Atheism...

IS IT AGGRESSIVE TO OPENLY SAY THERE IS NO GOD?

More often than not, some of the most annoying and deluded arguments against open atheism (as opposed to mere open secularism) come, not from religious individuals, but from people who either are or claim to be non-believers and kick off their discourse with the clichéd ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ Before moving on, remember this: life’s not black and white, and it’s not a greyscale either; there are millions of colours, and not being able to see infra-red or ultra-violet doesn’t mean they don’t exist; there is, however, yet another layer to it: there are infinite colours which do not exist and which, unlike IR and UV, cannot be measured (since they don’t exist), and just because one person, or twenty, or a billion, believe they do, doesn’t make them real.

Now, to revert to the previous point regarding the feeble ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ opener, I shall try it out in order to see how it feels and get it out of the way. I’m an atheist, but I’ve got absolutely no problem with people believing whatever they want, I’ve sung religious pieces many times – couldn’t care less about the fact those lyrics refer to imaginary creatures, as that wouldn’t stop me from singing ‘Seraglio’ or ‘Das Rheingold’ if I ever had the chance – and I can sympathise (even if I thoroughly disagree) with the notion of seeking prayer or the idea of the divine justice or the afterlife as some sort of comfort or solace. I do draw the line, however, at double standards.

I genuinely don’t mind people using (stock) phrases such as ‘God bless you’ or ‘Thank God,’ but I’d always wondered whether believers – or, more to the point, ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ apologists – would be equally amenable of the same approach when at the receiving end of it. I began, then, replying to ‘God bless you’ with ‘God doesn’t exist, but thanks for the nice intentions.’ Suddenly, accusations of being rude, impetuous or narrow-minded began pouring, both from believers and atheists alike.

Now, that’s a double-standard if I’ve ever seen one: why is it alright for a believer to say out loud that there is a god (or several) but not for a non-believer to say there isn’t? What would happen if I wore a t-shirt with the message ‘there’s no God’? Would I be respected the same way people with crucifixes or rosaries are in most Western territories? How is that ‘imposing’ my views, but saying ‘God bless you is not’?
Secularism and freedom cut both ways: if it’s acceptable for believers not to shut up about it (and it is), then it’s also fine for atheists not to keep it to ourselves. After all, not being quiet isn’t quite the same as being aggressive. Remember: B/W, greyscale, colours, IR, UV…

To sum up: if you believe in any of the thousands of gods humanity’s worshipped, you’re more than entitled to say so, out loud, and to wear items that represent your faith, and to post whatever you like on social media, and it’d be ridiculous for me to be offended by that. But there’s the flipside: I’m also more than entitled to say there are no gods, say it whenever and wherever I want, and it’d be ridiculous for anyone else to be offended by it.

In your experience when someone says 'I'm an atheist, but', what is the 'but' followed by? I'm an atheist but there is absolutely no 'but' whatsoever.

More often than not, some sort of arse-licking towards believers:

'I'm an atheist, but I think we should leave them be.'
'I'm an atheist, but I prefer not to engage in arguments, so I keep it to myself.'
'I'm an atheist, but I respect religions.'
'I'm an atheist, but if their belief leads them to wake me and my neighbours up with their silly prayers, we should just let them.'
'I'm an atheist, but I think you shouldn't be saying those things.'
'I'm an atheist, but what's the harm in them believing in Yahweh/Allah/etc?'
'I'm an atheist, but I don't think we should annoy them.'
'I'm an atheist, but I'm glad this new pope is more open. I like him.'
'I'm an atheist, but I think children deserve to learn about Jesus.'
'I'm an atheist, but I'm not strident.'
'I'm an atheist, but I don't post atheist memes on social media. They're just uncalled-for teasing.'
'I'm an atheist, but I think we should respect what Muslims/Xtians/Jews/Hindus/etc do, it doesn't affect us.'
'I'm an atheist, but I cannot prove there's no god, therefore their claim is as valid as ours.'
'I'm an atheist, but I'm annoyed by fellow atheists saying it out loud.'

I think you're confusing arse-licking with humility.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

I think you're confusing arse-licking with humility. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.

