It amazes me sometimes, how often I may get the same old arguments, or ideas of what I believe or do not believe.
Far too often, I try to explain that I do not believe in gods, yet I am met with messages like these;
There are two popular definitions of atheism out there;
- The belief that there is no god
- The lack of belief that there is a god
You might say there is no difference between them, but the difference is subtle, but yet important to remember.
I fall into the the latter category, of a lack of belief, I do not actively have to not to believe in a god, I just do not believe.
It might be hard for a believer to understand this, if they cannot recall or have ever not believed in a god, but there are many things that they do not believe in. Do they have to make an active effort every day or now and then, to not believe in those things?
One label such as atheism says little of who I am, and what I believe in, because I do believe in certain ideals, which have no supernatural origin or controlled by an entity.
@POCOYOSMILE made another mistake, in his message towards me, he capitalized the word BELIEVE, where he should have done that with “DON’T”, which hopefully would make him see, that I do not believe.
Whenever a believer ask me, if I believe in a god, my typical answer would be, “I do not know if there are any gods, but I do not believe there are any gods.”
If you want to use a quick label, you could call me an agnostic atheist, the problem with this label is that many do not know what it means exactly. The misrepresentation of atheists and agnostics alike, by believers, make it hard to use quick labels, so I prefer to explain in greater details.
Agnosticism and Atheism are NOT mutual exclusive, you can be both, agnosticism is not a magical middle ground, it is different part of your belief, that represents your knowledge, or perceived knowledge in the matter of the existences of gods.
To finally cement the argument against @POCOYOSMILE is if you called believing in gods, is a hobby, then not believing would be equal to not having a hobby.
So what @POCOYOSMILE says is that by not having a hobby, you have a hobby. Which is absurd at best.
Just like asymmetry is not a kind of symmetry, it is a lack of symmetry.
To end my post, I want to ask a question, why is it, that so many believers are so set at equating atheism as a belief?
I think personally that they want to have atheism on equal footing as their own belief, so they can dismiss it, by saying, that atheism is just another belief that some have chosen, and holds as much merit as their own belief.
Can they not imagine that someone actually do not believe?
I just received the email today that verified my membership of Danish Atheist Society.
Does this grant me any particular superpowers or privileges? Not really.
Why then? First of all, I want to support a good cause, and secondly I always wanted to be a member of an organization that I can say, “I support!”.
Hopefully it may provide me with some tools and community for some awesome things to come in the future.
My first plan is to mingle with the 1371 other members, as much as possible, I know very little of the Danish atheist communities. That I know, are from friends and from Youtube.
It also seems rather dormant in Facebook, but religion is such a non-issue in Denmark, so I hope it is not the cruel face of apathy that has struck.
If so, I would like to blow the glow, so it will create a new fire.
I have on numerous occassions been called a “militant” atheist, on JesusRadio.dk they have talked about “militant” atheists and none of the times there has been an elaboration of what they actually mean about it. Because it seems that their definition of militant is that if you are skeptical, outspoken, or question religion in some manner, you are militant.
Would it not be a wonderful if the religious militants were militants in the same manner that “militant” atheists were. Asking questions and be skeptical to all claims. Hold lectures, publish books, generally outspoken…" It does make one wonder, when religious people call atheists as being militant, what do they mean? Do they honestly mean that they are as bad as their religious militant counter-part? What if people that were militant about their religion, people that use violence in the name of their god claims, what if these people just held lecture, were outspoken, and denounced violence, would it not be better?
I do not think it is fair to call atheists militant, unless they are actually militant as in the popular definition, that it is someone that do not uses arguments for their cause, but rather violence, and trying to bully or use fear to get people to change their opinions.
AskAnAtheist had a good episode about this issue, and I do recommend people to check it out.