are you an atheist?

I mean, what does "I am an atheist," by itself, tell you about a person in the same way that "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Seventh Day Adventist" does?

You're biasing the answer by naming specific denominations. If your point is that there are lots of different kinds of atheists that are bound only by the fact that they don't believe in God, then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers (Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, voodoo spiritualists, etc.) that are bound only by the fact that they do. So what?

(Or what Curtis said.)

Curt1s otm. I voted no, because my opinion is 98% "I doubt it" and 2% "who gives a fuck." It just doesn't pass the "I don't believe in God" test.

Science is by definition non- and even anti-dogmatic.
-- kenan

sorry, FH. i misread you. major xp

kenan didn't write that quote above, but he does agree with it wholeheartedly.

Contenderizer way OTM.

(In both recent posts but especially the first.)

You're biasing the answer by naming specific denominations.

Fair enough.

If your point is that there are lots of different kinds of atheists that are bound only by the fact that they don't believe in God, then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers (Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, voodoo spiritualists, etc.) that are bound only by the fact that they do. So what?

Because if you're going to call atheism "dogmatic," you're going to have to point to what that dogma is. "God doesn't exist" isn't "dogma," unless we're reducing the definition to the point that any statement of opinion (or fact!) is "dogma." Which, in re this: "then I'd say there are lots of different kinds of believers . . . that are bound only by the fact that they do" ignores away that each of those groups DOES have dogma that's easily pointed to.

If the only dogma you can point to regarding atheism is "God doesn't exist," I think you're really reaching.

I mean, to say "atheism is just as dogmatic as religion" . . . you're either claiming that neither is particularly dogmatic, which is silly, as on a religion-by-religion basis there have been wars fought over this shit; or you're going to have to outline deeper dogma for atheism.

i like to make fun of religious people because i can. haha sorry i'm just kidding, i have a lot of religious friends.

science (as a social institution) is often intensely dogmatic.

No, science as a social institution is irrelevant. Social ain't got a thing to do with it. Science is too busy with biotech right now to chat much.

Now, science as a corporate institution that is just as subject to the whims of the economy and the good graces of those who pay their bunsen burner bills -- that's very worth considering.

just as subject as anyone, I guess I was going to say.

are people who think the Heaven's Gate cult held irrational beliefs also dogmatic?

To the people who contend that there's just enough doubt in their minds that they can't call themselves atheists - is this doubt just about the Christian god? How about Jehovah? Allah? Shiva? Zeus? Odin?

Ok maybe you're just open to the idea of "something else" and even though that's pretty wishy-washy, I am not completely closed to that idea (maybe 99.99% closed) - but for me that "something else" would be so far removed from any traditional conception of a deity that atheist is still the best description.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking, 1975

is it weird of me as an atheist to occasionally enjoy a good ritual/service? i've really really enjoyed some episcopal services. good stuff. i felt at peace, centered. very free of my mental burdens for a little bit. it was a beautiful thing to be a part of.

i grew up southern baptist, a group that was at least partly formed as a rejection of the more ritualistic denominations. of course they developed their own rituals to replace those they rejected. revisiting baptist services as an adult, i just find them ridiculous and crude. all art and beauty's been stripped. it's a real chore to sit through. truly lowest common denominator kinda shit.

my family is by and large a very faithful lot. several ministers (mostly baptist) in there, including my dad. i pretty much avoid this kinda talk with them. you have to pick your battles. and i would never try to convince them of anything. like their "walk with christ," it's a personal journey. they might think me a heathen, but so be it. they still love me.

no i'm the same way, i enjoy service.

there's a lot to a service besides the religion.

in threads like this it becomes clear very quickly that youre all using different dictionaries

^

Absolutely.

my science is too tight

xp For one, I'm using "dogma" interchangeably with "strongly held belief." Which is why I'm saying that atheists are as dogmatic as believers. Both strongly believe in their point of view. And that's why I thought that Mackro's rejoinder "how is agnosticism not dogmatic?" was a good question.

is it weird of me as an atheist to occasionally enjoy a good ritual/service?

Why would it be?

