Freethought & Rationalism Archive

braces_for_impact · 08-03-2003, 12:09 PM

Equivocation at it's finest. Once again an attempt to prove atheism a religion, thereby levelling the intellectual playing field.

If you can't prove your own position, poke holes in you opponent's. The problem is, this doesn't make your own position any stronger.

Quote:

Main Entry: re�li�gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re�li�gion�less adjective

Lets look at this now shall we? Does atheism fit this definition?

1: The state of a religious <snip> Ok, this doesn't help much, lets get to the meat of the matter...

1b: the service and worship of God or the supernatural Well that about speaks for itself doesn't it? No worhipping or service going on here.
1b2 commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Well since we can't give commitment or devotion to something we don't worship or service this one doesn't seem to apply.
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices no personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, or practices.
3 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Can atheists said to be scrupulous? Some but not all, guess that doesn't apply since atheism says nothing on the topic of morality. Same goes with conformity and conscientiousness.
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Hmmmm. Does it take faith to say "I don't believe in god?" No. It takes faith to say "God's existence is impossible".

It seems that Webster agrees with me on this point.

Refused · 08-03-2003, 02:54 PM

Ok, I think this saying needs to be repeated:

"Atheism is a religion like not-collecting stamps is a hobby"

In other words, it isn't.

And, for Charles, agosticism deals in knowledge and atheism pertains to belief.

An agnostic says we can't know for sure if a pre-historic creature is at the bottom of a Loch, and an atheist says he believes there isn't enough evidence to support the fact that there is a creature in the loch (and then scans the loch with satalite equipment, voila!)

And.. a creationist thinks the satalite is from satan.

my .42 cents...

- Refused

Charles Darwin · 08-03-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

So what? A metaphysical belief does not a religion make.

Again, how do metaphysics entail religious beliefs? [/B]

The question is not whether atheism is a religion, but whether is entails religious belief. As for your second question, metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and ultimate truth claims. It is not provable by science. I think of a metaphysical claim as entailing a religious belief. If you disagree, then please think of this thread name as: "Does atheism entail metaphysical claims?"

Charles Darwin · 08-03-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
Then perhaps you should heed the advice of the numerous posters who have already explained to you that they are not concluding that another explanation is better, but merely that there is not sufficient reason to believe in a God.

I'm not doubting or contending with folks's beliefs. I'm merely asking them to explain why their belief does not entail any religious or metaphysical premises.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
You seem stuck on this point and perhaps it would be helpful to go back and actually consider, rather than immediately debating in your mind, what people have told you.

If you don't understand the difference between having an active belief in the existence of something and failing to believe something exists due to lack of any logical reason to so believe, this thread will continue its hopeless circle.

You are mischaracterizing atheism. The atheist is not a person who does not believe in anything; rather, the atheist is a person who does not believe in God. In other words (IOW), the atheist believes that God does not exist. This is a belief. My question is: does this belief entail any metaphysics or religious belief? You are confusing "religious belief" with "belief in God."

Quote:

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
Among a million other things, such as believing God did not invent Tic Tacs. Am I, therefore, "religious" in my views toward Tic Tacs? The conclusions you are forcing yourself to reach do not logically follow.

You are presenting a trivial example, several of which have already been presented and discussed earlier in the thread (eg, Santa delivering presents). I've already addressed this.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
I personally believe the world arose because a Gitmar and Lackning became confused during a round of Sibibi. Neither the Gitmar nor the Lackning are Gods and you can't prove otherwise.

Why do you believe in this particular explanation?

Charles Darwin · 08-03-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Charles Darwin: you have in fact raised a number of issues in this thread.

One is what being an atheist means. We are always having threads on this and the majority position here is always that

[size=large]an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s)

NOT

someone who says that no gods exist[/size]

We are surely able to decide what we think without having you inform us from on high that we are or are not atheists according to your lights. I refer you to the many threads on what is meant by the word "atheist", since it is tedious to have to keep going over this. There are some strong atheists here who do say that no gods can exist, but they are not the majority. If you persist in asserting that you know what an atheist is and we don't, you are simply setting up a straw man.

I don't know how you got the idea that I'm fixed on this definition. Maybe I mistakenly typed it somewhere. I'll say again, I'm operating off the definition that an atheist is a person who does not believe in any god, and therefore believes (this is not a truth claim, simply a belief) that no gods exist. If I'm in error here please disabuse me.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Another idea is that if we do not have faith that a god or gods created the universe, then we must have faith in some alternative explanation. This really doesn't follow. I personally have no idea how the universe came to be. I don't dismiss it as an unimportant problem either. Nor do I have faith that science will ultimately know everything that is to be known. So I accept that there are some important unknowns. Given the progress that science has made in recent centuries, I would expect(=think it likely) that further progress in unravelling the workings of the universe would be made, but I don't have faith that they will be.

You are slightly mischaracterizing the situation. The concept of faith is not necessary here. The situation is simply this: If you believe no god exists, and you agree the universe (whatever that really is) does exist, then the position you have taken necessarily entails the belief that there is some alternate explanation for the universe's existence. This is simply a logical fact -- it says nothing about whether you've ever actually pondered any such alternate explanations. People hold to all sorts of absurd positions without being consciously aware of their own internal contradictions and fallacies. The fact that you have no idea how the existence came about, and perhaps haven't bothered by it, or pondered it, is irrelevant. You are holding to a belief the necessarily entails the belief that such an explanation exists.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Then there is the idea that if we say we don't know how the universe originated, we ought to accept your god hypothesis. So if I hadn't arrived at a reason for the appearance of xmas presents and Santa was the only story offered to me, I ought to accept it if I didn't have a better alternative.

