According to the video, atheism is more than a lack of belief in any god. It's an active rejection of the idea of a supreme being.
For what it's worth, I think the Daniel's post is right. Atheism is (or at least should be) a lack of belief, but lately it appears that most of the people that talk about their atheist beliefs are actually antitheists. Militant antitheists.
One other point before I go.
Saying that religion causes war is like saying gun owners kill people... or that people that play violent video games are violent people. It's a horrible oversight.
Religion doesn't cause wars. Zealots cause war, and when it comes time to point fingers religion is the best scapegoat.
Skout
· 2 years ago
I find being labeled as part of the problem for being agnostic quite amusing. My view is simply that any one of these freakin religions COULD be right, and no matter what, BILLIONS of people are in the wrong.
Atheism supposedly suggests there cannot be a god, and to rule out the possibility of the existence something we cannot begin to comprehend seems utterly stupid to me.
All that being said, the basis behind this video is basically a plea for an end to religious violence, which I think all non-zealots in the world could agree on... but it's simply unrealistic to expect. :(
Barking Spider
· 2 years ago
People have become militant due to the militant nature of religions. Religions attack not just by fighting wars but by trying to force their beliefs onto everyone else. Such as Falwells and Robertsons FALSE assertion that this country was founded on christian beliefs and ALL must accept this or face judgment. Sure people can say what they want but these people have the ear of the president and a huge chunk of voters.
This country was setup with safeguards to prevent the very thing that is happening now. The militant nature of the atheists is in response to the aggresive tactics of the christians trying to force their ways into our laws, schools and homes.
I never like to label myself an atheist since it is usually equated with being a nihilist, which I'm not. But I firmly reject the notion of a supreme being running everything.
I am a Militant Antitheist.
Thank you Tim for the new title.
Robert
· 2 years ago
Zealots throughout history have caused bloodshed in the name of their respective religions. It is not the religion itself but rather the people who take religions to the extreme. As such, people should not be punished for simply being religious but rather handled on a case by case basis.
As far as completely not believing in a God at all is a faith in an of itself. Believing that everything created itself through the big bang and before that the dense amount of matter that created the whole universe is a leap of faith. I am not saying that any religion is correct but it seems illogical to assume that everything was created by itself from nothing. Even if the universe was created in a lab in some alternate dimension it still seems more plausible that we were created rather than just always being.
Jason
· 2 years ago
Atheism isn't really the rejection of a supreme being as she put it its more that we reject what there is no proof of and support what he can prove with science. If someone were to come to me with proof of an almighty force in the universe I would believe it. People do sight religion as the reason they commit murder this does not mean it was the cause but it was and is certain peoples motivation to do terrible acts. It doesn't mean religion causes people to murder but it does give certain people a reason to justify their actions.
Fabrice
· 2 years ago
I think that the believe in things for which no plausible evidence exists (and that cannot falsified) is not only irrelevant but also stupid and harmful to society. So to discuss god is irrelevant and unneeded because there is no hard evidence for the existence of such a "being". How is my standpoint called? I don't think I'm an atheist because I don't rule out the remote possibility of a god. I'm only saying that the belief in such a god or the claim that such a god exists is completely irrelevant because there's no relevant evidence whatsoever that could trigger such a claim, just like there's no fundamental evidence whatsoever that could cause one to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. Nothing we currently know about our universe could lead to the things religions want us to believe. So does a god exist? I don't know, could be but it is highly unlikely. As there is no hard evidence the discussion should end here because it would be a waste of time to pursue it further.
Is ignosticism the right description for such an opinion? I'm not sure and I'd be glad if someone could clear that up for me.
Namarupa
· 2 years ago
Well said. I appreciate the directness and candor of your message.
While I have been engaged in Theravadan Buddhism for about ten years now, it has actually pointed me in the direction away from any sort of religious dogma. I am grateful to have discoverd such a practice. The world is just to juicy to have a religious dogma restrict the mind from expanding out to contemplate the wonder of life.
After having closely read Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable, the Selfish Gene, the God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow) and Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Kinds of Minds) I am of the mind currently that life is a far more wonderful thing than any religious doctrine could ever imagine.
With loving kindness,
Nama
TN
· 2 years ago
I think the atheists are as disturbing as zealous religious people. They think they're right and everyone else are fools. The video was really good untill 1:39 "I just KNOW it ain't it." She knows based on what?
Just be open minded in every way and respect each other! Peace! There might be something out there laughing at you right now so be humble! ;)
Richard
· 2 years ago
The way I look at the definition of atheist and agnostic, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. So I call myself an agnostic atheist because:
- I do not know if there is or there is not a god (the agnostic part); - I do not have a belief in a god (the atheist part).
