Labels: Atheist/Vegan - Why are they scary to some?

[EquALLity]

You can have some serious fun fcking with people, Red.
Inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4qCI9863c

On the contrary, my school is generally accepting.

[dinnermeal]

My friend states that she doesn't believe in God, nor follow any religion, yet she denies that she is an Atheist. Is this possible?

She can deny it all she wants, but by definition she is an atheist. Perhaps it's because atheists have a bad name that she wouldn't want to associate herself with the group.

Okay, thanks. Maybe she thinks Atheism is a religion of its own.

[thebestofenergy]

Okay, thanks. Maybe she thinks Atheism is a religion of its own.

When I was a kid, and I didn't believe in any deity, I refused to call myself an atheist as well.
I tought that atheism was a group that had its own rules and agenda, and I didn't want to be part of anything like that.
Then I realised that I was atheist by definition.

[Lightningman_42]

My friend states that she doesn't believe in God...

That's exactly what it means to be an atheist. She is likely under the impression that an atheist is someone who firmly believes that no God or gods exist(s). This is unfortunately an extremely common misconception. The term "atheist" simply indicates that someone lacks the belief that God or gods do exist(s). It doesn't tell you anything about what positive beliefs a person does hold. Perhaps you can explain the word "atheist" to your friend like this.

[Lightningman_42]

When I was a kid, and I didn't believe in any deity, I refused to call myself an atheist as well.
I tought that atheism was a group that had its own rules and agenda, and I didn't want to be part of anything like that.
Then I realised that I was atheist by definition.

Same with me. I've been an atheist my whole life; long before I even knew what the word means.

[inator]

well i think there are two in-use definitions of the word atheist: a person who lacks belief in a god, or a person who believes that no god exists. those who consider themselves atheists tend to use the former definition and people who believe in a god tend to use the latter.
i personally always prefer to be more specific and call myself an agnostic atheist. that's because i reject any suggestion that i or anyone else might possess a categorical and unconditional truth on any subject.
also people are usually more interested in hearing you out and finding out what that means rather that just blocking out anything you say because you're just "another one of those atheists".

[EquALLity]

well i think there are two in-use definitions of the word atheist: a person who lacks belief in a god, or a person who believes that no god exists. those who consider themselves atheists tend to use the former definition and people who believe in a god tend to use the latter.
i personally always prefer to be more specific and call myself an agnostic atheist. that's because i reject any suggestion that i or anyone else might possess a categorical and unconditional truth on any subject.
also people are usually more interested in hearing you out and finding out what that means rather that just blocking out anything you say because you're just "another one of those atheists".

Hey, you should make an intro!

Also, some people who self-identify as atheists say they are just non-religious.

I've never seen someone who goes by 'atheist' just say they know there is no god. Religious people like to assert that we claim the knowledge, though.

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome,
Yes, you should post an intro.

that's because i reject any suggestion that i or anyone else might possess a categorical and unconditional truth on any subject.

Why is that rejection itself not an assertion of unconditional categorical truth?

There are some things we must know, by necessity, to make any sense of anything due to logic itself. The existence of 'God' just isn't one of those things, as presuppositionalists claim.

people who believe in a god tend to use the latter.

That's because the latter is easier to attack since it's a stronger claim, and also easier to marginalize since it's rarer. Titles and self-identity are a big thing. If you can convince a self-described atheist that he or she isn't technically an "atheist" due to semantics, you have a better chance at convincing (read, tricking) him or her into believing/accepting that god exists (even just probably).

also people are usually more interested in hearing you out and finding out what that means rather that just blocking out anything you say because you're just "another one of those atheists".

Also, they hear "agnostic" to mean you're undecided on the matter, and that you might be vulnerable to proselytism. Some people only listen as a pretext to speak.
Not that there's anything wrong with that (on either side). If using 'agnostic' helps open doors to conversation, that's great.

[inator]

Thanks to you both for the suggestion, I've just posted my introduction.

Why is that rejection itself not an assertion of unconditional categorical truth? There are some things we must know, by necessity, to make any sense of anything due to logic itself. The existence of 'God' just isn't one of those things, as presuppositionalists claim.