Also, from this thread it seems like a lot of people are on the same page in terms of their attitudes/beliefs, but some are more comfortable calling themselves atheists and some aren't. Personally I avoid the term because it does seem so absolute, and doesn't recognize the degree to which I am open to the possibility of the "something else" ledge mentions, even if such a thing is unlikely. It's sort of like how I can never imagine calling myself straight, despite dating a woman and being far more attracted to women than to men: it's just too limiting.

So, I'm a rather dogmatically rationalist atheist, but I really like gospel music.

I'm totally ok with the concept of atheism and all the supposed dogma it entails, I just want to self-apply the label for the same reason I don't get the word "Liberal" tattooed on my arm. Too Garofalo for my tastes.

No, science as a social institution is irrelevant. Social ain't got a thing to do with it. Science is too busy with biotech right now to chat much.
-- kenanYou seem to be joking to some extent or another, but I can't quite parse it. Biotech is hardly the only active scientific field at the moment. And science is social by nature (peer review, shared findings, competition). It's social in that it helps define the shared beliefs of all human societies, beliefs shared even by scientists themselves. And in that sense, science (scientific understandings, not the scientific method itself) can be dogmatic, hostile to threat or change.

I just DONT want to self-apply etc

keep doing that italics-instead-of-quotes thing

http://www.jxflagg.com/images/unicorn.jpg

xpost No, you're right.

But the idea of science in the popular imagibation or what have you is completely disconnected from what scientists actually do when they go to work every day, if only for the reason that most people don't and/or can't and/or won't understand it. So it's social in the confines of its own very insular community, but to the world at large, the curtain is drawn and wondrous objects magically appear from time to time. I can't even explain how a cathode ray tube works (in much detail), and that's a 50 year old product of science.

So you were saying "social institution" meaning "the insular scientific community," and I was thinking of it as a larger part of the social cloth, which, really, it isn't.

After years of dithering, it was a relief to just say, "I'm an atheist." I grew up in a moderately Catholic household and endured a Stephen Dedalus-esque moment of intense religiosity through most of my adolescence. I'm like Buñuel: I've too much of an atheist not to adore the ritual and romance.

i'm an atheist, yet i just can't get enough of this delicious manna! problem?

God and Science are mysteries to most people, but for very different reasons.

I just DONT want to self-apply etc

Oh, go on...I feel my side is losing out here because of semantics.

Taking sides... like getting into an argument between a Man U fan and an Arsenal fan when you don't give a shit about soccer.

Alfred, otm - after years of trying to sort out just what my personal belief system was, invariably in the context of one religious system or another, it was freeing to acknowledge that I don't believe in the existence of god, or gods.

yes. 100%

it's funny/depressing hearing people try to give some rational explanation as to why god exists.

here are some corkers: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM "THE MATRIX"
(1) We cannot prove that we don't live in a Matrix-like world.
(2) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(3) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MASS PRODUCTION
(1) Barbie dolls were created.
(2) If Barbie dolls were created, then so were trees.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I voted no, coz like I'm not.

I propose a counter-poll, getting to it more directly.

Is there God and/or Gods?

* Yes
* No

ARGUMENT FROM "THE MATRIX"
(1) We cannot prove that we don't live in a Matrix-like world.
(2) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(3) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I don't get the leap in logic from #3 to #4 here.

Is there God and/or Gods?

* No

then DIIIIIIIIIIIEEE! ~~~~~~~ZZZZZZZZZ~~~~~ZZ~~Z#$%^$%^%#$#$##$#

I believe there could well be some sort of benign creator God who has just left us alone to get on with it. No heaven, no hell. I also think, that if people believe in something, then to them it exists, therefore I would 'yes' there is a God/Gods. Obviously, I got this idea from Marvel comics and their take on the Norse mythology in the Earth X series. Finally, I wouldn't actually mind if there was a loving all powerful God and life eternal, that'd be really cool, but probably wishful thinking.

Oily, how long does it take you to make a two-choice poll?

jaymc, he leap from #3 to #4 depends on conflating "everything is possible" with "everything is actual".

if you believe something, then it exists?

i don't think so.

that'd be nice, but no.