Atheists: Are all of these statments in concurrence with your opinion?

Question

1. When I discover that someone is a theist, my opinion of them is lessened.

2. All theism is inherently illogical, and therfore has no place in human society

3. Burning the Bible/Koran/etc. is a service to humanity

4. God is dead

5. I regret my actions after voting for a political candidate who believes in God

6. I am an empiricist

7. Roman mythology and Christian mythology are equally worthless

8. The majority of atheists are also humanists.

9. Nothing can be certain.

I would just like to know where atheists stand in general, so when I speak/converse/debate/concure with them I know what I'm getting into.

Thank you all.

If you disagree with any, please say which number, and if you would be so kind as to explain your difference of opinion, I would appreciate it.

NOTE: Number four pertains to a quote by Friedrich Nietzche, not a literal idea of God passing away.

Thanks to BL for the spelling comment.

Answer 1

On first seeing your question, my first reaction was "It's highly unlikely, but let's take a look anyway...". Here you go:

1. Of course not. There are types of theist that I hold in contempt but it is a quality of their thinking that might also be found in a non-theist. It has nothing to do with theism per se.

2. No.

3. Absolutely not. You won't find many atheists agreeing with this in seriousness.

4. God never lived. The idea of God served a purpose for a while, but the alternatives are far preferable, so it's true that the idea is dead.

5. Nonsense.

6. Yes, but you'll find any number of theists claiming the same. Relevance?

7. True, but it is also true to say they are/were equally worthwhile. Because atheists tend to be relativists (this one is, anyway), value is never absolute. People have benefited from theism, so it can't be all bad. Societies, however, have almost never benefited from theism.

8. Probably. But it isn't particularly relevant.

9. Yes.

NOTE: Most atheists will probably know that. They'll also know it's spelled Nietzsche.

Answer 2

1. When I discover that someone is a theist, my opinion of them is lessened.
I disagree. It takes them to open their mouths and explain the existance of their god. When the argument becomes cyclical, I think less of their logical reasoning.

2. All theism is inherently illogical, and therfore has no place in human society.
Aren't the buddhists tolerant of theism. So this one is bunk.

3. Burning the Bible/Koran/etc. is a service to humanity.
Burning any books is a disservice to humanity.

4. God is dead
That would mean that he once lived. again I have to disagree.

5. I regret my actions after voting for a political candidate who believes in God.
Why would I do that?

6. I am an empiricist
Why do you feel the need to label me?

7. Roman mythology and Christian mythology are equally worthless.
They are great stories.

8. The majority of atheists are also humanists.
Again there you go trying to pidgeon-hole us with your labels.

9. Nothing can be certain.
The dichotomy of absolute (un)certainty is a fun debate. Why would you make such an asinine statement?

Answer 3

1. No. Some of my best friends are theists. That alone isn't enough to lower my opinion of a person. More important is how they react to the fact that I am not one, to be honest.

2. Yes and no. Illogical? Certainly. No place in society? Well... I have to say it does have a purpose, and that is assuaging the fears that some people have about death and the after-life and the "purpose" of life. Do I think the world would be a better place if everyone could accept death as part of life? Yes. Do I think that will ever happen? Well... the time certainly hasn't come yet.

3. No. Pointless activity. They'll just make more. Besides.... whether I like it or not, and whatever my personal feelings about it are... I have to respect the rights of people who actually want to find this information. Anyone who wants to find this information should be able to with a minimum of effort. I just don't think that those who would rather be without it should be constantly assaulted with it.

4. No. God never has been. As for the "idea" of god? You're talking about people needing the idea of god, correct? Well, see #2. Would I like that? Yes. Is it going to happen within my lifetime? Probably not. There's very little I can do about that, but I'll do what I can, without dedicating my life to it. Mind you, I don't think I have a "second" life after this one, so I'm going to do whatever I can to make this one pleasurable. Fighting against the idea of god every day, every hour would NOT make me happy. But there is a certain satisfaction that comes with expressing my ideas and having them considered. That's one of the things I like about this place. When it's no longer fulfilling, I simply go away, and come back when I'm ready to pick up the debate again.

5. No. Though I'm not much into politics anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find a candidate that doesn't profess some form of christianity. At least in my country. So far, no candidate has made me care enough about them to actually go out and vote for them.

6. Hmm... I suppose you could say that. Not that I discount the value of intuitive reasoning. It's absolutely essential. Without it, no progress would be made, no one would ever be able to surpass their own teachers. I do, however, firmly believe that it should be tested, and proven before anyone calls it fact.

7. Well, how does one determine worth? Like I said before, I can't deny that it does serve a purpose for some people. As a crutch, true, in my opinion, but still something. Using the term "worthless" is to harsh, but I will say that whatever neither has more, or less worth than the other.

8. This is something for a census to decide, not I. I, for one, am not. At least I don't think I am. I'll admit I haven't looked very deeply into their philosophy, but my ideas are my own. The odds that I'm going to agree with any set philosophy completely are pretty slim.

