Wednesday's "What They Really Believe": Real Atheists vs Asinine Atheists (The Struggle to Remove All Forms of Nonsense from The Collective Atheist Mindset)

Today's post is brought to you today by God

If he can't convince you to believe in him, he sure will try to get you to believe in many of his other idiotic ideas.


Let us pray

Now let us begin.













Despite my recent "conversion" -  from agnosticism to atheism -  I already see several issues in the Atheist community. By community, I mean anyone who consider themselves atheist. I hear many complaints about the so-called community. We are generally considered to be negative people. I do see a pessimistic view of theism, but not of the world as a whole. I have also heard about our lack of ability to organize. I have heard over and over again about how organizing atheists is "like herding cats". There are an infinite number of reasons why this is so. If I were to attempt to list these reasons, I might as well try counting the hairs on my daughters head. Organization should be the least of any percieved community of atheists. In order to have any type of community, you have to be able to define what you are. This should come before ideas, opinions, leadership, discussion and action. There is no existense without definition. Atheism needs definition. Not your grandma's dictionary definition, but a meaning that can put all your hopes and dreams of a secular society possible.

People see this as counterproductive because it makes atheism appear more akin to a religion. I have to call bullshit on that one. First of all, I am not even finish with my fucking article, so wait until the final period of the last sentence is typed. Second, those of you who feel it makes it akin to religion, I need to ask why? Doesn't every single organization (or even movement for that matter) define it's name and title? People call me African-American because there is a 100% chance that the majority of my ancestors were recently plucked from Africa around 400 years ago. This is pretty much a no brainer. I could go into semantics about how "We Are All Africans" as Richard Dawkins so eloquently stated and displayed in a t-shirt on Bill Maher a few weeks ago. I don't get into semantics because the implication is clear. There is crystal clarity with that racial classification. It would be foolish to go any further discussing African and American. It has a clear, easy to understand definition that -while all may not agree 100%- is acceptable by the majority of society. The word atheist can claim no such convenience.



Definition is so beneficial. for everyone. It does so much. It explains everything that a person says. What we say always must have meaning. Having a good definition is also helpful with basic communication. How out there hasn't fucked up a words meaning totally. We even do it in mispelling words. Some people (ME) have to keep reminding themselves that "their, there, and they're" are totally different words. It is also immensely helpful in debates, discussions and arguments. If you decide that you want to argue with a person and you don't have a good grasp of the English language, you will get annihilated by your opponent. Think of the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Governor Palin got her ass handed to her because she had no clue what the hell she was talking about half the time. Only if she recieved a high school Economics text book. She might have won. Highly unlikely. However the point is meaning is the foundation of our progress. A dictionary is a good start. But are dictionaries the final statement? Can we improve existing definitions? We can and do this all the time. I can and will attempt to do this with the word "atheism" tonight.


Let's take a look at the definition of atheist and atheism by our friends Noah Webster with George and Charles Webster.

atheist

: one who believes that there is no deity

atheism

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

When these two "definitions" appeared, all I saw was a bunch of problems and trouble. The first issue is the fact that it really doesn't even define atheism as I know it. Atheists do not typically believe in anything. Also, the basic linguistics of the first definition is contradictory. I don't see how you can believe in a negative. If you can, help me out. Ironically, wikipedia.org gives amuch more adequate definition of atheism.

Atheism, most inclusively defined, is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[1] In a less broad sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[2] In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[3]

That is how most people that I have encountered would define atheism. However, most atheists replace "deites" with "creator God" or some variation. I asked several different non-believers and they usually say that they consider atheism "The lack of belief in a supreme being or creator" This frustrates me because most atheists only see "God" as the Judeo-Christian, "In the begining", Genesis version of God. This is one God (of many) that is Monotheistic. Being a singular God means that Yahweh created (and later destroyed), controls, manipulates the world and can also transcend space and time. There are also many magical or supernatural feats that this god can perform in an instant.

What about all the other Gods who do not claim "The Creator" title? There are Several Egyptian, Roman and Greek Gods that we are all familiar with, but almost immediately disregard as the relic of the past. They just did a lot of fucking, drinking, partying, and invading people's privacy like the NSA. For example Cupid didn't seem to create anything. He just was placed in charge of love and some bad ass archery. Does atheism only rely on the lack of belief in an intelligent designer? Why does it focus on the Abrahamic God so much? Why does it have to stop there?


Let me quickly answer the first two questions at the end of the previous paragraph with one response. Atheists generally view God in the way that their culture views God. Therefore, they tend to have tunnel vision and reject that concept of God. You can see this in most of the literature, comedy, artwork, rhetoric, groups, and youtube videos. There are plenty of people who believe in Hindu Gods, worship Satan, or deify people, places or things. All of these concepts seem to be able to jitterbug through human the conscience without even a Penn and Teller Bullshit episode.

Not here people. On the world famous Dark Skin Disbeliever blog you will not be bombarded with constant references to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This a an equal opportunity insulter. The Monday Morning Moron will always give you irrational idiots who believe in a wide array of illogical lunacy from the past and present. My Freedom From Religion Friday's will continue to be dedicated to ranting about whatever tickles my atheistic fancy for the week. Finally (in non-chronological order) is today's blog "Wednesday's What They Really Believe" where I tackle certain aspects of belief, religion, logic, or any other thought that may not coincide with my view of a possible utopian view of the world. I refuse to be like the other blogs. If yo are unsatisfied with the product, we have a 100% money back guarantee. When you think of player hating in religion, think of me.


