Worse Than A Fundie? An Atheist Snob

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder, shouldn't a distinction be drawn between an atheists whose beliefs are an article of faith, and an atheist whose beliefs are grounded in logic? Wouldn't it be somewhat correct to call the first instance a 'religious atheist'?

A "religious atheist" is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

[Darth Onasi]

I wonder, shouldn't a distinction be drawn between an atheists whose beliefs are an article of faith, and an atheist whose beliefs are grounded in logic? Wouldn't it be somewhat correct to call the first instance a 'religious atheist'?

A "religious atheist" is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

Would you really accept some guy with a bag of magic tricks as a god?
Atheism is by definition lack of belief, regardless of whether you come to this point because of logic or because you just feel like it.

[Twoyboy]

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

Religious is pretty much defined as being concerned with God. Atheism is literally a lack of belief in God or gods. Therefore it IS an oxymoron. A better term would be "dogmatic atheist", though I imagine these are rarer than you seem to think.

And to your question, I would imagine if any god really came to earth and it was obvious it was really a god, almost every atheist (certainly every one I've had dealings with) would recognise this god, and thus no longer be atheists. They may not worship it, but merely believing in it would be enough to make them not atheists.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

Religious is pretty much defined as being concerned with God. Atheism is literally a lack of belief in God or gods. Therefore it IS an oxymoron. A better term would be "dogmatic atheist", though I imagine these are rarer than you seem to think.

And to your question, I would imagine if any god really came to earth and it was obvious it was really a god, almost every atheist (certainly every one I've had dealings with) would recognise this god, and thus no longer be atheists. They may not worship it, but merely believing in it would be enough to make them not atheists.

Dogmatic is probably a better word, indeed. Also, for the record, I dont think such individuals are a high proportion of existing atheists. Only that they undoubtedly exist, just like flat earthers and YECs exist. Everyone has their crazies.

Would you really accept some guy with a bag of magic tricks as a god?
Atheism is by definition lack of belief, regardless of whether you come to this point because of logic or because you just feel like it.

And your point is? There is a difference between passive unbelief(read: default agnostic/atheist) active, but conditional unbelief (God does not exist, but were evidence presented to me I would reconsider) and Active Unconditional Unbelief (IE. God cannot by definition exist and as a result I would never subscribe to a god belief even if it was demonstrated to me empirically) I have run into at least one individual in the later category, and as an empiricist/positivist, they boggle my mind.

[Darth Onasi]

And to your question, I would imagine if any god really came to earth and it was obvious it was really a god, almost every atheist (certainly every one I've had dealings with) would recognise this god, and thus no longer be atheists. They may not worship it, but merely believing in it would be enough to make them not atheists.

I don't think that's quite true, as we would inevitably question it's true nature. After all, it could just be a being with incredibly advanced technology.

On the other hand, if it was something that proved beyond any doubt that it was an omnipotent deity who created the universe, that still wouldn't negate atheism because it has proven itself. That doesn't require belief, anymore than knowing that throwing yourself off a cliff will get you killed.

[Darth Onasi]

And your point is? There is a difference between passive unbelief(read: default agnostic/atheist) active, but conditional unbelief (God does not exist, but were evidence presented to me I would reconsider) and Active Unconditional Unbelief (IE. God cannot by definition exist and as a result I would never subscribe to a god belief even if it was demonstrated to me empirically) I have run into at least one individual in the later category, and as an empiricist/positivist, they boggle my mind.

Even the last case wouldn't really fit the description of religious or dogmatic. Stubborn perhaps, but it's somewhat of a false dilemma anyway as the condition it requires (God appearing before all and erasing all doubt of his existence) is highly unlikely.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And your point is? There is a difference between passive unbelief(read: default agnostic/atheist) active, but conditional unbelief (God does not exist, but were evidence presented to me I would reconsider) and Active Unconditional Unbelief (IE. God cannot by definition exist and as a result I would never subscribe to a god belief even if it was demonstrated to me empirically) I have run into at least one individual in the later category, and as an empiricist/positivist, they boggle my mind.

Even the last case wouldn't really fit the description of religious or dogmatic. Stubborn perhaps, but it's somewhat of a false dilemma anyway as the condition it requires (God appearing before all and erasing all doubt of his existence) is highly unlikely.

Do I need to reintroduce you to the definition of the false dilemma? The false dilemma is a fallacy in which you pain a black and white picture of a choice when in fact there are shades of gray. The way I have set this up, there is no third option. It does not matter how unlikely one option actually is.

[Darth Onasi]

And your point is? There is a difference between passive unbelief(read: default agnostic/atheist) active, but conditional unbelief (God does not exist, but were evidence presented to me I would reconsider) and Active Unconditional Unbelief (IE. God cannot by definition exist and as a result I would never subscribe to a god belief even if it was demonstrated to me empirically) I have run into at least one individual in the later category, and as an empiricist/positivist, they boggle my mind.

