How would you rate your perception of atheism?

[More Than A Feeling]

Poll question: How would you rate your perception of atheism?

This is the second in a series of polls to measure the perceptions of the various beliefs and non-beliefs. 10 is the most positive, and 1 is the most negative.

The first poll can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=113570&mesg_id=113570

[msongs]

1. atheism = the belief that there is no god or gods nt

[More Than A Feeling]

2. .

:popcorn:

[bahrbearian]

3. There is a god and he imitates Me.

[cosmik debris]

6. That is a stereotype that many atheists find offensive.

That is the definition created by theists to define those who disagree with them. It certainly does not apply to all atheists.

[Ediacara]

7. That's a strong atheist, most atheists are weak atheists

which is a lack of a belief in any god or gods.

[patrice]

11. ? The distinction being . . .

The strong athiest believes God does not exist?

And the weak athiest does not believe in whatever it is that anyone is referring to when they use the word God?

Is there a problem here with the word "believe" since the problem athiests have with God is that they are rationalists and do not believe in that which cannot be empirically demonstrated. So saying that athiests believe there is no God is an oxymoron?

[Random_Australian]

14. weak/implicit atheists lack belief in a deity, rather than believe there is no

deity.

Null hypothesis stuff, y'know.

[patrice]

21. That is what I thought it meant then.

I would have preferred a ranking of 5.5 in the poll. My own position is to live as fully in validation of the truth in both propositions as I possibly can (largely because I consider the debate to be more semantics than anything else - people forget what language really is and, therefore, over-estimate what it can do). Hopefully, at 50:50, Yes:No, Reality makes itself apparent.

[Ediacara]

20. The difference in my mind at least is this

A weak atheist simply lacks belief in all revealed deities, much in the same way you probably lack a belief in Zeus; and thinks that the concept of a deity is unlikely, but marginally possible.

A strong atheist also lacks belief in all revealed deities, but also makes the claim that there is no god and there cannot be a god.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. "Strong" atheism is essentially a theological position

To assert "There are no gods" is to claim as fact something that can not be objectively proven; thus, it is a statement of faith.

"Weak" atheism is based on a lack of belief in any gods without making theological assertions as to the existence or non-existence of deities.

[patrice]

12. Technically speaking, if one is a Rationalist, unless and until

everything in the universe is tested to identify whether it is evidence of God, it IS a "belief" to say there is no God.

More rationally put an athiest is someone who says "I see no evidence of what is called God, so there probably is no God, at least as that term is presently defined."

[cosmik debris]

13. For many of us the problem is

when non-atheists try to define atheism in ways that are stereotypes and offensive straw men. They are clearly doing it to be insulting. If you really want to know what an atheist believes or doesn't believe, ask them. But please don't tell other people what they believe or don't believe. It is just dealing in stereotypes and straw men.

[Random_Australian]

15. Calm down, cosmik. A lot of theists genuinely don't know, and never

thought to ask.

It's when someone says things like a certain ex-mod: "Well, the definition atheists themselves use, is wrong."

Direct quote.

[cosmik debris]

19. I'm trying to be polite

Under the assumption that these people did not intend to be rude. I will hold that assumption until they prove me wrong.

[patrice]

23. There's a LOT of that going around.

I've been hoping it is a phase that has resulted from the internets and im-mature minds will grow beyond it eventually, just like many others did a long time ago.

Re their use of the word "belief" - It's similar to the environmental debate, in which they're saying something like "All knowledge about Global Climate Change is relative, therefore all knowledge about Global Climate Change is equal." Except in this case, they're saying something like "I belive God exists. You believe God doesn't exist. And since, as a rationalist, you are not supposed to believe anything, my belief is more valid than your belief." On both issues, environment, god, the logical flaws are pretty obvious.

[cosmik debris]

25. Thank you for understanding

But please be careful with the term "rationalist" It too is a stereotype that only applies to those who label themselves with that burden. It may be possible that some of the people you would call rationalists are merely skeptics.

[patrice]

26. I had an under-graduate specialization in "the literature of the Absurd".

"I" "have" "great" "reservations" "about" "all" "words" "."

