do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?

[BunnyBee]

here's a brief list:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_humanist.html

and another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanists

They include Steve Allen, Jonas Salk, and Kurt Vonnegut

Humanists aren't necessarily Atheists, they are more of the live and let live variety. Although their philosophy certainly proves morality can exist even in the absence of a belief in God, if that was what you were saying.

Then again, the whole idea human morality would require the hope of a celestial payoff or fear of the opposite seems pretty pessimistic to me. In fact, I would be skeptical about the inherent morality of anybody who couldn't imagine being good just for the sake of being good. I mean really? You need a carrot and a stick to prevent you from descending into riotous debauchery?

BTW I <3 Kurt Vonnegut .

[lisagurl]

http://godisimaginary.com/

[Suzy]

The question is itself absurd.  So i would have to answer no.

Kristi

[imaz]

We have made the signs clear to you so that hopefully you will use your intellect. (Qur'an, 57:17)

(An unusual translation)

[RebeccaFog]

"Where's my robe? I'm NOT going out there to speak to those people without my clean robe! Somebody is going to get fired over this."

- jesus

[Genevieve Swann]

There is a superior entity or power I beleive. If s(he) is a forgiving and loving god every persons beliefs are not important. All will be saved in the end. Satan was invented by man in order to scare us into being good boys/girls. May the force be with you. Genevieve

[Sigma Prime]

Nothing of the sort, in my case. Any god worth his salt would condemn dangerous religious fanatics and hopeless self-seekers, not atheists, assuming he/she condemned anybody. It's not an issue for me either way, though. There is no such thing as an "immortal soul." The entire idea is ludicrous and stupid to the core. Somewhere in that hundred billion neurons with an average of seven thousand connections to other neurons, maybe there's something like a "soul" of sorts, but it's not this ectoplasmic THINGY that continues to exist when your body expires. It doesn't work that way. If you want me to, I could lecture you AT LENGTH on how it's possible for you to HAVE a personality simply due to the stuff that goes on in your brain. The thing is, I shouldn't have to. If you assume that there's some magical cause for things just because you don't understand them, you lose, and you fail. You are an intellectual coward.

On the other hand, people who have "faith" in this concept just because they want to have a fulfilling relationship with a guy who doesn't exist, here is a surprise for you: I'm a lot more open and understanding toward them. Having experienced love and friendship for myself, I understand how difficult it is to give up on a relationship, once it's established. It doesn't matter to the HUMAN that the person at the other end doesn't exist. The relationship ITSELF is as real as it's possible for something like that to BE real.

I don't hate people for wanting a sense of unconditional love and comfort in their lives. I only really BASH on people if they practice a complete LACK of insight. A religious person who practices some level of insight is as good as an atheist who does the same. An atheist who lacks insight is just as appalling as a religious person who has the same condition. And believe me, I've met plenty of atheists who were just as daft, arrogant, and lacking in objectivity as the most vicious street evangelist.

Atheists wouldn't be admired for their courage, no. If a person deserves to be admired, it shouldn't be for their stance regarding religion at all. Admiration is for attributes like courage, honesty, honor, loyalty, kindness, and the ability to appreciate beauty. You don't need to be a great thinker or some secular humanist to practice things like that, and you can learn them at any time in your life if you choose to. An ounce of good character is worth ten pounds of intellect.

[Arch]

An Atheist has a belief. That makes it the same category as religion.

Uh, no, not necessarily. A lot of atheists have come to their conclusions based on the available evidence. It's like what we know about science: if more evidence comes in that refutes our conclusions, then we might very well change our conclusions.

I believe that I will enjoy the cup of coffee sitting on my desk. Does that make it my religion?

Anyway, isn't atheism the default position? Isn't the burden of proof on those who believe in an omniscient, omnipresent deity and all of that?

[lisagurl]

Anyway, isn't atheism the default position?

No, an atheist believes there is not any god or super natural power. An agnostic waits for the evidence either way.

[stacyB]

Do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?

Actually I think its an interesting question...

But my (over)simplified answer would have to be a no...  here is my reasoning...

The question presumes an omnipotent entity that has human thoughts, feelings and/or emotions. An entity that has pride and can feel a sense of accomplishment (and by corollary, a sense of disappointment and failure).

