Is atheism an inherently bigoted belief system?

[laconicsax]

Poll question: Is atheism an inherently bigoted belief system?

Simple question: Is atheism an inherently bigoted belief system and are atheists, by extension, bigoted?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. A) It's not a belief system according to any atheist I've ever spoken at length with, and B)

how is not believing in a god or supreme power of some sort bigoted?

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

3. I've read posts to the effect of a "yes" answer on this board. I'm just curious what people think.

ETA: there's already one "yes" vote.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Well, I know it rubs people the wrong way when others start in with the "sky daddy" thing. I suppose

if people who think along those lines purposely go out of their way to antagonize others for their beliefs, and who think that believers are of lesser or no value, one might think of them as bigoted I guess.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_%28disambiguation%29

If you can define a particular atheist according to the above, then I guess that person is bigoted. But I certainly wouldn't say all atheists fall into that category. Not by a long shot.

[laconicsax]

11. You could back that up with a "no" vote.

It's a little disheartening to have only "yes" votes and "no" responses.

I'd like to see some reversal of that--"yes" responses and "no" votes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. D'oh, I forgot to vote. Brb!

[Boojatta]

34. Isn't it possible for a believer to be similarly bigoted against believers?

I would imagine that someone who experienced what the Apostle Paul is described as experiencing in the NT might think, "Yes, I have witnessed miracles, but what do these people know? Some of these people are fools. What I tell them is true, so they are right to believe me, but they are simply lucky. Somebody who is so inclined might sell them a bridge."

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Of course. We see it all the time when people try to exclude others on the basis of

believing the wrong doctrine or belonging to the wrong faith. That wasn't the OP's question, though.

[Boojatta]

38. I'm talking about bigotry against people who believe the right doctrine, and

who belong to the right faith. I suspect that the definition of "bigotry" that you quoted is too narrow. The targets of bigotry could have the same religion, but it could be thought that they don't have good enough reason to accept that religion.

[bananas]

60. Then you don't know many atheists. nt

[qb]

2. What kind of loaded question is that? A-Theism: without belief in a deity.

That is the extent of the atheist "belief system"

[laconicsax]

4. See #3

[Chan790]

82. I think it gets a bit more complex than that.

I don't say that having an opinion on the issue of "Is my atheism a belief system", merely having just witnessed a 3-day flamewar-debate between PZ Myers and the humanist chaplain of Harvard University on this question along with "Does/Would Atheism and Humanism benefit from the existence of 'organization' and the formation of more 'communities' (like Washington Ethical Society here in DC)?".

(paraphrasing)

Myers said "No...that's hierarchy. We don't need that crap. It's anti-atheist and anti-humanist"
Chaplain said "I don't think it's a bad thing. I think you're seeing a boogieman here that doesn't exist."

[Warpy]

5. Just how bored are you today?

:rofl:

It's not a belief system. While some atheists are bigots, it's as much the individual's problem as any other character flaw is. It has nothing to do with a lack of belief in gods.

[laconicsax]

6. Not terribly.

I'm just curious if any on DU believes that atheism is a bigoted belief system. I've read comments from at least a half-dozen DUers that imply it, so naturally I'm curious.

ETA: someone already answered in the affirmative.

[beardown]

7. How do you do this poll thingee

I've got the question.

Simple question: Is belief in god(s) an inherently child abusing belief system and are deists, by extension, child molesters?

I just don't know if there a one way to post a poll and other to post a loaded poll. I can only find the directions for post a poll. Where'd you find the ones for posting a loaded poll?

[cleanhippie]

16. Yes and no.

Indoctrinating any child before they reach thge age of reason is, IMO, child abuse.


And that has nothing even remotely to do with being a child molester.




To post a poll, one needs a donor star.

[notadmblnd]

8. Bigotry, predjudice, bias is human nature

So Atheists are no more bigoted than Christians or any other group or individual. What I believe we need to work towards, is recognizing our bigotry, questioning ourselves as to whether those beliefs are substantiated and if not- work on eliminating those biases from your belief system.

To me, that's one of the ways we grow as individuals and become better human beings. :shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. What she said!

[ret5hd]

13. g*d d*mn...i coulda swore i saw boojata around here somewhere!

[laconicsax]

14. The options were "yes" and "no," not "up" and "kittens." n/t

[ret5hd]

15. well, yeah, there is that. But the question itself...classic boojata.

[cleanhippie]

17. !

:spray:

[cleanhippie]

18. No, atheism is not a belief system, it is non-belief.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

19. What a stupid question.

Wait, am I bigoted for saying that? :yoiks:

[laconicsax]

21. You might be...

3 people so far say "yes" but haven't explained.