Even the last case wouldn't really fit the description of religious or dogmatic. Stubborn perhaps, but it's somewhat of a false dilemma anyway as the condition it requires (God appearing before all and erasing all doubt of his existence) is highly unlikely.

Do I need to reintroduce you to the definition of the false dilemma? The false dilemma is a fallacy in which you pain a black and white picture of a choice when in fact there are shades of gray. The way I have set this up, there is no third option. It does not matter how unlikely one option actually is.

I call it a false dilemma because you seem to be implying that in the unlikely event of a being showing up in an impressive light show and atheist should either accept it as a god or be branded as dogmatic.
Even with the appearance of a "god" there's room for skepticism.

[Twoyboy]

I don't think that's quite true, as we would inevitably question it's true nature. After all, it could just be a being with incredibly advanced technology.

I did say "obvious it was really a god". I didn't qualify how this would happen because it's not important to the question, and I don't actually know how someone goes about demonstrating they're a god and not merely a being with incredibly advanced technology.

On the other hand, if it was something that proved beyond any doubt that it was an omnipotent deity who created the universe, that still wouldn't negate atheism because it has proven itself. That doesn't require belief, anymore than knowing that throwing yourself off a cliff will get you killed.

Are you saying that we could rationally continue to not believe in god even after it proved its existence to us? That makes no sense to me at all, unless you are very good at denying obvious facts.

Do I need to reintroduce you to the definition of the false dilemma? The false dilemma is a fallacy in which you pain a black and white picture of a choice when in fact there are shades of gray. The way I have set this up, there is no third option. It does not matter how unlikely one option actually is.

I don't think he meant the false dilemma fallacy but merely the creation of a dilemma where there is none.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't think he meant the false dilemma fallacy but merely the creation of a dilemma where there is none.

If that is the case he is just begging the question and being a moron

[Twoyboy]

I don't think he meant the false dilemma fallacy but merely the creation of a dilemma where there is none.

If that is the case he is just begging the question and being a moron

Perhaps. I think he just just doesn't understand the concept of hypothetical situations. Your first post stated quite explicitly that it was god. Not a god-like being, but god. There's no point arguing whether it is or not, because the situation was defined that way.

[Rye]

Religious is pretty much defined as being concerned with God. Atheism is literally a lack of belief in God or gods. Therefore it IS an oxymoron.

I'm not sure on this one, primitive religions tend to revolve around animism and natural forces rather than magical over-fathers, and as of Spinoza and Einstein, there's no real contradiction between atheism and religious (pantheistic) feelings.

A better term would be "dogmatic atheist", though I imagine these are rarer than you seem to think.

The rise of Marxism in the past and the current popularity of hardcore libertarians on the internet persuade me differently. They have their own dogmas, prophets, schisms, etc, and the true believer in such ideologies are prepared to sacrifice themselves and others for them.

I would describe those atheists who lose faith because of evil in the world or because an authority told them so, or because they "feel" that religion doesn't make sense as "illogical atheists" rather than dogmatic ones. For the dogmatic ones, I would associate the dogma with their chosen ideology (libertarian, marxist, whatever) rather than atheism.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder, shouldn't a distinction be drawn between an atheists whose beliefs are an article of faith, and an atheist whose beliefs are grounded in logic? Wouldn't it be somewhat correct to call the first instance a 'religious atheist'?

A "religious atheist" is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

I don't think those types are really atheists. They're usually lapsed Christians who became angry and bitter at God, and they are at high risk of reverting back to Christianity the first time something really good or something really bad happens in their lives. Then they lecture real atheists about how "I was once just like you", when in fact they were not. Rejecting God because you're angry at him is not the same thing as completely disbelieving in the whole idea.

[Twoyboy]

Religious is pretty much defined as being concerned with God. Atheism is literally a lack of belief in God or gods. Therefore it IS an oxymoron.

I'm not sure on this one, primitive religions tend to revolve around animism and natural forces rather than magical over-fathers, and as of Spinoza and Einstein, there's no real contradiction between atheism and religious (pantheistic) feelings.

Just replace the word "god" with the words "supernatural higher power" and repeat.

"Religious is pretty much defined as being concerned with supernatural higher powers. Atheism is literally a lack of belief in supernatural higher powers. Therefore it IS an oxymoron."

I would consider the spirit of the earth a god, mother nature a god, the universe that has a purpose and alters peoples destiny a god...

[PainRack]

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

The words agnostic atheist fulfill this definition, although it doesn't carry that context amongst the populace.

[TithonusSyndrome]

According to one golden mean wanking cunt I debated once, the dictionary definition of "religion" includes atheism because:

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This is, of course, a colloquial application of the term, but he insisted on being a pedant when I pointed this out. Unsurprisingly, he seemed less pedantic when he was attempting to suggest that he and his fellow churchgoers from Mildmanneredwhitecollarsville, Canada, were representative of the vast majority of Christians everywhere.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A "religious atheist" is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

I don't think those types are really atheists. They're usually lapsed Christians who became angry and bitter at God, and they are at high risk of reverting back to Christianity the first time something really good or something really bad happens in their lives. Then they lecture real atheists about how "I was once just like you", when in fact they were not. Rejecting God because you're angry at him is not the same thing as completely disbelieving in the whole idea.

