Atheists should shut up!

I’m not sure if this shouldn’t go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can’t really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not “atheism” in general. You know, stuff like, “There is no god because…”. That’s just foolish.

Now, it’s entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you’re still arguing about it, you’re not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

Are you sure you don’t believe in at least a little bit of God?

At the end of the day, I don’t think most atheists do. There’s always a political agenda with that stuff. People have something to rebel against, or else, atheism is the first position they discovered for themselves as adults, and so they feel a great pride in it. People also enjoy the rhetoric of mocking an easy mark. Note that a good portion of ‘arguing for atheism’ is really attacking theists as being terrible people, or responsible for this and that.

I would assume that some would say they are not making that assumption but arguing against the assumptions, arguments and conclusions of people who believe there is a God.

And I thought that atheists were a negative set, a group who share a lack in common. But this reads like they not only share a belief but have behavioral qualities in common, even interests in common.

Ucci - I suppose I used to feel some pride, but it’s really just a starting point for a philosopher, even an amateur philosopher. It’s the canvas and not the painting. Yeah, the attacking part - just politics.

Moreno - As atheists, yes. They share a lack. As political rhetoricians, many (not all) do share a set of beliefs. That’s what I am getting at. The argument that atheism is a religion or a belief. It’s neither. But a subset of atheists do share a belief - a political belief, not a philosophical belief.

I have noticed that atheist normally, normally, react to
stuff. They rarely begin the conversation about religion or
god in terms of being an atheist. Someone will say, god is great
and then at that point, the atheist will respond, once again, normally.
The political aspect is big because atheist don’t have the religious
aspect. As an atheist, I usually start and end at the same place,
show me the evidence for god. The political part comes in when we
explain the reason why religion is a failure, why belief in god fails.
The evidence for the failure of god usually lies in the political.
Is the world today safer with religion? Clearly the answer is no.
Religious violence is endemic and growing. Personally, I don’t trust
the Christian anymore than I trust the Muslim. Come to think about it,
I would trust a Buddhist or Hindu far more than a Christian or Muslim,
but hay, that’s me. Anyway, back at the ranch. I disagree and believe that
the atheist shouldn’t shut up. I think the atheist should be loud and noisy
and be as aggressive as the religious. Speak up for what you think.

Kropotkin

Is religion supposed to make the world safer? Christianity certainly never claimed that - quite the opposite. It’s all about happiness after death, not during life.

If enough inconsistencies and contradictions are found in a given text, each instance of such denotes philosophical illegitimacy. After a given percentage the whole doctrine can surely be equally called into question.

If on the other hand, if you can show that aspects of a religious philosophy pertain to observable things; e.g. there are two fundamental polar forces [inwards/outwards [yin/yang]] in this reality [Taoism] and that beyond that duality, is one thing/reality/infinity [buddhism], then you also have some metaphysics to add to your pot.

the main philosophical issue concerning religion, is that God [or what have you] has not written any books. at most he’s done that [according to the believers] via interpreters, and via storytelling.

ergo there are no valid religious books.

It is about coordination and cooperation in life, such that “after death” can gain meaning.

I think you’re largely correct - there’s no reason to argue about god existing or not. For my thread “a message of purpose” - I would state that it was directed primarily to beginners - obviously. As someone who starts not believing in God or someone in their early 20’s who found nihilism - and is attempting to crawl out - that is what my post is far. For those that may need a little push of direction towards knowledge. With more knowledge, more power becomes, with more power - more options for purpose. Being that the world is largely indoctrinated with religion - it is fairly common for those to reject the religion they were indoctrinated with. As such, the world seems without value. There is no purpose from a greater being called God, anymore. As such, one I would hope, should crawl out of that abyss in order to seek happiness and a fulfilling life.

Is it all about happiness after death? Isn’t it about having hope and happiness in this life as well? It is hope for the poor - as there are many poor and it is comforting in this world to have hope. It provides “peace” with your situation, which might be largely suffering, poverty, etc. It makes you feel better during life to have that hope and enduring suffering here becomes a “cross” - in so much as for the hope of eternal life. It is viable that it does provide hope for so many, and improves their lives, brightens their outlook.

Amorphos - the Sun hasn’t written any books. Do we then doubt its existence?

WWIII - your first comment is one reason I suggest reading Nietzsche. No one is better at providing a blueprint for a happy, godless life. The second comment is one reason I suggest reading the Bible. God’s love might make you feel better about suffering, but it is not designed to relieve the suffering itself. Look to Buddhism for that sort of thing.

Sure Nietzsche has already mastered “my message of purpose”.

I think everyone should read the Bible also. I certainly wouldn’t recommend believing in it though, that’s just detrimental ultimately. You could be happier if there was a book written about how you are going to become a god yourself in your afterlife - and be able to have domain over your own universe just as god does this universe. If you were to believe that fantasy, you’d be even happier, would you not? Or feel even better about your suffering here, if the more you suffer the more powers you gain as this god. Whatever. I don’t see how a philosopher can condone replacing reality with fantasy, just to “feel better”.

You don’t have to believe it to use it to learn about Abrahamic religion. It’s easy enough to believe that it bears out my claim that such religions are not about relieving earthly suffering.

As an avowed atheist, I have read every religious text I could
get my hands on including the bible, multiple times. to be honest,
the most unreadable text is the Koran. Yikes, what a badly written mess.

Kropotkin

Tell me you read Numbers more than once. With a straight face…

You cant observe God e.g. with instruments.

You can observe the text of any religious book, and none claim to be written by anyone but humans. They can claim that they read something into the texts, or that they tell us something about divinity, but nothing directly.

that’s two categories; knowledge based in derivative information, and let us say ‘meta-knowledge’ NOT based in derivative information = belief.

Morphy - No disrespect, but so what? So what if he got some humans on the payroll to write books for him? The guy who pays the hit man is still guilty of murder. I’m with you on your conclusion, but philosophy isn’t about the conclusions. It’s about the arguments.

Religious people believe in magic.

Faust, I’m curious.

I have always held that Atheists have an actual legitimate complaint (not claim, merely complaint). I have never bothered to mention it because common atheists are so busy spouting nonsense. I somewhat stopped defending Christians for a similar (although not identical) reason (when everyone is being stupid, which side does one stand on?). I am curious, considering your theme in this thread if you can identify the Atheist’s truly legitimate complaint against the other religions … ?

Why wouldn’t a good, non-political atheist argue with theist assertions and arguments. Once an issue is on the table, the lack sets up a response.

I can see deciding that good atheists would not go on a crusade, taking on the burden and the initiative, but from there I don’t get it.