Atheism's Wrong Turn II

[Larkinn]

Wrong-o. Religion requires belief, not faith. Atheism is a belief. It requires a conscious decision to deny the existence of a God (or Gods).

This seems a ridiculous standard. I believe RGS is stupid...is that a religion? I believe in evolution, another religion? I believe in the UN, another religion? Do RGS and Bern believe in the religion that rejects global warming? To say that anything anyone believes in is a religion seems to vastly distort the meaning of religion.

It would also seem to mean that a belief in Christianity is not really one religion, but rather many. That is there is the religion that believes in Christianity, the one that doesn't believe in Hinduism, the one that doesn't believe in Islam, etc, etc. So Christianity is not really one religion but, under that definition, encompasses many.

I think a decent definition would be a belief in a supernatural theory of how the world came into existence, as pretty much all religions attempt to explain that. Under this theory atheism is not a religion. It seems that most religions center around the affirmation of things that exist, not the denial of things that exist.

 

[Larkinn]

So again, YOU have a belief.... That Belief is No Gods exist. Further you have a very strong FAITH in that belief. With no evidence Gods do not exist you chose to believe they do not, that is faith. I suspect your faith that no Gods exists is stronger than a hell of a lot of people that sorta believe Gods do exist.

And you don't believe in Santa Claus, Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, FSM....with no evidence they don't exist.

But somehow it seems absurd to say you believe in them, doesn't it?

 

[mattskramer]

This seems a ridiculous standard. I believe RGS is stupid...is that a religion? I believe in evolution, another religion? I believe in the UN, another religion? Do RGS and Bern believe in the religion that rejects global warming? To say that anything anyone believes in is a religion seems to vastly distort the meaning of religion.

It would also seem to mean that a belief in Christianity is not really one religion, but rather many. That is there is the religion that believes in Christianity, the one that doesn't believe in Hinduism, the one that doesn't believe in Islam, etc, etc. So Christianity is not really one religion but, under that definition, encompasses many.

I think a decent definition would be a belief in a supernatural theory of how the world came into existence, as pretty much all religions attempt to explain that. Under this theory atheism is not a religion. It seems that most religions center around the affirmation of things that exist, not the denial of things that exist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.

 

[Gunny]

This seems a ridiculous standard. I believe RGS is stupid...is that a religion? I believe in evolution, another religion? I believe in the UN, another religion? Do RGS and Bern believe in the religion that rejects global warming? To say that anything anyone believes in is a religion seems to vastly distort the meaning of religion.

It would also seem to mean that a belief in Christianity is not really one religion, but rather many. That is there is the religion that believes in Christianity, the one that doesn't believe in Hinduism, the one that doesn't believe in Islam, etc, etc. So Christianity is not really one religion but, under that definition, encompasses many.

I think a decent definition would be a belief in a supernatural theory of how the world came into existence, as pretty much all religions attempt to explain that. Under this theory atheism is not a religion. It seems that most religions center around the affirmation of things that exist, not the denial of things that exist.

What's the dictionary say?

You are making an arbitrary, personal definition for religion using your own parameters.

Are there atheist organizations? Yes. Those organizations are made up of individuals with a common belief. That to me is a religion by any other name you want to call it.

 

[Larkinn]

What's the dictionary say?

You are making an arbitrary, personal definition for religion using your own parameters.

Not quite. The dictionary says, pretty much, what I said with a few caveats added on. See Matts definition for reference.

Are there atheist organizations? Yes. Those organizations are made up of individuals with a common belief. That to me is a religion by any other name you want to call it.

And there are organizations that believe and disbelieve in evolution, and global warming. They aren't religions. Unless you can come up with some way to differentiate between someone who doesn't believe in global warming and someone who doesn't believe in atheism you've got a definition that looks pretty ridiculous.

 

[LOki]

So again, YOU have a belief.... That Belief is No Gods exist. Further you have a very strong FAITH in that belief. With no evidence Gods do not exist you chose to believe they do not, that is faith. I suspect your faith that no Gods exists is stronger than a hell of a lot of people that sorta believe Gods do exist.

You make a really good point RGS. I've often pointed out that making the positive assertion that there is no God is an assertion unfounded in evidence. Such assertions share a great deal with assertions founded in faith. However, I think it may be fair to argue that absence of evidence of God IS some evidence of absence--though not conclusive evidence, and certainly NOT proof. Also, I think it is certainly fair to characterize faith as belief in assertions contrary to evidence; I would cite miracles like walking on water.

