Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

+1

Saying I believe I my own self-awareness and consciousness is like saying I believe in the sandwich I ate for lunch. I experienced it; it was there. There's no faith or supernatural deed behind it. As far as I know, my awareness and consciousness are the product of electrical impulses going through my brain. That doesn't make them any more or less important than anyone else's.

-Humanist Jew

No it's not the same at all. Other independent observers can see an object called a sandwich and watch you engage in the behavior of consuming it. To believe that there is a sentient intelligence with self-conscious awareness behind the words you have typed, requires us to take it on faith. Maybe a squirrel has been jumping around on a computer keyboard somewhere and typed "your" words. It requires a pure exercise in faith to believe otherwise. No different than religious belief at its core.

Ok. I just had dinner with my husband and son. My son observed me making dinner. The three of us had a conversation while we were eating. None of those observations takes a leap of faith or a belief that those interactions were being led by anything spiritual.

Beyond that, the chemistry and electric impulses in a brain can be directly linked by scientists to specific observable behaviors and actions. Again, this doesn't require a leap of faith or a belief in a higher spiritual being.

-HJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

That's not objectively verifiable. It may not be honest either. There's no way for someone to verify your claims.

Of course there's no real way to verify sentience but it is an assumption I have to make to believe anything. If you don't believe in your own sentience you are unable to progress any further. My positions and beliefs are based off of what I can perceive, experience and think about.

-AA

No, you misunderstand. It's not about what you claim you believe. It's about how an objective observer other than yourself views it. No one can observe the "self" of another; it's completely intangible. The only observable evidence of what you call your "self" is a biological organism exhibiting behaviors. You're asking us to take it on pure faith that those behaviors imply the existence of a self-aware conscious sentience which you refer to as your "self." However that "self" you claim to exist is completely intangible and is not scientifically verifiable. There is no reason an atheist would be able to take your claim to be a self aware being rather than a sack of protoplasm exhibiting behaviors other than on faith. No different than believing in God actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

That's not objectively verifiable. It may not be honest either. There's no way for someone to verify your claims.

I never claimed it was objective. My experience is subjective, naturally.

I can tell you that I experience consciousness, but I can't claim it to be objectively true.

I may be batshit crazy and this is all in my head, or this could be the Matrix and I'm waiting for Keanu Reeves to save me. I really hope it's not the latter.

It's not what you claim to be experiencing. It's whether other people have any objective proof that your claim to be a self-aware sentient being is objectively verifiable. You admit that it is not.

Some religious people claim to have visions or inspirations which are of such persuasive quality that they are subjectively convinced that God exists. Atheists denigrate these sorts of beliefs because they cannot be objectively proved, not because it is fundamentally impossible for supernatural beings to exist. There just isn't any objective evidence for them.

There is no logical difference between your subjective belief in your own self and a religious person's faith in their experience of god. It's not a question of scientific proof. It's a question of naive materialism. Most atheists are naive materialists. If it's not tangible accessible to you then you don't believe it exists. There is no logical difference between your claim that you experience your "self" and a religious person's subjective experience of a "soul."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

That's not objectively verifiable. It may not be honest either. There's no way for someone to verify your claims.

Of course there's no real way to verify sentience but it is an assumption I have to make to believe anything. If you don't believe in your own sentience you are unable to progress any further. My positions and beliefs are based off of what I can perceive, experience and think about.

-AA

No, you misunderstand. It's not about what you claim you believe. It's about how an objective observer other than yourself views it. No one can observe the "self" of another; it's completely intangible. The only observable evidence of what you call your "self" is a biological organism exhibiting behaviors. You're asking us to take it on pure faith that those behaviors imply the existence of a self-aware conscious sentience which you refer to as your "self." However that "self" you claim to exist is completely intangible and is not scientifically verifiable. There is no reason an atheist would be able to take your claim to be a self aware being rather than a sack of protoplasm exhibiting behaviors other than on faith. No different than believing in God actually.

No I think you misunderstood me. I agree that there are some things that even an atheist has to take on faith. One being that my experience of my own consciousness and the other being my observations of other humans seem to indicate that they possess the same type of consciousness. Without some faith in my own senses and perceptions I would be paralyzed never being able to make any conjectures at all.

Everyone does take a leap of faith I'll agree with that. I feel like my leap is less of a leap but it's still something

-AA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

That's not objectively verifiable. It may not be honest either. There's no way for someone to verify your claims.

I never claimed it was objective. My experience is subjective, naturally.

I can tell you that I experience consciousness, but I can't claim it to be objectively true.

I may be batshit crazy and this is all in my head, or this could be the Matrix and I'm waiting for Keanu Reeves to save me. I really hope it's not the latter.

It's not what you claim to be experiencing. It's whether other people have any objective proof that your claim to be a self-aware sentient being is objectively verifiable. You admit that it is not.

