Ashamed to label myself an Atheist

One problem with this statement here is (and a lot of people do this these days) the tendency to confuse groups with categories. Atheism is not a community or a belief system, its a position.
Like if we traveled back in time to the days of the debate between heliocentrism and geocentrism, you couldn’t say “I don’t use the label ‘heliocentrist’, I prefer the label ‘sun-centrist’, because I feel like a lot of heliocentrists are bigotted toward geocentrists.”

The debate-position of thinking the sun is at the center of the Solar System is not a ‘community’ or a ‘group’ with a shared identity…criticizing the other position (the Earth is at the center of the Solar SYstem) cannot be a hateful or bigotted endeavor. If I say “Geocentrism is idiocy” and people take offense to that, than WOW, such are fools who invest identity and meaning into stuff thats ridiculous.

This is a RED HERRING. Again, going back to the earlier analogy (Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism), if the earth is not, in fact at the center of the Solar System, than you are wrong for thinking it is. Maintaining a view that is wrong makes you a MORALLY REPUGNANT PERSON in itself. It is immoral to maintain false views in its self, even if you happen to be a good person otherwise.

If I get a speeding ticket, I can’t do a “Whataboutism” and say I didn’t kill anyone. If I am wrong for believing in shit without evidence to support it, I can’t say that I am not a bad person just because I don’t fuck up in other ways.

If I said that believing the Earth was flat gave me “peace” does that justify me holding that belief? Besides, this confuses SUFFICIENCY with NECESSITY…even if holding the false belief that the Earth is flat good demonstrably give me peace (it is SUFFICIENT to make me happy) does that mean that it is NECESSARY to give me peace (well, it gave one person peace, so I guess maintaining it is necessary…can’t have both worlds where peace is found and round-earth is maintained…nope, one or the other).

I try not to thrive on provoking anyone, though if someone has a belief that is risible non-sense I am going to say it.

As for Sam Harris, you seem to be confusing groups with categories again. I am an ‘atheist’ (small ‘a’, it describes a particular position I hold, and doesn’t define other aspects of me) not an ‘Neo-Atheist’ (note capital ‘A’, which is a philosophy, that includes many propositions, only one of which is little-a atheism). I can be one without the other.



Excellent post, thanks .

Sadly, a matter of smoke on the wind I suspect.

I can’t claim that believers generally are willfully ignorant or a bit dimwitted .However, I do claim that tends to be the case with the believers who inflict themselves on this and other atheists forums. To that I add insufferably arrogant and patronising .

I do my best to respect all other people as people. That respect applies to believers,as long as my respect is returned. That does not mean I feel obliged to respect their personal superstitions. Anyone who comes here spaying drivel all over the place WILL be called on it.

Perhaps Tu quoque to mention BUT, from personal experience:We treat believers with far more tolerance and respect than atheist are treated on believers’ forums .I’ve been on two christian sites; lasted an hour before being banned. Also joined an Egyptology forum , not noticing it was based in Cairo. Said the Quran is not history book— lots of abuse and a fucking death threat.

1 Like

What? Surely it is. It is a group or community all making a positive assertion about the world in which they live. They all “believe” the same thing. They all “debate” the same position.

Your analogy fails. Atheism is not a “Positive” position on anything. If your group of people who assert the sun in the center of the universe were to run into a “non-believer” (the meaning of the word atheist) they would find the atheist only asking for evidence of their claim. Failing to produce sufficient evidence the atheist would remain atheist. Were sufficient evidence presented, the atheist would become a believer.

Atheism, (non-belief) in a claim, is the default position. We are all born into a position of non-belief. From this position we either accept claims or reject them.

Heliocentrists and Geocentrists are both making positive claims about their beliefs about the world. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in such claims.


So, I can see where the OP is coming from and respect their opinion…

However, I personally use the term ‘atheist’ as it is what is bestowed upon me by others, due to my complete non belief in magical sky wizards.

Personally I don’t even feel ‘atheist’ is even required, because the notion of a god/gods, is so incredible ridiculous, that it warrant absolutely zero respect.

If our laws and cultures were based upon the books of Peter Pan, we would be equally perturbed.

Religion served a very primitive early purpose, in mass control and trying to explaining the world we reside within (albeit a piss poor attempt).

The more time moves on and we still have entire swathes of the world ingrained by theistic dogma, the more annoying the notion becomes.

I find it staggering that in this day and age, there are grown adults that believe in this bollocks.

