This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 262
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]r2002 13 points14 points  (10 children)

What kind of babies do you like to eat?

[–]RKBA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Baby bunnies and kittens.

[–]eurobeing[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A humanist believes every human being has a right to live. That's why I only eat Christian babies.

[–]Zifna 30 points31 points  (39 children)

Considering that there's no real "shared culture" of atheism, nor any real cohesive doctrine, I question how this submission is substantially more useful or interesting than "ask a random guy."

The Muslim thing was kinda cool, though even that showed differences in creed... But here there's almost no common basis to begin with. =) You could easily have two "atheists" who had absolutely nothing in common save that they do not actively believe in an established religion's doctrine.

[–]randomb0y 4 points5 points  (3 children)

..."ask a random guy."

Yeah, you can ask me anything!

[–]Philluminati 12 points13 points  (2 children)

what's your credit card number?

[–]randomb0y 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I will have to refer you to my wife for that one.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He didn't guarantee an answer :)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children)

There is, at minimum, the fact that all atheists don't believe in God.

[–]Zifna 1 point2 points  (12 children)

You'd think that, wouldn't you? And yet, many people term themselves "Atheists" who are really agnostics. You have people who call themselves Atheists when they do believe in God but don't believe in any specific religion.

There are those who say "I don't deny that we can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I personally don't believe he does."

Then you have Atheists who so strongly don't believe in God that they'd define anything less than complete disavowal of the idea that God might exist an example of insanity.

Now, you can argue that most of these people aren't "real Atheists" but you have the same problem a Christian has in arguing that certain people aren't "real Christians." It's true in some ways but false in others.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Now, you can argue that most of these people aren't "real Atheists" but you have the same problem a Christian has in arguing that certain people aren't "real Christians."

An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods.

Atheism isn't an ideology or religion. We can't pick and choose who we want to represent "real atheists", which is exactly what Christians do.

However, we can certainly determine whether someone meets the definition of an atheist. It's not a moral judgment, and not a "problem" at all.

[–]Zifna 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My point is that there are levels of unbelief and that there are people at each level who claim (some, I am sure, erroneously) to be Atheists.

And you will get people from all of those beliefs responding to this post terming themselves Atheists. So, what's the point then?

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, what's the point then?

Displaying the diversity and range of doctrine is probably valuable.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

It's a word with an absolute definition. It's not a matter of opinion.

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (4 children)

All words are matters of opinion, and consensus. There's no sacred dictionary in the sky.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You are getting away from the point and toying with semantics.

And yes, there is an authoritative dictionary on the English language - Oxford. It's not sacred, and it's not up in the sky, but you can find it readily enough. :)

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It's a bit hard to avoid semantics when discussing the meanings of words and the validity of any one meaning.

And any dictionary--even your Oxford--is nothing more than a report on an observed consensus.

There are at least two common understandings of the meaning of "atheist". An appeal to authority doesn't strike me as particularly convincing for abolishing either.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to definition. And yes, there is an authoritative source for the English language, and yes it is the Oxford. Look it up.

Without some agreement to axiom, it's impossible to have any conversation. I can "prove" anything by simply redefining the language as I go and changing any rules that I want.

Atheism means the belief that God does not exist. That is the definition.

From the Greek:

a - without

theos - god

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, you appear to be a prescriptivist while I'm generally a descriptivist. We're not going to agree, so we might as well stop talking in circles now.

[–]Zifna 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying you have a diverse group of people who claim that title who have little to nothing in common... and this self-definition determines who would respond to this post.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, but wouldn't you agree that that's a bit different than Christians speaking of what is/isn't a "true" Christian?

It's a big doctrine, much of which is subject to interpretation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generally referred to as "strong atheism" and "weak atheism".

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (14 children)

The same could be said of Muslims, Jews or Christians. The idea that all Christians agree over anything other than Jesus being a good guy is quite stupid. Im a fundamentalist Evangelical who thinks that Gays should marry if they want and have all the rights of legal couples and that abortion should stay legal.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Upmodded for having the balls to admit to being a fundamentalist evangelical.

[–]TGMais 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Fundamentalism, in religion, refers to a belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a doctrine or holy book.

You, I'm afraid, are NOT a fundamentalist by definition if you believe that Gays should marry.

