Polite atheism. Is it possible?

[mcflooble]

I don't think it's fair to use a single atheist to answer the question "Is it possible to be a polite atheist?", which is a little bit of an absurd question itself.

Since this thread, I now believe wholeheartedly that you can be a polite atheist.

The question arose because of coming home after the attempted evangelism and discussing it with the flatmates.

Now it's just interesting to see the different viewpoints.

 

[The Penitent Man]

I don't think it's fair to use a single atheist to answer the question "Is it possible to be a polite atheist?", which is a little bit of an absurd question itself.

Agreed.

 

[nicknack28]

Atheist = one who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic = one who accepts the possibility that God exists.

Now why would Atheist want to disavow the meaning? Because it is an absurd position, but they hold it anyway, but pretend they don't. Thus they are impolite in my book

I'd still argue that if everyone agreed on these definitions then most self-titled atheists would actually be calling themselves agnostics.

But that's not the issue here. All I can say is that either using a generalization like that I just quoted or citing Christopher Hitchens (who, yeah, is often needlessly vicious) is not the best way to determine whether people are polite. Anyone can be polite. You could belong to the worst group of people on the earth and still be polite.

And I'd like to say just for the record that this thread has seemed generally (and refreshingly) free of the hostility that could accompany such a conversation.

Civility FTW.

 

[Van]

Hi Nicknack28, I agree, if the "atheists" posting on this thread actually believed what the claimed, they would change their icons to agnostic. Did you see the claim about "weak atheists" and "strong atheists?" Actually a weak atheist is the same as an implicit atheist, a person such as a child, who has not considered the question of whether God exists, and thus does not believe God exists. This is the actual accepted definition, but it is not the one offered in this thread. Similarly, an explicit or strong atheist is one who has considered the matter and denies the existence of God. Here is how the game is played, a "non-theist" could be an agnostic, or an atheist. So the atheist equates atheist with "non" theos as opposed to "against" theos for the purpose of blurring definitions, avoiding the logical consequence of being an explicit atheist, i.e denying the existence of God.

 

[xOptimisticx]

Hi Nicknack28, I agree, if the "atheists" posting on this thread actually believed what the claimed, they would change their icons to agnostic.

Here are some accepted definitions:

Dictionary.com says:

Atheism definition:
1) The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2) Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Disbelief definition:
1) Inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.'
2) Amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

So atheism includes the refusal to believe in the existence of a supreme being. Some people who don't believe in god but do accept its possible would be included in this accepted definition of atheism.

Since their claims go along with this definition, they don't need to change their icons do they?

Did you see the claim about "weak atheists" and "strong atheists?" Actually a weak atheist is the same as an implicit atheist, a person such as a child, who has not considered the question of whether God exists, and thus does not believe God exists. This is the actual accepted definition, but it is not the one offered in this thread.

Wikipedia seems to say that:

Weak atheism refers to any other type of, non-theism wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement (There is at least one god) is false.

This is not limited to people who haven't considered the question as you claim. There may be other definitions but the point is that there isn't one "actual accepted definition" as you claim.

Infact, if you go to wikipedia re weak atheism there is a little diagram which shows the relationship between weak/strong and implicit/explicit. Implicit does not mean weak and explicit does not mean strong.

Similarly, an explicit or strong atheist is one who has considered the matter and denies the existence of God. Here is how the game is played, a "non-theist" could be an agnostic, or an atheist. So the atheist equates atheist with "non" theos as opposed to "against" theos for the purpose of blurring definitions, avoiding the logical consequence of being an explicit atheist, i.e denying the existence of God.

It feels that you're trying to push this point so you have a reason to complain at atheists rather than listening to what the atheists in this thread are saying.

 

[Blue Money]

If your post is typical of how you discuss the issue - and to some extent even if it is not - I think I see the problem. Rather than focus on the rationale for your belief, you tend to focus on and judge those who hold the opposite opinion.

Much as you may consider John Paul II, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Stanley Hauerwas "deluded," you have to acknowledge their intellectual stature. Men and women like this may be wrong; but they are not sloppy thinkers. If you want to discuss, you have to engage the ideas!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were men of "intellectual stature" to the point that they were members of a tiny, literate elite in a world populated almost entirely by primitive, ignorant, illiterate, superstitious goobers.
I've read some works by both men. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with both. Their arguments are no better than any number of philosophical musings I've heard from half-drunken soldiers and stoned college students. Augustine in particular was an "intellectual giant" to the extent he lived in - and wrote for - a society of midgets (the late, degenerate Roman Empire teetering on its last legs. Perhaps lead poisoning may have helped thin out his competitors?) The most I can say for him is that he at least avoids (for the most part) the raving, ranting lunacy of his theological inspiration, Tertullian... a man whose nasty, mean-spirited, fanatical notions have had WAY too much influence on the Western world, IMHO.

