The Solution to Homosexuality

You know the main difference I see between atheist blogs and theist blogs?
The theists talk about their beliefs. The atheists criticise and make fun of theists.
If that’s all you got, you’re a sorry lot. And boring as well…

Those poor theist blogs being made fun of for holding bigotted and demonstrably ridiculous beliefs. Atheists meany pants!

Actually atheism is as much of a belief system or world view that tries to answer the big existential questions and which involves a measure of faith as much any theist religion. Looks like a religion to me.

Why are you on Patheos if you don’t see it as a religion?

If you believe atheism is a belief system, you don’t understand it at all.

Is not believing in Santa Claus a belief system, too?

I have a personal philosophical approach that I use for dealing with those big existential questions. It involves lots of components- humanism, science, formal logic. It in no way involves atheism.

An atheist believes that humans are an accident of evolution (or whatever). When you start from that belief it leads to an entire system of beliefs that necessarily reject a god or higher intelligence having anything to do with what you see around you. So yes, it is a system that leads you down a path of inter-related beliefs or assumptions even if not every atheist comes to the same assumptions. Not every theist, even within the same religion has the same beliefs either.

It answers the existential question of “why am I here?” Answer: there is no reason beyond being the result of a single act of intercourse.

Atheism, since it cannot disprove the existence of a higher intelligence as creator, is a belief based on faith – faith in your ability to correctly discern that this higher intelligence does not exist.

All the above are hallmarks of religious belief or faith. Don’t get sidetracked by thinking that it can’t be a religion if it doesn’t involve a god. Religion has a broader meaning than that.  Your atheism very much guides your world view and how you interact in and with the world around you as much as any theist’s religion does.

Believing evolution and science are correct are not tennets of atheism, neither are the only ways people get to atheism although having a reasonable logical mind sure helps to not believe in a magical sky daddy.

  Apart form not believing in god, you don’t need any other belief to be an atheist, you don’t even need to be a sceptic and there are buddhist atheist, there are atheist who believe in unscientific stuff like homeopathy or the crazy and dangerous antivax stuff and there are plenty of other people who I would prefer that weren’t atheist because they don’t share any of the same beliefs ͨdo but that are also atheist because THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

 that depends on whether you are using addition, probability or multiplication to define “more likely”. If addition, 100% would be right. If probability, then it is whatever is the chance of any child being gay, if multiplication, then you are right

You don’t understand atheism at all. Or a lot of other things, I think.

You have it completely backwards. My beliefs are not formed the way they are because I’m an atheist. I’m an atheist as a consequence of my beliefs. I didn’t start with the premise that “humans are an accident of evolution”. I started with the premise that the Universe is understandable, and that we can understand it by rational analysis (in particular, scientific methods). That led me to the conclusion that any sort of god or gods is very unlikely. If it had led me to believe a god is necessary, I’d be a theist… and all the rest of my views would be unchanged.

This is completely different than the way your typical theist thinks: they start with an unsupported and largely unsupportable opinion, based on nothing but hearsay, that the Universe is the product of some sort of God. They then base everything else they believe on that.

I’m going to respond to your post and try to cover the other responses as well at the same time.

First off let me state that I am talking about purest atheism – the 100% conviction there is no god. I’m not talking to agnostics who prefer to call themselves
atheists but are not 100% sure. If you are some other flavor than 100% pure atheist I’m not addressing you.

Point 1 – I said “or whatever” meaning it’s not important how you think humans got here. The point is that you don’t believe a god created them.

Point 2 – “no, not necessarily. You could believe that humans are an accident of
evolution and still believe in a creator god. Just not one that
specifically created humans”

If you hold this position you are not the ‘atheist’ I’m addressing. I don’t know what you would be called – a deist maybe.

Point 5 – “True, but irrelevant. And you are at grave risk of confusing the meaning
of reason as “mechanistic cause” with the meaning of reason as
“purpose”, which could be self-generated”

No, not irrelevant at all. You are posing a bit of a straw man argument that deflects from what we both know I mean when I talk about why we’re here. Why is anyone here? Your self-generated purpose is irrelevant since you didn’t will yourself into existence.  There is either no reason at all why humans exist, just an accident of circumstances, or you have a purpose given by an intelligent creator. Either way, it answers the existential question which all religions seek to do which was my point.

Point 6 – “No, it is a belief based on evidence. Atheists generally (though not
all) believe in things based on evidence. As there is no evidence for a
god, there is no belief in one (or more).”

Atheist belief is very much based on faith and tends to hold the inconsistent position that belief requires evidence while ignoring the complete lack of evidence which disproves god. Faith in science and scientific method to have all the answers, faith that you have the ability to gather evidence for anything that exists, faith that our 5 senses are the only reality necessary for discerning what exists. By that criteria DNA and bacteria didn’t really exist until someone could see them with a microscope. Claiming that because there is no evidence of a creator one doesn’t exist is a very poor and frankly illogical conclusion and is held by faith alone.

Last point – “Not really, certainly not on a daily basis”

A completely disingenuous answer or you have given it very little thought. An atheist will reject any answer or conclusion that requires belief in a god and which, of necessity, if there is a creator will have a profound effect on just about every aspect of daily life, whether you are aware of it or not.