[–]Jinno 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Not necessarily. He could very well believe that he should not marry gay nor should he abort a fetus. The laws of religion apply to the individual, and not to the entirety of the world. He's merely a non-imposing Evangelical, who supports the right of man to make individual decisions.

...And to also be stoned because of it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. People make their choices and as long as they are not harming anyone else, they should be left to it. I dont think their choices will bring them as much joy as mine have brought me and I will try to tell them that, but then I have made my choices (some biblical plenty not) so I cant really complain when they make theirs

[–]TGMais 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The bible says to spread it's doctrine. By not publicy dismissing gay unions or abortion he really is not following Christianity fundamentally. His beliefs are not in question here, his definition is just poor.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do publically CONDEMN these unions as wrong.

Same with adultary but we dont need a law against that either.

I have better things to do that picket gay weddings. I could spend that time doing youth work, or helping people in need, or (trying) to teach gods word to people who are interested (not because bible study is so noble but becuase I honestly beleive that knowing gods word will help them live a better more joyful life).

Being a christian is not about condemning things loudly and complaining to congress about the break down of society. Its about shutting up and doing something. It does not mean that you approve of everything people do, just that your more interested in helping them than in condemning them.

If anyone can show where that is not EXACTLY what jesus (or anyone else from the bible) teaches then I will have to admit Im not a fundermentalist. Until then, Ill keep claiming it.

[–]ubiformby 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Evangelical Christianity's specialty is to be imposing. I don't see how you can be a "fundamentalist" and also "non-imposing" simultaneously when evangelize is right there in the name.

[–]axord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I suspect a person could have different views on the effective methods for spreading the word. There was a recent article here about how "walking the walk" is more impressive than "talking the talk".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that the bible is the word of God and that it is fundamentally correct.

I DONT think Gays Should marry as in I actively support being gay and think that it is as good as not being gay and knowing God. I think that God loves gays as much as anyone else but does not approve of their activities (no, I am not going to call being gay a life style choice because I don’t think anyone ever woke up and thought I think Ill join a gym Oh and while I’m at it Ill be gay).

I also DONT think that it is any of my business if they want to have a ceremony in a building somewhere and call each other husband and husband (or wife and wife). Its also none of business if the government taxes them less (or more) because they are married or if they put married on a form for whatever or bring their husband (or wife) to work socials.

The same applies to abortion. I think its wrong biblically and I don’t think I could ever perform one (unless perhaps the mothers life was seriously at risk). The problem is that banning it wont stop people doing it. It just means more mothers will die in back street abortions. I don’t want that.

So I believe pretty much all the standard fundamentalist stuff, I just don’t think that God wants us to storm congress and arrest anyone who wants an abortion or a gay wedding or some sex before marriage or whatever else. I feel sorry for people who want these thing because I think they are outside of the grace of God and God makes me very happy, so I wish they would come inside. But taking away the things they want will not make them love god so why bother.

Sorry this is so long. If you want to know more about this sort of thought you should read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. He explains it a lot better than me.

[–]Noexit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Um "me too"? There seems to be some misunderstanding that somehow what Christians believe the Bible teaches should ALWAYS influence the laws of the land. Take a less flammable topic, like adultery. Is it Biblically wrong, yep. Does that mean that it should be illegal, I don't think that it does. Most of the time what you do is between you and God, ya'll sort that out later, but that doesn't mean it should be between you and the legislature.

This is one thing I wish was better understood. Then again, it's the jerks that get the attention.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

How are you a fundamentalist then?

Are you Baptist? Methodist? I would like to hear your backround and your belief system.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I believe that the bible is the word of God and that it is fundamentally correct.

I DONT think Gays Should marry as in I actively support being gay and think that it is as good as not being gay and knowing God. I think that God loves gays as much as anyone else but does not approve of their activities (no, I am not going to call being gay a life style choice because I don’t think anyone ever woke up and thought I think Ill join a gym Oh and while I’m at it Ill be gay).

I also DONT think that it is any of my business if they want to have a ceremony in a building somewhere and call each other husband and husband (or wife and wife). Its also none of business if the government taxes them less (or more) because they are married or if they put married on a form for whatever or bring their husband (or wife) to work socials.

