FORUMS > Spirituality Forum Rules

minox said

viitz said

When you're an extremist.. that's when it becomes dangerous. But like you said, it's the political interest--which is pretty much where I was going with it. I'm not saying every person who believes in this and that is dangerous. It just has the potential to be. Casual believers don't really pose that kind of threat.

I was raised Catholic. My family is still catholic. They're just not nut jobs. So yes, it depends on the person.

Yes. I think the vast majority of god believer are as reasonable and sound as the vast majority of atheist and agnostics.

It's also funny to see that many atheist get strong beliefs in alien abduction, telepathy, horoscopes etc...

In itself, believing or not in god tells nothing about how rational you are.

I agree. Rationality is intrinsic, but religion (arguably irrational) is likely to be acquired based on one's environment. However, the fact that people would go out of the way to discuss stupid conspiracy theories without scientific beaming points strongly to irrationality. So I would definitely agree that all religious people cannot be claimed to be irrational, and lots of Atheists are embarrassingly irrational as well. Although there are overlaps

TheChrisGuy said

minox said

viitz said

When you're an extremist.. that's when it becomes dangerous. But like you said, it's the political interest--which is pretty much where I was going with it. I'm not saying every person who believes in this and that is dangerous. It just has the potential to be. Casual believers don't really pose that kind of threat.

I was raised Catholic. My family is still catholic. They're just not nut jobs. So yes, it depends on the person.

Yes. I think the vast majority of god believer are as reasonable and sound as the vast majority of atheist and agnostics.

It's also funny to see that many atheist get strong beliefs in alien abduction, telepathy, horoscopes etc...

In itself, believing or not in god tells nothing about how rational you are.

I agree. Rationality is intrinsic, but religion (arguably irrational) is likely to be acquired based on one's environment. However, the fact that people would go out of the way to discuss stupid conspiracy theories without scientific beaming points strongly to irrationality. So I would definitely agree that all religious people cannot be claimed to be irrational, and lots of Atheists are embarrassingly irrational as well. Although there are overlaps

If you don't get into brown I will light the school on fire.

dekiruman said

TheChrisGuy said

minox said

viitz said
I agree. Rationality is intrinsic, but religion (arguably irrational) is likely to be acquired based on one's environment. However, the fact that people would go out of the way to discuss stupid conspiracy theories without scientific beaming points strongly to irrationality. So I would definitely agree that all religious people cannot be claimed to be irrational, and lots of Atheists are embarrassingly irrational as well. Although there are overlaps

If you don't get into brown I will light the school on fire.

I probably will too

TerraFirma saidA so-called 'atheist' who assumes that one can confidently assert and does assert that God does not exist should address several "difficulties" (most don't) if one is to be of integrity...

"Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing." (The Objectivist Newsletter, 1963) ...

This entire post is so appalling that I must reply to it.

If you've actually read the Objectivist Newsletter article from which the quote you cited came, you would not include the quote with the incongruous nonsense you wrote before and after it.

The critically important sentence that came before the part you quoted, and that you left out is: ``But it is impossible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it.'' [Emphasis is mine.]

This last part is what is not understood or is being evaded in the thread starter's question and in your response. The entire idea of atheism being contradictory because of an alleged assertion in ``non-belief'' consists in theists switching the burden of proof. Theists essentially try to evade the responsibility of proving their assertion of the existence of a God by claiming that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a God. And that refusing to believe something for which there is no proof, is itself a belief that must be proved. What a load of nonsense.

The concept of a God is introduced by theists, and, as such, the burden of proof rests with them.

For those interested, I will post as clear a summary of the position of a rational atheist as I've come across (from the same article):

``A man of reason does not accept ideas on faith. He knows that all of one's conclusions must be based on and derived from the facts of reality. He is, therefore, an atheist. His position is this: `I accept or consider only that for which there is rational evidence. If a theist wishes to assert the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him. But I do not regard his feeling that God exists as relevant or admissible to a rational discussion.' " (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963)

bodyboarder725 saidAtheism is defined as the belief that there is no god... Isn't this just as religious as believing in the existence of a god?

The reason I say that is because, just like there's no way you can prove the existence of a god, there's also no way you can prove the existence of no god. So when you hear an atheist say "I don't believe in god" it's the same thing as a spiritual person say "I believe in god"... how can you prove either way?

I'm not sure if atheists just don't know the meaning of the word and they're really agnostic, but I think agnostic is a more appropriate term for someone who would like to say he's "atheist", right??

It's turtles all the way down, son.

Anyway, this new brand of Atheism out there (gnu-Atheism) is a crock of shit. I'm referring to this dross put forward by Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, et al. Avoid those hacks, and you'll do well.

