Is Atheism demeaning?

[DanieltheDragon]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.


Question for debate is Atheism demeaning?

If so how and why?


Definitions. To avoid false equivocation I am debating under the assertion that atheism is not a religion.

Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

so we have universality on the word of gods or god

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I think your point can still be made if we agree to these terms.

[Divine Insight]

Although I cannot imagine even our planet being squeezed into the singularity (let alone the entire universe), I think we are probably on the right path.

I certainly don't want to side-track this thread into conversations on the cosmology of the Big Bang. But I would like to say the following in regard to your above comment.

Modern theories concerning the origin of our universe do not require that all of the mass that currently exists was crammed into an infinitely dense singularity. That idea was actually an idea that predated Inflation Theory. It also predates the idea that the universe may have begun as a quantum fluctuation. The original idea that all of the current mass of the universe was jammed into a single infinitely dense point is simply not required in our current modern theories.

So if that idea bugs you, you can rest assured that it's no longer even a problem.

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread topic: "Is Atheism Demeaning?"

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to KenRU]

I would think that would be the most reasoned argument for it. However, I think that would be giving to much credit. Most often this type of argument is pressed when something is pointed out about their religion. It seems to me more of an issue of displacement rather than a reasoned argument.

I guess in simplest terms; I am rubber your glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Of course it usually comes down to evolution is a "religion" and it demeans people because we are not divine creatures etc etc. Which has nothing really to do with atheism

there is a wall that is missing the activity of my head as mallet somewhere....

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 12 by DanieltheDragon]

Lol, I was thinking the response was more akin to the well reasoned and unassailable "I know you are but what am I."

Perhaps you're right, but we'll see. Hopefully some theists will be better able to explain it. I'm quite curious as to the logic.

-All the best,

[TheThinWhiteDuke]

To me it's a simple question.

No, Atheist are not demeaning.

I am an atheist, and don't believe in supernatural beings. I don't believe in any religions and the gods they believe in.
I have my doubts about the big bang theory, because we simply don't know how the universe started.
For the rest, i really don't know for sure where we came from, and how things started.
In the mean time, i let science surprise me. I love the times we live in, with almost everyday something new.

[Artie]

For me the definition of an atheist is someone that does not believe in God[s] because they have found no evidence for God.

That would be an agnostic atheist. An atheist is just any person without any belief in gods. An atheist would only say "I am without belief in gods". A rational agnostic atheist would say "I am without belief in gods because I have found no evidence for their existence."

[Suzy]

For me the definition of an atheist is someone that does not believe in God[s] because they have found no evidence for God.

That would be an agnostic atheist. An atheist is just any person without any belief in gods. An atheist would only say "I am without belief in gods". A rational agnostic atheist would say "I am without belief in gods because I have found no evidence for their existence."

Is this just a play on words, or is it me?......its me isn't it.

[dianaiad]

I always thought that all people who did not believe in God were atheists.

The problem here lies in how you define God. If you are a Christian then you are an Atheist with respect to all non-Christian concepts of God. Therefore all Christians are necessarily Atheists too.

Hmmn.

OK, I've heard that claim. I suppose that it could be valid in some sense, though a theism translated literally, is not 'disbelief in a god or gods,' but 'without theism, and given that theism is defined as a belief in deity, (most definitions go on to specify what sort of deity, specifically, one personal Creator God, a definition of theism with which I quarrel) then Christians are not atheist. At all,

They might, however, be fairly described as a-every other theism.

A person who claims to be 100% Atheist simply believes in one less God than a Christian. But Christians are themselves definitely 99% Atheists.

In fact, I have consistently refused to refer to myself as an "Atheist" in general terms on these forums precisely because I do not reject all possible concepts of God and I actually intuitively "believe" at least in the plausibility that there may be some underlying spiritual or mystical essence to reality. Typically we refer to that concept as "God" even if we believe that we are a direct manifestation of this mystical being.

Therefore I am technically not an "Atheist". Because I intuitively "believe" in the plausibility of a potential God.

I THINK...that's called 'agnosticism,' as in "without knowledge of?" However, what you call yourself is your privilege.

By the way that is the definition of "Faith" given in the Bible. Faith is a Hope of things unseen. So technically one could say that I am a person of "faith". I do hope that there's something mystical and magical about life. I confess that I do indeed hope that this is reality. But I also confess to knowing that this hope could be futile. But that's the essences of faith.

That sounds like classic agnosticism to me, but then, hey...I'm a full on theist. What do I know?

Therefore I am not an "atheist" in general. However, I am a very Strong Atheist when it comes to Hebrew mythology (i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Just as many Christians are very Strong Atheists when it comes to Greek mythology. They are completely convinced that Zeus is not God.

Actually, I think he probably is. Or at least, Zeus is a description of deity as the believers in him tried to conceptualize him.