Some religious people claim to have visions or inspirations which are of such persuasive quality that they are subjectively convinced that God exists. Atheists denigrate these sorts of beliefs because they cannot be objectively proved, not because it is fundamentally impossible for supernatural beings to exist. There just isn't any objective evidence for them.

There is no logical difference between your subjective belief in your own self and a religious person's faith in their experience of god. It's not a question of scientific proof. It's a question of naive materialism. Most atheists are naive materialists. If it's not tangible accessible to you then you don't believe it exists. There is no logical difference between your claim that you experience your "self" and a religious person's subjective experience of a "soul."

I don't claim my existence to be a fact like religious people claim about souls, miracles, etc. You're free to come to your own conclusion about my existence.

Also, please stop it with the amateur philosophy. You don't sound more educated or knowledgeable. Just that you like the smell of your own fsrts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When an atheist believes in atheism, what does the atheist believe is doing the believing?

Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists don't believe in atheism just as non-addicts are not addicted to non-addiction.

But who goes around calling themself a "non addict"?

No one. So your analogy


FAILS

If we lived in a culture in which most people were addicts, the people who were not would distinguish themselves by calling themselves non-addicts

I didn't grow up with religion so I have never defined myself in relation to religion (or lack thereof). It's not part of my culture at all. I only call myself an atheist on DCUM responding to atheist-bashing threads. -AO

Per the analogy, you should call yourself non-religious. Not atheist.

NP.

But it's not just a lack of religion. One can not follow a religion and still believe in a spirituality; that's not what an atheist is or does.

Agreed. No religion, no gods, no spirituality, no special forces (Mother Nature, karma, etc). I don't really call myself anything IRL because it's not something I use to define myself. I'm just me. If someone were to straight out ask "do you believe in god?" I'd say "no", but I don't sit around thinking about how gods and religion do or do not fit into my life. Might be different though if you once did believe in god and are trying to differentiate what you thought before vs now. Maybe? -AO

Agreed. I don't need a title for what I believe or don't believe. The only time I even think about it is when I read a thread on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When an atheist believes in atheism, what does the atheist believe is doing the believing?

Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists don't believe in atheism just as non-addicts are not addicted to non-addiction.

But who goes around calling themself a "non addict"?

No one. So your analogy


FAILS

If we lived in a culture in which most people were addicts, the people who were not would distinguish themselves by calling themselves non-addicts

I didn't grow up with religion so I have never defined myself in relation to religion (or lack thereof). It's not part of my culture at all. I only call myself an atheist on DCUM responding to atheist-bashing threads. -AO

Per the analogy, you should call yourself non-religious. Not atheist.

NP.

But it's not just a lack of religion. One can not follow a religion and still believe in a spirituality; that's not what an atheist is or does.

Agreed. No religion, no gods, no spirituality, no special forces (Mother Nature, karma, etc). I don't really call myself anything IRL because it's not something I use to define myself. I'm just me. If someone were to straight out ask "do you believe in god?" I'd say "no", but I don't sit around thinking about how gods and religion do or do not fit into my life. Might be different though if you once did believe in god and are trying to differentiate what you thought before vs now. Maybe? -AO

Agreed. I don't need a title for what I believe or don't believe. The only time I even think about it is when I read a thread on DCUM.

If someone asks what church you go to, what do you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When an atheist believes in atheism, what does the atheist believe is doing the believing?

Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists don't believe in atheism just as non-addicts are not addicted to non-addiction.

But who goes around calling themself a "non addict"?

No one. So your analogy


FAILS

If we lived in a culture in which most people were addicts, the people who were not would distinguish themselves by calling themselves non-addicts

I didn't grow up with religion so I have never defined myself in relation to religion (or lack thereof). It's not part of my culture at all. I only call myself an atheist on DCUM responding to atheist-bashing threads. -AO

Per the analogy, you should call yourself non-religious. Not atheist.

NP.

But it's not just a lack of religion. One can not follow a religion and still believe in a spirituality; that's not what an atheist is or does.

Agreed. No religion, no gods, no spirituality, no special forces (Mother Nature, karma, etc). I don't really call myself anything IRL because it's not something I use to define myself. I'm just me. If someone were to straight out ask "do you believe in god?" I'd say "no", but I don't sit around thinking about how gods and religion do or do not fit into my life. Might be different though if you once did believe in god and are trying to differentiate what you thought before vs now. Maybe? -AO

Agreed. I don't need a title for what I believe or don't believe. The only time I even think about it is when I read a thread on DCUM.

If someone asks what church you go to, what do you say?[/quote]

"I don't go to church."

[Anonymous]

Oops, crappy quoting skills above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists seem to have no problem believing in their own self-awareness and consciousness but as consistent materialists an atheist's self-awareness and consciousness is a contradiction in terms. You're all just programmed sacks of protoplasm exhibiting somewhat interesting behaviors from time to time. Yet you have no way to prove that what you claim to be your self-awareness or consciousness isn't any less of an imaginary illusion than Santa Clause is.