JackNWNJ said

bodyboarder725 saidAtheism is defined as the belief that there is no god... Isn't this just as religious as believing in the existence of a god?

The reason I say that is because, just like there's no way you can prove the existence of a god, there's also no way you can prove the existence of no god. So when you hear an atheist say "I don't believe in god" it's the same thing as a spiritual person say "I believe in god"... how can you prove either way?

I'm not sure if atheists just don't know the meaning of the word and they're really agnostic, but I think agnostic is a more appropriate term for someone who would like to say he's "atheist", right??

It's turtles all the way down, son.

Anyway, this new brand of Atheism out there (gnu-Atheism) is a crock of shit. I'm referring to this dross put forward by Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, et al. Avoid those hacks, and you'll do well.

lol, well at least you're finally being specific. Good grief.

tazo995 saidSounds like a typical religious thing, to call atheism a "religion too".

Yep. Someone once tried to convince me that there was polythism, monotheism and atheism - the latter a "religion" with 0 gods....

cgysteve saidAs some guy once pointed out, it's a bit unfair to label people who don't believe in gods as atheist.

There's no special word for people who don't believe in other stuff, like homeopathy or ghosts. It's just a label, not a belief. Atheists don't go around building churches to worship "No God," they just don't build churches at all. Not everything has an opposite, sometimes there's just an absence.

Well said.

In fact, consider that theists are "atheists" when it comes to other religions' deities.

GreenHopperOf course its a belief system.... once you have decided you believe something DOESNT exist.. then you have a belief.

Not quite. Does your belief system revolve around your (I'll presume) belief that there are no Unicorns and no Spaghetti Monster?

My belief system isn't based on the existence - or not - of divine beings.
It is not where I start (or end).

My belief system is based on reason & knowledge (as collected through - repeatable - experiments, with feedback and reform) and not on faith.

I posted something a while ago but apparently no one has read it, since the thread has not ended. Many people have said it before, but I'm just going to explain it again. The Atheism=religion argument is flawed because of this:

I'd like to think that Atheism and Science are quite interlinked in terms of the justifications they draw upon to support their conclusions. Science draws on empirical evidence which leads one to formulate a theory. If that theory cannot be proven false then it becomes a law. Likewise, the Atheist draws upon logic to come to a conclusion that there is no mysterious higher power - and unless that assumption is proven false, the Atheist will have to take it to be true and live life according to those principles.

For example, Einstein's theories have not been proven false and are thus generally accepted to be true. It is fallacious to require absolute knowledge because truth is based on the knowledge that we CAN acquire and is RELEVANT to us. So for that matter, whatever Atheists know of God not existing, as long as they provide consistent guidelines that hold true in our admittedly rather narrow reference frame, are taken to be the absolute truth until proven false. If it works for now, why reject it?

In this sense, the best estimation of truth becomes the absolute truth because it behaves like the truth.

Contrast this with religion, which draws on... well, faith. That means that it is difficult to prove something exists (in fact, Science has proven SO FAR that it does not exist) but we believe in it anyway.

I think that is the key point of distinction between the two camps; note that I did not say either was superior as there can be no common yardstick when you contrast faith with logic.

[quote]
Not quite. Does your belief system revolve around your (I'll presume) belief that there are no Unicorns and no Spaghetti Monster?
[/quote]

Ok now that i'm FINALLY understanding this point... that's exactly why atheists shouldn't be called what they're called... God is in the definition of atheist... there would be another word for the disbelief of a Spaghetti Monster... For atheists... that's the word of someone who believes in non-existence of a god... god (not a spaghetti monster) is IN that definition... that's why calling themselves atheists is wrong... -.- omg lol I hope you guys finally get what I'm trying to say

Ugh, no, that is just bad logic. Just because the definition of atheism contains the word God, doesn't mean it is a religion, that is ridiculous. Take an intro level philosophy/logic class so you can understand what you are saying makes NO sense. You can surely classify atheists into a group of people, but that group in no way is a religion, it is just a shared view of the world.

bodyboarder725 said

Caesarea4 saidDoes your belief system revolve around your (I'll presume) belief that there are no Unicorns and no Spaghetti Monster?

Ok now that i'm FINALLY understanding this point... that's exactly why atheists shouldn't be called what they're called... God is in the definition of atheist... there would be another word for the disbelief of a Spaghetti Monster... For atheists... that's the word of someone who believes in non-existence of a god... god (not a spaghetti monster) is IN that definition... that's why calling themselves atheists is wrong...

Not exactly.

Random House Dictionary (via dictionary.com):

Atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is alleged to be a supreme/divine being.