So either:

Such an entity that could experience these feelings would have a difficult time hiding from its own creations. It would have revealed itself for validation from its own creation as to its true power. As such, there would be no atheists, and those that remain atheists would be condemened as suffering from denial and a detachment from reality....

or

Such an entity would have infininte patience given the amout of time its creations have existed. In such a case, the courage of its creations that purport atheist beliefs would go unnoticed and would have little effect on it.

A third possibility... like so many paintings, sculptures, etc we remain in some dusty discarded corner of the universe. One could then view an apacolypse as a "spring cleaning" which would not be personal in nature. Just time to take out the trash...

One more possibility... maybe we are an object of redicule... like the "dogs playing poker" painting 

[lisagurl]

Such an entity that could experience these feelings would have a difficult time hiding from its own creations.

Not if it was another dimension humans could not sense.

[Arch]

No, an atheist believes there is not any god or super natural power. An agnostic waits for the evidence either way.

Uh, I think you can assume that I know this, given the rest of my reply. Hmm. Are you ducking my questions, or did you just not understand them?

[Dana Lane]

Re: do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?

yeah, if he's Christ-like. however, if I were a god, i'd insist on blind worship. i wouldn't want my people to think too much.

omg that is too funny. 

[lisagurl]

I believe that I will enjoy the cup of coffee sitting on my desk. Does that make it my religion?

If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.

[Dana Lane]

If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.

I don't know about that. Kids believe in Santa Claus but it isn't a religion. 

[lisagurl]

I don't know about that. Kids believe in Santa Claus but it isn't a religion.

It isn't, then what do you call this fairytale that misleads the truth in order to manipulate children's emotions..

[Dana Lane]

It isn't, then what do you call this fairytale that misleads the truth in order to manipulate children's emotions..

I really don't know what the criteria is for something being called a religion is but I understand what you are saying. Personally I think most religion is much more dangerous than Santa Claus or the Tooth Faerie.

[lisagurl]

Then you do not know the harm it does to children.

[Arch]

If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.

I would disagree; it is merely an unsubstantiated belief. Nothing more and nothing less. You might want to look up "religion" in a dictionary. But by your sort of reasoning, my atheism is not a religion because I arrived at my atheistic conclusions based on the available evidence, not unsubstantiated beliefs. The evidence is likely incomplete; I acknowledge that possibility, as every good scientist does about the conclusions he or she draws. But that acknowledgment does not prevent me from drawing the most informed conclusion I can from the evidence I have.

I understand if you're not willing to take on the real meat-and-potatoes question that I asked (whether atheism is the default position, that is). But think about this: what if someone comes up to you and claims that on this planet there are real live dragons, unicorns, and purple leprechauns with pink polka dots? Throughout your life you've seen no evidence of these wonders, and the person making the claim offers no substantive evidence whatsoever. I should think that the "atheistic" stance, or at least the agnostic position, would be the logical default. Otherwise, the world would be teeming with billions of people who believe in the Christian god AND Allah AND Jehovah AND the Flying Spaghetti Monster AND numerous other deities, all at once. As it is, people tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods. I find this illogical, but there it is.

As a former agnostic and a current atheist, I dislike being misunderstood. Many people make incorrect assumptions about my position. Therefore, I should also point out that your definition of an agnostic is faulty, and your assumptions about atheists are problematic. First of all, there are different kinds of agnostics. While it is true that some of them are indeed waiting for more evidence, this is not true of all agnostics. Some believe that human beings CANNOT know whether there is a god and are convinced that such knowledge is beyond human ken. Perhaps these folks would change their minds if more evidence were presented, but I suspect that some of them would see such evidence in the interesting light of their own world view.

One definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe that there is such a thing as a supreme being. But atheists can arrive at their conclusions in different ways, and atheists who have any kind of scientific bent at all can change their minds if the evidence changes. As with my other opinions on controversial issues, I am happy to consider new evidence; but I have taken the best position I can with what I have to go on. It can truly be said that, as an atheist, I'm still waiting for evidence of any or all of these versions of god that people are always trumpeting about. My atheism is not a faith-based stance; it is a position based on reason and evidence. As such, I don't see how my particular brand of atheism can be called a religion. It's more of a scientific conclusion than anything else. And like any good scientist, I'm open to new evidence. But I don't expect to get any.

[Alyssa M.]

Am I to understand that there is an implicit assumption in the question that it takes some particular courage to be an atheist?

That's funny.