I just think I have a better handle on God than the ancient Romans. I do think, however, that they were 'trying for' God. Not getting very close, mind you, but hey...they were trying.

~~~~~

Also many atheists who claim to be 100% atheists, simply don't "believe" in any Gods. But they don't necessarily rule out the possibility that there could be an underlying mystical, magical, or spiritual essence to reality. Some do, others don't.

I believe that this is the distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.

Now me, I have no problem with the 'weak' atheists. They are honest, and certainly can, logically and without hypocrisy, attack theists for "belief based on pure faith." (they are wrong, but that's a separate issue). "Strong" atheists can't.

~~~~~

I would actually prefer to be called an "Anti-thesist". Because I'm actually against dogmatic theologies. Especially theologies that want to nail God down, put him in a box called a Bible or Qur'an, or nail him to a pole where he can't escape from being used as a scapegoat for their personal bigotries and degradation of everyone who objects to their theology.

Yes, I am definitely an anti-theist.

No question about it.

I know. I get that. I would prefer, if you were going to be anti something, that you be anti-theism, not anti theist, but it's your belief system description.

But I wouldn't say that I'm an atheist in the general way the term is viewed on the street. Very few people acknowledge the term atheist to simply mean a-theist, or without a theism.

Actually I am without a theism. I don't embrace or support any specific dogmatic theology. I don't nail God down, nor nail him to a pole.

You should stick to "anti-theist."

Really.

It's closer.

The closest I come to being a "theist" is to acknowledge that some Eastern Mystical views of "God" (Specifically Taoism, and some versions of Buddhism) seem to be potentially rationally plausible. I'm not sure if those philosophies actually qualify as a "Theology" anyway.

Therefore if we take the term "Atheism" to simply mean "Without a theism", and we dismiss Eastern Mystical Philosophies as not qualifying as "Theism". Then given those technicalities I suppose I could be said to be 100% Atheist.

But I think if I were to accept that label it would be misleading because many people believe that if you are 100% Atheist you are convinced that there is no possible mystical, magical, or spiritual essence to reality. Because after all, many people who call themselves "Atheists" do seem to argue that any believe in anything mystical, magical, or spiritual is downright stupid. That's because they are convinced that science has fundamentally ruled this out. But having been a scientist my entire life I can assure everyone that this is not the case.

Science has not ruled out that reality cannot be magical. That a bogus claim that is often being made or heavily implied by many secular atheists. I think even atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, have ultimately confessed that science cannot rule out these possibilities. They simply offer that from there perspective they are highly unlikely. But highly unlikely is not meaningful. After all, how "Highly Unlikely" is it that there should simply exist some strange material stuff that can explode to become a complex universe that evolves into sentient lifeforms? Even scientists have confessed that this too is "Highly Unlikely".

In fact, now, in light of the indirect evidence that our universe might potentially be part of a far greater "multiverse" that contains infinitely many universes, they see this as something to point to in an effort to explain why such a "Highly Unlikely" event such as our universe might have come to be.

Of course all of this is far from science. It's actually nothing more than scientific speculation based upon indirect evidence from existing theories that are themselves unconfirmed in the details.

In short, let's face it. Nobody knows that the hell's going on.

So should this justify running back to Hebrew mythology and worshiping Christianity or Islam as the correct God myths?

Some form of it, yeah. But then consider my own belief system; I would naturally figure that.

I don't think so. Those myths simply don't portray an intelligent God. Let's face it, they portray a God who behaves in the same ignorant, immoral, and immature ways that the cultures who invented these myths had behaved.

Why should the creator of this universe be as stupid, barbaric, and immoral as the people who made up those ancient myths? I think that's the question that Christians and Muslims should both be focusing on.

If there is a "God" why insult that God by suggesting that this ancient barbaric and immoral culture has him "nailed". (and yes, that was most definitely meant to be a pun)

I think, personally, that God, in order to get us to our best potentials, works with the material we present him with.

One does not, after all, teach advanced quantum physics in a pre-school class. One generally expects students to be able to read, add, subtract and divide first for even the simplest of explanations.

...and when you try simple explanations (which are never adequate to the entire truth) for children who are not ready for advanced math and physics, you get children who will, having heard the teacher's simple explanation, rework and twist it according to their own understandings.

Children need to grow up and learn more in order to understand advanced principles.

................................................and we, I firmly believe, are children. Certainly we cannot possibly be on the same intellectual and sheer knowledge level a Creator God must have, nor can we possibly have the perspective and range of one.

All we can do is examine our piece of the elephant and do our best with it.

[Divine Insight]

I think, personally, that God, in order to get us to our best potentials, works with the material we present him with.

One does not, after all, teach advanced quantum physics in a pre-school class. One generally expects students to be able to read, add, subtract and divide first for even the simplest of explanations.