[Eddie Haskell]

20. Atheism is a belief.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

[laconicsax]

22. Sorry, wrong.

You don't have to be able to disprove a god to simply not believe in it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quakerboy]

85. Wait.. didnt you just prove him right?

He stated its a belief because you cannot prove or disprove the thesis, and you said it is not because you don't have to prove something to believe it?

[laconicsax]

86. No.

I'm saying that you don't need proof to not believe. There's a difference. Not believing in something isn't a belief in itself. Put another way, simply declining to accept a proposition as true is different than asserting that the proposition is untrue.

Think of it this way:

Person A says, "there's a creator."
Person B says, "I don't believe you."

Person B doesn't need to prove or disprove Person A's proposition, that onus is on Person A. Person B simply doesn't believe that Person A's proposition is true. It's no different whether that proposition is "there's a creator" or "the CIA and Mossad are controlling my thoughts with chemtrails." If Person A replies, "you can't prove there isn't a creator!" they're engaging in an ad Ignorantiam fallacy which was summarized by Carl Sagan as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[quakerboy]

87. Walk me through this

doesn't the reverse also work?

pA: "theres no creator."
pB: "I dont believe you."

You believe a belief, yes? So if you believe there is a creator, great. You believe something. And if you believe there is no creator, great. You also believe something. Either way you have a belief. Proof has no bearing on whether you believe something, only on whether what you happen to believe is true.

Prove me wrong, but it seems to me the the only ones that can honestly claim not to be believing something are the agnostics who say "I don't know." and perhaps the child raised in a vacuum (by wolves, say) who can say "I never thought about it". I would say this is why I can honestly say I have never been proselytized by an agnostic, but atheists and christians both do so on a regular basis.

[laconicsax]

88. You're confusing terms, but that's ok.

Briefly, I, and almost every other atheist of my acquaintance, don't believe that there's no god, we simply don't believe that there is. The claim that there is a god has been made and we simply don't believe it to be true while saying nothing of whether it is false. While the counterclaim "there is no god" exists, it only exists in opposition to the positive "there is a god" and isn't held as a belief by (most) atheists. We're not saying, "there's no god," but saying "I don't believe you" to those who say there is. I think this is a source of your confusion. Saying "I don't believe you" requires no belief.

Not believing something is different than believing in the negation of it. For example, were I to ask you if you believe that on May 24, 2127, an alien invasion force from the Alnitak system will begin orbital bombardment of the moon in preparation for an invasion of Earth to commence on May 26th, you would probably say no. If I replied, "Aha! You can't prove that it won't happen," you could rightly point out that you don't need to prove that it won't happen to not believe so. You simply don't believe my proposition about an alien invasion even though you have no knowledge of the event. Would I be correct in asserting that you believe the Alnitakan invasion of 2127 won't happen, or is it merely the case that you don't believe that it will happen.

(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, (a)theism with belief in a god (or gods). They are answers to different questions--"do you believe" and "do you know for certain" (or think it's possible to know). There are four broad groups based on the answers to these questions:

-gnostic theists, who answer yes to both questions,
-agnostic theists, who answer yes to the first and no to the second,
-agnostic atheists, who answer no to both questions, and
-gnostic theists, who answer no to the first and yes to the second.

Agnosticism isn't a sort of middle ground between theism and atheism, but a 'no' answer to an entirely different question. I'd be willing to bet that you're an a-Quetzacoatlist, an a-Amaterasuist, and an a-Baalist--you don't believe in any of those three gods despite not knowing whether they exist.

(BTW: Do you know why it's ag-nosticism instead of a-gnosticism? I've been wondering that while typing this reply)

[quakerboy]

89. Interesting

I appreciate your spending the time on that. I will think it through.

My initial inclination is to say that you splits some hairs too finely, mainly in reference to gnosticism and theism (mentally, I am trying to place it like the chart at http://www.politicalcompass.org/, and think through the implications therein). But that would be an argument I would want to do a bit more reading and brush up on my technical philosophic language before I shot my mouth off willy nilly on. (Shouldn't the last broad group be gnostic atheists, though?)

I find that I run into a fair number of self identified atheists who actively believe there is not a god, and are every bit as religious in their need to convert others to their belief as any evangelical christian. Which makes it hard to accept atheism as purely a lack of belief.


As to the final question, perhaps helpful, from dictionary.com:
"Origin: < Greek ágnōst(os), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known"

[laconicsax]

90. Yes, it should be gnostic atheists. That was a typo.

Here's a chart like you're talking about:


There may be a fair number of atheists who actively believe there is no god, but I can't speak to it from personal experience. One thing to keep in mind is that the Abrahamic god, and some other possible gods, are all but impossible and can, depending on how they are defined, be safely declared impossible to exist.