It also bears repeating that splitting types of atheist hairs is silly. Most of us are logic-based, scientific athiests. The evidence existing and the internal logic of the claim of any god is so suspect we discard the hypothesis pending any future additional evidence - just like any lapsed claim according to science. You can call this "passive" or "conditional" unbelief. I call it "logical" or "scientific" unbelief - you're unbelieving consistent with the way you would unbelieve any poorly-supported, inarticulate hypothesis in science. "Scientific" unbelief merely displays the judicious application of scientific standards and logic toward theological claims; this way it also covers the ACTIVE unbelief of SPECIFIC god-claims. Biblical literalist interpretations of God may be actively denied; the claims are internally inconsistent and logically impossible. The fundies' God is not just unlikely, unproven, therefore useless, therefore probably not existing - it is impossible for it to exist. There are specific theological and religious claims which are not just unproven like generic belief in "a" God, but they make predictive and/or historical claims which are totally logically incoherent or impossible. These specific cases may be rejected actively, but its still a scientific perspective.

[Omeganian]

There might be such atheists, that the moment you start insisting that there is a God (or maybe you say that atheism is a religion), start behaving like religious fanatics whose faith has been offended. Where would you put these?

[Darth Wong]

There might be such atheists, that the moment you start insisting that there is a God (or maybe you say that atheism is a religion), start behaving like religious fanatics whose faith has been offended. Where would you put these?

A belief system should be characterized by its intrinsic tenets and its logical justification (or lack thereof), not by how easily its adherents are offended. Otherwise, football would be a religion too.

[Rye]

Just replace the word "god" with the words "supernatural higher power" and repeat.

What of natural higher powers? What of functionally equivalent objects of faith, like imaginary utopias or states that communism and various con artists promise?

I would consider the spirit of the earth a god, mother nature a god, the universe that has a purpose and alters peoples destiny a god...

That's very nice, but that's not what I was talking about. You can find a personal religious significance in the natural world that you don't explain through magical intangible intelligent entities. As Einstein put it, he was a "deeply religious unbeliever" and used god as a metaphor for natural process.

[Darth Onasi]

Are you saying that we could rationally continue to not believe in god even after it proved its existence to us? That makes no sense to me at all, unless you are very good at denying obvious facts.

I mean that if his existance were proven, it wouldn't require belief; currently all religious belief is based on faith. Faith that there is in fact an unseen deity controlling all. Faith that all events are planned by said deity.
If a god popped up and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he was that deity then faith is irrelevant.
I wouldn't come to believe in God, I'd be satisfied that he had proven himself.

[Adrian Laguna]

Yes, but I dont think there is a better word to describe it. There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

The words agnostic atheist fulfill this definition, although it doesn't carry that context amongst the populace.

Eh, no. An agnostic-atheist is someone who does not believe in God, and furthermore believes that the existence of God cannot be proven.

[Twoyboy]

That's very nice, but that's not what I was talking about. You can find a personal religious significance in the natural world that you don't explain through magical intangible intelligent entities. As Einstein put it, he was a "deeply religious unbeliever" and used god as a metaphor for natural process.

Ah, I understand you now. I had always thought of that as being spiritual, not religious. But it appears it depends what dictionary you use, so fair enough. "Religious" may not be confined to matters of gods, but I still think "dogmatic atheist" is a better term for what was described.

[Darth Wong]

That's very nice, but that's not what I was talking about. You can find a personal religious significance in the natural world that you don't explain through magical intangible intelligent entities. As Einstein put it, he was a "deeply religious unbeliever" and used god as a metaphor for natural process.

Ah, I understand you now. I had always thought of that as being spiritual, not religious. But it appears it depends what dictionary you use, so fair enough. "Religious" may not be confined to matters of gods, but I still think "dogmatic atheist" is a better term for what was described.

You can't declare that someone is dogmatic unless he has actually demonstrated this trait, by clinging to dogma in the face of contradictory evidence. Since no such evidence has ever been presented, it seems unreasonable to declare that any atheist is "dogmatic", because none of then have been tested in this manner. It is entirely possible that some may be, but you can't know that.

[Twoyboy]

You can't declare that someone is dogmatic unless he has actually demonstrated this trait, by clinging to dogma in the face of contradictory evidence. Since no such evidence has ever been presented, it seems unreasonable to declare that any atheist is "dogmatic", because none of then have been tested in this manner. It is entirely possible that some may be, but you can't know that.

Description was defined by Alyrium Denryle as:

There are undoubtedly some atheists who have so much emotional investment and personal identity tied up in their atheism that if god came down in a blaze of fire and started talking to people en mass, they would still not think the deity existed. What else are we to call such a phenomenon, however rare it may be?

I agree, we would not be able to judge someone as one until the evidence presents, but was merely suggesting a better term than "religious atheist".