One is never obliged to accept a particular explanation, and certainly not if it lacks supporting evidence, just because one doesn't have an alternative one. It is perfectly respectable to say on the evidence so far, "I don't know what the explanation is, but I am unconvinced by your story."

I don't know where this came from, or how you possibly read this from the preceding thread. You seem to have entirely missed the point of the thread. I'm asking no one to accept a god hypothesis. I'm asking for atheists to explain why their position entials no metaphysical or religious beliefs.

Philosoft · 08-03-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
The question is not whether atheism is a religion, but whether is entails religious belief.

Why is that the question? You are trying to tie this to Church-State separation, are you not?

Quote:

As for your second question, metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and ultimate truth claims. It is not provable by science.

And not necessitated by atheism.

Quote:

I think of a metaphysical claim as entailing a religious belief.

It doesn't necessarily, so your claim fails.

Quote:

If you disagree, then please think of this thread name as: "Does atheism entail metaphysical claims?"

No. Atheism entails an absence of belief. Show me a God and a universe-creating mechanism and that will probably change to a presence of belief.

crazyfingers · 08-03-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin

You are mischaracterizing atheism. The atheist is not a person who does not believe in anything; rather, the atheist is a person who does not believe in God. In other words (IOW), the atheist believes that God does not exist.

The belief that a god does not exist is only the definition of a strong atheist. I see that you did not take my advice and search the library for the definitions of strong vs weak atheist. A strong atheist says that god does not exist.

A weak atheist simply has no belief in a god the same as you have no belief in Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere oif Jupiter.

If I told you that there are Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter, would you say that they do not exist or would you simply not believe. That's the difference.

crocodile deathroll · 08-03-2003, 07:01 PM

Most Buddhists like myself are atheists and most of the ones I have met also take their religion very seriously.
But they believe in Karma, I don't. :boohoo:

Charles Darwin · 08-03-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers
The belief that a god does not exist is only the definition of a strong atheist. I see that you did not take my advice and search the library for the definitions of strong vs weak atheist. A strong atheist says that god does not exist.

A weak atheist simply has no belief in a god the same as you have no belief in Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere oif Jupiter.

If I told you that there are Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter, would you say that they do not exist or would you simply not believe. That's the difference.

You are reading more into my words than what is there. For instance, regarding your Giant Green Blob Creatures example, I would not say they don't exist, I would say I don't believe that they exist, just as the weak atheist says that he doesn't believe that God exists.

Above you say the strong atheist (i) believes that God does not exist, and (ii) claims that God does not exist. Those are two different things. Which is it? Are you saying that the weak atheist does not believe that god does not exist, yet simultaneously does not believe in God. Of course not, that would be nonsense. The weak atheist does not believe in God, and therefore does not believe that God exists.

In another post you wrote:

Quote:

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism.

I found this:

Quote:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Not sure this makes sense, but given this definition, then in this thread I'm talking about strong atheism. So the thread should be titled: "Does strong atheism entail metaphysical or religious beliefs?"

You wrote:

Quote:

I am not denying the possibility that a god did it. I simply lack belief that a god did it. A lot of theists have a hard time with that distinction. I think that it comnes from a mindset that assumes that a god exists.

I have no problem with that distinction. My point is not that you deny the possibility; my point is that you believe it not to be so. You have a belief, and the belief carries with it certain implications. You cannot rationally say that you don't believe God created existence and that you also don't believe in any other explanation for existence.

You are choosing to believe that God did not create existence, therefore you must believe there is some other explanation. You may not have settled on an alternate explanation; you may not have even given it any thought. But that is the consequence of your belief. If you seriously explored the implications of your belief, you would eventually come to the problem of existence, and you'd have to admit that your belief entails the belief that existence is explained apart from God (since you believe there is no God). And you'd have to admit that that belief is metaphysical. Why am I wrong here?

crazyfingers · 08-03-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You are reading more into my words than what is there. For instance, regarding your Giant Green Blob Creatures example, I would not say they don't exist, I would say I don't believe that they exist, just as the weak atheist says that he doesn't believe that God exists.

Above you say the strong atheist (i) believes that God does not exist, and (ii) claims that God does not exist. Those are two different things. Which is it? Are you saying that the weak atheist does not believe that god does not exist, yet simultaneously does not believe in God. Of course not, that would be nonsense. The weak atheist does not believe in God, and therefore does not believe that God exists.

A weak atheist would say that there is no evidence that a god exists and so he has no belief in a god. If asked if a god exists the weak atheist would say "I don't know, but lacking any evidence, there is no reason to even ask the question. " As I said, weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism "the position that whether a god exists or not is not unknowable" but it is not the same.

Again, I suggest that if you are unclear on the distinctions between strong atheist, weak atheist or agnostic that you read up on it. Here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2003, 02:54 PM	#62
Refused Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 490	Ok, I think this saying needs to be repeated: "Atheism is a religion like not-collecting stamps is a hobby" In other words, it isn't. And, for Charles, agosticism deals in knowledge and atheism pertains to belief. An agnostic says we can't know for sure if a pre-historic creature is at the bottom of a Loch, and an atheist says he believes there isn't enough evidence to support the fact that there is a creature in the loch (and then scans the loch with satalite equipment, voila!) And.. a creationist thinks the satalite is from satan. my .42 cents... - Refused

08-03-2003, 07:01 PM	#68
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Most Buddhists like myself are atheists and most of the ones I have met also take their religion very seriously. But they believe in Karma, I don't. :boohoo:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.