There is a sliding scale indeed, but it's not B/W or a greyscale.

Let me break this down into four parts to give my view:

1) Is it ok to say "there is a god" / "there isn't a god"?

Yes, it is. But, despite the wording, it is not a statement of fact - it is a statement of belief respectively a statement of disbelief. Everyone is entitled to believe or disbelieve what they want to, no matter how offensive this belief or disbelief might be to anyone else. To what extent one may ACT on ones belief / disbelief is another question altogether which far exceeds what one can reasonably expect to be the boundaries of this topic.

2) Should people who adhere to a religion get special treatment, i.e. do religious beliefs merit protection that other beliefs do not?

No. Things like blasphemy laws, meant to protect the sensibilities of a certain kind of religious person, are outrageous, as they elevate a personal belief to a collective standard. Even worse is the flip-side, the sense of entitlement, sometimes even enshrined in laws, that 'protect' certain religious people from challenges to their beliefs. For instance, limitations on what kind of public events can be held on Sundays (the enforcement of 'Sunday rest' on those who don't subscribe to it), laws prohibiting 'non-Islamic' teaching, the refusal to teach evolution in biology classes, history classes slanted to a certain religious viewpoint, the list goes on and on. Whatever you believe or don't believe, your beliefs are not a ground for protection against criticism or challenge. We have a similar problem with freedom of speech, which means nothing more and nothing less than that the expressing of an opinion can never in itself be an unlawful act. But increasingly, people believe that "freedom of speech" means what they say cannot have any (negative) consequences for them, that everyone has to *respect* their views. Not so, and religious beliefs should be treated in the same way: expressing them can never be a crime in and of itself, but neither do they entitle the one who expresses them to any special status or protection from criticism.

3) Is it more reasonable to say "there is no god" than to say "there is a god/there are gods"?

I don't believe so. First of all, to establish whether or not there is a god, you need a definition, giving you criteria to confirm or falsify. No adequate definition of what a god is has ever been put forward, so even if we had the capability to test every imaginable criterion, we still wouldn't know how to establish whether or not there is a god/are gods. For more on this topic, look up "theological noncognitivism". This definition problem / the problem of religious language is only one part of a far larger set of enormous philosophical problems around the god-question.

4) Does simply not believing in god make you an atheist / do atheists have the right to redefine the term "atheism" to include everyone who isn't theist?

NO! Since the rise of what is called the "new atheism" of people like Richard Dawkins, attempts have been made to redefine the word "atheism". Compare the Wikipedia page on the term (reflecting the view of the "new atheism" to the dictionary definition (adhering to the classical and strict semantic definition) , for instance.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism - "the belief that God does not exist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism - "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

In the first, the original, semantically most correct definition is given. Atheism comes from the Greek, a-theos, meaning "no god" or "without god". Simple: atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

In the second, the Wikipedia / New Atheism definition, the real, original definition of atheism (a-theos = "no god" / "without god") is presented as the 'narrowest' definition, while the 'primary' definition is presented as being all those views that do not entail the belief in the existence of deities. So, agnosticism (the viewpoint that we do not know or cannot know whether there is a god / are gods) and a number of other non-theist philosophical views are co-opted by atheism. I find that extremely offensive.

As you've probably already guessed, I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am not a theist. I do not believe in the existence any gods, nor do I disbelieve that. Let me explain:

I do not believe in any religion. I do not think any religious idea or text is anything more than a product of human intelligence, sometimes of great quality, sometimes not so. I do not believe that Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Jahweh, Elohim, Belenos or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist. But that does not mean that any or all of those are the full and/or correct definition of what (a) god is. Now, I do not believe that any adequate definition of (a) god exists, but merely for the sake of argument, let me produce two flawed ones to illustrate: if we define god as "an anthropomorphic intelligence that created the universe and all in it, revealing his teachings to his chosen species, created in his image and closely scrutinizing them, punishing them for defying his teachings, etc. etc." then I say "that does not exist". But if we define god as "that unknown/unknowable quality which caused the universe to come into existence", then I would have to say "well, I suppose that exists (or existed)". Richard Dawkins and a number of the "New Atheists" do not respect (or perhaps do not understand) the subtleties that mean agnostics like myself cannot consider ourselves atheists.

