Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

Nope. I couldn't care less about Hera and Zeus. I don't believe they are gods, but I certainly don't define myself by telling people "I am a person who doesn't believe that the mythical gods of greek mythology are actual supernatural beings." Just like I don't define myself as someone who doesn't believe in U.F.O.'s (to the extent they are spacecraft of alien life forms), even though I don't believe in U.F.O.'s.

If you don't believe in god or gods, that's fine. Why do you define yourself by non-belief in gods? Is there any reason you prefer to define yourself that way rather than as a non-believer in alien U.F.O's.? Or leprachauns? I don't believe in leprachauns or Santa Claus, but I don't define myself as a non-believer in leprachauns or Santa Claus either. That's cause I have no axe to grind with those who believe in greek gods, UFOS, Santa Claus, or leprachauns.

I don't define myself as an atheist. I define myself by my family and community work that I do. The only time I get defined by lack of religion is when you religious people like to highlight it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

+1

(unless it was written by an atheist trying to make them look REALLY bad. anyone want to fess up?)

[Anonymous]

I find that hypothetical disturbing enough to almost suggest Jeff weigh in. Based on the flurry of posts preceding it I don't think it's fake. 17:19 here and I did not write it.

[Anonymous]

Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

Nope. I couldn't care less about Hera and Zeus. I don't believe they are gods, but I certainly don't define myself by telling people "I am a person who doesn't believe that the mythical gods of greek mythology are actual supernatural beings." Just like I don't define myself as someone who doesn't believe in U.F.O.'s (to the extent they are spacecraft of alien life forms), even though I don't believe in U.F.O.'s.

If you don't believe in god or gods, that's fine. Why do you define yourself by non-belief in gods? Is there any reason you prefer to define yourself that way rather than as a non-believer in alien U.F.O's.? Or leprachauns? I don't believe in leprachauns or Santa Claus, but I don't define myself as a non-believer in leprachauns or Santa Claus either. That's cause I have no axe to grind with those who believe in greek gods, UFOS, Santa Claus, or leprachauns.

I don't define myself as an atheist. I define myself by my family and community work that I do. The only time I get defined by lack of religion is when you religious people like to highlight it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.

+1

And I actually would never refer to myself as an atheist in real life. It just doesn't enter my mind. I didn't grow up with religion so I don't feel like there is anything lacking and I don't feel guilty about it in any way. It isn't a void or lack of anything or defined as a negative in my mind.

If there were a Leprechaun section on DCUM that had Leprechaun "believers" posting questions about people who didn't believe in Leprechauns I'd go pop in out of curiosity. And get a little riled up if they were just throwing insults left and right. "That person who doesn't believe in Leprechauns subconsciously just wants us to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that they exists. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that Leprechauns exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in Leprechauns without any evidence--they want PROOF." Whut???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

Wait - there are people who believe in the Easter Bunny? Cosplay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

+10000


Just proving OP's point, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?

Maybe you should title your posts more appropriately next time.

example:

"Subject: Why do Muslim women wear hijabs? [NO MUSLIM POSTERS PLEASE]

What motivates them to do this?

And no Muslim posters, please. We don't need your input to formulate our opinions here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

I like to think we're all humans and there's common ground for all of us. I think it's really sad and kind of hurtful that you seem to think my thoughts have no value to you simply because I don't believe in god. I am not really that dogmatic actually. I just don't believe, I didn't choose to not believe I just don't.

I don't think you can expect to have some private religious person sanctuary to discuss atheists on DCUM though, at least not while threads still show up in recent topics. I felt entitled to add my opinion because it's a public Anonymous message board and I do actually have the ability to give my perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

It is meaningless semantics. That's the whole point. It's not sufficient for an atheist to simply say they don't believe in god or have no religion. They have to attack religion. That's what being an atheist is really all about. It's not metaphysical, it's psychological and political.

Has an atheist ever answered that question by saying "I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs" or "that's private"?

Do you think it's a political position to declare yourself a Christian if asked about your religion? Or do you just say that its private?

In my mind when someone asks me what religion I am and I say atheist I'm saying I don't believe in god. That's it, that's what atheist means, nothing more nothing less.

You just made what appears to be about 4 very combative posts in a row being very rude to atheists. It would be refreshing of your theist pals called you out on that considering I have called my fellow atheists out on their rudeness.

............crickets..............

[Anonymous]

If I followed, the groundhog poster is a slightly unhinged atheist anti-theist poster who posts frequently about pagan myths. So what's the label for the unhinged anti-atheist poster? I'm assuming that series was mostly all one poster?

I can see both sides of the username debate, but some means of figuring out which posts are from the same individuals / points of view would definitely be helpful.