30th January 2011

“There is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. Atheism is simply the non-acceptance of claims that a deity exists. There is no creed to follow to be an atheist, no sacred truths, and no dogma. If you believe a god or gods exist you are a theist. If not you are an atheist. There is no other qualification required. Is that really so hard to understand?”

Mark Allen

10 Responses to “30th January 2011”

  1. GreatEighthSin Says:

    Apparently so. Atheism is as much of a religious preference as marking “no preference”, yet so many theists are wrapped up in the fact that somebody HAS to believe in something, that they forget that it’s possible to believe in nothing. Then again, you can find these exact same problems in sexuality, gender, politics, and so much more…

  2. Dan Says:

    I find it easier to describe myself as the school of philosophy I do ascribe to. I identify well with the Epicureans, moreso than with the Stoics, Cynics or Skeptics in Ancient Greek philosophy.

  3. archaeopteryx Says:

    Can’t add anything to that. To use the old riposte, I’m also a non-stamp-collector.

  4. Brian Says:

    I agree.

    But I think the problem ultimately lies with the fact that most religious people seem to think of the god model as the null set. In other words we are born that way; it is self evident, etc.
    With this reasoning they can conclude to themselves that those that don’t believe in the god model are adding something and therefore believing IN something.

    It takes no effort to believe the ‘null set’ everything else requires proof. Unfortunately they just get the logic backward and state all their arguments with the form that they hold the null set and atheists do not.
    This type of illogical reasoning is very frustrating to deal with and correct, hence why they think all atheists are angry.

    We are playing chess and all the while they have been playing checkers, and then they get angry when we tell them that the pawns can’t jump over pieces diagonally!

  5. trolling tech Says:

    There is nothing about an atheist that’s hard to understand.They are indeed purely stated?” SIMPLE” The quote proves that.

  6. Dan Says:

    I hesitate to say this, but “well said” Tech. Indeed, atheism isn’t complicated.

  7. Ernie Says:

    Well said Tech.

    I think theists paint atheists with a religious beliefs so that they can then knock it down. Make the claim that theirs is better.

  8. Karsh Says:

    I have to agree. I think we do ourselves some disservice though by qualifying our lack of belief with terms such as gnostic, agnostic, strong & weak. We create some of this complication our selves.


  9. Aerandir Says:

    True, however I think that the more popular atheism is, the harder it becomes to agree with this quote. But one thing I like about atheism is that you can’t really speak “on behalf of atheists” whereas it would be likely to do in most of religions.

  10. Karsh Says:

    I keep running into things such as the difference between charismatic, non-denominational, evangelical, apostolic, protestant, orthodox, and the list goes on and on. It’s impossible to speak to “the religious” as all of them are saying those aren’t “really” christian because they do/believe/act …. I understand the use of gnostic, agnostic, strong and weak but it bothers me that we appear to be copying the theist in our division.