#1. I don't like the idea of trading one religious identity for an identity that depends upon my former identity. IOW, I don't like the idea of identifying myself in terms I reject, like theist or atheist.
I'm not a gnostic nor an agnostic.
I'm not a stamp collector or a Non-stamp collector.

#2. Why identify myself in terms that are meaningless to me?

#3. If I had to identify myself as anything in religious terms, it'd probably be some combination of Epicureanism, Stoicism and Taoism, but those are really more philosophies than any kind of a religion. At least I don't know of any Epicurean or Stoic schools or schools that even teach about either one of those schools of thought that were competing schools of thought with Christianity at the time Constantine adopted Christianity as the State Religion and it's been effective at controlling the masses ever since.

#4. I really agree with about 99.5% of what Einstein had to say. He had no use for Atheists and said their struggle from the toils of having been enslaved by religion made them deaf to the music of the spheres, which I could see happening to me when I was a Nihlist, after 9-11.

#5. I really agree with about 99.9% of what Sam Harris has to say, especially what he had to say in his speech, "The Problem With Atheism" where he gives my reasons #10-#20 for not identifying myself as an Atheist, which I've never seen an Atheist respond to.

#6. Even though Darwin's Pitbull, Richard Dawkins is the biggest advocate of mocking religion, with contempt, in public, and coming out of the closet as Atheists, he himself admits in, "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer", his first chapter of "The God Delusion" that he believes in the "God of Einstein". Einstein worshiped the God of Spinoza, which was Nature, making them all pantheists, not Atheists.

#7. I agree with Stephen Hawking who said, "Yes I believe in God, if by the word, 'God' you mean the embodiment of Nature."

#8. I agree with Carl Sagan who said, "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

#9. It's all I can do to live up to the name we call our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, wise wise human, when we all have so far to go to get to the point where we can truly be considered wise, wise humans.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 01:05AM by koriwhore.

It does not matter what you do or do not like. It does not matter who you agree with or if you choose to label yourself.

If you do not believe in God, you are an atheist by definition.

Yes, it is a black and white question.

there are two options:

Theist = belief in God
Atheist = not a belief in God.

Atheism being the negation of theism so it is either or.

If you answer the question "Do you believe in God?" with anything but a yes, you are an atheist by definition.

You may not chose to call yourself an atheist, but likely you are, by definition.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 01:12AM by MJ.

74% of Americans believe in God, that's 26% of people who don't believe in God, yet only 2.4% of Americans are Atheists.
That means that for every Atheist in the US, there are 10 people who don't believe in God, who are NOT atheists, (23.6%)
like me. I'm not that unusual. I'm 10 times more usual than Atheists, among those who don't believe in God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 01:27AM by koriwhore.

1. 74% of americans believe in which god?

2. 2.4% of americans are atheists? really? prove it.

3. Please explain how a person can not believe in a god, yet believe in a god.

I think you've probably been drinking too much tonight because your original post and response are not very coherent...

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. 74% of americans believe in which god?
>
> 2. 2.4% of americans are atheists? really? prove
> it.
>

He is referring to polls rely in people self identifying as to what they are. These polls do not address what they actually are, only what they claim to be.

Sorry, but 2.4% IDENTIFY themselves as atheist, that does not mean the rest of the 26% are not atheist, only that they do not fess up to it.

My point still stands. Just because you do not say you are an atheist does not mean you are not an atheist by way of definition of what an atheist is.

The idea that you and others are in denial of the fact does not change the fact.

Atheist is the negation of theist.
Atypical is the negation of typical.

Something is atypical because it is not typical.
Someone is atheist because they are not theist.

Again it does not matter what you or others say you are. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. In other words, if you do not believe in God, you are an atheist, no matter what you call yourself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 01:42AM by MJ.

The OP Koriwhore spent most of his life believing he was an alien spirit from the star system kolob instead of a human being. It's not surprising he has trouble accepting the fact that he is an atheist.

First Koriwhore must accept that he is a human being, THEN accept the fact that he does not believe in a god, which be definition is atheism. Baby steps...

(Another example of semantic logic.)

It is koriwhore that is playing trying to play with semantics.

I am applying the sort of logic that is consistent with the negation that the "a" means.

Either you believe in God or not.