[Silent3]

26. You'll probably keep repeating that...

...no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's poor reasoning, won't you?

[cleanhippie]

28. Eddie, pay attention my friend...

theism is the belief in a deiety.

A-theism is the LACK of belief in a diety.



Got it?


Atheism is a LACK or belief, not a belief.

[Eddie Haskell]

47. No you listen!

I don't care how you define it and I don't let others do my reasoning for me.

[cleanhippie]

49. Hahahaha! Well, Eddie, since you are not doing your own reasning to begin with...

Tell me, Eddie, is ignorance bliss?

[humblebum]

66. It is definitely a belief system, whether or not that belief is in a diety.

The belief is based on materialism, and believing that all that is sensed is all there is, unless otherwise proven empirically. To say that it is not a belief system is just yet another common atheist retort.

[rexcat]

80. From my point of view...

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods (period).

Materialism goes beyond that and has more to do with a philosophical view point but that may be to complicated for you to understand.

[NMMNG]

36. I am an atheist

I don't claim gods don't exist, I merely don't believe those who claim they do.

[darkstar3]

23. I vote double no.

;)

[iris27]

24. It looks like no one who answered "yes - please explain" has come forward to actually explain.

I'm curious to hear the rationale.

[laconicsax]

25. I think they're hiding behind the anonymity of poll votes. n/t

[Silent3]

27. Just like few were in a hurry to explain their "spiritual sense"...

...in my last poll.

[cleanhippie]

29. Those who answered "yes" WON'T explain it.

because they can't.

[laconicsax]

30. Oh, I'm sure they have no difficulty explaining anything.

The question is whether the explanation makes any sense at all.

[NMMNG]

33. Blah blah ORGANIZED ATHEISM

Blah blah COMMIES!1!1 blah blah KKK!1!1





How did I do?

[cleanhippie]

35. Spot on! You are a great understudy!

I think you are ready for the lead role!

[Rob H.]

83. You forgot the mysterious "other ways of knowing"

...which, iirc, still have yet to be defined. Other than that, perfect! :thumbsup:

[laconicsax]

84. Discussions on this forum have revealed two of the other ways of knowing:

The first is hearsay, the other is imagination.

That really covers a lot of ground. I mean, between 2nd/3rd-hand accounts and making stuff up, what else is there?

[NMMNG]

31. How could it be?

Atheism is merely lack of belief in gods. It's no more a "belief system" than off is a channel on your TV, or bald is a hair color. Individual atheists, like all humans, may be bigots for one reason or another. But beyond that there's no basis for generalization. Atheists have no "holy books", no creeds, no dogma, no clergy. They have no scripture that tells them how to behave, who to like and hate, what is a "sin" or not, etc. There's nothing that all atheists (or even a significant number of them) support that can be legitimately used to claim atheism is bigoted.

[laconicsax]

32. Maybe one of the 6 who voted "yes" could explain their rationale. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

39. Some think their god is SOOO special that we had to start a new religion to not believe in it.

It also allows them to play persecuted victim.

[alp227]

40. This poll is bigoted nt

[laconicsax]

41. In what way?

:shrug:

[alp227]

42. it makes atheism seem like a bad thing

when in fact atheists are simply challenging religion rather than being bigots i.e. the religious advocates behind prop. 8 or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Yes there are the extremists who'd like to shred the 1st amendment but for the most part atheists in the US simply detach themselves from religious and supernatural beliefs.

[laconicsax]

43. You contradicted yourself.

There's no bigotry in what you describe and you acknowledge that, yet you call it bigotry.

[alp227]

44. Lemme correct myself, calling atheism bigoted is an excessive broad brush

there are only ELEMENTS of the atheist movement/community that advocate banning religion and embrace extremist hatred. Furthermore, you framed atheism as bigotry to begin with.

[laconicsax]

45. Yes, it is an excessive broad brush.

I was curious how many people on DU felt that way so I asked. Asking if people agree with a bigoted statement isn't making a bigoted statement.

[ZombieHorde]

46. Babies are atheists, but they are not bigots, so no. nt

[LeftishBrit]

48. No

Firstly, to be pedantic, it's not a belief system but a lack of a particular type of belief system.

Secondly, neither atheism, Christianity, Islam, support for synthetic phonics in teaching reading, support for the Oxford United football team, nor preference for PCs over Macs is intrinsically bigoted. Some people who hold *any* of these viewpoints can be bigoted against those who hold a different viewpoint. Personally, I have observed the greatest and most frequent bigotry to be among some groups of football fans.

