diana

I was just reading a different BB last night, one not specifically geared toward religious discussion, but a religious discussion had somehow developed (<a href="http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?s=700d27fe3b0ae65a3d826079202e6b2b& threadid=27190&perpage=15&pagenumber=1" target="_blank">The distorted fanboy version of Silver Surfer vs. Our Lord and Savior</a>--from a topic thread in Misc. Disc.). It was interesting in that the level of discourse was--how you say?--more primitive in regards to the exchanges we normally enjoy on II (excepting RR&P, of course).

The theists were throwing out all the standard arguments and assertions by the boatload. Or, they would simply toss out the comments designed to throw the atheists into a frenzy. One of these was the old tried and true "Atheism is just as much a religion as Xnty."

It was quickly met with the standard comeback "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color," of course.

So one of the theists said:
To which the atheist (aka, General Zod) replied:
To which the theist replied:
I was thinking about this exchange when I awoke this morning, for some reason. (Maybe I need a life .)

I've said before that I have a problem with what "denial" of anything implies, and why I reject Webster's definition of atheism on that grounds (i.e., I have no knowledge of a higher being to deny), but I thought I'd focus on the Atheism is a religion comment that gets thrown in our faces so often.

I think the old comeback is so worn that it makes no dent with anyone anymore (much like "don't drink and drive" is so cliched that it goes unheeded). Let's argue this from another angle, then.

We can explain that we define atheism as "a lack of belief in any higher power," and then go the way of explaining the difference between "knowledge" and "belief/faith."

And/or, we can look at the definition of "religion"--which, unless I miss my guess, will still leave us discussing the difference between "knowledge" and "belief/faith."

Two roads converged in a wood, and I
I took the one less travelled by
And that has made not a damn bit of difference.

We're still stuck explaining why

lack of faith in a god != faith in no god

aren't we?

So I was thinking that there must be some new way to go about explaining this, some new angle.

I've tried pointing out that if the opposite of "faith" is also "faith," then the opposite of "up" must also be "up," and the opposite of "incorrect" couldn't possible be "correct," but must perforce also be "incorrect." This has the effect of my opponent simply tacking into the wind.

I keep searching for the root of the "explaining what faith is to a believer" problem so I can know how to answer it effectively. It's so clear to me what it is and what it is not, but believers seem unwilling or unable to admit that there are many people who simply do not believe in things based on their desire to believe.

I've used the definitions from their own book which make it quite clear that "faith" is, essentially, something you believe in sans evidence; the only reason you have that faith is because of your hope.

The biblical definition of "faith" is much narrower than the way it is applied by most apologists in their efforts to prove that atheists have it, too.

Then I thought, doesn't their own book say there are those who don't believe?

After a quick search, I found 16 verses in the NT that speak of unbelief. Here are three:

So...if they really think we all have "faith"--then what's all this about "unbelief," then? Does the biblical acknowledgement that people do not believe count for naught?

d

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Bible Humper

I never call myself an atheist unless I'm here because of the way the word has been twisted into something totally else by the christians. They've propped so many strawmen around it that trying to explain it to them is probably futile. I find it much better, though tedious, to explain the position of atheism without ever actually using the word.

I have found that they can't even conceptualize atheism anyway, they think we are either "mad at God", "too proud to let ourselves perceive God", or are part of a rival religion. They often say "you have to believe in something!"

wade-w

Lets look at the definition of religion you got from the dictionary. There were 4 seperate defintiions given.

1a obviously doesn't apply. 1b(1) is what most reasonable people think of when you say "religion". But this doesn't apply to an athiest precisley because we don't believe in God. 1a(2) seems circular to me.

Again, this definition seems circular.

"scrupulous conformity" doesn't sound much like any athiest I've ever met, but it DOES sound a lot like every fundie I've ever met. Projection, maybe?

Here, I think, we get to meat of the problem. Note that this definition requires faith
It is precisely because we reject this idea of faith in something we have absolutely no evidence for that we are athiests.

I can't see how athiesm is a religion, because there is no canon, no orthodoxy, no commonality of belief, other than a rejection of the idea of some sort of supernatural creator. And where is the priesthood?

