Conservative Atheists & Agnostics

Information

Conservative Atheists & Agnostics

A place for right-of-center Atheists and Agnostics.

Members: 51
Latest Activity: Feb 21

Discussion Forum

Meeting Others

Started by Michael. Last reply by Sheri M Larsen Feb 21. 4 Replies

How would you go about meeting people with similar values?I ask this both in the general sense, and also regarding relationships.Dating is extremely hard.  It's very difficult to find any women who…Continue

Is it fair to treat everyone equally?

Started by Sheri M Larsen. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jan 24. 14 Replies

What is your experience with, or opinion of this?Continue

o boy, chik fil a

Started by damian. Last reply by Andrew Jan 10. 14 Replies

I admit that i haven't been following closely, but the whole thing disappoints me. I can't stand how conservatives get lumped in with the religious. I'm not sure what started this whole thing , "rahm…Continue

Does anyone else feel alone?

Started by Michael. Last reply by Michael Jan 7. 49 Replies

Being a conservative atheist is a case of being a double minority; it kind of puts one on the wrong side of pretty much everything. I've found it difficult to find anyplace where I fit in; obviously…Continue

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Conservative Atheists & Agnostics to add comments!

Comment by Sheri M Larsen on January 23, 2014 at 10:40pm

Hello,

     The label that I apply to myself about the way I look at the issue of a god is agnostic atheist.  The meaning to me is: I am without knowledge (a-gnostic) about whether or not there is a god, and I lean towards the idea that there is no god (a-theist); I have a "faith" that there is not a god.  {Sometimes I wonder if theists could be described as agnostic theists; without knowledge they lean towards/have faith that there is a god.} 

Also, I have found that others bristle less when I say I am agnostic.  It seems less threatening, less controversial.

In getting to know new people, I do not ever lead with my religious views (or my political views).  I want them to get to know my character, and other sides of me first.  It seems that they might accept my spiritual views with more comfort and ease.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 31, 2013 at 12:01am

Chris, you wrote, 

"The general public strongly identifies the definition of atheism as a believer in nothing, that existence itself comes from nothing whatsoever.

The issue isn't how others define atheists; ignorance, prejudice, stereotypes that come from another's perception is not relevant. I, as an atheist, define who I am.

There is an old saying, "who you are gives meaning to your name." If you/I/we think for ourselves, refuse to be defined by others, take action based on our own value system, repudiate faulty characterizations, and live according to our understanding of what it means to be an atheist, then we become our own definer.  

To attempt to live someone else's definition of atheist has no authenticity. It is my job to reveal who I am, not who you or anyone wants me to be. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 30, 2013 at 11:47pm

Eric, I am an atheist and for much the same reason as you, 

"I seek breakage from whatever caused our current status."

In China, I met women who had their feet bound as children. One woman told me a physical assault crippled her feet by breaking the bones and binding them to remain small so they would fit into a mouth of a man for his sexual stimulation, and thus her small feet made her more value when her family sold her into marriage. She stated the physical crime was assault but the deeper crime was the binding of her mind.  

There are ways men and women have bound minds, trained to submit and acquiesce to assaults on body, mind and spirit. The task of an atheist is to break those bindings. 

 

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 30, 2013 at 11:22pm

Robert, I agree,

"Atheism doesn't mean believing everything came from absolute nothingness, atheism is just the statement that there is no or are no gods." 

"some form of matter/antimatter always existed and there is no evidence or reason to believe that a magical or supernatural being had any input or influence in the creation or development of anything.  Not until demonstrable and repeatable evidence is provided."

"religious people believe that everything and the god that created it came from nothing."

The problem, as I see it, is religious people are not the ones asking questions. Their assumption that god always existed and created everything from nothing is not different from my assumption that something came from nothing that I now understand, and life started from a single cell and developed through evolutionary processes.

The ends are the same, living things exist. The means are the difference. The source of the single cell, although of unknown origin, is enough to explain all that is and all that is becoming.

Ask a religious person where their god came from is not a question they want to ask or answer, or can answer.

My task is to be the asker of questions, keep asking, and asking and if there is any change, it will be that some believers will begin to ask for themselves.   

Your statement gives the imperative: 

"Don't let their ignorance of definitions define who you are.  Force the people that don't understand atheism to learn by asking simple questions and making simple observations."

Comment by Robert Brown on December 30, 2013 at 10:35pm

I guess I just don't accept the premise. Atheism doesn't mean believing everything came from absolute nothingness, atheism is just the statement that there is no or are no gods.  I don't believe this or other universes came from "nothingness." I believe some form of matter/antimatter always existed and there is no evidence or reason to believe that a magical or supernatural being had any input or influence in the creation or development of anything.  No until demonstrable and repeatable evidence is provided.

If you are bending what you call yourself because the general public is uninformed of the actual definitions of what atheism and agnosticism are, then you are just letting those without knowledge on the subject dictate who you are.

I agree that many people believe the religious persons line that atheists believe everything came from nothing.  A simple rebuttle to that is to explain that religious people believe that everything and the god that created it came from nothing.

They don't get to put a god which can't be proven into eternal existence if I can't put matter which is real and demonstrable into the eternal category.