 

[marlowe007]

I don't think it's fair to use a single atheist to answer the question "Is it possible to be a polite atheist?", which is a little bit of an absurd question itself.

But I think you'll find that most atheists, especially the militant ones, tend to agree with Hitchens. I mean, even Richard Dawkins said the same thing about Teresa, calling her "odiously self-righteous."

Hitchens is a coward who waited for Mother Teresa to die before defaming her as a harlot of Rome, and encouraged others to similarly relieve themselves on her memory. After all, what good could a sick old hag do him?....err...I mean, uhh, the suffering multitudes. Anyway, scapegoating a doddering old woman for the failures of entire governments is win/win on Planet Hitch, since doddering old women very rarely offer crusading journalists open-bar privileges.

 

[Skeptic90]

Hi Nicknack28, I agree, if the "atheists" posting on this thread actually believed what the claimed, they would change their icons to agnostic. Did you see the claim about "weak atheists" and "strong atheists?" Actually a weak atheist is the same as an implicit atheist, a person such as a child, who has not considered the question of whether God exists, and thus does not believe God exists. This is the actual accepted definition, but it is not the one offered in this thread. Similarly, an explicit or strong atheist is one who has considered the matter and denies the existence of God. Here is how the game is played, a "non-theist" could be an agnostic, or an atheist. So the atheist equates atheist with "non" theos as opposed to "against" theos for the purpose of blurring definitions, avoiding the logical consequence of being an explicit atheist, i.e denying the existence of God.

I do not know if there are any strong atheists, if there are some, more than likely is from emotional reasons, which I personally don't consider as true atheists. If I do find one, I will say they are probably wrong same way a christian says they are sure there is a god. The vast majority of atheists, including myself, think the existence of god is both improbable, or equally improbable, and are open to new evidence. If provided with strong enough evidence, then we will revise our standpoint. Same way science does with new facts that contradict a current theory.

When I was an agnostic, I stood in the middle saying I truely don't know if I should believe or not. But until I reevaluated my position, I can say I do not believe in god same way I do not believe in bigfoot. If provided with the knowledge, then I can reevaluate my belief. So an atheist is one with the lack of knowledge and belief, as in contrast to an agnostic who just lacks knowledge, and is in the middle with faith, talking strictly agnostic. Sure there are agnostic atheists/theists. Most atheists are agnostic-atheists, but for short simply atheists. Because we don't believe

 

[firefighter1234]

I'm sure you coould be a polite atheist, and I consider myself one, in terms of being careful what you say.

But, ultimately, I flat out deny the thing you hold most dear. I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

There was some evangelical work going on along my city's main street and we had a bit of a discussion but I felt like I couldn't say anything without being rude, so I gave up on the concept and just said what I honestly felt. The last thing I said to him was (something like):

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. It's like when I give beggars money, I hate the appearance of "I'm better than you because I'm being charitable towards you" when the truth is I'm probably just luckier.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for

ages. But it sounds so insulting.

I feel that I have to explain why I said "know" rather than "believe". Technically I have to be agnostic, but in the same sense as being agnostic towards the tooth-fairy, so I can confidently assert knowledge.

I don't feel like me denying God is offensive, but just the other parts about how I feel given that I deny God and other people don't. You know, like the parts about Santa clause, you being deluded, etc...

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

P.S: I don't want any posts rebutting my denial of God, please (although I'd be happy to talk about it in another thread? But isn't that against the forum rules anyway? Not sure), because I won't change my mind. Even if anything I posted was offensive, because I wanted to show you how I honestly felt without regarding offensiveness like I so often do.

Sorry about the long-windedness.

Being honest is of more value than anything else. I cannot say what I would like to here because too many of my posts are being deleted.

Never think that there is anything wrong with you. The ability to think critically is a gift from God. We should use it.

I will happily converse with you in private forum though. PM me if you like.


May Allah guide us all in life,

JamesYaqub

 

[tavarish]

I do not know if there are any strong atheists, if there are some, more than likely is from emotional reasons, which I personally don't consider as true atheists. If I do find one, I will say they are probably wrong same way a christian says they are sure there is a god. The vast majority of atheists, including myself, think the existence of god is both improbable, or equally improbable, and are open to new evidence. If provided with strong enough evidence, then we will revise our standpoint. Same way science does with new facts that contradict a current theory.

Correct. Making the positive claim that there IS NO God is a faith-based claim. This would illustrate "strong" atheism, or gnostic atheism.