Atheists - literally a-theists (non-theists) - don't believe in any supreme/divine being.
Be it the FSM, Zeus, your God, Allah or the Great Spirit.

FSM is a constructed meme that mocks theistic worship, and that of the Judæo-Christian God "Yahweh".

Those who promote the "existence" of the FSM are more likely than not to be atheists - or otherwise people who view Yahweh and his followers as a source of humour.

bodyboarder725 saidAtheism is defined as the belief that there is no god... Isn't this just as religious as believing in the existence of a god?

The reason I say that is because, just like there's no way you can prove the existence of a god, there's also no way you can prove the existence of no god. So when you hear an atheist say "I don't believe in god" it's the same thing as a spiritual person say "I believe in god"... how can you prove either way?

I'm not sure if atheists just don't know the meaning of the word and they're really agnostic, but I think agnostic is a more appropriate term for someone who would like to say he's "atheist", right??

OP, the error you make is in the first sentence. "Atheism is defined as the belief that...". Wrong. It's the absence of any belief at all.

To believe = to think something to be true without having any evidence whatsoever to support the statement.

Atheism is simply the absence of any belief, it is most likely that there are no supernatural supreme beings because we have never seen them, heard them, or interacted with them, nor observed any doing by them.

Even if they did exist, their existence would be completely irrelevant to our lives on earth.

Just as we have assumed based on all available evidence that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light (which we are now questioning cause of that neutrino thing with the particle accelerator) we also go with all available evidence that there is no god like being.

It's the very same principle as "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt"

Religious people must have a hard time with this cause they're so used to "believing" things.

Calling atheism a belief is kinda insulting.

alphatrigger saidFSM is a constructed meme that mocks theistic worship, and that of the Judæo-Christian God "Yahweh".

Those who promote the "existence" of the FSM are more likely than not to be atheists - or otherwise people who view Yahweh and his followers as a source of humour.

Well. come on, it IS funny.
Rules on stone tablets? Burning bushes? Arks with animals?
Or, in the sequel, the whole loaves and fishes thing? Walking on water? Flying up into the sky three days after dying?

You couldn't make up anything funnier, unless it's that a couple of billion people believe this hogwash.

I think any religion can be a source of LULZ.

YJacket said...I will post as clear a summary of the position of a rational atheist as I've come across (from the same article):

``A man of reason does not accept ideas on faith. He knows that all of one's conclusions must be based on and derived from the facts of reality. He is, therefore, an atheist. His position is this: `I accept or consider only that for which there is rational evidence. If a theist wishes to assert the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him. But I do not regard his feeling that God exists as relevant or admissible to a rational discussion.' " (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963)

Just how short-lived is this reality? Don't some physicists wonder whether reality might be affected by observation? How does that play into the empirically known?

Such strict definitions as the one you proposed remind me Heinlein's "fair witness" (which I've mentioned in a past post), one of the few characters of reason who, for their function as a fair witness, can not rely upon faith at all.

When asked what color is that house, for instance, they can not say it is white though they might say that currently it seems to me to be white on this side. When they turn away, a fair witness can not comment at all but to say that in their memory, the last they looked it was white on the side they saw. They still can not say that it is a white house because they neither empirically know nor do they rely upon faith to guide them that nobody painted the house since last they looked or that it might have been another color on a side they did not see. Stiff, but accurate.

Does not faith provide some fluidity, some bouyancy even to the observable? Or is it the consistant repetition of the sun rising every morning what allows me to know it will rise again tomorrow without my relying upon faith?

Picture yourself as a life long, practiced lucid dreamer such that you are just as conscious, if not, arguably by some, more so, than when your body is awake. You are just as aware of yourself in your sleep, that you are in your bed, that you are sleeping, that you are dreaming, as you are aware of yourself when your body is not asleep, when you are in your car, driving to a friend's home. It is comfortable, it is recognizable, it is negotiable.

Now take that a step further. Suppose, as a conscious dreamer, you are able to re-enter dreams you've had before with the same dream scene and the same dream characters who you've dreamt before. And suppose you do this with regularity, just like waking up each morning to the same scenes and the same people in your life when your body is not sleeping. Does that repetition of the sun rising every evening in your dream make the dream a reality or is there some element of faith that you must apply to your waking world which you might not to the dream one?

Not only might reality be affected by observation as some physics seems to indicate, but does not observation seem affected by faith? If that is true, then is it a complete stretch to consider that faith can affect reality? If that is not altogether unreasonable, then must a reasonable man deny ideas based in faith?

[quote]
OP, the error you make is in the first sentence. "Atheism is defined as the belief that...". Wrong. It's the absence of any belief at all.
[/quote]

um... according to the Oxford English dictionary... atheism means: "atheist |ˈāTHēˌist|
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist."