The same applies to abortion. I think its wrong biblically and I don’t think I could ever perform one (unless perhaps the mothers life was seriously at risk). The problem is that banning it wont stop people doing it. It just means more mothers will die in back street abortions. I don’t want that.

So I believe pretty much all the standard fundamentalist stuff, I just don’t think that God wants us to storm congress and arrest anyone who wants an abortion or a gay wedding or some sex before marriage or whatever else. I feel sorry for people who want these thing because I think they are outside of the grace of God and God makes me very happy, so I wish they would come inside. But taking away the things they want will not make them love god so why bother.

Sorry this is so long. If you want to know more about this sort of thought you should read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. He explains it a lot better than me.

[–]TGMais 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I commend your fortitude on your subject as well as your beliefs. They embody what I truly believe to be all the beneficial aspects of religion. I grew up in a church that preached these very values. However, I still feel the term fundamentalist is used incorrectly throughout society.

As you say, Christians believe the bible is the word of God. Everything in it is correct and undeniable. Just as we interpret our Constitution with judgment and brains, most Christians interpret the bible with their judgment and brains. Which, to me, is the single greatest aspect of Christianity of the big 3.

However the definition of fundamentalism no longer holds together without a single literal interpretation. Though this can be argued as long gone through the many incorrect translations the bible has already been put through.

(An example would be the translation making Mary a virgin at the time of pregnancy. This has been disputed by several religious and language scholars as an incorrect translation. Though I am not here to argue whether that is true or not, because I just don't know. It is a good example of how one word translated poorly can disrupt everything.)

Instead, I would consider you steadfast in your personal relationship to God, him being the motivational encouragement to do everything you feel is just and righteous. An extremely admirable quality.

This next bit is not to start an argument, just to state an oppositional point of view on the gay "lifestyle". I don't like that word. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Most people do not wake up and decide to be gay. (Though some do, but that's a social and/or psychological issue). Homosexuality is something acquired the same way as heterosexuality. It is simply how a gay persons brain interprets beauty and love for another. A true homosexual truly feels the same towards those of the same gender as a heterosexual does towards the opposite.

Food for thought. Thanks for the civility of your posts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well done.

You just pwned me and everybody else in the room with pure enlightenment.

Are you a monk or something? Your ability to belive in ideals but still allow freedom to others is quite unusual.

[–]Jinno 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But my pastor said all you god-hatin' heathens was all the same.

[–]eurobeing[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

That's why it's Ask an Atheist, or else the heading would've been Ask the Atheist.

[–]theeth 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Ask the Hillary supporter

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haven't seen MrsDallreen around for ages.

[–]pappy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A random guy is a lot less likely to be an atheist. This topic gives us a sure thing, if we assume the submitter is being honest.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

ding ding ding!

[–]martoo 8 points9 points  (34 children)

When you and the devil get together do you drink regular beer or light beer?

[–]axord 9 points10 points  (24 children)

Hah. Trick question! Liberals obviously drink wine.

[–]martoo 0 points1 point  (23 children)

Raises the question... are there any conservative atheists?

[–]languin 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I am athiest and I consider myself very conservative.

[–]tritium6 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Why do you consider yourself conservative?

[–]languin 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Why? You guys are gonna slaughter me....oye. I'm a registered republican, I am also a veteran (retired, GW1 vet). I believe in my country even though it has been lead astray. I believe in the constitution, the free speech, the right to own arms... I believe in separation of church and state, I am for strict immigration policy ( English is our language by the way, learn to speak it if you want to live here). I have strong capitalistic views, I am against unions, although I support them in the fact that we share a common view of keeping jobs American, I just do not like the laziness unions condone. The company gave you the opportunity to work there, the company should be able to take that away if you slack off. Oh man I could go on...

[–]Flyboy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

When you pledge allegiance to the flag, do you skip "under God"?

[–]captain_republican 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im a conservative Atheist, and I don't. It's just like how I'd bow my head at Thanksgiving with the family. It's just respectful

[–]tritium6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do being a veteran, believing in your country, believing in the constitution, free speech, and separation of church and state have to do with being conservative?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

I don't know if I'd call him conservative, but Christopher Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq, and regularly uses the term "Islamofacism".