[Rhiannon12866]

50. No, I think it's just the opposite...

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

51. As do I. This poll isn't about what I think.

It's about what the seven who believe all atheists to be bigots believe. Too bad none of them seem willing to expound on it.

[Rhiannon12866]

52. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it?

As a non-believer, I really don't consider it my business what others believe. More power to them if their beliefs give them some comfort. My only issue is with those who proselytize. Most of my relatives are Catholic and that's fine with me. They're secure in their beliefs and don't feel the need to talk much about it, let alone work on converting people... :eyes: :)

[riderinthestorm]

59. That's because your seven are shit stirrers and trolls. Thats my opinion

not my belief (heh).

You won't get any answer from your seven because they aren't real. They're just anonymous internet posters who want to cause trouble. They know (as we all know) there isn't any way they can say "yes" and stay rational. This is just a game for them.

[darkstar3]

62. Oh they're real, and I'd lay dollars to pesos that they post in this forum regularly.

You are right about the fact that they know they can't defend a "yes" answer and stay rational.

[Iggo]

67. They can say no and then change the question, though.

I humbly ask you to see below.

[MarkCharles]

91. ONLY IF it is "bigoted" to favor facts over fantasy, or to follow the

scientific discipline of discovery and logical reasoning over belief in allegorical stories thousands of years old taught to us when we were children.

If that's being "bigoted" I'm guilty of being a bigot. Obviously I disagree with that theory.

I think of bigotry more as arising from ignorance and fear, often taught to people below the age of mature reasoning.

[Edward Palamar]

53. Atheism is Theism dependent

One God, One Faith, and One Religion

Atheism depends on all three to get a foot in the door. Always had, always will.

[NMMNG]

54. Completely untrue

But thanks for playing. :hi:

[Edward Palamar]

55. Sure

Most of the places to where I would have preferred to post are archived or donor only.

[Boojatta]

70. Reply with links to a few archived threads where you would prefer to post ...

and I will create a new thread with a link to the one that I find most interesting. Then you can reply with your own comments or questions.

[piratefish08]

77. hey! the stupidest, most uniformed response on this thread! congrats!

[Deep13]

56. Not a belief system. Can't be bigotry if it's true.

Simply disagreeing or even appearing "intolerant" of a belief system cannot be bigotry is the assertions are true. We seem to have forgotten that that the truth matters. When racists say that other races are inferior for this or that reason, they are bigoted because they are wrong. Pointing out that evolution excludes god from the development of life is not prejudiced because it is based on solid facts. Saying that no evidence of god has every been produced is likewise a fact. Saying that religion sometimes inspires evil, something that should not happen if god were really behind it, is also true. Noting that the R. Catholic Church shields child molesters from responsibility and promotes the spread of AIDS by lying about condoms is also true. Finally, pointing out that if any religion is right, all the rest are wrong is also true. Truth matters. The claims of religion are not an alternate reality. They are lies.

Now, I'm not saying atheists can't be bigoted, but simple disavowing a belief in god or even asserting a belief in a lack of god by itself is not bigoted. Saying religious people are generally stupid, crazy or evil is painting with a broad brush and judging the group by the actions of a few. That's almost a definition of bigotry, because they are false statements.

[Boojatta]

57. "Saying that no evidence of god has ever been produced is likewise a fact."

If you film an event, then your film cannot serve alone as an exhibit in court. Somebody needs to testify in court and explain how the film was produced and how the person who provided the film came into possession of it.

It sounds as though you are expecting physical evidence. Would you accept testimony from someone who brings the physical evidence? If you wouldn't accept such testimony, then the physical evidence would be alone and it would not be accepted in law as evidence.

If you would accept such testimony, then it's not clear why it's essential for you to also have physical evidence. Courts don't require that there always be physical evidence. Testimony that is internally consistent and that comes from a person who has a record of being credible is testimony that might be accepted even though there might be no physical evidence accompanying the testimony.

[Deep13]

58. response

"If you film an event, then your film cannot serve alone as an exhibit in court. Somebody needs to testify in court and explain how the film was produced and how the person who provided the film came into possession of it."

Not so. Someone merely needs to testify that it is a fair and accurate representation of the event portrayed. It does not need to be the photographer.

"It sounds as though you are expecting physical evidence. Would you accept testimony from someone who brings the physical evidence? If you wouldn't accept such testimony, then the physical evidence would be alone and it would not be accepted in law as evidence."