[BurtWorm]

22. Is it also a belief to say there is no Santa Claus?

[Zhade]

30. False.

Only strong (assertive) atheism fits that definition.

My atheism, the simple lack of belief in gods based on the lack of evidence for any of the purported ones, is entirely different from believing with certainty that gods don't exist.

It's as different as night and day, in fact.

[Zenlitened]

4. Atheism is a threat to my freedom... to, um... believe stuff. And things.

"Christian nation!!!"

(*puts hands over ears, goes "La-la-la-la-la..."*)

[fairfaxvadem]

5. I rated right in the middle

but I'm not sure that's the right score. I'm not an atheist,because I do still adhere to the idea of a "higher being" but I am sure sympathetic. Having been raised a Catholic, I just keep my thoughts to myself with those who, including certain family members, still adhere to the faith/doctrine.

Maybe I'm closer to an agnostic? I don't really know any more.

[BlueJazz]

8. As God is my Judge, I am an Atheist.

[patrice]

24. Right, and everything is absolutely relative. n/t

[damntexdem]

9. No one had picked 7,

so I did.

I generally get along OK with atheists, but some tick me off -- mostly atheist fundamentalists. Well, what's a good, practicing agnostic to do?

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Huh, I'm an agnostic too (among many other labels)

and I have no idea what an atheist fundamentalist is. The fundamentalists accepted the five fundamentals:

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)

How could an atheist accept any of these?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. What is an "atheist fundamentalist"?

Christian fundamentalists are Christians who think there are certain 'fundamentals' of Christianity that many have strayed from, and must be returned to - such as the inerrancy of the Bible on all matters. The term started around 1920, and was applied from the 1950s onwards to other religions - Hinduism, Islam etc. (it's also applied to stock market analysts who think there are 'fundamentals' like the balance sheet of a company that determine whether it's worth investing in).

The use of "atheist fundamentalist" seems very recent (no examples in the Oxford English Dictionary, for instance), so I think people who use the term need to explain what they mean.

So, what are the fundamentals that 'fundamentalist atheists' disagree with other atheists about? I hope your definition isn't "writing articles and books saying 'there are no gods'" - because why is that more fundamentalist than someone writing an article saying "God loves you"? Both express a definite opinion on the existence of a god.

[rexcat]

36. When someone uses "fundamentalists atheist"...

it is usually used as an insult and that is how I take it. The religious right uses the term when they refer to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.

[Meshuga]

17. If atheism is a lack of belief

How can anyone rate it? There is no set of rules or conduct in order for someone to be an atheist so there is nothing to measure. I guess we can rate the individual atheist (like you can rate any individual) but atheism as a whole it is difficult to rate.

[ulysses]

18. atheist or theist, you don't need my approval.

As long as you're not proselytizing or telling me that "what I really believe is...", then we're good to go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I'm okay with anyone who doesn't doesn't have a permanent chip

on their shoulder.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I wasn't sure what I would vote

but I'm getting so pissed off with the "atheist fundamentalist" crap that's flying around, from both agnostics and theists, in the past few days, that I've gone for a '10'.

[westerebus]

29. A one.

Historically the suppression of believers by the communist soviet union and allies under the banner of atheism was just a bad as the religious suppression of non believers by mother church. True the numbers will not match as communism has a short time line in comparison with Rome. For what its worth, a fundamentalist wants to conserve what he holds sacred. So the jump from fundie to conservative is not a large one. That's been my observation and experience.

[Zhade]

31. Committed under the banner of Stalinism, not atheism. Try again.

Oh, and of course not all atheists (in fact, far fewer due to the utter lack of any "atheist creed") think alike, just as not all believers do.

[westerebus]

32. Basic tenet of communism.

Deny there is a god. Remove the authority of the church in this case russian orthodox. Declare religion the opiate of the masses and propagandize pro state is good vs religion is bad. Expand the pogroms of the deposed czar to include not only jews but anti soviet forces (read the church)in conflict with the communist authorities. Repress free speech in the press and from the pulpit. Ban freedom of assembly including for religious purposes. Confiscate the property of the church as payment due the serfs now known as the proletariat. Expand the authority of the state by rendering dissidents to gulags. Carrying a bible or attending religious services becomes a crime. Arrest,torture and extract a confession of terrorism against the soviet state,and execute tried and convicted enemies,repeat,repeat,repeat.
The only banner Stalin ever used was the hammer and cycle on a red background. And don't be so sensitive, I don't equate atheists or agnostics as being solely communists. Or am I miss reading you? If I am, sorry up front. I'm speaking historically. What you choose to believe or not is your absolute right. Peace

[NMMNG]

34. Religion and belief had to be suppressed

because the State had to reign supreme. If people had God and religion they might put God before the State and that just would not do. Also if people had God/religion they might turn to Him/it for comfort from the agonies the State inflicted on them, thereby weakening the power the State had over them, and again that would not do. Therefore the State simply had to eradicate God and religion in order to ensure its complete and total domination over the people.

It had to do with communism/totalitarianism, not atheism.

[westerebus]

35. Let me try it this way.

The suppression of religion under the communist banner was a necessary function of a totalitarian state. Without atheism the absolute power of the state would be diminished. As the soviet state functioned to maintain its' authority over the masses it used the idea of atheism as a means of political control.
Just as the Roman church used its authority to control the peasant masses by granting its' authority to kings and nobles while enriching itself in the process. Just as it controlled the nobility by threat of inquisition. Or as currently ployed by the right wing fundies using propaganda and "faith based voters" to push their agenda.
Does this make the case any clearer? Suppressing religion with the tools of the state or using religion as a tool of the state to justify the means to an end look pretty much the same to me.
Again, I do not equate atheism as communism.

[rexcat]

37. No...

I see it as "the state becomes the religion" in the case of communism. It comes down to controlling the masses for the leadership's gain. It can be done via the state or via religion and the results end up being the same either way. The masses are controlled and if anyone gets out of line the person is "taken care of" so to speak. When the catholic church ruled Europe (that would be called the dark ages for good reason) it was though intimidation, torture and murder. The Inquisition was great at intimidation, torture and murder as was the Soviet Union under control by their leadership. Power can be such a corrupting force.

[westerebus]

38. Supposition.

That's a what if soviet communism is the replacement for russian orthodoxy? Why? Are you suggesting people need a replacement for religion? Why then did the soviets not co-opt the existing structure? They needed to destroy the christian authority to prove theirs. To brake someone's faith on an individual level is one thing, to intimidate an entire nation is another.
Could you live under a christian form of fundamentalism with mandatory church services and church taxes? If the fundies could "cure" gays how do you think they would do it? No abortion on demand and no birth control? A patriarchal society based on obedience to an unseen all knowing all powerful god? State religion and only one religion at that?
Intolerable! Unacceptable! To trade a democratic republic for a theocracy,unthinkable!
The soviet state was not a religion. It abhorred religion. It diminished and tried to destroy religion. Karl Marx: god is dead.

[rexcat]

39. Nice try but you are way off base...

What society needs to do is get rid of religion and replace it with intelligent thought and reason. Superstitious ideas are a cancer on our society and religious ideas are the most extreme form of superstition. Religious leaders typically don't want an educated mass. The educated are not as easy to control and religion, just like politics, is about control. When religion and politics forms a union it becomes even more of a disaster such as what is currently going on in the good old USofA. Religion by its very nature is exclusionary. It always ends up in an "us vs. them" mentality. "If you are not with me you are against me" also comes to mind.

As far as the Soviet Union goes the state did replace the religion. The religion of the time in the Soviet Union, that being the Orthodox Church was as corrupt as it got, similar to most religious institutions and still continues to this day.

