Atheists do NOT worship themselves or anything else

[Turtle]

In your argument about pb&j, the usage of nothing has two different connotations, but they are made to be equivalent. Therein lies the problem.

In the original post, in this logic,

Worshipping idols is not worshipping God
Not worshipping God is what atheists do
Therefore worshipping idols is what atheists do.

"Not worshiping God" plays the same role as "nothing" in the PB&J version -- it's used for both "worshiping something other than God" and "not worshiping anything". The resulting construct is therefore as flawed as the one I gave, just less funny.

Yep. I was also comparing the two arguments and agreeing that they were similar. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Turtle]

Gnostic Atheists ( never met or even heard of one) these people claim the knowledge that NO God exists.

I've met several, some quite evangelical about it. They're pretty obnoxious, as a rule. On one memorable occasion, the evangelical atheists in the audience were enough to make an atheist & philosophy professor friend of mine start arguing in defense of the Methodist minister on the panel with him.

Most atheists feel the same about evangelical gnostic believers, and there are a lot more of those around. The problem is not with the belief or non-belief. It is with the insistence that everyone else must be like them, because they "know" the truth about something that technically cannot be known.

The point is, it's a two way street. "People are people, wherever you go." Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you don't want an atheist, or a person from another religion, to get evangelical with you, give them the same courtesy. Most people don't like to be harassed, no matter what they believe or don't believe.

[agricola]

Interesting -
My basic position is that I can't prove the existence of (a) god in no way at all.
Secondary to that are some - axioms? -

1 - if there is a god at all, there is only one (more than one is surely superfluous and even contradictory - given that the definition I would use for 'god' includes being transcendent, omni-whatever, etc. 'There can be only one' (but there doesn't have to be, except IF there is any at all, there is only one).

2 - the god we were taught about in the coc - doesn't rightly qualify.

There are some other tidbits - if a god exists, there is no particular reason to assume this god wants to, or even can, communicate with us....

You know, the details.

I am definitely not ready to say I'm any sort of 'atheist'. I take the existence of God (capital G here) as a kind of hypothesis of existence: there is no proof a god exists but equally there is no real proof a god DOESN'T exist - on this I'm agnostic to the core. I don't know and can't prove.

BUT - I'll accept as a potential tenet of existence that there is or could be one. And therefore, I am totally willing to discuss (and act) till the cows come home, ideas about what God wants, what God says (or might have said, or didn't say, or could have meant....)

Bahya, in Hovot HaLevavot (Debts of the Hearts? something like that) wrote:

The ultimate result of your knowledge of God should be the conviction that of His real essence you are completely ignorant.

[KLP]

I used to think that it was sort of 50-50 on the supernatural thing. That it could go either way. But then I started actually studying and thinking about it and I could find no other example of something-from-nothing or of things becoming more and more complex on their own. Studying on such things as the astronomy and astrological mathematics and patterns of movements, mandalas being traced out, how the ancients predicted an eclipse, and the echoes all around of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio. I basically studied myself out of agnosticism.

So I decided to let go of my agnosticism because it seemed to me overwhelming that there is an intelligence to most everything. It just seemed like a I forcing myself to not use reason or rational thought to keep considering it an even chance that it all just "poofed" into existence by itself. So basically I studied myself into accepting that theism just made so much more since than atheism. But in my terms or way of thinking I do not really use the terms (a)theism. To me I think of it more generally so I use a term such as "something" as in it makes more sense to that there is "something" outside of nature once one considers and studies all the echoes of designs. Anyway, that is what makes sense to me.

[agricola]

I'd prefer to say I'm an agnostic THEIST, actually. An agnostic atheist says he doesn't know if a god exists - and then acts as if one doesn't.

The position of 'I don't know, and I don't think anyone else can know either' has a long and respected history in Jewish thought, and has never implied that the person asserting that position doesn't actually believe that God doesn't EXIST - they (and I) simply don't believe we can 'know God'.

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov:

Faith is the foundation of all spiritual quest...the root of all teaching and practice...the channel for every benefit and blessing.

and

Get into the habit of dancing. It will displace depression and dispel hardship.

and again

Truth is the "light" by which to find your way out of darkness. Turn it on.

Not everything in life is subject to intellectual 'proofs'.

[agricola]

Names let us communicate more accurately.

I think there is a difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist, and it is all (mostly?) revealed in the behavior. At that point, I think that behavior is a kind of choice:
the choice between deciding to behave AS IF there were a god versus the choice to behave AS IF there is not a god. This is truly a 'leap of faith' because when you get to the point of accepting that one CANNOT POSSIBLY PROVE the existence (or non-existence) of a deity, then one must choose whether to believe there is/may be one, or to believe there is not/probably isn't one. No proofs possible: You either believe or you don't. This may not even be consciously chosen, but a result of inner factors. Once you are there, you can't 'unchoose' and pick the other based on any logical or intellectual information, because there isn't any.

So I suppose I would have to say that I disagree that 'agnostic' is not a real thing, or is what people prefer to call themselves just because they don't like to say 'atheist'. I think that agnostic theism is 'real'.