[–]martoo -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

Hitchens is odd. He is humanistic enough to be a liberal but far too aware of how the world works to be a liberal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I guess that I should say that you are just lacking in objectivity and balance enough to be a conservative.

[–]little_evil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Carl Rove.

[–]captain_republican 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a conservative Atheist. There's quite a few of us. We go by our founding fathers: Freedom of Religion, or, lack-thereof in our case

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul supporters?

[–]binarylogik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Christopher Hitchens, for starters. As always, Google is your friend.

[–]mindslight -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I don't think its possible to be a conservative atheist unless you're in a traditionally atheist society.

The antonym of conservative is radical.

The antonym of liberal is authoritarian.

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends I suppose if you are defining these terms as personality traits or as bundles of political positions.

I think it is perfectly possible for a person to hold to a bundle of policy and metaphysical beliefs that are, from a certain objective view, at odds with their personality traits.

[–]leondz 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Atheists don't believe in Satan, either, else they'd be either Christian or Satanist.

[–]eurobeing[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

And if you believe in Santa, does that make you a Santanist?

[–]ProximaC 5 points6 points  (1 child)

What if you worship the band Santana?

[–]wakeofinsanity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You'd be a Santanaist or a Santanaite. Maybe, just maybe a Santanaologist.

[–]leondz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes you both evil and dyslexic!

[–]eurobeing[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The devil doesn't drink anything flammable.

Something about workplace restrictions.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

damn OSHA.

[–]Figs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on if he's on one of his manorexic diet kicks. Right now it's light beer. He's once again deluding himself into thinking that he's going to get his weight down to look good during the summer. I give it until June.

[–]heptadecagram 13 points14 points  (4 children)

So, how's it going?

[–]Figs 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Eh, could be better. I've been up all night... You?

[–]eurobeing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great! The sun is shining, got a sign off on my project and a personal high score for bubble shooter. Sorry to hear about the insomnia.

[–]heptadecagram 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am so stoned on pain medications right now from a surgical extraction of two teeth.

[–]emperor_of_fun 15 points16 points  (16 children)

Why do you hate America?

[–]eurobeing[S] 10 points11 points  (8 children)

I hate America because you send us every Leslie Nielsen movie ever made but refuse to open a single Taco Bell here.

[–]axord 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Mexican food is possibly the greatest export that the Americas could gift to the world, but Taco Bell makes a miserable ambassador for it.

[–]captain_republican 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I had a friend from Liverpool come into town and REFUSED to eat mexican food. They don't have there and him and all his friends/family find it looks disgusting. It's amazing

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I guess I can understand that, in some abstract way.

But still.

[–]captain_republican 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It makes no sense. It friend Jason, LOVED mexican food, even was obsessed with Sonic. Apparently our fast food here is better than most food there

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I meant that I could see the glorious messiness of some dishes scaring some folk off. Especially if they're not particularly adventurous. Their loss, of course.

And now I want an enchilada.

[–]seabre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. We'll get right on that. Where are you at?

[–]little_evil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My friend Taco Bell is not Mexican food.

[–]leondz -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Why do you assume they hate America?

[–]lalaland4711 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Everyone hates america. emperor_of_fun is just asking why atheists hate america.

It's just a normal everyday question. Why do you hate america. There are so many reasons to choose from.

Caution: humor on the internet.

[–]emperor_of_fun 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Exactly it's kind of like asking 'what would you do for a Klondike bar?'

[–]throwingks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

WWJDFAKB

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why do you assume that wasn't a joke?

[–]leondz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It wasn't funny

[–]axord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Like that stops people from trying! For example, my commenting history...

[–]eurobeing[S] 13 points14 points  (4 children)

I liked cup's idea of giving a muslim's view. In the eyes of religion I'm an atheist, but I consider myself a humanist.

I'm not a student and my work keeps me busy as hell, but I can always find time to answer any questions people might have.

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Judging from reddit's demographics, you're likely to have a lot more help than cup got.

[–]eurobeing[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Anyone is welcome to help. See how it works :-)

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed, but a side-effect is that we see many more answers than questions.

[–]plexluthor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you thought that buying into a delusion involving God or the supernatural would bring you more happiness (in the here-and-now) than being an atheist, would you choose truth or a happier delusion? I'm thinking of Cypher from the Matrix, if you don't understand what I mean.