When I was an agnostic, I stood in the middle saying I truely don't know if I should believe or not. But until I reevaluated my position, I can say I do not believe in god same way I do not believe in bigfoot. If provided with the knowledge, then I can reevaluate my belief. So an atheist is one with the lack of knowledge and belief, as in contrast to an agnostic who just lacks knowledge, and is in the middle with faith, talking strictly agnostic. Sure there are agnostic atheists/theists. Most atheists are agnostic-atheists, but for short simply atheists. Because we don't believe

There is no middle ground, you can't be on the fence. Either you accept a belief, or you don't. You can examine the validity of a belief without actually believing it, and that would be the logical way to go about it.

You can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

agnostic atheist = you reject a god claim, and hold the notion that such a claim can not be known at the given time.

agnostic theist = you accept god, but you hold the notion that the claim for the correct interpretation (religion) cannot be known at the given time.

Conversely, you can be a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist.

gnostic atheist = you make the positive claim that a god does not exist.

gnostic theist = you make the positive claim that a god does exist.

The only one that does not have a faith based position is agnostic atheism. You can't be on the fence with belief. It's like being a little bit pregnant. You either accept, or don't. Making a positive claim is another thing entirely.

 

[Pure760]

Your atheism is well-founded. You're saying basically 'Why put all this extra crap in my head?' It does'nt matter if you're polite or not. A true Christian should have learned forgiveness to a degree that it is almost instant.

 

[tavarish]

Your atheism is well-founded. You're saying basically 'Why put all this extra crap in my head?' It does'nt matter if you're polite or not. A true Christian should have learned forgiveness to a degree that it is almost instant.

It would go against human nature. We are cautious of our surroundings and those who fuel our transgressions. Immediate forgiveness would be psychologically destructive and builds a skewed perception of reality.

If a guy murders your family, would it be the christian thing to do to immediately forgive him? How would that help the situation? And what would this to you emotionally?

This is a rhetorical set of questions, and not directly aimed at you.

 

[salida]

It is a belief system-yours is that you think there is no god.

 

[tavarish]

It is a belief system-yours is that you think there is no god.

Your statement and assessment is false.

I don't "believe or think there is no God.'

I make no positive claim that a God does not exist.

I also cannot make a claim that a God does exist.

Since theism makes the positive claim that a God exists, that requires objective evidence.

As no objective, independently verifiable evidence exists for evidence of God, I reject your claim that a god exists.

There may be a God, although the likelihood of such an occurrence is very near zero. The same probability of there being invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns in the universe. I don't have any reason to believe any of those things.

Atheism is not a belief system - as there is no inherent dogma or rationale tying it together. The people who call themselves atheists are simply people who reject the existence of God claim. That's it. If atheism is a belief system, bald is a hair color.

 

[Pure760]

It would go against human nature. We are cautious of our surroundings and those who fuel our transgressions. Immediate forgiveness would be psychologically destructive and builds a skewed perception of reality.

If a guy murders your family, would it be the christian thing to do to immediately forgive him? How would that help the situation? And what would this to you emotionally?

This is a rhetorical set of questions, and not directly aimed at you.

God does go against human nature, in every way it seems. Look at the seven deadly sins, all of which are human nature. Perhaps our perception without forgiveness is the side that is skewed.

It may or may not be the Christian thing to do forgiving a guy that murdered your family but it would indeed be the Godly thing. Thats a very good example of the level of humility God requires.

Now think of it this way, if somone murdered your family and you did not forgive them, what would this do to you emotionally?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Hi. I'm new here. Very interesting post.

I'm sure you coould be a polite atheist, and I consider myself one, in terms of being careful what you say.

But, ultimately, I flat out deny the thing you hold most dear. I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

There was some evangelical work going on along my city's main street and we had a bit of a discussion but I felt like I couldn't say anything without being rude, so I gave up on the concept and just said what I honestly felt. The last thing I said to him was (something like):

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. It's like when I give beggars money, I hate the appearance of "I'm better than you because I'm being charitable towards you" when the truth is I'm probably just luckier.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for ages. But it sounds so insulting.

I feel that I have to explain why I said "know" rather than "believe". Technically I have to be agnostic, but in the same sense as being agnostic towards the tooth-fairy, so I can confidently assert knowledge.

I don't feel like me denying God is offensive, but just the other parts about how I feel given that I deny God and other people don't. You know, like the parts about Santa clause, you being deluded, etc...

