What being an atheist means in practical terms

Atheism isn't anymore of a religion than Theism is. This thread will turn into a Koko inspired mental circle jerk per usual.
But the main theme is what being an atheist means on a practical sense....well really not much. Disbelief in a god doesn't preclude some from believing in a religion or the supernatural. They may be less likely, but some believe in the power of crystals, karma, reincarnation or whatever's currently trendy. Religiosity is hard wired and most seek it. People find it in secular and non-secular ways.

 

Well, between the two of us, you were the one with the non-responses. You call it grovelling (I didn't even know you were referring to my post), but you can call it whatever you want, if you do it instead of being able to answer the points and questions, it's hardly a point in your favour. My most recent post there contain a good 10 or so refutations of your logic, if your best argument is calling it names, I can't stop you from bowing out.

You may have some smug sounding response to this or not, but as long as you're not addressing the points I've made in that thread, it's little but deflection. (And of course, it's not your or mine saying so that makes it so, it is the failure to respond that does).

 

I don't think anybody on this board was the first to define "atheist" as "not theist", especially given the "a" in front of "theist". Methinks this has been a common understanding for quite a long time. It just isn't the only understanding of the word, and that isn't a problem, so long as people are clear on what they mean. Your constantly demanding people use words as you want them to, and then pretending they do when they don't, is your problem, and need not be anybody else's.

 

Apologies for not directly responding, but I still think the fact that atheists (and to some extent myself) do not attend church or pray or study and meditate on just ONE book is an important difference.

Why? Because when Christians and other members of organized religions specifically say "Atheism is a religion", I can point out that they have either wrong assumptions like we are sacrificing babies at a Satanic Temple or that they bizarrely define us in terms of what we do NOT do and hence what we are not as opposed to what we actually are.

The second reason is that the assertion one person made on this forum once that "If you are agnostic, you cannot be atheist" is not a helpful stepping stone to getting me back into church. Living your life assuming there is no God makes you an atheist in all but name so why use word play?

 

Think back to when you were a little one. Remember when our moms would give us stuff to keep us occupied so she could get a mental health break from our endless energy? It was "busy work". That's what this feels like to me.

I don't even need a burning bush or water made into wine.

 

Wow Brilliant!

Really?

Why do you say that?

What IYO makes them both not a religion?

Same question to you

you lost the debate, no reason to continue responding to redundant questions that were already debunked.

your error, agnostics do not assume there is no God.

I never said anyone on the board was the first, as usual you did not even respond to what you quoted. As for that long debunked hypothesis of yours theists are not atheists. (well except in the wacky world of your religion since you think atheists can simultaneously be theists) LMAO

 

I suppose we could have that existential crisis, but I am trying to recall how many atheists actually mention ever having one. I don't personally know many that talk about this 'crisis' that they supposedly had after deciding that a supreme deity does not exist. I don't remember any of these melodramatic stories. I should think they would stick in one's mind. I remember a sense of relief, a load off their shoulders if you will, at having finally resolved the internal struggle. Their dilemma is just to decide who to tell, and when.

 

then why dont neoatheists do that?

 

My 2 cents worth:
first what is God? Even the gods as described in religious texts changes. The New Testament describes a new covenant/relationship between man and god so "god" is different for Jews as for Christians, the Muslim "god" is closer to the OT god but still different in emphasis. I suppose in some touchy-feely way, god is some originator of the universe with more or less control over it, and a man with a conscious plan.

I am happy to have taken root in the secular-humanist camp. That does not mean I avoid moral guidance because I also live in community larger than a faith or a race or a gender identity. I am a member of what exists AFAIK, and have both rights and responsibilities within that.

I don't want a religion, which is organisation, historically corrupt, author of the grossest hypocrisies we have seen (child abuse) and financially sensitive.
I want my trust in that sense of community , as so many other living things do...they spend their time protecting their existence. Together.

Humanism was born to encourage each person to stand on his/her own two feet and think for themselves. Not to run to a text for guidance. The idea that "god" gave us brains and we should use them ran hugely counter to orthodox religion for hundreds of years and to some extent, still does. It fuelled the Inquisition, the European Reformation, was the ideological dividing line between Dante and Shakespeare's fundamental assumptions (though S'peare raised a lot of questions about the shift), and liberated man to discover without worrying if s/he was upsetting God (ie Galileo) because s/he was getting too uppity.
Whether the final score about whether humanism benefitted humans or made their lives infinitely worse is of course the story of the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge. Did Adam and Eve gain or lose by thinking for themselves? So far, the game isn't over.

I don't think we need a "god" to fulfill our existence. I think there are wisdoms in the religious texts and we should heed them, but that can be done without a "god". They IMO are guidances offered by great observers of human existence and reminders that in fact, we haven't really made much progress in social or spiritual matters.

 

stalin was an atheist, what fueled the stalinist purges?

What is his score again somewhere to the tune of several million dead was it?

 

What fueled them was some crucial personal lack of humanity that IMO would not have been kept in check by his going to church or taking communion.
He could have been a benevolent dictator even as a secular humanist...in fact probably more likely so.

 

Instead they gather in groups in a church to worship themselves, and perform rituals.

 

thats pure speculation on your part with no substantiating grounds what so ever,

 

Unless much has changed in the US since I was there (and quite likely it has), my Father went to church because it was expected of him in his work if he wanted to get on.
The reason the black community went to church was to cement a social solidarity and sing great songs. I did wish I could join their meetings...mine were so boring. Jewish people went to services because they also found a place of sanctuary and support and to reaffirm their own culture.
IMO there is nothing wrong with any of them, as long as the reason isn't to recognise a "god".

 

For the most part all those mentioned recognize a God or G-D, possibly with the exception of your father.

 

Indeed it is an assessment based on what he did as a dictator.
If you accept that secular humanists are more concerned with the benefits for the community , chances are he would not have done what he did.
Of course I have no proof since it never happened. IMO he was a mad as a box of frogs and I think it is interesting how many boxes of frogs there were in those few years, starting with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Mao. It was like the world threw up all its despots all at the same time.

 

We will never know what their motivation was. I merely suggested that there were more than worship.

 

thats my point,your apologetics use groundless blind speculation.

You also do not take into account that ALL these wonderful sounding ideological systems are destined to total corruption over time.

 

Now THAT IS true speculation!

 

LOL No its a fact.
Name 'one' guvmint that is not wrought with corruption
Hell they started burning the bill of rights before the ink was dry

 

I have heard the same as you from most of them. Usually they talk about the social issues the result, such as family ostracizing them in extreme cases, etc. Rarely, if ever, have I heard any of them mention any sort of existential crisis.

 

Why don't they do what? Be clear what they mean by the word? They do. You just don't like the definition they use.

 

Human nature. Let's not pretend religion has any better a track record.

 

Well for me it's been more of a feeling of sadness and dread regarding death of myself and others since I was about 6 years old. Not so much about theism but more about the related topic of there seeming to be no afterlife. Sometimes it would have qualified as depression, but not recently. It's still a sad topic, just not one I dwell on when not discussing it or when somebody I know dies.

 

I think that we die and there is no afterlife makes this life that much more valuable. Imagine wasting the only life you get by imagining it is a waiting room or testing ground for some afterlife that turns out it doesn't actually exist.