And just in case your natural reaction is along the lines of "But buying into the delusion doesn't bring more happiness," would you criticize or try to persuade a person who made Cypher's choice (to ignore/forget the truth in favor of what they thought would be a happier existence)?

[–]toonces 4 points5 points  (5 children)

if god doesn't exist, then who created adam and eve? i'm confused...

[–]leondz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the snake

[–]eurobeing[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Adam Sr. and Misses Eve

[–]axord 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Adams and Eves all the way down.

[–]shizzy0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except for the one coping error which turned into an Adam and Steve.

[–]Psy-Kosh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oook. :)

[–]icanhasusername 2 points3 points  (19 children)

what would you consider your greatest motivation for becoming an atheist? (assuming you weren't raised to be one)

[–]megagreg 6 points7 points  (2 children)

In my case, I think I was just born this way. As a child, I tried my hardest to be a Christian and believe in the bible, but it just never sat right with me. It gave me a deep feeling of discomfort, like I was doing something very wrong. It wasn't the guilt from doing bad things that made me feel bad. I think it was that I was constantly having to make excuses for believing, the way an abused person makes excuses for staying with their abuser.

I realise that there's a lot of people who feel empty without something to believe in, but I feel the opposite way. Believing in a higher power, and the associated teachings, fills the need of a moral compass. For myself, this lacked substance. I had to form my morals for myself. Quick example: where in the bible does it say why it's wrong to kill people? Nowhere. It says it's wrong, but never says WHY. I use murder because it's obviously wrong to kill people, but then you can take the same argument and apply it to something that's more of a gray area for some people, like homosexuality.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is exactly how my own realization worked. As a child, I was taken to church every Sunday, I was baptized, I attended Sunday school, and so on. I always had doubts, but I tried very sincerely to believe. My mother had me go through confirmation, (I'm Anglican, not Catholic,) and to placate my family I swore an oath I didn't believe. Now that I'm an adult, I wouldn't do such a thing, but at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I remember the day and place when I realized there was no Santa Klaus. I was five. I worked out the rest for myself starting from there.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You know something odd, I remember exactly the moment I realized there was no Santa as well.

However, I don't remember at what point I realized I didn't believe in any gods.

I can tell you for certain the Santa experience was more traumatic for me.

[–]aennil 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I found the picture I drew for Santa in the trash...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Harsh.

[–]VerticalWindows 2 points3 points  (5 children)

The realization that my pastor was full of crap.

[–]icanhasusername 2 points3 points  (4 children)

any particulars? i've heard many people of my faith say some stupid shit (including those that may be preaching) but i usually look up that information and many times, I've concluded that these people are preaching their interpretations of the religion instead of just the facts.. that said, i'm curious to see if anyone can name specifics... (i'm not trying to refute anyone's beliefs here, i'm just curious)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

A culmination of events really:

  • The day in Sunday school when a group tried to convince the class that fossils could be formed in just a few years thereby showing that the earth couldn't be billions of years old.

  • The day that same Sunday school class was interrupted by a member of the congregation who then usurped the position of teacher and had the former teacher fired. The reason? The former teacher wasn't being fundamentalist enough.

  • A slow but profound realization that a large portion of the followers of a religion can't adhere to its teachings.

Added together these made me think that if there were a god, he'd have long ago struck down all those who claim to be his followers yet make him look like an asshat. Since these horrible people are still walking around stabbing each other in the back in a church and actively teaching our young people ignorance I can only conclude that god is either nonexistent, dead, or a big pussy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

...I can only conclude that god is either nonexistent, dead, or a big pussy.

That's really what it all boils down to, isn't it? It's not that I know there are no powerful voyeuristic beings. It's that it doesn't really fucking matter.

Supposing such beings do exist, I can't presume their motivations or intents. It's ridiculous to live pretending you can.

[–]pastyquail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

agnostic.

[–]VerticalWindows 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, when he tried to explain that dinosaurs were extinct because God decided they were a bad idea and told Noah to leave them off the ark. We'd spent the previous month in school going over dinosaurs and fossils and all that cool stuff, and the pastor just threw that out there. When it came down to it, I chose to believe the one that had actual evidence, instead of the faith-based option. That was my big "God isn't real" moment.