I’m all fine with religions being present, but they should have no impact on societal structures and laws, they should not be exempt from tax, they should not have an influence other then upon the delude fuck wits that attend their gatherings.

As always, I maintain im fine with anyone believing, just shut the fuck up about it and keep it to yourselves.


Hi there, I’m a newly arrived here.
I’m typing from Italy, pope’s country. We’re a monarchy, but nobody knows it :crazy_face:
Let me ask you a question. Talking about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, rather than the Boogey man or the Tooth Fairy…
What about your feeling about them? If someone would ever ask you about that, what would you reply?
Do you believe in them? Yes or no? And why?

Uh, believe in them? In what sense? Yes I “believe” they are animated cartoon characters drawn by various artists, and voiced - hell even met the actors that dress like them to project them into Disneyland. All for human entertainment.

Personally, I love Disney.

1 Like

That’s the point!
Why you doubt about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, The Boogey Man and the Thoot fairy?

1 Like

Tooth fairy, sorry. I’m italian mother tongue

Doubt? Who said I doubt? I defined how and why I believe.

No problem with Thoot (I just said it with an italian accent in my head) :smiley:

There are stories and movies about both. How could I say they don’t “exist” in some way within our reality. An imaginative story made real (only of as as a parent you preform the act of removing the tooth).

So does the idea of god exist - sure. Lots of evidence of that. Is it beyond human imagination - no evidence of that.

Okay, sorry. Explaining my thoughts in english is harder than I figured out. Why people think about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck… as human being’s invented caracteres?

1 Like

Welcome to Atheist Republic Pablito

I do not doubt. For all four examples, I fully understand that they were the creations of people’s imaginations, and for each, there was a specific reason for being invented. I know they are not real.

Ewwwwwww Shrewd… Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , Yes. God has about the same status “For Me” as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or the Boogey Man. The problem arises when you have this shit crammed into your head as a child and grow up thinking it’s real.

An adult who is afraid of the dark because the boogey man is under his bed, has a psychological problem. Anyone believing that there really was a Micky Mouse and Donald Duck who got together one day and created Disney Land one day is making an extraordinary assertion and therefore responsible (bearing the burden of proof) to provide us with extraordinary evidence.

But why care about who created Disneyland? What myths do you want your children to grow up believing? Cartoon characters are real? Where do we draw the line with this fantasy idea? Are all cartoon Characters real or Just Micky and Donald? What about the Transformer Cult? Can you explain Buggs Bunny and his followers?

There is something about a mind infected with religion or Belief in Micky and Donald that allows that mind to continue making other decisions based on those beliefs. Perhaps many of the decisions these people make are benign. Then again, which way are Micky and Donald voters going to vote when the school board tries to emphasize critical thinking and rationality in the school science classes?

While this God thing has no meaning beyond that of a cartoon character ‘to me.’ The fact that others deem this bullshit as real has a very real impact on my life. “That’s the point.”


And which was the specif reason to invent an invisible man or woman? Who created the whole universe from nothing? Who and why created him, her or them?

No one believe in Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Bugs Bunny. Whoever believe in them as real characters would be considered a fool

I care about “Disneyland” and its believers because they affected my whole childhood. That’s the point.

To imagine a thing it doesn’t make it real. And that’s not a proof of it

1 Like

I answered that. You have missed it. Beliefs affect actions. It’s that simple. Go back and read my post again. No one cares what beliefs affected your childhood. What idiotic shit are you still carrying around with you? That is the stuff that will have an influence on your life and on the lives of those around you.

Micky Mouse and Donald Duck were animated characters, the reason to make money for Walt Disney. The boogeyman was invented to frighten children, to control them, to keep them from being troublesome. The tooth fairy was invented as a reward for being nice.


That implies an intelligent agent that created this universe. It also assumes this universe was created, came out of nothing.

I do not subscribe to that line of thought, I follow the science, and as for the creation of this known universe, as science has shown, we do not know. Maybe one day science will be able to solve that riddle. But for now, I am comfortable understanding that we do not know.

Once upon a time we did not know the cause of lightning and thunder. So religion just made up stuff. Only thousands of years later did we learn the cause. Science has come up with a very rational explanation, it fits all laws of physics with no contradictions.

Religion just makes up stuff, and it has been proven to be very wrong at times.

Pablito is beginning to sound like a Troll: Bullshit questions to simply continue the thread.

Why “who”? First establish this…