You're right, I have thought about the paradox of stating "The absolute truth is no one knows the absolute truth" many times and haven't really found a way around it.
Methodologically, it is impossible to prove (just like it's impossible to prove that there is no god, or even the Tooth Fairy really), and that's because it's easier to prove an existence rather than a non-existence - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim to know an absolute truth.
I can only say that, due to the lack evidence that the unconditional categorical truth is known, the probability of it being known is small enough to discard the statement.

By truth I do not mean observational truths ("this pen is red"), but categorical ones - universal statements and therefore falsifiable ones. Science is progressing by the successive rejection of falsified theories and falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. It's always been like that - Aristotelian mechanics was replaced by Galileo's, then by the Newtonian mechanics, then by the Youngian wave theory of light, in turn replaced by Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's special relativity. Now we have quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle etc.

And by all that I simply mean that it's never a bad idea to keep an open mind and refrain from claiming that your present truth is absolute.

That's because the latter is easier to attack since it's a stronger claim, and also easier to marginalize since it's rarer.

I agree. I also think that, just because the first definition suits us better, we shouldn't simply negate the existance of the latter. It's exactly what some religious people do when they assume that the latter definition is true when they hear the word "atheist".

I often get the impression that many atheists who have been raised that way (they're probably a bit more common here in Europe) have not actually put much thought into their own beliefs but have simply inherited the belief system of their culture - not very different from what many religious people do. It's interesting to have a conversation with them, because some are taken by surprise by the term "agnostic atheist" and do not really differentiate between not having a religious belief and believing that there is no god.

[brimstoneSalad]

You're right, I have thought about the paradox of stating "The absolute truth is no one knows the absolute truth" many times and haven't really found a way around it.

The best way is to not make such claims at all.
For all you know, somebody might know absolute truth, and be able to substantiate it.

That's one valid criticism theists make of some atheists - claim to absolute knowledge that nobody has absolute knowledge of anything.

Methodologically, it is impossible to prove (just like it's impossible to prove that there is no god, or even the Tooth Fairy really), and that's because it's easier to prove an existence rather than a non-existence - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim to know an absolute truth.

It's possible to use logic to prove something false when that thing violates logic through contradiction. In this way, the logical possibility of the existence of these things depends on their definitions. The empirical reality is subservient to that; anything that is logically impossible must also be empirically false.
However, on the flip side, just because something is not shown to be logically impossible, doesn't mean it is empirically true (or logically possible in actuality; you might have missed a contradiction somewhere).

In this way, logic works in a different way from empiricism, practically, proving (absolutely) things to be false, instead of providing evidence (provisionally) for things to be true (or discrediting that evidence).

I can only say that, due to the lack evidence that the unconditional categorical truth is known, the probability of it being known is small enough to discard the statement.

False; without any empirical data on the subject, we do not know and can not evaluate probability. Probability is an empirical matter, based on evidence for or against something.

In terms of rational analysis, however, we should prefer simpler explanations, even without empirical evidence; i.e. Occam's razor. And this is why a rational person should practically disregard these prospects.

By truth I do not mean observational truths ("this pen is red"), but categorical ones - universal statements and therefore falsifiable ones.

They exist in terms of logic.

There are statements that are absolutely true by logical necessity.
Most apologists believe their god is true by logical necessity; but they fail to demonstrate this through logical proof (to the contrary, every definition they propose has been debunked, proved logically contradictory, or rejected as not resembling common usage).

And by all that I simply mean that it's never a bad idea to keep an open mind and refrain from claiming that your present truth is absolute.

In empirical matters, that's usually a good call. Although in philosophical and logical matters, any demonstrated truth is by its nature absolute, unless there is a fallacy or contradiction in its demonstration.

I also think that, just because the first definition suits us better, we shouldn't simply negate the existance of the latter.

The latter are also atheists, but it's not an appropriate definition of atheism, because atheism includes both groups. The more inclusive definition is the more useful and appropriate one.

We should reject incorrect definitions, because they cause people to be misinformed and misunderstand the situation.

It's exactly what some religious people do when they assume that the latter definition is true when they hear the word "atheist".

Not at all. They are being exclusive and presumptuous, we are being inclusive and abstaining from making assumptions regarding the person's active rejection/disbelief.

They are, simply, wrong.

I often get the impression that many atheists who have been raised that way (they're probably a bit more common here in Europe) have not actually put much thought into their own beliefs but have simply inherited the belief system of their culture - not very different from what many religious people do.

It's probably fair to say that most people just don't think much about anything. They probably never considered the difference.