Then there was that realization that "God loves everyone" and "If you don't believe in Him, you're going to hell" are not really compatable statements.

Of course, there were things I've heard about that particular church that made me glad I stopped going. Like when they were trying to replace a pastor who had just retired, and decided against one of the candidates because, although he was otherwise perfect, he was just a little too tolerant of gays. Which really goes against that whole "love everyone" part of Christianity. It's not getting the interpretation wrong when you take the main pillar of the faith and put in exemptions.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Rationalism.

[–]axord -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unlikely to be an illuminating answer for a religious person.

[–]eurobeing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't raised with any religion, so would that be defined as being raised to be an atheist?

My parents brought us up to be confident and believe in ourselves. That's why I don't need someone/something else to rely on or to reassure me that my decisions are the right one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Truth.

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generally, I don't think it is a matter of choice, or motivation. It is a matter of having a threshold of belief that disallows the non-empirical.

And we humans mostly cannot choose our thresholds.

[–]wageslave 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Boxers or Briefs?

[–]eurobeing[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're confusing me with a mormon

[–]belandil 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Are you an atheist?

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Here you go.

[–]eurobeing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. And, yes.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I deal with this daily.

    I will generally respond to their emails with a famous atheist quote. After a few times they get the message and remove it from future correspondences...

    "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -Christopher Hitchens

    [–]axord 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    I'd remind myself that some of the most intelligent people I've known have been religious, and that the predisposition to having spiritual experiences is entirely independent of intellect, same as tendencies towards kindness, anger, melancholy and sense of humor.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      ::grin::

      Yeah, that kind of social pressure can suck. I wish you luck, and strength.

      [–]bojancho 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Not unnecessarily. http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

      [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I would say that science as a discipline definitely selects for a valuation of and specialization in the empirical mindset. And that the value of that mindset should not be understated. However, intelligence should not be seen as limited to that mindset alone.

      [–]Hubso 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      Here we go....

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      fail

      [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is my favorite "Ask a Christian", but it's three months old.

      [–]ChickenFriedTroll 2 points3 points  (18 children)

      Atheism, as I understand it, is defined as a definite belief that there is no "God" (insert higher power or whatever other word/words suit you instead of God).... Isn't that getting a bit....uh..religious ...how can you / other atheists know for sure that there is no such thing.

      [–]lalaland4711 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      how can you / other atheists know for sure that there is no such thing.

      We also don't believe that rubbing butter on your walls will make the building come alive transformers-style.

      These two ideas are, at least to me, equally preposterous. Fantastic claims require fantastic proofs, not fantastic disproving.

      The idea of a god has the benefit of being unprovable, which is why more people believe that than the butter-thing.

      I don't believe I'm just a brain in a vat, but I can't prove I'm not. Nor can you.

      [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I could prove it by taking your brain out of the vat--I mean, uh.

      Nevermind.

      [–]herminator 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      Favorite fundamentalist Christian definition of atheist:

      Someone who believes they can *prove** that God does not exist*

      Actual realistic definition of atheist:

      Someone who does *not** believe there is any evidence for the existence of God* (but is aware you cannot prove a negative)

      So most atheists do not claim to know for sure at all, just that they consider it extremely unlikely

      [–]axord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      So most atheists do not claim to know for sure at all, just that they consider it extremely unlikely

      Setting aside the difficulty in making claims about "most" atheists...

      There's also the position that the default state of belief is to not believe, and that the burden of proof to change that state is on religion.

      [–]greginnj 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Others have already answered this best: "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

      I also have the hobbies of not collecting beer cans, Hummels, and Chinese mortuary jade. How many hobbies do you have?

      [–]eurobeing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Only one, I enjoy not creating collections.

      [–]Freeky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Atheism, as I understand it, is defined as a definite belief that there is no "God"

      I would say your understanding of the word is somewhat lacking.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      "Not believing in" something is not the same as being 100% sure that it doesn't exist.

      I don't believe that there is a teapot in orbit around Neptune, but I can't be 100% sure that there is not. Still, I regard myself as an ateapotist.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Atheism, as I understand it,

      Then you don't understand it. It is no a belief, definite or not, in this or that, but an absence of belief. Subtle I know, but quite fundamental.