He is not describing himself as an agnostic. An agnostic believes the question of the existence of a god is fundamentally unknowable- a position that can be held by either an atheist or a theist.

A person who thinks the way he does is called a skeptic– which allows him to have a very strong opinion, while remaining open to the (remote) possibility that he could be wrong.

It appears that you not only fail to understand atheism, but you also fail to understand agnosticism.

How you personally arrived at atheism isn’t pertinent to my point. My point is what that conclusion does to inform your world view thereafter, how your atheism answers those big religious questions, even if you held many of those views prior to calling yourself an atheist, and how your atheist belief system relies on faith as well as reason despite most atheists being unwilling to admit faith has anything to do with it. I usually find people telling me I don’t understand atheism and throwing out straw man arguments whenever I raise a point that offends their world view such as calling it a religion.

I’m not sure there is a typical theist. There are those born into a faith tradition that never leave it. There are those who reject it and choose another path, or numerous paths. There are those who reject organized religion but not a belief in a higher power. There are those who go from atheist to theist.

As I said, how someone arrives at their belief is not my point.

Just like the religion of not believing in Santa Claus. Or the religion of not believing in leprechauns.

 
Rennie your logic is that of a moron, which if you can believe in a zombie lord that would explain it. By
your logic we could define any opinion/belief that does not
thoroughly disprove it’s opposition as faith or religious belief. I
believe that Kroger has better dairy products than Publix, I can’t
scientifically prove that Publix’s dairy products are inferior to
Kroger’s so I am having faith in my ability to correctly discern that
my senses are discerning what really exists. In the end it is opinion
based on my own preference which may or may not be based on true
sensory experience but that does not make it a religion. By your own
logic you should not disbelieve any other “religion” because you
have not disproved the existence of say Zeus, evolution, or even
atheism. What is your scientific proof that atheism is a false
“religion?” Also, if religion and faith is so good why are you
defaming it as though it is bad? Everything you are identifying as
criteria for religion and imposing onto atheism you are referring to
it as a negative. You are trying to diminish atheism by turning it
into a faith but by doing so you diminish faith which diminishes your
own religious argument. I love how you immediately dismiss the faith
in the senses and the scientific method then use a scientific
discovery like DNA and bacteria to prove your idiotic point. Your
point actually works in our favor because religious people believed
that sickness was caused by demon possession, witch craft, or a
test/curse by god. All things some still believe today and no one can
“disprove” that they are wrong. People also believed it was gods
will that made us unique that he created us and knew us before we
were born. Our DNA is completely formed by CHANCE from the 23
chromosomes of our fathers sperm to the 23 chromosomes of our mothers
egg. If our birth comes from a biological game of chance, it is not
to difficult to see that chance can and did play an important part in
the creation of life and the universe.

Because you obviously haven’t thought it through and/or you aren’t very serious about your atheism.

No, I really don’t misunderstand true atheism.

Yes, I understand true atheists are a much smaller group than those who
are agnostic to any degree. That’s why I clarified who I was addressing.

I think the term atheist is largely misused and it has muddied the
definition for everyone. I can’t figure out why an agnostic or a skeptic
wouldn’t simply use those terms so their meaning is clear unless it’s
lazyness or somehow more cool to be an atheist.

True atheism is a religious belief that informs the atheist’s world
view, requires a high degree of faith and has an answer for the
existential question of “Why am I here?”.

No doubt some of you think true atheists are as misguided and illogical as theists.

Mocking religious ideas is extremely effective- they are, after all, intrinsically absurd. Mocking individuals generally is not- although at some point people demonstrate that they aren’t interested in learning anything, and are simply trolling… at which point, personal mockery seems appropriate.

Let’s see.  Jesus encouraged his followers to become eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven.  Paul discouraged heterosexual marriage, though he grudgingly allowed it as a concession to people who couldn’t control themselves.   I’m afraid the Christians beat you to this insight, Hemant.

Or perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand.
 
Modern atheism is like modern christianity. There are thousands of different interpretations (the Hitchens church, the Dawkins church, the church of My Lord Myself, etc.) all claiming to be the same thing, whereas atheism and christianity each have only one true doctrine.

No there is exactly one interpretation of atheism, modern or otherwise… no belief in a god or gods. Atheists, of course, have many different personal beliefs. You are confusing those with atheism in general.

Reply to C Peterson:
Atheism = “no belief in a god or gods.”

See, this is where you go wrong with your definition. True/classic atheism is DENIAL that a god or gods exist. It is a position of absolute faith belief, not based on evidence. Of necessity, it claims that since there is no supernatural intelligence, humanity cannot be anything but an accident of circumstance and therefore has no ultimate reason or purpose.
It is a religious belief in the most basic sense of the word – Religion- noun: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Quit making yourself look like an uneducated fool. It might work in some forums, but around here people know what an atheist is, and it isn’t what you are claiming.

Atheism=lack of belief in any god or gods. How exactly does that lead to other beliefs? Can you put it in the form of a logical argument with atheism as the premise? Maybe then we would get your point. Of course, you already stated above that your message is not intended for most of us, because we are not gnostic atheists. Why are you here again?

 Rennie, you are here talking to actual atheists. I think we would know what the word means. Stop trying to tell us what we do or don’t “actually” believe, and listen to us tell you what we do or don’t believe.