Any other atheists around?

[GuybrushThreepwoodMP]

Is there a group for us atheists to discuss ideas of faith, morality, life, the universe and everything (42!)?
Note: I would not want this to become about dissing people of faith and would truly welcome discussion with anyone. This isn't about ridiculing anyone. I would be particularly interested in sharing ideas and discussing the social, anthropological, philosophical, political and psychological aspects of religion from an atheist point of view. Anyone else? I can provide and and .

"There is no evidence for the God you describe" is a good way of putting it.

It's when you get into the whole "what would you accept as evidence?" stage of the argument that you feel as if it's being thrown back at you, and you tend to give up... Or I do, anyway...

For some Christians, the very fact that the world exists, the sun comes up every day and the birds are chirruping in the trees is "evidence" of "God". It's daft, but there's just nowhere you can go with that. (Anyone familiar with the awful Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, the epitome of loud, brash, American right-wing Christianity? It's his "tide comes in, tide goes out" so-called argument which he uses with every non-believer on the show.)

I am an agnostic, I think I have always held a 'hope' about faith, and I can't help but admire people who have it, but I just cant seem to believe in any religion, it just never made sense to me - books that say you should do this and that, because 'magical' people cured this, and did that, in my head, from a very young age, I just thought 'yeah, riiigghhht!!???!!'

But that's not to say if I get proved wrong I wouldn't be open to change my mind -

Maybe I'm a 'hopeful atheist' lol, is there a classification for that??

Agnostic means "without church". You can certainly be an agnostic theist.
You could, semantically, be an atheist, but not agnostic, by going to church despite rejecting theism. It would be a contradiction in accepted terms, though.

I loathe it when people of faith call atheism a faith or belief system. They seem unable to accept that it's possible to live a life without believing in supernatural beings. Millions of us do, though, and I can attest it's quite nice to be free of the sense that one is answerable to an unseen judge. It doesn't automatically make you an amoral twat, either; humans (and other animals) have an inbuilt sense of social and personal responsibility. Those who don't are dysfunctional - and many of them are believers!

Buddhism is a great shout, by the way - my OH and I used to visit a local monastery for walks a long time ago - and found very peaceful, a revisit may be in order xx

Great that the register is growing!

Glad that friends here can clear up the definitions. (better than bashing other posters )

Here's another questions (yes I'm full of questions and you're full of answers)

What atheist comedy podcasts do people listen too?

DadOnIce it can seem pointless to argue with some people - especially American evangelist types, but it's worth it for the other people listening to the argument.

Agnostic doesn't mean "without church" It means "without knowledge" - i.e. without knowledge of whether or not God exists.

A: Without
Gnosis: Knowledge

Bugger me, Cote, I was taught that in Sunday school and never thought to check it!

Agnostic atheism & theism

That does, at least, explain why Gnosticism is all special & mystical ...

Oh god the feather thing yes. Eeek. Someone in extended family once told me about a robin that they'd been seeing in their garden who seems to appear whenever they've been thinking about a certain long dead relative.

They're also a feather/psychic/ghost believer. I did once ask how something worked, I think it was about the feathers, they actually got up and stormed out of the room leaving their spouse saying 'umm head, you've gone and upset them now' so now I just go into some sort of autopilot mode. Where inside I'm like 'OMFG are you actually serious' but outside I adopt a calm listening posture. On here it's fine if people get huffy, they're not going to spit in my tea or whatever.

But it is curious that although they know I'm not a believer they still share it with me, like I've been trained to be polite now. I wonder how much of this is actually the norm for society and why a lot of this woo goes unchecked because no one is saying 'wait a minute, how does this make any sense logically?'

BOB and DOI- but why do we as atheists have to argue with people who do have faith? I just don't see why this is necessary. I think this is why atheists can be seen as a fairly militant, aggressive bunch- in much the same way that the fundamental element of many faiths can be. The aggressive "you're wrong and I'm right, plus you are quite obviously a little bit unhinged if you believe in (a) god" approach is so unbelievably rude, at best. If someone else chooses to believe in their god, why is that any of my business? I like the public debate bit, the open questioning of beliefs to show onlookers that there might be different opinions, but arguing? If a debate gets to this point, it's lost me and I don't want to hear any more.