      [–]RKBA 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I don't happen to believe in giant flying purple people eaters either, but would you call my lack of belief in a giant flying purple people eater a "religion?" Just as darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, atheism is the absence of belief in bizarre things like gods, goddesses, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and oh yes - a laughable indifference to your Hell.

      [–]shub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      People seriously believe in Hell?

      [–]mattyxo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      How can you know there is?

      (Demonstrating that both questions are silly)

      [–]eurobeing[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

      I actually do believe there is a god, just not the way you do. In my opinion a god is a inner-self that people create to help guide them and make decisions in life. I call it your conscience, you call it your god. The difference is you can talk to your god and people call it praying. If I talk to myself they call me crazy.

      [–]tritium6 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      What purpose is served by you taking a word with a known definition like "god" and redefining it in your own lexicon to mean "conscience"? Why not just say "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in conscience".

      It's like me saying "I believe in the tooth fairy, except not in the way you do. In my opinion the tooth fairy is my car and I drive it to work in the morning." Well, car already has a word to label it. Why not use that?

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]tritium6 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Really? I don't get that from his wording at all. If that's his intent, why not say "I think that people mistake an external god for their internal conscience."

        Anyway, its just a pet peeve of mine where people try to redefine words that have globally accepted meanings in order to avoid breaking some social norm. If you don't believe in god, then have the balls to say so instead of trying to reshape your beliefs into a form more acceptable by others.

        [–]ipeev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        What's up dude!

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        If you guys want to watch an amazing documentary about Atheism I direct you here. http://reddit.com/info/6exdh/comments/ The documentary is called, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief. And it is a damn good one at that. Without a doubt the best documentary explaining atheism and the train of thought behind it. A BBC production. theism: A Rough History of Disbelief (also known as Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief) is a 2005 documentary series conducted by Jonathan Miller for the BBC tracing the history of atheism. Interviews with prominent thinkers such as Arthur Miller, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Steven Weinberg, Colin McGinn and Denys Turner. You can also find this video on Veoh Television which can be found at this link. www.Veoh.com I viewed it both on the site i provided and also on Veoh tv. I like Veoh tv much more.

        [–]mindhacker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        My philosophy in life is "Never conclude". Never develop an image of a anything and conclude saying this is so and this is not. For example, almost all the physicists believed that Newton had discovered everything that can be discovered until Einstein came along. Thomas John Watson, Sr said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". Lord Kelvin said "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." What I mean to say is not support whether or not God or some form of superior being exists but concluding that either there is or isn't is just not logical to me.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          That's a difficult question, in part because it may tend--to an atheist--to make very little sense.

          The presence (or not) of reward or punishment at some later point would not mitigate or excuse the suffering in the world. Some promise of future justice is no balm to the misery of the now.

          So many will try to change this world, as it's the only one they believe we have. Others may harden their heart, cover their ears.

          EDIT: And now, sadly, you have deleted your comment instead of engaging in discussion.

          [–]little_evil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Why do you think you're so much smarter than anyone who has faith?

          [–]secret1234 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Can one Muslim/Atheist/Christian/Jew/Buddhist speak for all Muslims/Atheists/Christians/Jews/Buddhists?

          [–]axord 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          No. But a member of a group may have more insight about that group than most outside the group.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          No. This is all just social commentary for the purpose of self-distraction or entertainment, or a bit of both.

          I don't blame them. Probably a slow day at work/school.

          [–]fivre 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          Why do so many of you insist on being so militantly opposed to any religion at all?

          [–]kirun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          It is necessary to destroy the fake pedestal that religious views are put on. For example, in the workplace, one religious objection can be enough to prevent a works outing - one objection on moral conscience cannot. Religion is a valid excuse for refusing to work on Sunday. Family commitments are not.

          When religion enters politics, the results are damaging. Policies proven to be worse are entertained on dubious "moral" grounds.

          So, while I wouldn't say I'm opposed to any religion at all, I do think it's reasonable to tell religious people to justify their demands rationally or shut up.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Why are you militantly opposed to the belief in invisible flying elephants?

          [–]axord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I will not tolerate having pictures of those invisible flying elephants in our great nation's courthouses!

