4 ms·

Atheism is not a thing, it is not a religion nor a political position; it is not a cult where everybody acts the same, thus you cannot "act like an atheist". Th

Atheism is not a thing, it is not a religion nor a political position; it is not a cult where everybody acts the same, thus you cannot "act like an atheist". There are no actions you are required to perform in order to be considered an atheist. You can even go to church every sunday, as many atheists do, and still be an atheist.

Retra 8y ago
You can "act like an atheist" by not making decisions which are based on the presumption that a deity will intervene. Pretty basic stuff here.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  This misrepresents religious belief. I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. When I'm not taking leaps of faith, that is, most of the time, I act the same way anybody would.
  - Retra 8y ago
    >I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. Ok... > In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. This is distinctly not what an atheist would do. This is exactly the kind of decision that one would make only if they thought a deity can intervene. >most of the time, I act the same way anybody would. "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) You do other times. Not sure what's being misrepresented about your beliefs here. In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... you just literally did what I said you had to do to be the thing you said you are. I'm not sure how there's anything wrong with what I said just because you are unaware of what assumptions you are making.
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      > Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect. Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that. Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer. You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention. > "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? > You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position. > In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.

Retra 8y ago

You can "act like an atheist" by not making decisions which are based on the presumption that a deity will intervene. Pretty basic stuff here.

vinceguidry 8y ago
This misrepresents religious belief. I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. When I'm not taking leaps of faith, that is, most of the time, I act the same way anybody would.
- Retra 8y ago
  >I don't make my decisions based on the presumption that a deity will intervene, and I do believe in God. Ok... > In fact, making such a decision is called a leap of faith, and they're not to be taken lightly. Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. This is distinctly not what an atheist would do. This is exactly the kind of decision that one would make only if they thought a deity can intervene. >most of the time, I act the same way anybody would. "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) You do other times. Not sure what's being misrepresented about your beliefs here. In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... you just literally did what I said you had to do to be the thing you said you are. I'm not sure how there's anything wrong with what I said just because you are unaware of what assumptions you are making.
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    > Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect. Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that. Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer. You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention. > "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes? > You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.) I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position. > In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like... We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.