I don't know where you get your definitions from but that's the one i have on my mac... lol

Taken from one of my school's paid databases, also from Oxford, is Oxford Reference on religion and philosophy, and here is a link to their definition...

"Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of God [I inserted the bold]; to be distinguished from agnosticism, which professes uncertainty on the question. Modern atheists make a variety of claims to defend their position: that there is little or no real evidence for the existence of God, that theism is refuted by the existence of evil in the world, that it is meaningless because unverifiable, that it is inauthentic because it attacks human autonomy, and that it is unscientific.

In Indian religion and philosophy, atheism is addressed to different understandings of what God is and does (according to those who believe), and is often more subtle. Thus Jains and Buddhists allow that within the domains of appearance, that which might be labelled ‘God’ is no less (but no more) real than other transient appearances, and is of effect; but in practice, ‘God’ must be left behind for true progress to be made. Among Hindus, several systems interpreted the tradition without involving God, e.g. Carvaka; Sakhya was initially atheistic, though God was later able to be accommodated in the system; and Prva and Uttara Mmsdebated the worth of arguments pointing to God."

"Atheism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Marymount University. 13 November 2011 /www.oxfordreference.com.proxymu.wrlc.org/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t101.e759>

And one more thing... I'm not trying to say that god exists, there is NO proof of that... but what proof is there that god doesn't exist?

I understand that as long as there is no evidence of it then why believe it... just like there is no evidence of monsters under your bed, why believe it in the first place.

My point for this whole post is that, according to the definitions I cited above... atheists DO take GOD into consideration, not monsters under your bed, unicorns, whatever... atheists - based on those definitions that I showed you guys - claim that god does not exist...

Now lets go back to that discussion of simply not believing because of a lack of evidence... This is why it's wrong for people who don't believe in god simply because of a lack of evidence to call themselves atheist... they're ignorant because the definition takes god into consideration, while these people don't take god anymore into consideration than unicorns, flying pigs, whatever you wanna think about... do you guys get my point yet -.-

bodyboarder725 saidAnd one more thing... I'm not trying to say that god exists, there is NO proof of that... but what proof is there that god doesn't exist?

Apparently you're not getting it. There doesn't have to be proof that God doesn't exist, there has to be proof that he does.

jpBITCHva said

bodyboarder725 saidAnd one more thing... I'm not trying to say that god exists, there is NO proof of that... but what proof is there that god doesn't exist?

Apparently you're not getting it. There doesn't have to be proof that God doesn't exist, there has to be proof that he does.

no i understand that... the point is the definition of atheism... look at the sources i posted above... as long as those definitions are what constitutes "atheism" then people who (just like you said, don't need any proof that god doesn't exist) call themselves atheist, are wrong... because they're making a claim they can't prove... according to the definitions above...

There does not seem to be any rational explanation - or evidence that conclusive *disproves* the existence of God or other supernatural forces.

Just as much as there is no evidence that supports the existence of the same. ...

Or rather, there is evidence, but how that evidence is interpreted and assembled/compared/contrasted with other evidence seems to have varying results.

So really, this whole thread is about fishing for an atheist to admit that not believing in a diety(ies) is actually a belief in not believing and thus contradictory by the definition of 'atheist'?

bodyboarder725 saidI'm not sure if atheists just don't know the meaning of the word and they're really agnostic, but I think agnostic is a more appropriate term for someone who would like to say he's "atheist", right??

No, I think the more appropriate term for someone who would like to say they're 'atheist' - in that they lack religious beliefs is 'irreligious'. But really, they're synonymous terms and 'atheist' is simply the widely accepted term for such an individual.

[quote]
No, I think the more appropriate term for someone who would like to say they're 'atheist' - in that they lack religious beliefs is 'irreligious'. But really, they're synonymous terms and 'atheist' is simply the widely accepted term for such an individual.[/quote]

Once again, just look at the definition of atheist.

The claim that an atheist can definitively know that there is no God is ridiculous.

They may believe that there is no God, but that is a belief not unlike someone who hasn't "seen" God but believes that there is one.

Natural laws, governing dynamics and physics are proofs for atheists that there is no God, but for those who believe in God, they are proofs of the Divine.

Atheists simply DON'T know that there is no God...they merely believe there is not.

That is a faith, whether they like it or not, or choose to admit it or not.

Just like you can't disprove the existence of god, you can't disprove the existence of the easter bunny, santa claus, the tooth fairy, the boogie man, the great pumpkin, et al. If I had reason to believe in any of them, I would. I don't, so, I don't.