MHD- there are such things as atheist comedy podcasts? Wow. It's really not a big enough part of who I am for me to go searching for them, but please do link- if they are anything like Tim Minchin than hooray :)

I don't think atheists do have to argue and most probably don't and don't even think about it. Many people of faith do like to debate too from what I see on here and they're the ones I like to engage with. I assume those believers who don't want to engage will just not reply maybe? As I covered in my previous post in my RL I largely don't debate with people, it would be difficult without putting someone on the spot whereas here they can choose not to even read it or respond. I personally like to discuss it being an ex-Christian. I find it all so fascinating and revealing.

Another thing, Christianity is the business of everyone in the UK seeing how we have seats specifically for believers in the House of Lords and a requirement for worship in state schools.

Well I meant arguing as in presenting the argument rather than throwing things at them and calling them rude names. It can sometimes go that way too, but that's not really the plan.

But there are a number of really good reasons why religion must be exposed at every opportunity for what it is.

While the church has stopped killing us for being unbelievers (at least in the UK) they still want us kept from attending certain state funded schools, and they don't think we should have the same say in government. In fact we don't now have the same say in government because of the special places in the house of lords reserved for the religious.

In addition it's my opinion that the irrational nature of religion is the cause of many social problems. For me encouraging people away from religion is rather like encouraging people away from hard drugs. For their sake and for the sake of the rest of us who may suffer the consequences.

It's not that atheists "have to argue" as such, but often, here and in other forums, they are addressed, directly or otherwise (e.g. "I don't know why atheists can't see the truth", etc.), which is kind of an invitation to step in and put our side.

And if there is misrepresentation, too, as there often is, someone has to put that right.

It's like anything where you know someone is wrong, isn't it? Like every AIBU on here and breast vs. bottle battle and private vs. state spat... The difference being that this particular argument is one where all the evidence is on one side.

Christianity is in the warp & weft of our culture, more so than any of the ancient or other contemporary religions. Fine. I like Christmas. What I don't like is Christians telling me this really happened, and refusing to accept a "Well, I don't believe it" from me. They can, and do, get really irate and - in life as on here - take it personally. I'm content to accept they believe it; many don't return that courtesy. (My observant friends do, obviously.)

Argh, Dad

Jesus existed. No he didn't, he was an amalgam of several itinerant preachers at that time. He was a real person! There's proof! Oh, that's interesting, where? In the bible. The proof is the document based on a belief that he existed? It's an historical record! It's a record of beliefs, not facts ... etc ... etc ...

What's the word for an argument that relies on itself to be true? is it a syllogism? It's one of those, anyway.

Hello, just wanted to mark my place really on this interesting thread.

I think I'm an atheist. I was raised in a strict Catholic household but ever since I can remember, I've questioned religion. I think my brain is wired wrongly, as I just can't make myself believe in god / gods / deities or creators. That said, I find aspects of religion very comforting. I like the sense of community and I also like the rituals during times of stress.

I'm vehemently against state funded faith schools. Faith should be a personal matter & should not have anything to do with the state.

I'm very interested in mindfulness & hypnosis. I think we hugely underestimate the power of our minds. I don't believe in witchcraft (although I'm not entirely sure what it is) and I don't know enough about Buddhism either to draw a conclusion on that either.

I think another term for that is a circular argument or circular evidence The proof for a belief is part of the belief itself.

Going back to believers who point to the world as proof of god. I usually ask how they know it's the same god they have taken their chances on, it doesn't have a label stitched in its hem saying 'made by Allah'.

Sorry meant circular reasoning

What's the word for an argument that relies on itself to be true?
Circular. You often get one of those if the question 'why do you believe in the Bible' is raised.

Actually the view of religion from any scripture is entirely an interpretation. If you read the bible as a more accurate translation it was almost entirely figurative. A fable about morality. For example we all know there can be no such thing as a virgin birth. But according to a direct translation from the original bible, the word didn't mean virgin, it meant innocent.

I completely agree that religion should be no where near schools- other than in the form of sociology, anthropology, cultural education. Church and state would be completely separate.
But then we need to be a republic don't we? We can't stay the process of secularisation while the head of the state and the head of the church are the same person.

Yay for all the Tim Minchin references.