I'll agree, however, that there are plenty of people who DO use the term 'agnostic' as a kind of shield against saying 'atheist'. There are plenty of social reasons why a person would choose to do that.

[Free Thinker]

What is 'acting as if there is God'? What does that look like? Going to worship services? Teaching my kids that it's true? Just living a 'moral' life (no drinking, swearing, cheating, stealing, murdering)? Can I drink a little and swear a little, and still be moral? Is that living as if God is real? Or does that mean choosing a particular faith to follow, and then following it, knowing that it most likely is not true?

It was a slow journey from faith to atheism, but it doesn't feel bad at all. I'm still the same person, infact I feel less judgemental, more inclined to forgiveness and understanding of others, and can honestly say I try to live the life that I feel is best for all everyone- especially my kids and husband. My family (kids and husband particularly) are the center of my life, but I also am civic-minded. If you were to meet me out and about, or ask someone about me, they would probably tell you I am a good "Christian" woman- because of how they see me. There is an excellent You-tube video buy a guy called (I think) 43 Alley? It talks about how he became an atheist, and how he's raising his son. It's cartooney, but the message is an excellent one.

[agricola]

Oh I am a MUCH nicer person than I ever was as a 'faithful Christian' (I'm pretty sure I was one of those for at least several years). I'm a lot less worried about 'the state of my soul', which greatly reduces self-absorption (which leads to disregard of other people).

As for how I act 'as if' there is a God - honestly, I am not at all sure there ISN'T a God, which is why I myself would come down on the 'theist' noun as a descriptor (which 'agnostic' used as an adjective). Anyway - I read and study 'religious' texts. I try to follow 'religious' tenets - both ritual and interpersonal, partly because the interpersonal tenets are congruent with what I consider to be desirable social and personal standards. Now, a 'religious' person would say I should do that because 'God said to' and I would be more likely to say that I do them for community and historical-traditional reasons, plus they make sense (mostly). So my reasons may be different, but my actions are not.

However - as some know, but others may not - Judaism is a lot more 'heavy' on the 'how-you-behave' area and a lot lighter (compared to Christianity) on the 'how-you-believe' area of religious stuff. The idea is that behaving properly will eventually lead to better understanding and stronger (or new) belief. For myself, I'm not sure about that as an actual thing, but I'm willing to take the chance. Besides, as someone said once, MEANWHILE, good things are done, whether I 'believe' correctly or not, and if I wait until I believe right, I might never accomplish anything useful!

[KLP]

There are people who claim to be something but act out of line with that label in all realms. So finding an altruistic atheist or murderous Christian does not redefine the ideals or typical behaviors of the majority in that group. We are asked to remember this each time a murderer commits some heinous act and shouts some phrase indicating a religion or political belief...we are told those people are not really that grouping label. So certainly there is something to the old sayings like actions speaking louder and the one about preaching Jesus always, using words when necessary.

So just like we would let people choose their own preferred labels, genders, and pronouns we would also allow them to define their own religious/spiritual/philosophical category.

[agricola]

I'll also tell you something that I (and a whole lot of other people) find REALLY annoying:

Somebody who is at least nominally 'Christian' (or even strongly claims that definition) who does something really horrible (like serial murders, or hate crimes including arson and murder, or deliberate child abuse) and then other Christians say 'oh, he's not a 'real' christian!'

Look.

That does NOT let you off the hook. If you (as Christians) get to define all evil-doers out of the group, that gives you a free ride. You get to say something like 'oh all Christians are good people!' but you can only do that BECAUSE YOU DEFINED OUT THE ONES YOU DON'T APPROVE OF.

You really can't do that. You are doing exactly what klp is warning against: you aren't letting people self define themselves.

(It is certainly okay to say they aren't GOOD Christians, or that a good Christian wouldn't do whatever it was they did, but it isn't okay to just wash your hands of the matter altogether by saying they aren't part of the group at all and never were).

If murderer A, or hate crime committer B, or child abuser C says they are a Christian, then you really ought to accept that they actually are part of your in-group. And your in-group has something it needs to work on - you can't just turn your backs away and say those people aren't your problem, by saying they aren't part of your group.

You may wish they weren't, but there they are.

The particular challenge, of course, are the ones who claim to have done the terrible things they did, BECAUSE they were 'Christians'.

If I'm stuck with Bernie Madoff, then you are stuck with the KKK and Westboro Baptists, whether you like it or not.

(and Atheists (with a capital A) I guess have to be stuck with Madelyn Murray O'Hare).



I think it is right to say that a philosophy or religion cannot be blamed for absolutely every action taken by their supporters, but at the same time, one should be able to recognize patterns of behavior encouraged or permitted by that philosophy or religion, and determine whether or not there is something undesirable underlying some teachings.

And a good, positive step would be when that philosophy or religion recognizes when they are contributing to a problem, and take some steps to both apologize, and substantively change to improve their future actions. Like the actions the Roman Catholic church (eventually) took after the Holocaust (Vatican II and Nostra Aetate).