First, I'm talking real evidence, not what the law considers evidence. The law excludes many things that really are evidence and allows things that are not. The law requires testimony (something that has very limited value in science) only to put the physical evidence into context. Doesn't do any good to put a bag of cocaine into evidence if no one testifies where he found it. Anyway, physical evidence would be nice, but even a circumstantial case grounded on verifiable facts would at least be something. As it is, the circumstantial case is pretty compelling reason to accept no gods exist.

"If you would accept such testimony, then it's not clear why it's essential for you to also have physical evidence. Courts don't require that there always be physical evidence. Testimony that is internally consistent and that comes from a person who has a record of being credible is testimony that might be accepted even though there might be no physical evidence accompanying the testimony."

I did not mention physical evidence, although considering god is supposed to have made everything, you'd think physical evidence would be everywhere and in everything. But it's not. So far the explanations that have been verified by verifiable evidence do not need god as an explanation. Anyway, why? Is there testimony somewhere that someone has seen god or heard god or touched god? Have all other explanations been ruled out? There is no way this person could be lying or wrong? Please tell me you are not going to point to that self-contradictory, hackney book of quackery called the New Testament.

[Boojatta]

71. a bag of cocaine and the New Testament

What are two examples of exhibits?

Perhaps, in the absence of the context of this thread, the correct answer would be:

What are two examples of opiates of the masses?

See how much fun you can have with Jeopardy, the DU edition?

[Deep13]

72. With each exhibit, one proves that said exhibit exists.

I have no doubt that cocaine exists and that the New Testament exists. As for where one came from and the veracity of the claims of the other, I have my doubts. One must decide based on the believability of the cop who found it or the authors who wrote it. Fortunately in science one may reserve judgment if something really is unknown. Where did the universe come from? We don't know. Courts must decide based on what they have. Either the plaintiff or the defendant is right and the jury may BELIEVE who it will.

[Boojatta]

73. "One must decide based on the believability of the cop who found it or the authors who wrote it."

The authors who wrote the New Testament aren't available to provide testimony. That's why the New Testament isn't evidence. It's an exhibit in need of a living witness to accompany it.

[Deep13]

74. Then how do we verify anything that happened before living memory?

And how would a living witness really help matters? There are people who are sure they have been visited by angels or space aliens. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just sawing that witness corroboration is problematic. I heard that one of the recent manifestations of Mary Madonna was witnessed by 700 people. Further reading revealed one woman witnessed it and the other 699 only witnessed her witnessing the apparition but saw nothing unusual themselves. The more subjective and extraordinary the evidence is, the more suspect. If someone tells me "it's snowing" in winter, I would probably instantly believe him because there is no reason to lie and it snows in winter all the time. If someone in the northern hemisphere said that in July, I would have to see for myself. As it is a lot of events generally taken as historical fact are now being questioned as either apocryphal or outright lies. Take the list of over-the-top crazy town behavior of Gaius Caligula Caesar described by Suetonius. Most of it is probably horseshit. Suetonius had an axe to grind against the Julian dynasty. That's just one example.

[LARED]

63. From Wikipedia.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.


Based on that definition there are clearly atheists that are bigoted.

Is atheism inherently bigoted? That answer is no, as atheists can be bigots, but the atheist belief system is neutral.

[Iggo]

64. It's not a belief system.

So then No.

[humblebum]

65. To say that atheism is an inherently bigoted belief system would be false.

Atheism alone is neutral. It is merely a non-belief in diety. However, organized atheism and, to be more specific, organized atheism that dedicates itself to denigrating religion and religious belief is bigoted, and it has very long history.

[amyrose2712]

68. Not a belief system, as previously noted. nt

[humblebum]

75. The only ones who believe that are atheists. Obvious to everyone else. nt

[Meshuga]

69. No, from my understanding...

...atheism is merely the lack of belief in whatever god/gods idea is presented. Why would that be considered bigoted?

[piratefish08]

76. atheism is the polar opposite of a belief system, but you knew that.....

nice flamebait though.

[NMMNG]

78. laconicsax is an outspoken atheist n/t

[laconicsax]

79. Tell that to the 9 who answered "yes"

I'm still waiting for them to join the conversation...assuming they haven't already.

[rexcat]

81. Nothing bigoted about atheism...

Bigotry is a human emotion and atheism is not a belief "system". Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Belief systems are based on a philosophy and atheism does not meet that criteria IMO.

[MarkCharles]

92. At the top of this thread is an advert, asking if I want a Divinity degree!! ...

Kind of ironic, I'd say, on a thread about atheism.:rofl:

[NMMNG]

93. Google AdSense works with keywords

Not so ironic, just business.

[MarkCharles]

94. And, of course, I was thinking it was God at work, speaking to me

calling me to give up my no-god belief ways!!!

And all along, there was another, more rational, logical explanation! :shrug: