Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Franklin Richards]

That holds the same weight as the argument that Harry Potter may be non fiction somewhere in the universe. No one knows so it's stupid to think you know.

I don't know but I have a good idea.

 

[chaseter]

Definition of "theism" is given as follows.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

The prefix A for "no" then would be no "belief.."

You are right. I was shooting from the hip trying to hit 2005 Greek Latin terminology class. But, it's still a belief correct? Atheists believe, have to, that there is no god(s). Am I right or just totally wrong here? They reject a belief system of the existance of god(s) but must believe that there in fact is no god(s). it's a belief none the less though yes?

 

[chaseter]

I don't know but I have a good idea.

So does he who must not be named.

 

[Bat-Mite]

With that argument then there should only be one species of snake.

Yes, let's try to compare apples to oranges, though I suppose you were already doing that as soon as you compared atheism to Christianity. Do you think that Hinduism and the religions of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians are all interchangeable simply because they all were polytheistic? Should I look at the Hindu concept of Brahman and say that "polytheism has evolved" because Hinduism has it, even though the Egyptian and Greek pagans had no such concept?

 

[Dr.]

While I agree that atheism in its basic (and most widely used form) is NOT a religion; to disqualify people's ability to make it one is false. There are those whose atheism is so strong that they DO congregate and base their ethics, world views and life style on that "no God(s)" foundation; even going so far as to try and convert others, all of which is a decidedly "religious" trait.

Well... If you’re a conservative or an environmentalist or anti-abortion or pro-marijuana, etc., you might be inclined to join a group dedicated to your cause. The goal is to better communicate a message and/or try to persuade others to your point-of-view. Doesn’t mean that these organizations are “religions.”

 

[Spider-Who?]

Well... If you’re a conservative or an environmentalist or anti-abortion or pro-marijuana, etc., you might be inclined to join a group dedicated to your cause. The goal is to better communicate a message and/or try to persuade others to your point-of-view. Doesn’t mean that these organizations are “religions.”

That's absolutely true, and if you read my post, I'm not arguing the case that atheism, or even the simple act of atheists getting together automatically equates to a "religion". I hope I've made that clear, as even as a religious person, I kind of roll my eyes at people who say "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION TOO!" My point is simply that it is possible for - and is done by some atheists - to treat it like a religion which is ironic when it happens, though atheism in its intended form is NOT.

That being said, I will suggest the idea that there is a difference between environmentalists and atheists. One deals with protecting nature - a social cause, while the other deals with spirituality (or lack thereof) that is the foundation of religion. So while I get what you're trying to say (and agree) I don't feel its a perfectly adequate example. However, on second thought, these things too could become small religions or cults if the right nut jobs put their minds to it, lol.

 

[Franklin Richards]

It's not a religion to want to buy beer on Sunday before noon. It's just one of the consequences of letting religious people go unchecked.

 

[Spider-Who?]

So you're saying that atheists don't have common interests or goals because they believe in the absence of something? What is so intrinsic about activity amongst people who believe in the presence of something?


People who don't believe in taxes shouldn't be active in their lack of faith?

I think he might be trying to say something like this:

Atheists these days profess that their mind set is a LACK of belief. - Lack of meaning no belief. Nothing. Nonexistent. So, if your mindset is one of "nothing", why would you make such a big deal of it?

(These days meaning that until recently, atheists would say it is their belief that there is no God. Nowadays, they've changed that to "I lack the belief in God" since its "more PC", but they try to act like it there is a fundamental difference...George Smith, you crazy guy..).

 

[Spider-Who?]

It's not a religion to want to buy beer on Sunday before noon. It's just one of the consequences of letting religious people go unchecked.

 

[Dr.]

That being said, I will suggest the idea that there is a difference between environmentalists and atheists. One deals with protecting nature - a social cause, while the other deals with spirituality (or lack thereof) that is the foundation of religion.

Well... atheists tend to have common cause with science and science organizations. Right now, science is in a battle against climate change deniers - who seem to think greenhouse gas emissions are no cause for concern. So, in a roundabout way, atheists and environmentalists may be more closely allied than you think.

 

[redhawk23]

I think he might be trying to say something like this:

Atheists these days profess that their mind set is a LACK of belief. - Lack of meaning no belief. Nothing. Nonexistent. So, if your mindset is one of "nothing", why would you make such a big deal of it?

(These days meaning that until recently, atheists would say it is their belief that there is no God. Nowadays, they've changed that to "I lack the belief in God" since its "more PC", but they try to act like it there is a fundamental difference...George Smith, you crazy guy..).

It's not about being PC. Its about the fact that stating in the definitive that "There Is No God" is an un-provable claim that in terms of validity is no different from stating "There is a God"

There is a difference between that and stating I do not find sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

 

[chaseter]

But that would then make them agnostic yes?

 

[bgates87]

But that would then make them agnostic yes?

I think someone who does not believe that a God exists but also does not believe it is possible to be absolutely certain that a God does not exist would be considered an agnostic atheist, yes. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Calvin]

But that would then make them agnostic yes?

Not really, unless I'm mistaken agnostic thought is generally that things like these are unknowable or unknown, which is different than that.

Agnostic: I don't know what it is, there could be a god there could not be.

Athiest: I don't see evidence for God, so I see no reason to believe there might be one.

 

[redhawk23]

But that would then make them agnostic yes?

As has been the major topic of discussion ever 5 pages in this thread, agnostic does not represent its own categorization, it is simply a modifier. There are agnostic atheists, just as there are agnostic Christians. There have been what are referred to as "gnostic" Christians, that claim specific knowledge of the existence of god. In the same way some one that says "There Is no god." is making a gnostic claim on the matter.

These definitions aren't often reflected in our colloquial use however but then again neither are the proper uses of "lie down" and "lay down."

Moral of the story? English speakers don't speak English.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I just don't see the point. If you're don't believe in God, good -- I don't have anything against it considering I don't really believe in religion as well. I think if you don't share the belief of the existence of God, the Bible, religion, etc. then why waste time lumping yourself in a category where you proclaim about your own set of believes when you don't have any? It would make more sense if you just don't incorporate that as part of your life, which I thought that was the point of not believing in religion.

Atheism does not mean you have no beliefs. It means you don't believe in God.

And there are many atheists/humanists who believe that the reason religion has such a stronghold on society is a lack of education and encouragement of free thinking.

It's not about being 'right' or pushing your own lack of belief down someone elses throat, but just about discouraging blind ignorance and denial.

Because there are people in this world, who only have the beliefs they have because they have never known any different, and because they are afraid. Perhaps of the reaction of family members to them questioning their faith, or of what might happen to their soul if they do question it and then it all turns out to be 'true'.

Society certainly doesn't help, with religion permiating through schools and politics and places it really shouldn't be influencing.

It's not about being PC. Its about the fact that stating in the definitive that "There Is No God" is an un-provable claim that in terms of validity is no different from stating "There is a God"

There is a difference between that and stating I do not find sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

As I've said before, I am not afraid to say 'There is no God'.

You can call that a belief if you like.

It is a conclusion I have come to logically, based primarily on the idea that - If there is a world beyond what we can percieve, I don't believe that we could have successfully imagined it or guessed it, at any stage of our existence. Because anything we imagine, is very much within our own perception - a human idea - and because of that we are always confined by the restrictions of our own imagination i.e. The Christian God - A male father figure who 'created' us all.

I can't say for certain that there is NOTHING beyond human life.

I just feel that it is certain we don't know it, and never will, based on what we can guess at or imagine.

And accepting the possibility of God suggests that we might have imagined or guessed right.

Seriously.

Us, tiny little universally insignificant humans, from our earliest stages of intelligent thought, when we didn't understand anything and our best guess was that the movements of the Sun and the Moon were governed by 'Gods', might have actually guessed that right?

Or later, when the idea of one God started becoming popular, and people started claiming that 'he' had talked to them and told them how to live life, and how the universe was made and what happens when you die... those guys might have been right?

Or even now, when a lot of people who believe in 'God' say they just believe in 'something' looking out for us, some force 'up there' that guides us and looks after heaven where our 'souls' fly off to when we die... you think that imagined world, that sounds like a very human concept that is influenced by generations of religious evolution, could be the right guess?

I just don't see how that's logically possible.

 

[Lasirius]

Not really, unless I'm mistaken agnostic thought is generally that things like these are unknowable or unknown, which is different than that.

Agnostic: I don't know what it is, there could be a god there could not be.

Athiest: I don't see evidence for God, so I see no reason to believe there might be one.

That's what I learned in philosophy class.

 

[8wid]

^What about if you can simply read the Bible and factually debunk God's word?

 

[redhawk23]

well that'd just really be a matter of debunking the bible rather than the existence of deities.


.................................................

Not directly athesim related but I figured there'd be some who appreciated this.

 

[8wid]

^But if debunk one thing in God's word that proves it to be a lie, and so the existence of at least this God must be a lie. I'm sure's it's probably the same for others too.

 

[chaseter]

As has been the major topic of discussion ever 5 pages in this thread, agnostic does not represent its own categorization, it is simply a modifier. There are agnostic atheists, just as there are agnostic Christians. There have been what are referred to as "gnostic" Christians, that claim specific knowledge of the existence of god. In the same way some one that says "There Is no god." is making a gnostic claim on the matter.

These definitions aren't often reflected in our colloquial use however but then again neither are the proper uses of "lie down" and "lay down."

Moral of the story? English speakers don't speak English.

Agnostic Christian? I must look into this.

 

[8wid]

One cannot be both a regular doubter of God's existence and be a true follower of Christ going to Heaven, it's that simple.

 

[kedrell]

Everyone who asks me what my religion is I tell them I'm an atheist just so they'll be less inclined to bother trying to sell me their bill of goods of whatever BS religion they belong to. Now in truth, I'm not an atheist. I'm just a very, very firm agnostic who will not be persuaded otherwise. But you tell these yahoos you're an agnostic and they think "Oh, you have a somewhat open mind and we might be able to persuade you to our way of thinking". Wrong! Unless God himself comes down from heaven and appears before me to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's real and true then nothing short of that would be sufficient for me. I require absolute certainty. That whole faith thing is a crock of ****, IMO.

 

[bullets]

If some deity came down from the heavens to tell me they existed I'd think I lost it completely or they were lying there ass off. I mean , who am I , that they'd feel the need to persuade.

 

[kedrell]

Well, whatever scenario that could ensure complete certainty then. That's the point I was trying to make. Nothing short of certainty will do as far as I'm concerned.