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

P.S: I don't want any posts rebutting my denial of God, please (although I'd be happy to talk about it in another thread? But isn't that against the forum rules anyway? Not sure), because I won't change my mind. Even if anything I posted was offensive, because I wanted to show you how I honestly felt without regarding offensiveness like I so often do.

Sorry about the long-windedness.

I'd like to ask one question. What matters the most to you: how "good" a person is or how atheist a person is?

 

[theIdi0t]

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. It's like when I give beggars money, I hate the appearance of "I'm better than you because I'm being charitable towards you" when the truth is I'm probably just luckier.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for ages. But it sounds so insulting.

Well, hello there.

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

Well, I was a polite atheist for most of my adulthood, the rude atheist always seemed a bit weak to me, their thinking a bit shallow in my view, tainted by their own resentments.

I was raised in a very evangelical household, my family and friends and community were primarily fundie christians. And my disbelief was quite well known to those in my circle. It never once had been a cause of conflict. I love them still, and they loved me. I had no desire to convert them to disbelief. I never had to lie, though there were many points I didn't say anything at all, like when someone requested to pray for me. I shared no hostility or resentment against others, because those are all signs of weakness. I loved them, and I knew that such gestures like asking to pray for me, regardless if I doubted the effectiveness of them or not, were always done out of affection and love for me.

But your woe: "My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense." is so bizarre to me, and borders more on the religious than on the nonreligious side.

As an atheist I never believed in some magical supremacy of truth, as a theist I believe that, but never as an atheist. If people believed fictions that allowed them to be happy, that preserved their hope, allowed them to endure their hardships, and I knew many such people in my life very deeply, why would I be driven to despair because they didn't value truth over these fictions?

I remember reading Carl Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World' as a disbeliever, and found it to be such utter garbage filled with it's own magic set of beliefs, that takes on a form even in your post. Those who proclaim such thinking are quite removed from reality, and should probably question their own godless worldview, rather the peddling silly superstitions of their own.

 

[theIdi0t]

It may or may not be the Christian thing to do forgiving a guy that murdered your family but it would indeed be the Godly thing. Thats a very good example of the level of humility God requires.

Now think of it this way, if somone murdered your family and you did not forgive them, what would this do to you emotionally?

Indeed, there's a documentary called "As we forgive", that documents the reconciliation movement that emerged after the Rwandan genocide, where the victim of the atrocities, many of whom lost their entire families, their own children, and friends, forgave the victimizers, those who actually brought such misery to their own lives. It was a beautiful film, where these reconciled parties would end up building communities together in a very radical fellowship, of forgiveness and love.

 

[brinny]

I'm sure you coould be a polite atheist, and I consider myself one, in terms of being careful what you say.

But, ultimately, I flat out deny the thing you hold most dear. I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.

There was some evangelical work going on along my city's main street and we had a bit of a discussion but I felt like I couldn't say anything without being rude, so I gave up on the concept and just said what I honestly felt. The last thing I said to him was (something like):

"My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."

I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing. It's like when I give beggars money, I hate the appearance of "I'm better than you because I'm being charitable towards you" when the truth is I'm probably just luckier.

I know that people who believe in God are deluded.This is what I've wanted to say for ages. But it sounds so insulting.

I feel that I have to explain why I said "know" rather than "believe". Technically I have to be agnostic, but in the same sense as being agnostic towards the tooth-fairy, so I can confidently assert knowledge.

I don't feel like me denying God is offensive, but just the other parts about how I feel given that I deny God and other people don't. You know, like the parts about Santa clause, you being deluded, etc...

So, I wonder, is it possible to be a polite atheist while still being wholly honest? Because I feel like I have to hide a part of myself.

P.S: I don't want any posts rebutting my denial of God, please (although I'd be happy to talk about it in another thread? But isn't that against the forum rules anyway? Not sure), because I won't change my mind. Even if anything I posted was offensive, because I wanted to show you how I honestly felt without regarding offensiveness like I so often do.

Sorry about the long-windedness.

what's the point in being polite? why does it bother you that one chooses to believe in a God you do not believe in? why would it matter to me that you believe it is foolish for me to believe in my God? :o

 

[OhCaptain]

I posted a very well thought out answer to this question in which I was polite and thoughtful and made no ad hominems against those who are religious, and my post was deleted for it as well as my IP banned from this website. I am now writing under a new name. I must say that I find it incredible that you make a section of your sight called struggles by non christians and not allow the non christians to speak. I was friendly and polite in both of my posts which I put a fair amount of time in to. So I must say that I am very disappointed with this sight and its discussion. It seems to me like its only allowing what its moderators want to hear and deleting all the rest. I think to get anywhere you have to allow a free and open discussion and until that happens I think that this so called "outreach" will all be for naught.