But isn't every religion just a stance on the existance of God in some shape or form? The definition of religion is 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs'. Atheism would fit nicely in this category. Much like Buddhism, it's a religion of no religion.
I stand corrected. Kabbalah is jewish mysticism, but this type of jewish belief believes in reincarnation (is really what I meant to say -sorry!).
But that's the wonderfully ironic thing about atheism. Atheism states that you have to believe that a higher power doesn't exist. Without that belief, you aren't an atheist. It's the belief of non-belief. But honestly, I think you will think your way about the categorization of Atheism, and I will believe my way. But thank you for the debate. I love this sort of stuff.
Yeah but isn't faith basically a belief in something that cannot fully, if at all be explained by concrete measurements? And then atheism itself the complete opposite of that; if anything, almost the complete denouncement of any sort of faith. It's like a faith in nothing. No belief beyond anything beyond the scientifically explainable. But is that really faith? what faith is there in believing in science. Because, well, it's science. But then if one would need faith for science, then is science really so unsourmountable in absolute truth?
Number one, it depends on the atheist because you certainly have a few who believe there is more to atheism than simply not believing in God, or God(s). Number two, atheism as I'd define it doesn't require faith. First of all, saying there is "no evidence to support either" is completely false. There is no evidence to support God and almost all the claims of the Bible (outside of the fact that some of the Bible does represent real, historical events). There is a lot of evidence to support that humans are biological creatures, that your consciousness is purely a construct of your physical brain, and that humans don't require things like "souls", "karma" or "Gods" to function. The default position of science is that things require evidence to be believed, or even considered. This isn't faith. A true atheist, in my opinion, doesn't and shouldn't wake up in the morning and remind himself that he or she is an atheist. They should remind themselves that there is no reason to consider positions which lack evidence. For me I don't disbelieve in a God, I just don't see any evidence for it. One of the main differences between me and someone of faith is I will change my position when the evidence is presented that refutes it.
Most people don't wake up in the morning blindly saying "I think i'm going to believe in God and there's nothing anyone can say to change my mind." They, too, usually go through a process of not believing, then believing, or vice versa, or even hopping back and forth between the two over the course of their life time.
Yeah, but just to clarify, at some point during this crisis of faith they are accepting the proposition that a God exists without evidence
amirite. That's a pretty obvious emotional struggle you'd expect from a person who believes in something that they're reminded every.single.day is probably a load of sh**.
Yeah, but just to clarify, at some point during this crisis of faith they are accepting the proposition that a God exists without evidence
There may be several reasons why I need my head checked, not accepting notions of an afterlife or Gods for which there is no evidence is definitely not one of those reasons. Religious people are not nutjobs, please do not infer that from what I said. They are certainly conditioned though to accept certain propositions without evidence, which is a rather silly when you think about it, but at the same time, most of us do silly things so it's hardly a reason to throw them under the bus.
No one has ever believed in God because actual, physical, testible evidence was produced proving that he existed. In fact you live in a world where the lion's share of what's been proven by science is a direct contradiction to what was printed in the Bible. What you're talking about are the justifications or mental gymnastics people do to shoehorn their faith onto the world. I never said "most people wake up and just believe in God", it usually is a result of conditioning. Growing up in an environment where they are rewarded socially for believing in something. Hearing God in your head, having prayers answered, noticing little coincidences are not evidence, nor do they require magical explanations, but people certainly use explanations like those provided by religion to make sense of these occurences.
Reincarnation is a religious topic, I suggest if you wish to avoid atheists discussing religion stay away from topics about religion.
I'm not warping "religious logic" (that's a bit of an oxymoron), I'm simply highlighting the difference between faith and atheism (as I define it)...but I'll hold the rest of the response for below, because it's more applicable to a response you give later in the post.
I was just speaking in generalities, and the "social reward" wouldn't necessarily imply you lived in a religious society, just that something or someone led you to that belief.
Faith: belief without evidence.
Perhaps not you personally, but if religion could, it would've by now. Or rather, this is not from lack of trying. Science was started by the church to justify religious, in this particular instance, Christian, claims. At the time the Church was unaware that the evidence brought back, particularly that regarding the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, would be heretical. So yes, you're not going to test for God in a lab, but if there was evidence you could.
Some of the Bibles depictions of history, specifically the atmosphere of the era it's represented are very accurate (think I said that already), almost all the religious claims have little backing if any. Much of the history is false to, although it may be "based on a true story" (much like the movie The Exorcist is).