[westerebus]

40. So tell me what is off base?

You given me your opinion on religion and your view the soviet state was a replacement for the russian church. Show me what you base your view on. I'm discussing atheism as it was applied by the soviet state. Plus the roman church and it off shoots as examples of a similar history. Or at the least, both an anti religious basis of the soviet state and the roman church on which to compare the two.
The fact that the russian church was corrupt does not change the history of how the communists used atheistic programs to advance their cause. This isn't about the morality of either state or church.
Given your premise on an educated population there should be no religious universities or religious orders that provide education. Sorry,that's just not the case.
Corruption is a natural outcome of human greed and the expression of a criminal mind set that is not exclusive to religion. In this case we can discuss ethics or morality neither of which concerns atheism.
No where have I said being an atheist is corrupt,immoral or unethical. I stated twice I do not consider atheists to be communists. Though you could be if you wanted to be. Not my choice to make.

[markbark]

56. It's utterly irrelevant...

but might I rather pedantically point out that it was Nietzsche that said "God is dead", not Marx

To trade a democratic republic for a theocracy,unthinkable!
Why don't we ask the Iranians about that one?
Prior to 1978, while not exactly a model of democracy in action, they had a secular pro-western govt.
Disillusionment with the Shah's increasingly autocratic rule lead to Khomeni's rise to power in 1979.
...and if you think about it, ultimately led to Reagan's rise in American politics.
Indeed Bush is what Reagan would have been if Reagan had had a rubberstamp Republic Party in charge of congress at the time.

[westerebus]

60. The Gay Science,1887.

I think that is the title for Nietzsche's' "god is dead". There was a cartoon which you may have not seen. In the first part,Marx paints "god is dead,Marx" on the wall of a church while standing in the Church's' cemetery. In the next frame is Marx's' tomb inscribed with "marx is dead,God".
Iran was a democracy prior to the CIA installing the Shah. Under the Shah it was a kingdom with very little in the way of democracy if my history is correct. The attempt of the Shah in westernizing the place of women in the face of a very Conservative religious counter revolution was one of many reasons he was deposed.
The reference to a theocracy was to this country.

[Random_Australian]

42. Basic tenet of communism, all power to moscow. That still does not mean it has

anything to do with the atheism of those in charge.

[westerebus]

43. OK. Basic tenet of religion,all power to god.

Would that have anything to do with the theism of those in charge?

[Random_Australian]

45. Their belief that all power should go to God has something to do with it, alright.

Freaking obviously.

Nothing done in communism was done *because* of atheism.

[westerebus]

48. I didn't say it did.

I said communism uses atheism as a tool,a mechanism,a means to control. Do you not see how belief was/is used to the same end as a tool, a means to control?

[Random_Australian]

49. ...

Nothing was done for, or in the name of, atheism (that is impossible since there is no doctrine in atheism), none of that happened because the people were atheists....


.... and yet you still think atheism is shite because they chose it rather than, say, making the ruler a religious figurehead.

You gave atheism a one. That means you think atheism is extremely negative.

So, what is it about atheism that you dislike so very, very much? I mean, if you realise that people did things in the name of their own power, and this had nothing to do with atheism, then why give atheism the most negative rating you can?

Wouldn't it make more sense to choose neutral?

And of course I can see the mechanism for control in a stalinist state. All power to moscow, like I said.

[westerebus]

50. I'm off to work.

I will get back to you. Correct the doctrine is communism. Atheism was a tool, a process, a strategy, a mechanism in a historical sense. In the context of how it was employed it was negative for a lot of people under communism. Please don't personalize this. I'm not attacking your personal beliefs but rating atheism a one.

[westerebus]

53. No. I don't think atheism is sh*t.

Had I chosen a neutral number,I would have to justify what was a tragedy for many muslim, orthodox christian, jewish, and non believing russians,poles,Ukrainians,georgians, hungarians,and others with in the soviet union. They were denied their human right to worship as they chose. The least of the rights denied them some might argue. Not because they were corrupt or immoral or that they pushed a religious agenda; it was simply that they believed in god. That their faith was not in the state. The state designed by karl Marx who saw religion as a parasitic charlatan. A state of the workers and peasants needed no religion to confuse the masses into supporting the despotic nobility. The proletariat need to free itself of superstition, of the non existent god and his clergy. The denomination did not matter,it had to go. They had to be freed.
In the place of god was science,logic,reason. A secular state of immense possibility. Ruled by those committed to expanding the revolution around the world. All power to the workers!
STALIN! If evil had a brother it was stalin. The german gestapo got their primary training from the NKVD (stalin's secret police) prior to invasion of poland. The nazis were not interested in crushing religion, they co opted its ministry. They instead found their " less than" in the jews, the infirmed, later communists and unionists.
Atheism does not have a scripture,a doctrine, a creed or list of commandments that directed the communists to do what they did. The communists committed the acts of suppression and oppression. Are we clear on this?
Atheism was one of the tools chosen to inflict the fear that brought them to power and maintain control while in power. This is about atheism as a structure, not a judgment of your beliefs. As it was used for evil in this sense,I gave it a one.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