As I don't have evidence for or against something I choose not to believe in that something. I do the same for all the gods, demons, fairies, unicorns and all other imagined beings.
Mookie
· 2 years ago
Nice video. I agree that religious belief leads to unnecessary violence. To those who would disagree - Challenge: find me a religion that is based on a leap of faith that has not performed some vicious, violent act in the name of some deity. Good luck. Yes, humans have the capacity to be violent, but nothing gives someone an excuse like 72 virgins in heaven, or some such divine reward.
Atheism is necessarily a rejection of theistic beliefs, but supposing such beliefs did not exist, the word atheist would just mean "one who is honest with reality". I like to think of it as beginning free of internal assumptions and based on external observations. When the arrangement is vice versa, that's dangerous religion. If we are honest with ourselves, we'll notice that the way the universe works does not even suggest there is a supreme being of any kind - the very premise is absurd and without ANY supporting evidence. You know religion is bunk when it is defined as a cultural phenomenon.
Byrath
· 2 years ago
A person who is an atheist simply does not believe in any god(s). Nothing more, nothing less. Being an atheist does not require you to completely reject any possibility of a god existing.
I feel that 'agnostic' is really a meaningless term, used by people who feel that 'atheist' implies more than it actually means. If you are more than just a little unsure about the existance of a god, then you are an atheist, period.
Austin
· 2 years ago
Fuck yeah I'm agnostic towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm sure it could be created. Seriously.
Arjun Ratra
· 2 years ago
She can say what she wants if she is sitting on my face.
SCUMDOG
· 2 years ago
be careful my friends. if you can PROVE something there is no need to BELIEVE in it as an act of faith. it is not faith that leads one to expect the lights to come on when you flip the switch.
Martyn
· 2 years ago
Byrath said;-
A person who is an atheist simply does not believe in any god(s). Nothing more, nothing less. Being an atheist does not require you to completely reject any possibility of a god existing.
I think a better definition is that an agnostic does not believe in a god (or gods). An atheist believes that there is no god.
Tamas
· 2 years ago
Agnosticism is the belief that it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. Atheism is the assurance there there isn't one. Those are two different things. I find that atheists are sometimes just as bad as religious zealots. Usually they back their arguments up with facts, but even this is a belief, so you cannot say "I KNOW I'm right", as Micki has done. I'm agnostic, exclusively because of the Big Bang. I just don't see how anything could have appeared out of nothing. But if there is a god, He doesn't impact my life, so I really don't care. I'm pro-science, but that doesn't mean I have to shove my belief system down other people's throats, and telling everyone to convert to Agnosticism. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to blame religious people for trying to preach when you are preaching too?
bret
· 2 years ago
The way i guess i would put it into words is that i feel religion naturally has a self biasing nature which in most cases leads into things that aren't usually the best for society in a whole. That's why I'm slowly making the shift to being comfortable with being an atheist, now if the proof was a little bit better... maybe I would be religious then. But unfortunately a book written 1900 years ago doesn't quite do it for me. If that's arrogant then so be it.. But I really don't think it's unreasonable to question, and why should questioning be such a bad thing?
Anyways, I think it was very well put. I feel pretty much the same about religion and it's nice to hear it put into words so clearly, i think the argument is very logical.
May the noodly appendage be with you.
Stefan
· 2 years ago
@Tim:
There is no such thing as "active rejection" of a belief. You either hold a belief or you don't. You are either an atheist or a theist.
I know that theists feel threatened by atheists speaking up. But please, please don't be. We are not militant in the sense that Christians are. "Believe or go to hell." Our world view does not include a doctrine or commandment of "spreading the Good News". We do so because we genuinely think it would make the world a better place.
So I would say we are atheist activists. There is a big problem with the word atheist however. It says so little. A nihilist is just as much an atheist as a buddhist. That's where a lot of the confusion comes from. The word atheist only helps to say that you don't happen to take part in most of the religions that are most common today. Whenever I say I am an atheist I am quick to add that I am also a naturalist, which is a positive belief in all things that we can observe and a rejection of everything that is just a figment of our imagination. And by rejection I mean that I don't think any of these are actually true. However I still enjoy many of them as stories with a message.
rick
· 2 years ago
organized religion is... after agriculture, the worst thing to happen to humanity, since agriculture we developed physical boundaries and developed faith as a means of securing and taxing populations within those boundaries. religion is a joke, it is an end to the means of wealthy men and governments to provoke a relatively uneducated population to blindly follow and give money and labor without thought.....
All Comments
Go back and read this post.
Now watch this video again.
According to the video, atheism is more than a lack of belief in any god. It's an active rejection of the idea of a supreme being.