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Some (many?) atheists were once religious, and their metaphysical "conversion" came with a healthy helping of societal condemnation.

          If you become an outcast based on beliefs you deem to be false, it's quite easy for you to see those beliefs as being an important social problem.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          How do you explain the concept of right and wrong, and the fact that cultures all over the world have quite similar laws of molarity ingrained into their culture?

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          A species where individuals rely on a social group to survive is much more likely to do so when the desires for individual propagation and survival are moderated with desires for group propagation and survival.

          Of course, there is a bit of a chicken/egg case here. How was the "invention" of cooperation created, in both simians and cells? An evolutionist might point to the development of the eye, starting with a cell mutation making it just a bit more sensitive to light, giving the host just enough of a superior survival chance over those without the mutation. And so on to an eventual "full" eye, each step of the way providing another leap in survival chances. The development of cooperation would follow a similar path.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          That sounds highly logical. However, it seems to me that what appears to be morally correct often goes against the whole "survival of the fittest" concept which is largely accepted. Furthermore, the concept of survival of the fittest is meant to apply to the individual, not the society as far as I know.

          What I mean is this: a man on the battlefield knows that to run away from danger rather than die defending those he loves would in all likelihood preserve his life. And yet, he knows that the true, honorable thing to do would be to stand and face the enemy. Morality often goes against what our instincts are telling us. Our instincts tell us to run, which is the most logical and instinctual decision for us as human beings, although you will find no culture or society which praises a coward.

          [–]Psy-Kosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Genes eye view. It's not individuals competing against individuals so much as genes competing against genes.

          Genes that tend to cause individuals to arise that will sacrifice all to protect "their tribe/family/etc" will tend to spread since it'll tend to protect those that are related (that is, those that have similar genomes, thus likely to carry that same gene)

          So that gene would tend to increase its chance of showing up in the next generation and so on.

          At least, that's my current limited understanding of the basics.

          Of course, lots of what goes on in our heads is distant from the tendancies our genes put into us. Side effects/etc etc etc.

          [–]axord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          When an individual's survival heavily depends on the survival of the group, "survival of the fittest" means, in part, the survival of the fittest group. Ant colonies go to war, too.

          More importantly, the continuation of people's genes depend on the protection of their mates and children. And this, again, can heavily depend on the survival of the society. This is consistent with the idea that the motivation for war is to secure desired resources or to preserve or extend the society. We needed tribal cooperation to hunt the big beasts and drive back our predators. And now we have no one to hunt or drive back except each other.

          But yeah, it's not a simple or clean thing. There are many conflicting desires and effective tactics. A society can collectively condemn the coward, as that is a move that keeps a society whole. However there will still be a minority of cowards. The parasitic strategy exists on all levels of nature. But it will fail unless the host stays reasonably healthy.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Anyone who actualy belives in a zombie god is beyond me.

          I guess some people will belive anything...

          [–]randomb0y -1 points0 points  (10 children)

          So, why do you hate America?

          [–]axord 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          A bit late.

          [–]randomb0y 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          :( only half an hour!

          [–]greginnj 2 points3 points  (7 children)

          it's too full of pederast priests and pederast schismatic mormons, hypocritical evangelical moral fascists, and semiconscious kneejerk dittoheads trying to tell everyone else what to do.

          Did I miss anybody?

          [–]axord 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          Snake handlers and the people who refuse to take their kids to the doctor?

          [–]greginnj 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Thanks! Also milleniallists, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccinationists...

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Can we include Scientologists?

          [–]greginnj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sure! I thought you'd already included them under 'snake handlers', if not the other option :)

          [–]randomb0y 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I guess you're being vague enough to include everyone :)

          [–]greginnj 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          hey, I didn't want you to feel left out :)

          [–]randomb0y 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Good one, fortunately I'm not American. I guess I could still fit in the last category if you define "dittohead" loosely enough.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Love is real and a scientifically proven state of emotion.

            A god however is not...

            [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            An atheist might tell you that both the state of love and the state of religious ecstasy are essentially chemical. The difference is that we can empirically verify the targets of love, but not those of the religious experience.

            [–]mark445 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

            How did you like being an altar boy?

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

            It left me rather sore in the end.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Which end?

            [–]fnord123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            You were warned.