Let me put it very simply: since I do not know of any adequate definition of "god", I do not feel I can reasonably say whether it exists or not. "Ah," says Dawkins, "but it is more probable that god does not exist than that he/she/it does exist". Why does he say that or something very similar to it? Because evangelical atheism accepts the theist definition of god and then rejects the veracity thereof. But, a theological noncognitivist does NOT accept the definition. Therefore, I cannot make an informed statement of probability. Atheism is a gross oversimplification of my view on the subject, so therefore, I am offended if I am labeled an atheist in the same way I would be offended to be labeled a theist.

Nothing wrong with atheism. Anti-theism is what gives atheism a bad name. Just like fundamentalism gives deism a bad rap.

Why should it be aggressive to say there is no god? Atheists are the most tolerant and peaceful people on earth. I never heard that atheists demand that certain days should be holy, that certain food should be banned, that animals must be slaughtered in a special way, that people must wear certain clothes, that gays must be hanged in public, that women must be stoned for extramarital sex after having been raped and the list goes on and on. Atheists usually do not call out believers for their endless stupidity and narrowmindedness. Only when lives are in danger the craziness of believers is stopped by law, for example when parents deny their children live saving medical treatment because religion told them to.

Of course, people will say that belief and religion is not the same but religion would not exist without the believers who claim that their God is the only true and real God. Religion is the power organisation of believers trying to rule into our society.

Arheists are not restricted in their thinking and exploring the possibilities of science and research. No atheist ever claimed to know exclusively how the world was created and how the human spirit came into this world. No atheist ever burnt a fellow human being alive because they would not sign to the freedom of science and the idea that science can answer the questions we have about the origin and fabric of the universe. Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it.

Atheists should be more self confident and offer their ideas more to the public discourse. Maybe we would not spend so much time fighting about burkas and pork in school lunches.

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it.

[/QUOTE]

Doesn't that technically make you agnostic and not atheist though?

I used to call myself an agnostic but now I think the term is too tentative for me. Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church. First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist. I did not grow up in a social vacuum where I thought about the existence of God just for the sake of it, I grew up with a religious education and the doubts about the "truth" I learnt from people I trusted were very severe. Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it.

[/QUOTE]

Doesn't that technically make you agnostic and not atheist though?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The definition of atheism has been stretched beyond its breaking point by the New Atheism - most self-described atheists are agnostics.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

I used to call myself an agnostic but now I think the term is too tentative for me. Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church. First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist. I did not grow up in a social vacuum where I thought about the existence of God just for the sake of it, I grew up with a religious education and the doubts about the "truth" I learnt from people I trusted were very severe. Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely.[/QUOTE]

I think that's very regrettable and honestly I expected better of you.

[QUOTE]"Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church"[/QUOTE]

That's simply not true, and offensive to boot. The word to describe the above already exists, and it is "irreligious". Many people who hold a large diversity of spiritual views (ranging from animism on one extreme to theological noncognitivism on the other) are irreligious but not atheist, and you now lump them under that latter heading without their consent, oversimplifying a host of nuanced views.

[QUOTE]"First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist."[/QUOTE]

Would it not be more accurate to say that there must be a definition of what is meant by "God" before any statement on the existence of said concept can be made?

[QUOTE]"Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely."[/QUOTE]

Since that is a view described perfectly by the term agnosticism, why do you feel so hostile to that concept, which describes the views you mention far better than "atheism", which means the disbelief in god(s)?

Most of people believe in something or someone, it's easier for them.
I believe that exist some kind of force and that has created the world and life.I think that God is all around us, in air, water, nature... If all this doesn't exist there would be no life on Earth.It's a miracle.:)
I do not think it's bad if someone doesn't believe or is not religious,everyone has the right to believe or not.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator[/QUOTE]

It will never happen, since such an idea is not testable. You cannot see something that does not physically exist.

On a more philosophical note - if there was a god, in this day and age you'd think he/she/it would give some better clues as to how they exist than texts that are thousands of years old and "personal experiences" that only seem to take place in people who want to have them in the first place.