I think most people who make this claim do so because they simply can't imagine that someone could possibly do without some sort of religion. To them, its simply inconceivable that somneone would throw out their religion, and choose to have NOTHING in its place. Their religion provides them with easy "answers" to all their questions, as long as they don't look at it too closely. They don't understand that some people are strong enough to face the unknown without a crutch of some sort.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

galiel

Um, no, not really. Some define atheism as lacking faith in the existence of a supernatural being or force, and some define it as a firm conviction about the non-existence of same. All reputable dictionaries that I have checked have both definitions as options. Note that I have worded the second option as "firm conviction" not "faith". They are not at all the same thing.

I happen to have concluded, to my complete satisfaction, that there is no god--at the same level of conclusion as the "theory" of evolution, or photosythesis. Using the scientific method, there are no inviolable "facts", nothing taken on "faith"--everything is subject to disproof.

Science, contrary to common misunderstanding, is not about discovering "Truth". Science is about figuring out workable models of universal principles.

Thus, my conclusion that, for all intents and purposes, there is no god, is not a belief or a religion, it is a scientifically valid conclusion, absent evidence to the contrary.

Both definitions of atheism are valid, which I agree causes some confusion. However, in terms of the way one lives one's life and interacts with the world, there really isn't any difference between the two. Certainly the fundamentaly distinction between those who act on faith and those who do not is much more significant.

Theists raising this red herring is a favorite debate tactic. It shifts the discussion from areas with which they are not confortable and puts atheists, needlessly, on the defence. I suggest turning the tables, if one is debating Christians, and asking whether or not Mary ascended to heaven. Let them squirm and turn their cannons at each other.

Or, better yet, don't bother debating them, as engaging in rational debate is hypocritical on their part--they do not accept the premise that rational debate can shed light on the truth, since no religion believes it is subject to rational analysis, so, a priori, they are being false.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Nameless One

Is theism a religion?

Starboy

The definition of atheist is one of the reasons I have taken to calling myself an a-theist or a non-theist. The dictionary definition is more suited for the word anti-theist, but there are many that would disagree with this. Since the Christians are intent on defining atheist to suit their own purposes perhaps we should invent our own word with our own definition.

Starboy

diana

Yes, exactly. When I looked up the definition, I was thinking, "Perhaps there is a definition that fits." After all, I run religiously. By this I mean I do it on a regular basis and with conviction. Why can't I debate atheism religiously?

But none of the definitions provided allows for simple conviction and ongoing effort. They all require either adherence to a dogma or faith. Hence, none applies technically.

Exactly. So how do you go about getting this idea across to them?

That is the problem.

d

diana

I said: We're still stuck explaining why

lack of faith in a god != faith in no god

aren't we?

I think you misunderstand what I meant, galiel, because I agree with all you've said. "!=" mean's "does not equal." I was talking about the theist tendency to assume that a lack of belief in God is equivalent to faith in no God. I contend that the opposite of "faith" is not also "faith," but "no faith."

Note that I have worded the second option as "firm conviction" not "faith". They are not at all the same thing.

Concur. In my opinion, my conviction that something is so is based on experience, scientifically demonstrated and reproducible proof, the evidence of my senses and pragmatism. "Faith," according to the bible, is a belief you have in the absence of acceptible proofs. They are quite different.

Science, contrary to common misunderstanding, is not about discovering "Truth". Science is about figuring out workable models of universal principles.

Concisely put.

Or, better yet, don't bother debating them, as engaging in rational debate is hypocritical on their part--they do not accept the premise that rational debate can shed light on the truth, since no religion believes it is subject to rational analysis, so, a priori, they are being false.

We so need an icon with just a bright light bulb. This would deserve it.

d

diana

Yeah, starboy. I've been ticked about that since I bothered to look it up in the dictionary and learned that it meant that I "denied" the existence of God (this only after I found myself in a debate with someone who was assuming this was the accepted definition of the word and we--atheists--concurred).

I subsequently had "Infidel" stamped on my dogtags (dictionary definition is simple: one who does not believe in a deity). So I'm evil, wicked, mean and nasty and heretical, sacrifice babies and seduce your children. Whatever.

Fuck 'em.

Whatever word you come up with that has the simple meaning of "I don't believe in your god" will quickly enough be saddled with all the baggage they presently associate with "atheist." The only way to change their minds is to adopt the title as your own then prove it wrong.

d

wade-w

I don't think there is a solution. Someone who really believes that athiesm is somehoe a religion is not going to be convinced mo matter what we say.