Theist == belief in not

Atheist == Not theists.

Yes, Richard, it is THAT simple. Yes, I know the truth hurts.

BTW, since bald is not a negation of anything and and does not denote the total lack of hair, your pathetic bald comm. ent does not apply to my point

bald
bôld/
adjective
adjective: bald; comparative adjective: balder; superlative adjective: baldest

1.
having a scalp wholly or partly lacking hair.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 08:38AM by MJ.

Just read it.

More than 10 times as usual.

Your definition of non-atheist is someone who believes in nature or the physical laws of the universe. Since most people think nature exists there are virtually no atheists under your definition of atheism.

If you're definition catches on you're going to make it difficult for the religious people who want to talk about atheism as a religion or who want to wail about new atheists.

Hardly.

Atheism does not imply any sort of belief. That is what makes it difficult for the religious to argue atheism as a religion.

As soon as you start attaching beliefs to atheism, then one can argue it a religion.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you do not believe in God, you are an atheist
> by definition.

I know that and I am one. Maybe it has to do with what's going on in the world with terrorists, but I'm just despising religion so much these days that I don't even want to think about it and I don't even want to use terms which have anything to do with it.

I'm getting to the point where I don't even want to think about religion anymore. Too often it does not bring out the best in people.

It makes it easier to understand the world when you strip away all nuance and classify people into simplistic binary categories.

I also reject the term "atheist" because theism is pre-supposed.

I understand your points - and yeah - people call me atheist all the time.

Sounds like you're extremely preoccupied with what others might think of you, which is a mormon trait. I suggest losing the baggage of what others think and just decide to be honest with yourself.

Once you have let go of caring about other peoples' opinions, you'll be able to occupy the default position on any question, even the question of the existence of god: which is athiesm.

If the mormon God does't exist, then are mormons atheists?

If theism is believing in God, then what is the name for believing in a non-existing mormon god?

Theism is a belief in a god or gods. The gods do not not have to actually exist. In fact, none of the traditional gods have existed. That does not alter the definition of theism at all,

The only gods that have any hope of existing are the ones created by playing word games, and relabeling nature as god, or some such. I think the original words were adequate to their task. Relabeling them as god does not add clarity.

Nature isn't god. It just is, like us.

What about agnosticism? A lack of surety about whether or not there is a god? How can you claim there is no middle ground between atheism and theism?

Agnostic and theist is not mutually exclusive

Nor is agnostic and atheist. most of he atheists I know are both atheist and agnostic.

There was a time when people were more respectful of others' beliefs on this board. The only people who were not welcome were preachy TBMs and preachy Evangelicals.

Now it seems the atheists dominate this board, and classify you into one of three categories: atheists (the good guys), idiots (theists) and cowards (those who are afraid to be atheist even though they question god).

Ironically, many atheists on this board are as dogmatic as the Mormon missionaries they mock.

Since he was not an Atheist and liked them about as much as he liked theists, which ain't much.
His contempt for "Fanatical Atheists" would apply to a lot if the people commenting on this thread.
Was Einstein a coward and an idiot for rejecting the Atheist label?
Is Sam Harris an idiot and a coward for rejecting that label?
I guess I like my company, better than the fanatical atheists displaying their black or white (dogmatic) thinking on this thread.
Yes I think there's plenty of middle ground between Atheist and theist, like Pantheist, agnostic, deist, Stoic, Epicurean, Taoist, the list goes on. I'm some combo if the three of those I just mentioned, but not an Atheist. I'm with Al and Sam.

In Sam Harris' new book he says, "Many of my fellow atheists consider all talk of 'spirituality' or 'mysticism' to be synonymous with mental illness..."

Why are you lying about Sam Harris in saying he doesn't consider himself an atheist? I think you owe everyone on this board an apology for lying.

I don't know who Sam Harris is or why he's referenced - but could it be that like me, I reject the label - but when pressed by somebody who must apply I label - I give in?

Sparky: I don't like the term atheist because it pre-supposes theism.

Random person: But you don't believe in god - so you're an atheist.

Sparky: OK.

You can go to Sam Harris's website and look at a history of some speeches he gave. He gave a speech called the problem with atheism. I don't think Koriwhore's explanation of this position really reflects why he saying that people should not use the term atheist. It was just one speech.