For what it's worth, I think the Daniel's post is right. Atheism is (or at least should be) a lack of belief, but lately it appears that most of the people that talk about their atheist beliefs are actually antitheists. Militant antitheists.
One other point before I go.
Saying that religion causes war is like saying gun owners kill people... or that people that play violent video games are violent people. It's a horrible oversight.
Religion doesn't cause wars. Zealots cause war, and when it comes time to point fingers religion is the best scapegoat.
Atheism supposedly suggests there cannot be a god, and to rule out the possibility of the existence something we cannot begin to comprehend seems utterly stupid to me.
All that being said, the basis behind this video is basically a plea for an end to religious violence, which I think all non-zealots in the world could agree on... but it's simply unrealistic to expect. :(
This country was setup with safeguards to prevent the very thing that is happening now. The militant nature of the atheists is in response to the aggresive tactics of the christians trying to force their ways into our laws, schools and homes.
I never like to label myself an atheist since it is usually equated with being a nihilist, which I'm not. But I firmly reject the notion of a supreme being running everything.
I am a Militant Antitheist.
Thank you Tim for the new title.
As far as completely not believing in a God at all is a faith in an of itself. Believing that everything created itself through the big bang and before that the dense amount of matter that created the whole universe is a leap of faith. I am not saying that any religion is correct but it seems illogical to assume that everything was created by itself from nothing. Even if the universe was created in a lab in some alternate dimension it still seems more plausible that we were created rather than just always being.
Is ignosticism the right description for such an opinion? I'm not sure and I'd be glad if someone could clear that up for me.
While I have been engaged in Theravadan Buddhism for about ten years now, it has actually pointed me in the direction away from any sort of religious dogma. I am grateful to have discoverd such a practice. The world is just to juicy to have a religious dogma restrict the mind from expanding out to contemplate the wonder of life.
After having closely read Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable, the Selfish Gene, the God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow) and Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Kinds of Minds) I am of the mind currently that life is a far more wonderful thing than any religious doctrine could ever imagine.
With loving kindness,
Nama
They think they're right and everyone else are fools. The video was really good untill 1:39 "I just KNOW it ain't it." She knows based on what?
Just be open minded in every way and respect each other! Peace!
There might be something out there laughing at you right now so be humble! ;)
- I do not know if there is or there is not a god (the agnostic part);
- I do not have a belief in a god (the atheist part).
As I don't have evidence for or against something I choose not to believe in that something. I do the same for all the gods, demons, fairies, unicorns and all other imagined beings.
Atheism is necessarily a rejection of theistic beliefs, but supposing such beliefs did not exist, the word atheist would just mean "one who is honest with reality". I like to think of it as beginning free of internal assumptions and based on external observations. When the arrangement is vice versa, that's dangerous religion. If we are honest with ourselves, we'll notice that the way the universe works does not even suggest there is a supreme being of any kind - the very premise is absurd and without ANY supporting evidence. You know religion is bunk when it is defined as a cultural phenomenon.
I feel that 'agnostic' is really a meaningless term, used by people who feel that 'atheist' implies more than it actually means. If you are more than just a little unsure about the existance of a god, then you are an atheist, period.
A person who is an atheist simply does not believe in any god(s). Nothing more, nothing less. Being an atheist does not require you to completely reject any possibility of a god existing.
I think a better definition is that an agnostic does not believe in a god (or gods). An atheist believes that there is no god.
I'm agnostic, exclusively because of the Big Bang. I just don't see how anything could have appeared out of nothing. But if there is a god, He doesn't impact my life, so I really don't care. I'm pro-science, but that doesn't mean I have to shove my belief system down other people's throats, and telling everyone to convert to Agnosticism.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to blame religious people for trying to preach when you are preaching too?
Anyways, I think it was very well put. I feel pretty much the same about religion and it's nice to hear it put into words so clearly, i think the argument is very logical.
May the noodly appendage be with you.
There is no such thing as "active rejection" of a belief. You either hold a belief or you don't. You are either an atheist or a theist.
I know that theists feel threatened by atheists speaking up. But please, please don't be. We are not militant in the sense that Christians are. "Believe or go to hell." Our world view does not include a doctrine or commandment of "spreading the Good News". We do so because we genuinely think it would make the world a better place.
So I would say we are atheist activists. There is a big problem with the word atheist however. It says so little. A nihilist is just as much an atheist as a buddhist. That's where a lot of the confusion comes from. The word atheist only helps to say that you don't happen to take part in most of the religions that are most common today. Whenever I say I am an atheist I am quick to add that I am also a naturalist, which is a positive belief in all things that we can observe and a rejection of everything that is just a figment of our imagination. And by rejection I mean that I don't think any of these are actually true. However I still enjoy many of them as stories with a message.
signed
born again and again and again