...and when you try simple explanations (which are never adequate to the entire truth) for children who are not ready for advanced math and physics, you get children who will, having heard the teacher's simple explanation, rework and twist it according to their own understandings.

Children need to grow up and learn more in order to understand advanced principles.

................................................and we, I firmly believe, are children. Certainly we cannot possibly be on the same intellectual and sheer knowledge level a Creator God must have, nor can we possibly have the perspective and range of one.

All we can do is examine our piece of the elephant and do our best with it.

Nothing you have said in your opine here makes any sense with respect to Hebrew mythology.

To begin with just because you believe that, with respect to God, we are extremely ignorant children who couldn't find our way out of a paper bag does not point to Hebrew mythology as being a correct description of God.

If what you say is true, that this God is simply so far above our ability to comprehend that he should be treating us as kindergarten students instead of university students, than once again the Bible fails miserably. This God would be a total failure as a Kindergarten teacher. Even his most devout believers and followers have no clue what he's trying to say as they can't even agree with their fellow devout believers on what this God is supposedly trying to teach.

So God as a kindergarten teacher has his students in a state of absolute confusion. And we clearly see this in the myriad of disagreeing Christian theologies, not to mention also the original Judaism and Islam too. These other two offs-shoots of the Abrahamic religions cannot be ignored because they too would represents an extremely failed God-teacher.

Add to this the myriad of other religions around the world that don't even recognize the Abrahamic picture of God at all and you have a God-teacher who has failed miserably to be able to properly communicate and educate his kindergarten students.

And finally, proclaiming that God is too far beyond our ability to comprehend is no excuse for this God to not be able to communicate with us efficient and clearly.

If the God itself is supposedly omniscient and all-wise then teaching kindergarten students should be a piece of cake for this God. There should not be a single solitary human on earth who doesn't understand what this teacher is trying to say with 100% clarity.

If there truly existed an omniscient all-wise creator God who is genuinely trying to commune with humans then there is absolutely no excuse for that communication not to be 100% crystal clear to every human on planet earth.

There should be no such thing as a "non-Christian" if Christianity is the one true religion from God. (the one true Kindergarten class) And there most certainly shouldn't be a single solitary kindergarten student in the entire class that doesn't even believe that the teacher exists.

The fact that there are clearly students in the class that don't believe that the teacher exists is proof positive that if there is a teacher it has no clue how to even make itself known much less how to teach the students.

So this excuse that God is simply far too intelligent for us to comprehend and that this is why *some people* don't believe in some specific faction of Christianity is a truly sad excuse for that faction. And it's clearly as false as can be with no possibility of being truth.

On a social level it also represent a form of arrogance. Why? Because it basically amounts to the person who is making the claim to be taking the the stance that they actually understand something of this God who is impossible to understand whilst the people who don't believe in their particular faction of religion are clearly clueless idiots who aren't even paying attention at all.

So it's not only a failed apologetic argument, but it carries with it an air of extreme arrogance in the hidden insinuation that the theist at least has some clue of this higher being whilst the atheist had no clue at all.

You are basically saying, "Hey we're in kindergarten here. Why aren't you people paying attention to the teacher? Clearly I am paying attention. And I don't understand what's wrong with you other students who don't even know the teacher exists."

I mean, come on. This is the typical theist's position saying about their theism. "My theology is right and yours is wrong!"

And they not only say this to atheists, but they hold this same stance against other theologies as well.

That approach is certainly not going to win any debates for sure. And like I say, it fails miserably in any case. Any God who can't effectively communicate or teach his own created kindergarten students would be a horrible teacher.

There is no excuse for such a God to not be able to commune effectively with every single one of his own students. And there's certainly no excuse why any student should not even believe that the teacher exists if this teacher is so extremely intelligent and wise.

So this is an extremely failed apology.

It just a way of trying to insult non-theists by proclaiming that they aren't even intelligent enough to recognize that they are in a kindergarten class with an invisible teacher who should be apparently obvious to them. It's clearly not obvious to anyone. Even Christians themselves disagree on what their teacher is saying. So the teacher can't be very intelligent since he has even his most devout students totally confused.

[Danmark]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality. In other words it demeans not just women or men but everyone.

I don't begin to get this. What was the rationale, if any, for this? Atheism in and of itself, is not a moral position, for good or bad.

[Unhand Me Sir]

In another thread someone suggested that atheism was demeaning in totality.

You'd have to know the context in which that suggestion was made. I'd hazard a guess, however, that the idea would be that humans are created in the image of God, or in order to have a relationship with God, or that in some way we are incomplete without the divine, meaning that denying the divine takes away something fundamental about our humanity.

Oh, and more debate about how to define atheism. You have to love non-theistic Christianity of the John Shelby Spong type - it may not have much going for it but it does shake up these tired old categories.