9. Hmm. Interesting question. On it's most literal, basic level, I'd have to agree, in order to be honest with myself. However, there are some things that are simply just so unlikely, that considering them is just useless. I mean, you can tell me that you've severed my right hand and placed it in the natural history museum. I can then simply look at my own right arm, and truly "know" that this is not true, as much as I can know anything. Are there other options? Sure. Is there any point in even considering every one? No. At some point you just have to say, "Ok, that's enough, this is a false statement". Can you imagine trying to live your life otherwise? It's not a sane way to live.

By the way, thank you for presenting your questions in an objective and non-insulting way, especially if you, yourself, are a theist and therefore already disagree with us atheists on a fundamental level. There are many who could learn from that example. I can't say I'm not guilty of being purposely insulting, because well... I am, commonly. That's because most of the questions I come across are already presumptuous, or downright insulting, and I have no problem responding in kind. Your's is neither, and that a trait that there's far too little of around here.

Answer 4

~~~Con ,,,,
1. No. I'm not prejudiced.
2. No. It is perfectly "logical".
3. No. Knowledge of Symbolism within texts.
4. No,,, to The Believer.
5. No. I don't participate in a Corrupt System.
6. Yes,,,by degrees.
7. No. They are too Historically Significant to not be.
8. Yes.
9. No. This is "An Absolute" which is easily refuted.
10. It would be a mistake to assume a "Generalization of an Atheistic Stance". This would be akin to assuming you can know 'how' a Theist will 'react' simply by knowing this single fact. But your attempt at Understanding is no less appreciated,,,you are on the right track in keeping an Open Mind.

Answer 5

I only agree with 6 & 8.

1. Most people are theistic. Why should my opinion of them become lessened?

2. Seems to be a non-sequitor.

3. Book burning is never of service to anyone.

4. God never existed.

5. All of them say they believe in God.

7. Christian mythology at least makes an effort to provide ethical rules (even if the guy upstairs isn't bound by them)

9. I think some things can be certain.

Answer 6

Very few of those are yes or no.

1- to a point. I usually figure people are theists until I find out otherwise. I would say it is more that my opinion goes up when I find out they aren't
2- Yep. It does give the uneducated something, but we are way past the point where it is needed.
3- It is a silly gesture. I mean it is about the same as burning the Iliad.
4- Never was one.
5- No
6- Yep
7- Yep
8- Majority, probably.
9- Well there is a point where the odds become prohibitive to the point where the inverse isn't really worth your consideration. But Yes.

Answer 7

1. The religious have always been more interested in persecuting 'unbelievers' than athiests. It is Christians who make that judgement.

2. To some extent. It certainly has no place in a classroom.

3. Of course. Mankind loves to burn its own books, of whatever nature, as a service to itself. Again, christianity has always been more occupied with book-burning and censorship than non believers.

4. And we killed him!

5. Why are all the major political leaders Christian? God is a vote-winner. You'll never see an athiest running the country.

6. Of course - christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, and even has its own country, in the name of god. The Romans and even Hitler were self-proclaimed 'christians'.

7. No, they are interesting because they provide insight into our psychology.

8. Perhaps. Satanism is called Humanism, but that's not exactly right either.

9. I think the major point in this is if you can handle the unknown, if you are insecure and you need to believe in the 'whole truth' to make you happy. Nothing is certain, but we can try our best.

Answer 8

1. No, I know some really smart, kind theists. I would think I am better than most of humanity if I thought like this.

3. Book burning is wrong. Get people to not believe in the books as literal truth is the better solution.

4. God was never "alive." He's as "alive" as he ever was, however, in the minds of his followers.

5. I actively support theists and work for their campaigns.

9. I'm not a solophist. We can "know" many things. I know that the road won't turn to swiss cheese under my tires when I make a beer run.

Answer 9

1. No. I respect their rights to believe, and I expect the same in return for my belief. I don't represent my belief as truth for anyone but me.

2. No. There are many inherently illogical things that are part of our world. If it gives people comfort, hey.

3. No. Book burning implies fear of the ideas contained in said book.

4. I don't believe so. I don't believe a God exists. Without existence, one cannot die.

5. Not applicable to my life.

6. No.

7. I will not condemn mythology or beliefs which many hold dear. I will say that I don't subscribe to them.

8. I have no idea. I don't know the majority of atheists.

9. I would tend to agree with this. Certain things approach virtual certainty, but absolute certainty evades us.

You can't extrapolate from this and apply it to others, though. We vary.

Answer 10

1. Yes. Sadly, it's become more true since visiting this site.
2. Yes. All theism is, in its purest forms, harmful to society.
3. No. Burning any book is a huge disservice to our civilization.
4. No. God never existed.
5. No. Generally all politicians pay lipservice to religion to get the senior vote.
6. Yes. Evidence is a good thing.
7. No. I consider them equal. You used the word worthless, not me. I think they're both full of fascinating stories and moral lessons, but neither holds any truth.
8. No. They're a slippery group atheists. It's hard to know what their philosophies as a group are. It's not like we hold meetings to discuss these things.
9. No. Many things are certain. Death and taxes, for instance.