I think there are alot of folks who are strongly agnostic, and are not afraid to admit it; and doing so, get lumped into the Atheist camp because they state they don't believe in God--they just see no reason to. If you're carefully considerate, you can parse a significant difference between that, and "I believe there is no God."

Not quite. The dictionary says, pretty much, what I said with a few caveats added on. See Matts definition for reference.



And there are organizations that believe and disbelieve in evolution, and global warming. They aren't religions. Unless you can come up with some way to differentiate between someone who doesn't believe in global warming and someone who doesn't believe in atheism you've got a definition that looks pretty ridiculous.

Belief is not the sole criteria for defining religion, and I'm sure that's not what GunnyL meant to suggest. I think GunnyL is right; as long as you insist that "religion" be relegated to "beliefs" about nature where we don't "know" what we're talking about, then what you're talking about certainly is as arbitrary as GunnyL describes.

 

[Diuretic]

So again, YOU have a belief.... That Belief is No Gods exist. Further you have a very strong FAITH in that belief. With no evidence Gods do not exist you chose to believe they do not, that is faith. I suspect your faith that no Gods exists is stronger than a hell of a lot of people that sorta believe Gods do exist.

This has descended into a semantic duel.

Whatever it is I believe, I came to it myself.

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong-o. Religion requires belief, not faith. Atheism is a belief. It requires a conscious decision to deny the existence of a God (or Gods).

Having said that, I pretty much agree with the rest. There is no proof one way or the other; which, pretty-much has been my argument all along here. I'm trying to convince anyone there IS a God, or that there is concrete evidence to support His existence.

My argument has been against those who with no more evidence than I have, try to tell me there absolutely is not, and speak consescending to those who DO believe there is a God as if disbelief makes one intelectually superior.

On the scale of who is "brighter" than who, I would say those who at least have an open mind are brighter than those who have closed theirs.

Belief and faith. Again we're descending into semantics. Belief implies a certainty, possibly based on evidence, that something exists. It can be contrasted to doubt which is a state of uncertainty that something exists. Belief can be arrived at without conclusive evidence. In this thread the existence of Jesus Christ is referred to. Although there's no direct evidence for His existence, save reports of Him written some time after (I'm choosing my words carefully here) left this Earth, over a couple of thousand years and probably billions of people have believed in His existence. The power of circumstantial evidence.

Faith usually exists in the light of belief. Someone can believe in their God, they can have faith that their God will fulfil His promises to the believers. So, for me at least, belief is the progenitor of faith. So if atheism is a belief, then where in athieism - the state of disbelief in deities - is the faith?

I'm a cowardly atheist. I'm willing to discuss my ideas but I find it difficult to proselytise. I watched Dawkins in "The God Delusion" on tv and I cringed each time he forthrightly sallied out and told senior religious figures in various religions that there was no God. It's not that I don't have the courage of my convictions, it's just that telling people they're wrong about their deities is a bit presumptuous. Dawkins has a powerful intellect, aside from his views on religion if you read his scientific work (not papers, I couldn't understand them, I mean his popularly written works on evolutionary biology) you can see it. Armed with that intellect he can confront senior religious people and get into it. I couldn't. I'll just quietly go along until someone makes an issue of it and I'll have my say.

But where I do think Dawkins and his ilk do good work is taking on the deleterious effects of religious belief - http://richarddawkins.net/article,1992,This-deadly-religious-resistance-to-vaccinations,Johann-Hari

I sometimes envy the muscular atheists and feel that perhaps I'm straddling the atheist/agnostic divide. But I don't worry about it a great deal.

Open and closed minds. An open mind isn't good for religion. Religion works best when it's absorbed and the mind is then tightly shut. Belief. Faith. Doubtless. The firmly closed mind. But of course the closed mind isn't solely the province of the religious believer. The atheist, like Dawkins, can have a firmly closed mind.
I suspect that's why religionists are okay with people who declare their agnosticism, they can still be reached and perhaps will come to God like C.S. Lewis, "Surprised by Joy". But atheists are stubborn, close-minded, not susceptible to religious ideas, they are the true enemy of the religionist. The declaration of someone's atheism ignites many of the more extreme religionists within hearing/viewing distance. Atheists are then accused of "having a religion called atheism", of having "belief in atheism", as if the words used really matter at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This has descended into a semantic duel.

Whatever it is I believe, I came to it myself.

And your getting wrapped up in semantics. Belief is not some nasty word that only applies to religion, NOR is faith. Your so afraid of these words for some reason I can not fathom.

Faith is believing something without proof. Simple question, can you PROVE there are no Gods? I know I can not PROVE there ARE Gods.

Second question.

Do you believe there are no Gods? These are not trick questions. They have no hidden meanings.