In a nutshell, I think he's saying it's irrelevant. Like calling ourselves non-astrologists. I think Harris foresees or hopes for a day that there would be no reason to describe oneself as atheist. Just like there's no reason to have a word to describe ourselves is not astrologists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 01:49PM by thingsithink.

I agree.

And I don't believe in god.

Exactly

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a time when people were more respectful
> of others' beliefs on this board. The only people
> who were not welcome were preachy TBMs and preachy
> Evangelicals.

So it's OK to dismiss the "beliefs" of TBMs and preachy Evangelicals, but not any others? And you came up with that criterion because...?

> Now it seems the atheists dominate this board, and
> classify you into one of three categories:
> atheists (the good guys), idiots (theists) and
> cowards (those who are afraid to be atheist even
> though they question god).

"...it seems..." To you, perhaps. Not to me. I disagree with atheists. I don't call anyone an "idiot." And I judge the value of someone's words in a post, no matter what their beliefs are or aren't. If I decide the words have value, I say so. If they're ridiculous nonsense, I say so.

> Ironically, many atheists on this board are as
> dogmatic as the Mormon missionaries they mock.

Yeah, it's not "dogmatic" to declare (wrongly) that atheists divide everyone up into three categories. Oh, wait...

Why do you have to be anything like that at all? Why not just be yourself?

I get where you're coming from. In the west we are obsessed with labels -- I am an A or a B or a C. Years ago when I was studying Asian philosophy and religion a professor told us that Asians do not always share our concern. In China, someone might take bits and pieces from each major philosophy (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.) In Japan, you might be married in a Christian church, have the Buddhists do your family's funerals, and observe the Shinto holidays.

I call myself an atheist, simply because it is a title understood by most, and because it holds no negative connotations *for me*

However, I respect peoples right NOT to put a label on themselves if they dont want to... Labels are for cans 'o' beans

and just because I make claim to the title of 'atheist' for myself, I don't expect my philosophies to coincide with everyone else who calls themselves an atheist
[in fact, I dont even *care* if my life philosophy is different to yours]

Penn Jillete's a laugh, Dawkins make me yawn. I couldnt pick sam harris out of a lineup......
In general I avoid atheists debaters because I dont someone else's view of 'not believing in god' to reinforce my own disbelief

so.... good on you Koriwhore

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #1. I don't like the idea of trading one religious
> identity for an identity that depends upon my
> former identity. IOW, I don't like the idea of
> identifying myself in terms I reject, like theist
> or atheist.

I've been thinking a lot like that lately too.

I'm beginning to define myself simply as a skeptic and one who seeks truth wherever I can find it.

I don't like using any terms which are used by the religious to define me.

>
> I don't like using any terms which are used by the
> religious to define me.

To make up for that, you will let them define what words you will and will not use. By doing so, you are giving religions power over you as well as the language.

You don't have enough guts to say "Sky_Daddy does not xist"
Even though you know for sure there's absolutely no evidence that any sane person can discern there's no such verifiable evidence of; "miracles","magic", 'Astrology".....


even though they know deep down everything else is bunk & wishful thinking.

It amazes me how people can think the word Atheist can be construed as offensive.

PS: My intent is not insult you or anybody.

I worship Einstein, making me a humanist. But I don't follow his commandments.

Call me Jack Einstein.

"Homo Sapiens Sapiens, wise wise human"

I prefer "hairless tool-using ape". Typed with my knuckle dragging fingers.

sounds like you have no clue as to what theism and Atheism is.

Jared Diamond suggests that we are a third branch of the chimpanzee family.

I was offended by this and should I ever meet Mr. Diamond, I shall fling my feces at him.

Elder OldDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jared Diamond suggests that we are a third branch
> of the chimpanzee family.
>
> I was offended by this and should I ever meet Mr.
> Diamond, I shall fling my feces at him.


Oh noooooooooo not the feces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eh, I don't believe in sky daddy, so I guess that makes me an atheist. It doesn't define who I am, it's just a quick, useful way to explain my view should I be asked. To me, atheist simply means not believing in a god/gods.

If you believe the source of consciousness is outside the brain, you probably don't qualify as an atheist. Maybe you could be agnostic.