Don't let their ignorance of definitions define who you are.  Force the people that don't understand atheism to learn by asking simple questions and making simple observations.

Comment by Eric Stubbs on December 30, 2013 at 7:00pm

Although I leave room for scientific discovery of a greater power, I still prefer the label atheist because I think it is a more active label.  Agnostic to me seems passive.  I want to break the shackles of time and space in which we find ourselves, whether by design or not.  To do so, I want to elevate the best among us so we can break those shackles.  I could be wrong, but I've never heard an agnostic describe themselves as actively trying to break the shackles from anything.  They seek knowledge, I seek breakage from whatever caused our current status.

Comment by Chris Z on December 30, 2013 at 11:34am

I'm no longer carrying the title atheist (an haven't for awhile now).  Have gone back to using agnostic (for a long while now) as I have found it to be readily understood by the general public (much more closely to my true understandings and views on existence itself).

The general public strongly identifies the definition of atheism as a believer in nothing, that existence itself comes from nothing whatsoever.  That continues to be the understanding of and usage by the general public, regardless of the gradient of meaning behind the term defined by various encyclopedic sources, dictionaries, wiki's, and various popular nontheist figures.

On the contrary, I have found that by in large the general public does understand the term agnostic beyond it being a 50/50 mark, on the fence mark.  So while many self-proclaimed atheists continue promote the term atheism as an inclusive term which for example those includes atheists who are a 7 instead of an 8 on Dawkin's scale, it continues to appear to me that most people in general (in the US at least) understand atheism to mean one type, gnostic (100% knowing) atheism whereby existence itself is accepted as having originated from "absolute" nothingness).  Were one to stress to a "regular Joe" (as some have tried and continue to try to do) that atheism also includes (for some so called-atheists) those who hold the notion that existence itself cannot arise from "absolute" nothing yet however existence (any type) apparently has always been (the very definition existence), these regular-Joe's continue to appear more readily associate you with agnosticism than atheism.

All this to say, I have given up on the popular attempt to re-brand (apparently according to the regular-Joe) the atheism label.  The general public at large hasn't been won over by current and past promotions of a deeper understanding of the label.  I have found however that the popular understanding of the term Agnostic work way better in describing my views/ conclusions about existence itself (maybe not for self-proclaimed atheists) but for regular Joes (regular Joes with or without any particular denomination).

What say you?

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on May 9, 2013 at 8:52am

I grew up in a bi-political home; my dad voted Democratic and my mom voted Republican. I had two sisters and two brothers.

My dad treated the difference humorously; he said he and mom always voted so that neither party would get an advantage. I decided against making my life difficult by attacking either party.

As I approached voting age, he made very clear that if I didn't vote he wouldn't let me complain about politics.

I became disillusioned with both parties and resented having to vote for the "soft-headed" party's candidates or the "hard-hearted" party's candidates. I was too much the realist to waste my vote on a third party.

After a hitch in the Navy I started college. For the next 20 years I moved every three or four years. I lived in places where Dems always won general elections and in places where Repubs always won general elections. I decided that by registering with the party that would win in the general, my primary vote would make a difference.

I paid attention to what both parties did but became active in neither. In 1974, at 43, for reasons too complex to describe here, I ran in the Repub primary for the Arizona legislature against a Repub incumbent. My co-workers teased me, saying "the moderate Repub in Phoenix is a lonely man." I was too busy seeking votes to feel lonely. I won six times as many votes as other first-time candidates but half as many as the incumbent. It was the most exciting time of my life.

On the issues I'm "bi-polar" and might be thrown out of either party.

Comment by Sheri M Larsen on April 9, 2013 at 11:01pm

Chris, 

     Regarding your paragraph  "Same for this group, it could be called "Conservative & Conservative Libertarian Nontheists", but a person who considers his/herself a conservative in the popular sense get the idea though, I think."

    I agree.  It seems to me that your more general title could be found with more ease.  We are a small group, hard to spot.

When I started looking for like minds, I typed "Republican Atheists."

I wonder how a drop down list containing related or similar descriptions or "known associates" would fly?   ;)

Comment by Sheri M Larsen on April 9, 2013 at 10:29pm

Chris,

Eventually I respond.

            I live in Iowa.  Born and raised.  Most of my years in Marshalltown (an hour's drive N.E. of Des Moines).  Attended college in Iowa City, the Hawkeyes.  Worked in Ames, the Cyclones, for 5 years.  Then back to M'town.  My college dregree was in Therapeutic Recreation, but I never worked in the field, that is another story.  I have been a para-educator and a Substitute teacher for several years.

 

Where in California?

            I have been to visit family in three locations.  First as a child with my family to visit one uncle and his family in San Jose, we rented a car and drove along the coast to Portland Oregon, to the next uncle's.  A few years later our family went to San Diego/La Jolla for vacation.  Several years later, I went on my own to visit a friend in Los Angeles.  I drove to Buellton/Solvang to visit my great uncle and his family for a couple of days.

           

            How many more years for your physicist degree?  What do you hope to do with it once you are done?

     I plan to post a thought/question on the Discussion forum, hopefully in the near future.  Any tips?

 

Members (51)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service