Many atheists say that atheism just means not believing in god. Nothing more and nothing less. Is this true? When we become atheists, do we automatically accept or reject something? Once this is answered, going beyond this, should we deliberately accept or reject somethings after accepting atheism?
"so there is atheist culture"
I do not offend anyone personally and have not done it to you. I do not think anybody should take a personal offence in purely theoretically discussions. You have just made a similar personal answer in other post. Does have to spill all over?
Mahukar, the nerd simply made an analogy. And yes, things do sometimes "spill all over" ;-)
Makur, I read your post, and The Nerd's response. Like Dogly said, it was just an analogy. There was no personal offense that I could find.
I think that the natural and true order of things is that the universe, and everything in it, is intrinsically explicable by science.
What is not natural is fantasising about imaginary deities for explaining the world.
That is to say, the god believers, who call themselves theists, are the interlopers, the meddlers, because they introduce fictions into what is a real world situation.
Moreover, it was theists who invented the term 'atheist' in order to describe people who do not accept their unsupportable beliefs. So it could be better if we shift the goalposts and call ourselves rationalists, freethinkers or something else, and avoid what is for many theists the 'dirty', scary word 'atheist'.
So yes, atheists do not believe in god; but they do believe in much that is good, starting with praiseworthy notions of high morality and fine ethics without specious recourse to doing so largely because of being afraid of divine retribution in some supposed afterlife.
Sure atheism means not believing in 'God'. But if an atheist arrives at this conclusion ~ ie. non-theism ~ by thinking and reason, then it seems to me that there must be a belief that things arrived at their present state by some other means. My own way of putting it is that for me, being an atheist implies that I believe that it is possible for the universe, and any life within it, to have arrived at its present state, from states past, with neither the influence nor even the existence of any entity which we might call a god.
I find it to be self evident that, for a thinking person, it follows that if no god is believed in, then godlessly things must have occurred. It is tautological. One belief must be overarched by another - unless the person is totally apathetic. This implies that there probably never was a god, and no god was ever necessary to bring about the status quo.
I accept that it is entirely possible that the universe, and any life within it, have arrived at their present state, from states past by natural means - means that can be investigated scientifically. This is a corollary to: "'God'-didn't-do-it"!
By it's very nature and etymology, atheism is not the acceptance of anything, only the rejection of something.
To draw a parallel, I am a man, not a woman. 'Not being a woman' does not have its own tangible attributes. Only 'being a man' or 'being a woman' have tangible attributes.
Another: I do not like coconuts. Being someone who does not like coconuts does not have any specific attributes (other than not liking coconuts)
Another: There is an apple and 'not an apple'. 'Not an apple' can be anything from a banana to a cloud to a thought to a speed boat to an elephant to a blanket to a pencil to an mp3 file to a sneeze....
All of these things are not thought of 'not apples', nor is there any real unifying element between them.
There are millions upon million of things that I am not.
'Not being something' is not 'being something'.
Like Nerd said, atheism is not a 'movement'. A 'not something' cannot be a 'something'.
You can have atheists who are pro-right, atheists who are pro-left, atheists who are not political, atheists who are buddhists and atheists who are capitalists, atheists who don't even know they're atheists because they have never even encountered the concept of a god in their culture.
If you're an atheist, you don't start automatically rejecting anything, unless it's a belief in god.
Of course, being an atheist often has other connecting concepts, such as rationalism, but they're not automatically the same thing.
I do not offend anyone personally and have not done it to you.
I don't understand, the nerd has not given any hint that he has been offended, nor has he said anything offensive. MK, you have misunderstood - I assume this is a language issue...
I just meant it as an illustrative metaphor in this case - it didn't really matter what terms I used to make the point. Besides, I was only making a statement about myself, not about anyone else.
I'm glad there are genderqueers, by the way; it adds more flavour to our big soup of humanity! ;)
Personally, I don't see gender as a black and white 'either/or' situation. To me it's all just one line/scale upon which everyone is placed according to who they are.
You coconut-hating genderqueer atheists always cause so much trouble! You guys get so rowdy! We need government protection! ;)lol
Been there. Tried it...
....Oh, I see, by 'fuck coconuts' you mean 'oppose coconuts'... ;)
I'm not a big fan of nuts in general. Maybe we could be more egalitarian and form the 'fucknuts' instead.
You don't like coconuts? What's wrong with you? Normal people LIKE coconuts. I have the horrors thinking of what you eat INSTEAD of coconuts. I think you can be cured! You WILL like coconuts!
Maybe I will see a burning coconut bush...
...or maybe JC will turn coconuts into pizza.
...or maybe god will wipe out an entire race of people because they do not follow his cosmic order to eat coconuts on a Friday.
"You don't like coconuts? What's wrong with you? Normal people LIKE coconuts. I have the horrors thinking of what you eat INSTEAD of coconuts. I think you can be cured! You WILL like coconuts!"
Is there a cure for not liking 'COCONUTS'? I do not like coconuts and I thought I was incurable.