I experience self-awareness and consciousness. I don't "believe" it. I can't explain it either. That's honest - not contradictory.

That's not objectively verifiable. It may not be honest either. There's no way for someone to verify your claims.

I never claimed it was objective. My experience is subjective, naturally.

I can tell you that I experience consciousness, but I can't claim it to be objectively true.

I may be batshit crazy and this is all in my head, or this could be the Matrix and I'm waiting for Keanu Reeves to save me. I really hope it's not the latter.

It's not what you claim to be experiencing. It's whether other people have any objective proof that your claim to be a self-aware sentient being is objectively verifiable. You admit that it is not.

Some religious people claim to have visions or inspirations which are of such persuasive quality that they are subjectively convinced that God exists. Atheists denigrate these sorts of beliefs because they cannot be objectively proved, not because it is fundamentally impossible for supernatural beings to exist. There just isn't any objective evidence for them.

There is no logical difference between your subjective belief in your own self and a religious person's faith in their experience of god. It's not a question of scientific proof. It's a question of naive materialism. Most atheists are naive materialists. If it's not tangible accessible to you then you don't believe it exists. There is no logical difference between your claim that you experience your "self" and a religious person's subjective experience of a "soul."

I don't claim my existence to be a fact like religious people claim about souls, miracles, etc. You're free to come to your own conclusion about my existence.

Also, please stop it with the amateur philosophy. You don't sound more educated or knowledgeable. Just that you like the smell of your own fsrts.

Wow, are you ever mean!

[Anonymous]

I dunno it was a very philosophy 101 direction to take the conversation. Anyone who studied Descartes has some type of response to that line of argument.

[Anonymous]

^AA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When an atheist believes in atheism, what does the atheist believe is doing the believing?

Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists don't believe in atheism just as non-addicts are not addicted to non-addiction.

But who goes around calling themself a "non addict"?

No one. So your analogy


FAILS

If we lived in a culture in which most people were addicts, the people who were not would distinguish themselves by calling themselves non-addicts

I didn't grow up with religion so I have never defined myself in relation to religion (or lack thereof). It's not part of my culture at all. I only call myself an atheist on DCUM responding to atheist-bashing threads. -AO

Per the analogy, you should call yourself non-religious. Not atheist.

NP.

But it's not just a lack of religion. One can not follow a religion and still believe in a spirituality; that's not what an atheist is or does.

Agreed. No religion, no gods, no spirituality, no special forces (Mother Nature, karma, etc). I don't really call myself anything IRL because it's not something I use to define myself. I'm just me. If someone were to straight out ask "do you believe in god?" I'd say "no", but I don't sit around thinking about how gods and religion do or do not fit into my life. Might be different though if you once did believe in god and are trying to differentiate what you thought before vs now. Maybe? -AO

Agreed. I don't need a title for what I believe or don't believe. The only time I even think about it is when I read a thread on DCUM.

If someone asks what church you go to, what do you say?

I'm the bolded poster and I don't think anyone has ever asked me what church I go to. Do people ask that? If someone did, I'd also just say "I don't go to church". -AO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When an atheist believes in atheism, what does the atheist believe is doing the believing?

Atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists don't believe in atheism just as non-addicts are not addicted to non-addiction.

But who goes around calling themself a "non addict"?

No one. So your analogy


FAILS

If we lived in a culture in which most people were addicts, the people who were not would distinguish themselves by calling themselves non-addicts

I didn't grow up with religion so I have never defined myself in relation to religion (or lack thereof). It's not part of my culture at all. I only call myself an atheist on DCUM responding to atheist-bashing threads. -AO

Per the analogy, you should call yourself non-religious. Not atheist.

NP.

But it's not just a lack of religion. One can not follow a religion and still believe in a spirituality; that's not what an atheist is or does.

Agreed. No religion, no gods, no spirituality, no special forces (Mother Nature, karma, etc). I don't really call myself anything IRL because it's not something I use to define myself. I'm just me. If someone were to straight out ask "do you believe in god?" I'd say "no", but I don't sit around thinking about how gods and religion do or do not fit into my life. Might be different though if you once did believe in god and are trying to differentiate what you thought before vs now. Maybe? -AO

Agreed. I don't need a title for what I believe or don't believe. The only time I even think about it is when I read a thread on DCUM.

If someone asks what church you go to, what do you say?

I'm the bolded poster and I don't think anyone has ever asked me what church I go to. Do people ask that? If someone did, I'd also just say "I don't go to church". -AO

In the south, it's pretty common.

[Anonymous]

The only thing I know for sure is that anyone (of any affiliation) invested in saying they are non-conformist is actually a conformist. Or a counter-conformist.