The WP Strident Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Atheists are materialists for the most part. They believe what can be proven by scientists in a lab. They believe that spirits do not exist. They believe that there was no creator of this universe. They believe that religion is superstitious. They reject politics that serve God or mention divinity. They believe that the world would be a better place without religion and spirituality. They view spirituality as delusional deepities.

These are just some of the commonly held beliefs which shape their ideology.

Of course atheists have a common ideology, you are 100% right. They will never agree with you though, since that would mean they have something in common with the theists.

I'll add that Atheists believe that they are intellectually superior to Mystics, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.,

But of course!

In a sense the logical culmination of the Gnostics.

Jesus often lambasted his followers when their heads got too big. He often said that a full cup cannot receive more wine. That is a metaphor for knowledge. The Gnostics hold that our perception is limited by our animal senses and we cannot know the full reality of the universe but they continue to seek knowledge from within; knowledge directly from divine sources. They do not believe that thier knowledge comes from themselves, but rather it comes from messengers so it is a humble acquiring of knowledge.

Well, yes, but a non-materialist atheist is not a contradiction in terms, and I would suspect that some of those do exist. The same as atheists who distrust science. Atheists who think the universe was created by outside entities. Atheists who think religion is rational. Atheists who believe that religion in politics is either neutral or a good thing. Even atheists who think that religion and spirituality are good things.

In fact, I'd say that a few of the elements you have identified are weaker relations thought, as many suspect that major neo-conservatives are pro-religion atheists, and a number of atheists have accused other atheists as being "faithiests" for supporting religion as a positive thing.

Well, honestly, I have personal doubts about Orwell's legitimacy in his claim to being a Christian. I certainly have very strong doubts that he maintains internal consistency or even a very strong view of his own revelation.

BannedMagnus:
" He often said that a full cup cannot receive more wine. "

Is that out of Nag Hammadi? PRETTY sure it is not in the canon. But I am not at all up on the Gnostics, though I have read a very little, including some Mandaean. Any more than I am checked out on the Essenes. Did check out Thomas, my mother's favorite, but don't recognize it.

More or less the accusation is that atheists have an anti-religious agenda. The only truth to that is that once an atheist has accepted that there is no god or gods the status of the universe must somehow be figured out. Science offers a reasonable substitute, which is why Christianity, despite the protests otherwise, is so generally steady and energetic in its opposition to some of the basic assumptions of science. Of course there are other alternatives to religion than science and all of these are agendas. But atheism alone is merely a step away from a god. Not an agenda.

Thats not a belief its a fact

I have a thirst for knowledge, but I want empirical evidence (or at the very least strong subjective evidence that is not refuted by empirical evidence) to support what I am learning. The fact of the matter being that science has well shown the ability of the brain to hallucinate and delude the user to such an extent that these hallucinations existing solely in the brain of the particular individual are extant events. This is something that 'believers' ignore, so it is they and not the materialists who refuse to accept further learning and knowledge.

It exists as a default condition in a variety of people. Infants, the deaf-blind(at first anyway, like Helen Keller), the severely autistic. What term would you use to describe those people?

The reactionary aspect is a different ideology, since people can clearly hold more than one at a time. After all, aren't you a rational deist of some sort?

Further, any given non-theist need not be an anti-theist. I believe there is a whole class of Americans that fit that definition? I think they are called secular Jews? I even know of one atheist Jew that considered becoming a Rabbi. He follows most of the orthodox customs, holidays and feasts because he likes the structure.

So tell me again, in the western world atheism means more than "lack of belief in god"?

Yes. "Atheism" as it exists in the West does not, in general, refer simply to non-theism. It refers to the ideology of Dawkins and similar anti-theistic materialistic atheists.

Welcome to the English language, where words don't always mean what they sound like. Taking the broadest possible definition of a term is often extremely disingenuous. If you take the broadest definitions, then I am liberal, conservative, libertarian, and fascist all at once. But clearly once you use the terms in such a broad manner, you have robbed them of all meaning.

I am curious, since the three of you are not the only ones to reach such conclusions. How is it that I come across as an atheist or at least as non-religious? A fairly large number of people I know IRL are surprised when they learn that I am a Christian, and I'm wondering why it is that I seem to send out that "atheist vibe."

Hmmmm maybe its because in just about every area of discussion you demand "evidence please" and consistently refute any and all conspiracy theories and beliefs that are not supported by empirical evidence and the scientific method.