I nor GunnyL have claimed you came to your belief in any special way. Neither of us have claimed someone preached to you and converted you to a belief in NO Gods. You came to it on your own, fine, that does not negate you BELIEVE no Gods exist. Nor does it change the fact you have FAITH that belief is correct.

 

[Gunny]

Not quite. The dictionary says, pretty much, what I said with a few caveats added on. See Matts definition for reference.



And there are organizations that believe and disbelieve in evolution, and global warming. They aren't religions. Unless you can come up with some way to differentiate between someone who doesn't believe in global warming and someone who doesn't believe in atheism you've got a definition that looks pretty ridiculous.

See Cranston's definition. I've provided the definition as well in the past. Atheism fits perfectly.

And atheism IS about religion, not global warming nor evolution. I'm not going to insult your intelligence and assume you don't know what theism is with an "a" in front. Please don't insult mine.

 

[Larkinn]

You make a really good point RGS. I've often pointed out that making the positive assertion that there is no God is an assertion unfounded in evidence.

So you think its unfounded to say santa clause doesn't exist? How about the easter bunny? How about the FSM?

 

[Diuretic]

And your getting wrapped up in semantics. Belief is not some nasty word that only applies to religion, NOR is faith. Your so afraid of these words for some reason I can not fathom.

Faith is believing something without proof. Simple question, can you PROVE there are no Gods? I know I can not PROVE there ARE Gods.

Second question.

Do you believe there are no Gods? These are not trick questions. They have no hidden meanings.

I nor GunnyL have claimed you came to your belief in any special way. Neither of us have claimed someone preached to you and converted you to a belief in NO Gods. You came to it on your own, fine, that does not negate you BELIEVE no Gods exist. Nor does it change the fact you have FAITH that belief is correct.

Thanks for telling me what and how I think, I'll take note.

 

[Diuretic]

So you think its unfounded to say santa clause doesn't exist? How about the easter bunny? How about the FSM?

How about they can't be proven to exist?

Santa Claus has a history though, we're pretty sure we can identify the human being who the mythical figure was built on.

With the Easter Bunny, we're pretty much sure it's tied up with fertility symbols.

The FSM - proven! He has a website, therefore he exists! (Just kidding).

There is no proof of deities. That's not to argue that absence of proof is proof of non-existence of course. They could all be cunningly disguised. As of right now, there is no proof of deities.

 

[Larkinn]

How about they can't be proven to exist?

Santa Claus has a history though, we're pretty sure we can identify the human being who the mythical figure was built on.

With the Easter Bunny, we're pretty much sure it's tied up with fertility symbols.

The FSM - proven! He has a website, therefore he exists! (Just kidding).

There is no proof of deities. That's not to argue that absence of proof is proof of non-existence of course. They could all be cunningly disguised. As of right now, there is no proof of deities.

Yes I know...but you know what you are talking about and won't shy away from a coherent belief just because it seems odd. I am betting others will and won't be able to reconcile why they want to dismiss santa and the easter bunny, but think thats its irrational to do so with God.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes I know...but you know what you are talking about and won't shy away from a coherent belief just because it seems odd. I am betting others will and won't be able to reconcile why they want to dismiss santa and the easter bunny, but think thats its irrational to do so with God.

Careful now, you just told him he believed something...and he insists he does not.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes I know...but you know what you are talking about and won't shy away from a coherent belief just because it seems odd. I am betting others will and won't be able to reconcile why they want to dismiss santa and the easter bunny, but think thats its irrational to do so with God.

I think you bowled 'em (it's cricket season here).

 

[Larkinn]

I think you bowled 'em (it's cricket season here).

God I hate that game. Last year I watched a bunch of games and part of the Ashes and I still have no idea what the hell is going on.

 

[Diuretic]

God I hate that game. Last year I watched a bunch of games and part of the Ashes and I still have no idea what the hell is going on.

I only pretend to know something so I can bullshit around the water cooler with everyone else. I get caught out though, someone gives a score and I have to watch the others to work out whether to cheer or bury my head in my hands....I'm the one who's always about two seconds behind everyone else in reaction, it's a dead giveaway but what the hell, anything for peace in the workplace.

But in cricket parlance....middle stump and bails flying everywhere

 

[LOki]

So you think its unfounded to say santa clause doesn't exist? How about the easter bunny? How about the FSM?

False accusation. I never said that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Gee, that's a real convincing argument in the non-existence of God.

"He doesn't exist."

You must have really worked on that one.

Ah, considering there is no concrete proof that a god (of any description) has ever existed, what other proof is necessary?