41. You can't prove a negative. Christians don't understand that.

Any Christian that says "prove that God does not exist" is logically wrong.

The default position is that God does not exist. Therefore, a Christian must prove that God does exist.

I see no evidence that God exists except as the laws of nature, which is basically what Einstein said. He said he accepted the God of Spinoza.

Besides, the people who think the earth was created 6000 years ago and that God planted fossils to mislead us have very limited imaginations.

They refuse to see the complexity, the glory and the wonders of the universe, as in for example the photos from space satellites and the Chandra and Hubble telescopes.

[westerebus]

44. Einstein and Hubble.

In 1929 Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. Einstein had revised his theory of general relativity from a universe that could expand or contract to one that was static and immobile because he though it was to far fetched in 1919. Einstein went back to his original theory based on Hubble's' discoveries.
Amazing how complexity can bite you in the ass. The theory that negative matter exists has been around for along time. You know that space in space.Negative matter is now pr oven to exist. Thanks to the Hubble's electro magnetic measuring devices. Great pictures too.

[Random_Australian]

46. Eh? I thought that it was dark matter - things with mass but

missing some of the other interactions.

[westerebus]

47. Your right.

Sorry. I thought they were interchangeable.Thanks for the correction.

[CarbonDate]

51. Define in unambiguous, measurable terms....

...what a "god" is. What measurements and qualifications can we use to determine whether an entity is a god? Once we have that, we can start the work of determining whether gods exist. Until then, however, asking whether or not gods exist is like asking whether narflurs exist. It's just a nonsense word.

[westerebus]

52. I can not define what "god"is.

For that matter I cannot measure or describe "god". I can not prove that one "god" exists. Or that many "gods" exist. If that were possible....well, its' not.
Yet, prior to transcribed language the human race spoke of gods; superstition, or a need to make some sense of their world perhaps? Early writing of man vs the gods, a finding of man's place in this world were the gods did their will? Man's need to understand why some had authority and to question why gods allowed this? More so, that there was one god that created all things; including the first man from which all the earth's people descended?
Man trying to explain himself in nature becomes transfixed with the supra natural in his quest for understanding,a possibly? Is there a need to know so strong that the only answer is a "god"? Is it man's curiosity about his world that he looks for a reason in a god?
Why from the earliest time were there seers and prophets? Why did a king become a god? Why was nature second placed to mankind in preference to a god?
All we have is the nonsense of language to attempt an understanding. The same language that we attempt to explain yourselves to others. Woefully inadequate for this and many other things.
I may have at least as many question about god or "god" as you do. Now which species of narflurs where you thinking? Peace

[uppityperson]

54. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=113570&mesg_id=118452

[markbark]

55. To Quote Sir Stephen Henry Roberts:

"I condend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[saltpoint]

58. Great quotation, markbark. Thank you.

[saltpoint]

57. Voted '8'. For me, atheists represent the distance someone must

travel between received opinion and self-declaration.

They often have had to translate themselves against the huge backdrop of opposing views, and they emerge as very much themselves, very much independently realized adults.

When you listen carefully to what someone has had to wade through and what they've ultimately rejected, you are getting an evolved accounting of self.

I have a lot of respect for that kind of stamina.

[NAO]

59. I do not believe in Thor, Wotan, Baal, Zeus, Yahweh, FSM, or Orbiting Teapots

Of course I cannot PROVE that Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist, but despite that I still think it's nutty to believe in such things.