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

There is no such thing as an atheist identity.

There was nothing "appealing" to me about being an atheist. It's more that it is what it is -- or isn't. I don't believe in god(s) because there's nothing that compels me to believe in one/them. I came to disbelief quite unwillingly, actually, losing the smattering of shaky faith I had from my childhood when I was raised Catholic. I finally gave up going to church in my 20s because I felt like such a hypocrite for believing in none of it.

I don't speak of my disbelief to any of my religious friends. And they don't try to "convert" me, perhaps because they don't realize I don't believe, because I never bring it up.

^ AA

Anonymous wrote:I think they do. I think that's one of the main appeals- being able to appear broad minded while in fact not being able to open their minds to something unprovable by science.

It's kind of amusingly ironic in that way.

Again with the concept of the 'appeal' of atheism. Not a choice, nothing appealing about it. It is what I believe. Period.

Anonymous wrote:I think they do. I think that's one of the main appeals- being able to appear broad minded while in fact not being able to open their minds to something unprovable by science.

It's kind of amusingly ironic in that way.

Have you heard of the concept of being so open-minded that your brains fall out? It's a cliche, but there's something to it. If you're open-minded about the widely accepted supernatural beliefs of a mainstream religion, why not believe in fairies or elves or Zeus or, dare I say it, Horas and Mithras?

I think they do. I think that's one of the main appeals- being able to appear broad minded while in fact not being able to open their minds to something unprovable by science.

It's kind of amusingly ironic in that way.

Anonymous wrote:Is the implication that sophisticated religion is superior to childlike religion? Are people who derive comfort from the simple idea of being protected by an omniscient, omnipotent being somehow inferior to people who have pondered religion from a philosophical point of view?


Thanks for illustrating what PP was talking about with your straw man.

Not a straw man -- sincere questions for anyone who would like to address them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi there - I do not believe and do not consider myself a nonconformist. I enjoy very basic and conforming things such as Starbucks, reality tv, and spending time with friends and family. I hope this helps to clear up the mystery about those of us who have different views from yourself.

Presumably everyone has different views from everyone else.

Does that come as a surprise to you?

+1

Hah - No, it's not a surprise to me, but it seems to be something the OP does not quite understand. So I tried to break it down as simply as possible.

Is the implication that sophisticated religion is superior to childlike religion? Are people who derive comfort from the simple idea of being protected by an omniscient, omnipotent being somehow inferior to people who have pondered religion from a philosophical point of view?


Thanks for illustrating what PP was talking about with your straw man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Right -- this is an argument or justification I've heard for why some prayers are not answered. it's suggesting that such an expectation is childish and unrealistic. Maybe it is, but it's also the way a lot of people are taught to think about God -- a powerful being who will protect you if you worship him and make an appeal to him.

When it appears to work, God gets the credit, and when it doesn't, arguments like the above are made. This can be comforting and convincing, but some people take it as a clue that there is no one listening.

Of course, the most simplistic level of any religion or philosophy is going to be at a child's level of understanding. And lots of believers can never get beyond that level of understanding. I don't think it's fair to religion to take the simplistic child's version as the basis for what the religion is about though.

And, obviously, it's much easier to pick the most simplistic interpretation and argue against that, similar to a straw man, than to actually work to have a comprehensive and honest idea of religion.

Is the implication that sophisticated religion is superior to childlike religion? Are people who derive comfort from the simple idea of being protected by an omniscient, omnipotent being somehow inferior to people who have pondered religion from a philosophical point of view?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Right -- this is an argument or justification I've heard for why some prayers are not answered. it's suggesting that such an expectation is childish and unrealistic. Maybe it is, but it's also the way a lot of people are taught to think about God -- a powerful being who will protect you if you worship him and make an appeal to him.

When it appears to work, God gets the credit, and when it doesn't, arguments like the above are made. This can be comforting and convincing, but some people take it as a clue that there is no one listening.

Of course, the most simplistic level of any religion or philosophy is going to be at a child's level of understanding. And lots of believers can never get beyond that level of understanding. I don't think it's fair to religion to take the simplistic child's version as the basis for what the religion is about though.

And, obviously, it's much easier to pick the most simplistic interpretation and argue against that, similar to a straw man, than to actually work to have a comprehensive and honest idea of religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi there - I do not believe and do not consider myself a nonconformist. I enjoy very basic and conforming things such as Starbucks, reality tv, and spending time with friends and family. I hope this helps to clear up the mystery about those of us who have different views from yourself.

Presumably everyone has different views from everyone else.

Does that come as a surprise to you?

+1

Anonymous wrote:Hi there - I do not believe and do not consider myself a nonconformist. I enjoy very basic and conforming things such as Starbucks, reality tv, and spending time with friends and family. I hope this helps to clear up the mystery about those of us who have different views from yourself.

Presumably everyone has different views from everyone else.

Does that come as a surprise to you?

Hi there - I do not believe and do not consider myself a nonconformist. I enjoy very basic and conforming things such as Starbucks, reality tv, and spending time with friends and family. I hope this helps to clear up the mystery about those of us who have different views from yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is your logical basis for believing that the existence of "human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered" is consistent with the existence of God?

The Hebrew and Christian Bibles are chock-full of catastrophe and overwhelming human suffering and yet also chock-full of God.

God is not like Macy's Santa Clause who sits you on your knee and asks you what you want for Christmas. Is that an atheist's conception of what religious people think God is?

If so, think again.

Right -- this is an argument or justification I've heard for why some prayers are not answered. it's suggesting that such an expectation is childish and unrealistic. Maybe it is, but it's also the way a lot of people are taught to think about God -- a powerful being who will protect you if you worship him and make an appeal to him.

When it appears to work, God gets the credit, and when it doesn't, arguments like the above are made. This can be comforting and convincing, but some people take it as a clue that there is no one listening.

Of course, the most simplistic level of any religion or philosophy is going to be at a child's level of understanding. And lots of believers can never get beyond that level of understanding. I don't think it's fair to religion to take the simplistic child's version as the basis for what the religion is about though.

It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of how religion is often taught and retained, even by mature adults. The idea of a protector can be very appealing, irrespective of age or sophistication.