When I tell people I am an atheist it is extremly hard to bring the words out of my mouth because it comes with so much criticism. In most responses I get "Oh, no" or "thats not right", something along those lines. I feel like I have to have a long drawn out discuss with people when faced with the question of religion because there are so many believers out there. So I'm wondering how does everyone also handle situations like this? Do you have to always defend yourself, your nonbelief? How should I handle, or what should I say the next time someone questions me about this and tries to belittle me for not believing in God? I'm sick of explaining myself to people who are religious!
Michael, we've been over this. That's an anti-theist, a subset of atheism. It's just like moral, amoral, and immoral. Amoral does not mean that someone is doing the opposite of what is moral. Maybe one of these years you'll get that.
And if you're going to claim anti-theism, you may want to do a bit more legwork on backing up your claim. So far, I haven't seen anything even vaguely convincing.
You can't possibly be that serious, because what it seems that you imply is that I need evidence of why there is no god (as if you are not already an atheist?). Its not that I have a real problem with this discussion, its that I would expect to have this sort of discussion (if I wasn't afraid too to argue or talk enough in public) only with an average person or a serious theist or supernaturalist or a christian. I also feel it would be nice to have some elegant philosophical arguments for why god is imaginary, but even without such arguments, if you can just stand to transcend this discussion and just look at the actual facts about the universe, then of course there is no god, and sure, god does talk to some people, but the talking is just imaginary, a symptom of a mental disorder.
In my dialect or the way I use English, I don't use "amoral, I only use "moral" and "immoral," but if I do hear "amoral" then I understand it to be a synonym of "immoral." (a lot of what we think of as morality is actually based on christian or possibly Jewish religious beliefs and may be imaginary or invalid or unhealthy).
"Immoral" and "amoral" are not synonyms. With respect to actions: Randomly murdering someone is, on most accounts of morality, immoral--it violates morality. Painting a portrait is amoral--morality doesn't demand it, but neither does it violate morality. With respect to people: Someone characterized as immoral is someone who deliberately violates the speaker's or society's moral code; someone characterized as amoral is someone who simply doesn't care about morality. The amoral person's actions may or may not be what morality would demand; his actions may or may not violate the prohibitions of moral law; but he doesn't take morality into account when deciding what to do.
As to God: There is a difficulty in discussing what is needed not merely for nonbelief that there is a God but for belief that there isn't one. The difficulty is that if you say "There is no Santa Claus," nobody gets upset and accuses you of having faith or of making too strong a statement, because, after all, nobody thinks that there really is a Santa Claus. The lack of evidence *for* a Santa Claus suffices for it to be unreasonable to think that there is a Santa Claus. When we go further and say that there is no Santa Claus, we're technically going too far, unless we have some reason to think that there isn't a Santa Claus; we should really just say that there's no reason to think that there is a Santa Claus and that therefore we shouldn't believe that there is one. But it's a lot quicker to say that there is no Santa Claus--which goes further but which nobody minds.
However, when it comes to saying "There is no God," there are people who *do* claim the contradictory and who *do* mind the shorthand way of putting it. So, we should be more careful and say merely that there is no good reason to think that there is a God (which, please note, some people dispute, at which point the argument is about the legitimacy of their purported reasons rather than about whether or not we should believe based on no evidence) and that we therefore shouldn't believe that there is one.
I do not agree with your phrasing "then of course there is no god, and sure, god does talk to some people, but the talking is just imaginary, a symptom of mental disorder." I would phrase it as "then of course we shouldn't believe that there is a God, and sure, some people have mental experiences that seem to them to be God-talking-to-them experiences, but those mental experiences are not caused by an actual God's actually talking to them but are instead merely imaginary, instances of mistaken ascription of an external cause (God) to a purely internal experience."
Every person speaks a slightly different language, but in the case of speakers of the "same" language, or at least in English, the differences are small and there is 99 or 99.9 something overlap or sameness between any two given speakers. So, that's the way your dialect works, and my dialect lacks the word amoral. Of course, any language can discuss any concept, its just that if a language lacks a single word for a concept, than it has to be described with a few words or a sentence or a few sentences or more, as necessary. (Other languages, like German, Italian, Slavic, and Hindi, are more like dialect continuums and there is a lot more differences between various dialects).
As for the non-existence of god, it is so odd that on an atheist website, someone would actually go through so much casuistry to make the claim that it is technically wrong to say that there is definitely no god. It is only wrong to say there is definitely no god, if by wrong you mean impolite to say in front of a theist or supernaturalist.
What you think I should say, "then of course we shouldn't believe that there is a God...and so on, halfway makes sense, but that is all just too much casuistry for me, and right now I'm reminded of the Yiddish phrase, "hak mir nit keyn chaynik" which means don't bang on a teakettle for me, or more loosely, don't scramble my brain around with so much nonsense or casuistry. Nu, so I don't see why we can't just be direct and extremely honest, even if the religious nuts don't really like it: god is imaginary. That's a three word, wonderfully succinct, direct, powerful, 100% true honest description of the way the universe works, which would be totally unnecessary to say if nobody had ever invented the idea of god but makes sense to say given that so many people seem to believe in or want to put on the pretense that there is a god.
Or, if you like long statements: ok, god does exist...in the fantasy world which is in peoples heads and in the literature people wrote, but god most definitely does not exist is the actual world which is outside the fantasy world that is in peoples heads and literature and myths people wrote. Divine inspiration is imaginary or a symptom of a mental disorder.
A good reason for it is because atheism is not the declaration that no gods exist. It's a response to a claim. It's a disbelief in the assertion that a god exists, as unsupported by evidence.
The reason that I argue so vehemently against your unsupported assertion is because of what the theists say. They say that they don't have enough faith to be an atheist. They say that we're as much a religion as they are. They say that we're making an argument to the contrary of their argument, with no proof of our own.
I have enough difficulties arguing against their misconceptions of what atheism is ... and then I come on here and find you proving them correct, in your case. And I'm not content to speak in absolutist terms on here, because I'm sure you go out and speak the same way elsewhere, potentially making the rest of us look bad. I'm not willing to write you off as a lost cause, because I keep hoping you'll eventually understand why what you're doing is so potentially harmful to the atheist community.
"Amoral" is much more often used to mean "worse than immoral." An amoral person not only breaks the moral code but ignores it completely. Bill Clinton sometimes behaved immorally, but the Bush administration was amoral.
As for whether or not Santa Claus exists, I have very good reasons for believing he does not. Reindeer don't fly; it would be impossible for one person to visit every household around the world in one night; a fat man like Santa could never get down most chimneys; there is no toy workshop at the North Pole; and my dad ate all the cookies. Despite all the poems, books, stories, movies, and cartoons about Santa, he isn't real. It's a simple matter of deductive reasoning. Clausists might argue that you can't disprove the existence of Santa. Maybe not, but I can disprove all the stories about him. See above. Ah, the Clausist would say, Santa isn't a person; he's the spirit of Christmas. And spirits, I would say, are not real.
Does this sound familiar? Can I disprove the existence of God? Maybe not, but the stories about him are bogus. Seas do not part, there is not enough water on earth to cover the entire surface to a depth of fifteen feet, staffs don't turn into snakes, snakes don't talk, virgins don't give birth, dead men do not climb out of their graves, and the earth was not created in six days.
By the way, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, it sure as hell makes a sound. Sound is caused by vibration. Tearing bark, cracking wood, and tons of falling cellulose cause a lot of vibration.