I do not stop at religion, deites, supreme beings, or Kobe Bryant. I see many non-religious, non-theistic, concepts as totally contrary to the atheistic mentality. By "atheistic mentality" I am referring to the mindset of atheists, how they view the universe, and their logical reasons for reaching those conclusions. I have stated before the ways and means in which one should decide on atheism. The decision should defintely be based on logic, reason, common sense, and very careful consideration. It should not be based on things such as emotion, instinct, or even parent/guardian indoctrination. This is because, as humans, we make decisions based on our personalities and personal views. Atheism is not a personal matter. It deals with the reality of the universe, without passion or prejudice, reguardless of time, location, race, gender, or culture. Atheism is the truth until we have proof that shows us otherwise.


Eventhough I am a blogger, I am not that "social network" savvy. I have to figure out how to meet people on here. Most people have been very kind and supportive. However I have to learn to find new ways to get more people following my page. The Twitter is going slow and I have not become a member of the more sophisticated blogs, groups, or real organizations. Facebook is my outlet. I have joined all of the big atheist groups. One of my favorites is "The Thinking Atheist" by some dude. The show is pretty decent aside from the technical difficulties. He really has that "classic rock" radio voice and has great enthusiasm for atheism in general. He had a show this past Saturday "Can Atheists Believe in Ghosts?". I usually don't indulge in these type of discussions for reasons that I will discuss later in this article.  I was slightly interested and decided to call in. I think the call in went well. Click here if you would like to hear my sexy voice. I am the first caller, so you know. It goes downhill after me.

After listening to the podcast, I decided to do my own non-scientific research and ask a few of my atheist buddies a few questions. I was quite certain that the "ghost" hypothesis was nonsense and most atheists do not believe in ghosts. Furthermore, I imagined that the did not believe in spirits, souls, angels, demons, or any being that does not apply to the traditional two Kingdom biology system.

I was suprised to find that many of my friends, counterparts, and so called atheists did in fact believe in the above mentioned beings including concepts such as the afterlife. In fact, this is the type of discussion that occurs very often in atheist blogs, skeptickal inquiry websites, free thinking Facebook pages, and the similar sites on the Information Sper Highway. They tend to use words like "I feel" and "something tells me"  or "there is this gut feeling that" a concept like the afterlife exists. I should stop using concept. Superstitious belief is a better word. I hate to label things when it is not necessary to do so. Many people would probably call these type of atheists "semi-atheists" or quasiatheists. I call the human beings because to even consider them atheist is generous to say the least.

For the purpose of humor and criticism I will refer to these human beings as AAs or"Assenine Atheists"



I tend not to engage AAs in in discussion because it is so frustrating. They already feel thay they are members of the intellectual community, so they feel that their comments should be taken into consideration. Some of my buddies try to have conversations with AAs and it usually ends bad. Because they are considered atheists, true atheists attempt to use science, logic, reason, and skepticism to disprove their superstitious beliefs. Anytime that I have made the decision to interject, I boldly state that these people are NOT atheists at all. This always gives AAs (or people who are sympathetic to AAs) to attack me with their outdated "textbook definition" of atheism. The argument is that atheism only requires the person to not believe in a higher power. I strongly disagree. All superstitions believe in a higher power. Allow me to explain.

Science  is the ultimate truth. It does not explain everything, but it studies, tests, and observes all things in the universe. It is the best thing we have to understand what's going on. It is a part of every single aspect of our existence because it is not a created discipline. Its truths and facts exists even if we do not. I referring to the behavorial/social sciences, natural sciences, and even the formal sciences. These sciences have laws. These laws require

 These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

So far, none of this bullshit has stood up to science. It can't even stand up to basic common sense. All of these concepts are clearly learned from generation to generation. Some have survived, many have been discarded. The point is, these concepts are certainly based upon fantasy. Disproving something is almost impossible in terms of spititual views. You do not need to disprove anything. These concepts have no validity and should not be allowed into intelligent atheistic conversation. If you subscribe to one of the ideas, you need to accept them all into your councious.

My conclusion is that these people are not atheists. They are illogical human beings. They can not be taken seriously. These AAs are a distraction to the movement of atheism. It is now time for the word to be redifined. So far, this is all I have.

Atheism: the rejection of beliefs, concepts, and ideas that cannot be tested for it's validity as observable phenomena.

Thank's Asia B. for helping me brainstorm that definition.

I know it sounds pretty weak. I am not a linguist. I need help with this. I have laid the groundwork. Now it's time for my fellow atheists with English training to help me out.

I am not concerned with sublabels. These are also distractions and only widen the gap between New Atheists, Agnostic Atheists, Fringe Atheists, and Sesame Street Atheists.


I totally understand there are flaws in my argument. I am not here to defend myself. Tear me apart on this. You can do everything up to and including cruxifiction. I still think we need a new definition. If we can get that done and out of the way, we can really begin working on changing the world.




Thoughts?





































Also because it sounds too much like semen.