. The church wants to see steady commitment from the individual over an extended period of time. That is the opinion of at least one church that I am familiar with. As similar argument could be formed about “true” atheists.
I, though, tend to put more stock in early childhood development. If a person is brought up religious, then it is very hard to break from that early cognitive conditioning. It is possible, but painful. Since atheism is simply a lack of belief, it is easier for an atheist to convert to theism since they may not have had any early cognitive conditioning supporting atheism. The exception being if the child decided early on to be atheist in a larger environment of theism (neighbors, classmates, family, etc). Then the child would be forced at an early age to go through the painful exercise of reconciling their lack of belief against the predominant belief of the world around them. If a child can go through this, then they will probably be what some would consider a “true atheist”. Such a person would not easily be converted later in life. Their brain would already be “wired” for atheism just like their religious counterpart’s brain’s are already “wired” for religion. I think it all a battle over our children. Churches understand that all too well.
monkeymind said,
November 30, 2007 at 8:32 am
Aj, my point is this.
The term “Neville Chamberlain Atheist” implies that there is a praxis of atheism - even more, that there is an orthopraxis of atheism - i.e., that there is a right and a wrong way to “do”it.
Your assertion
is exactly what Mike C. says it is - a bit of prescriptive and pre-emptive semantics. Prescriptive because it implies some essential “correct” definition of atheism that does not gibe with how the term is actually used. Pre-emptive because it excludes atheism as a motivation for any action, good or bad.
It’s obvious that those who use the term “Neville Chamberlain atheists” do not subscribe to your narrow definition of atheism, but believe instead that atheism should lead to vigorous advocacy of a specific set of policies.
Now the weird thing about all this is that, according to Wikipedia at least, the term “No True Scotsman” for a specific fallacy of equivocation was coined by Antony Flew!
Aj’s argument: Atheism simply means lack of belief in gods, which cannot motivate anyone to do anything.
Reply: In practice, many atheists believe that atheism as a worldview necessitates socio-political activism. The fact that in the present day most atheists are also strong advocates for civil liberties shouldn’t blind us to the fact that in the past, political programs for the promotion of atheism have led to human rights violations.
Aj’s rebuttal: Are you mentally impaired? I already told you that by my definition, atheism can never be a motivation for anything. Do not confuse me with your descriptivist semantics about how the term “atheist” is used in the real world! Aj has spoken!
PS I have no clue what you were trying to prove with your quote from CS Lewis. In my opinion, it’s the single most bone-headed thing Lewis or any other Christian apologist has ever said. The fact is that Jesus (even if he is not a real person but a composite of various spiritual teachers active in Palestine in the first century CE) could still be a great human teacher who inadvertently founded a cult that grafted various elements of Greco-Roman mystery religions onto his legend.
Keith said,
November 30, 2007 at 8:37 am
Aj,
Why are your comments toward Mike C. filled with down-talk and insults? Recognizing that you prefer confrontation to appeasement … it seems that you have flown by confrontation to contempt. Please reconsider your method of confronting, Mike C., because what you’re communicating right now is that you loathe him … not that you want him to understand. And while many atheists are able to confront action without expressing contempt for the person, you have specificallly expressed contempt for Mike C. himself.
Also, if possible, please explain more of what you meant in quoting C.S. Lewis … did you mean that Lewis considered other religions terrible, that Lewis thought other religions should find Christianity terrible, or something else that I have ineptly missed. Please help me understand that comment. Thanks.
K said,
November 30, 2007 at 9:12 am
I am an Atheist and I am an individual. I am true to myself and don’t care what anyone else thinks I should be like.
Vincent said,
November 30, 2007 at 10:38 am
monkeymind,
the problem with the definition Mike (and apparently you) proposed is that no person who calls himself atheist uses it.
Others ascribe more meaning to the word because they want to perceive the outgroup in that manner.
Those who self-describe as atheists use only one or two limited definitions, one of which most people would consider agnostic rather than atheist.
The “no true atheist” problem doesn’t arise because those who self-describe as atheist don’t use the word atheist in a manner that would make such a proposition possible.
Cade said,
November 30, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I think that in some circles, atheists tend to look down on agnostics for being indecisive, and agnostics tend to look down on atheists for being dogmatic.
Both of these groups are most likely minorities, and I think that their opinions stem from a poor understanding of the other’s thoughts. Labels tend to ignore the broad spectrum of beliefs. They say that you’re either red, green, or blue when you may be purple instead.
MikeClawson said,
November 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I don’t think either of us proposed a formal definition of atheism. An atheist may still be defined as someone who lacks a belief in God (just as a Christian may be defined as someone who believes in the divinity of Christ). The point both of us were making was that atheism (as with Christianity) often goes beyond mere belief to an actual praxis as a consequence of that belief. My argument was that you can’t just say that belief and praxis are completely separate and have nothing to do with one another. (Just as you can’t separate the actions of certain Christians from the fact that their actions were motivated by their beliefs as Christians.)
MikeClawson said,
November 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Very well said monkeymind. Excellent summary of the conversation thus far.
And I second this as well. I have no idea what that Lewis quote had to do with the topic at hand. And I likewise agree that it’s not a very astute statement by Lewis either. He would have done much better if he had just added one more “L” to his “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” options… “Legend”.
MikeClawson said,
November 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Yes Mriana, I acknowledged exactly that in what I said immediately after the end of the bit you quoted from me, which was:
The “reverse” of course being exactly what you yourself have just pointed out.
Aj said,
November 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm