Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[drjean]

I am neither unwilling, unable, nor ignorant but fully cognitive of the complete definitions of "religion."

I interjected that Christianity is not a religion (it is a faith) while atheism is... and yet those who choose to only argue and not study and contemplate continue to judge one thing by one standard and refuse to judge another by the same.

I wish not to engage in debate; I know what I know.
I will speak to the OP and OP subject: Atheism. What are your thoughts?
I would hope that each poster would not speak to what someone else thinks, but speak to what he personally thinks.

Be well.

(Kennedy)

The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
Atheism: A religion

 

[hollyda]

I am neither unwilling, unable, nor ignorant but fully cognitive of the complete definitions of "religion."

I interjected that Christianity is not a religion (it is a faith) while atheism is... and yet those who choose to only argue and not study and contemplate continue to judge one thing by one standard and refuse to judge another by the same.

I wish not to engage in debate; I know what I know.
I will speak to the OP and OP subject: Atheism. What are your thoughts?
I would hope that each poster would not speak to what someone else thinks, but speak to what he personally thinks.

Be well.

You interjected an opinion that was addressed and discussed. Atheism, without qualifiers, fails every conventional definition of religion. You can only make it a religion by qualifying it, and even then, those qualifiers are subject to refutation.

But since it's a matter of, "I think it, therefore it is so!" I'll say Christianity is a religion. And if atheism is also a religion, then Christians are polytheistic, for they actively deny the existence of other gods. And denying the existence of gods, Christian or otherwise, makes one an atheist.

 

[AlexBP]

Logically speaking was what I was aiming for.

Very well. Would you agree that if we apply your logic consistently, it would be impossible to logically prove that any person took any action as a result of any belief, ever? If we think like you think, wouldn't we have to conlude that no matter what the circumstances, the person might have done the same action even if his or her beliefs were entirely different.

To most people I've met, it's simple common sense that what a person believes leads him or her to take actions, and a different set of beliefs would obviously lead to different actions. You're free to disagree, but you should realize how bizarre your position looks.

Not likely.

You would be out on a very thin limb if you tried to claim that someone would do such a thing *because* they were atheists.

But I'm not claiming any such thing, am I? My point was simple. In countless posts on this board and elsewhere, atheists say that people's religious beliefs led them to commit the 9/11 attacks and other atrocities. If we use your logic, we'd have to conclude that the 9/11 hijackers and other such people could have done the same thing even if they didn't have religious beliefs. So if we use your logic, countless atheists are making assertions with a wrong premise.

I might excempt Mother Teresa. I understand that she had a predilection for human suffering that might be difficult to assign to secular motivations.

That's an interesting thing to say. Here are some facts about Mother Teresa's life from this biography.

On October 7, 1950, Mother Teresa received permission from the Holy See to start her own order, "The Missionaries of Charity", whose primary task was to love and care for those persons nobody was prepared to look after. In 1965 the Society became an International Religious Family by a decree of Pope Paul VI.

Today the order comprises Active and Contemplative branches of Sisters and Brothers in many countries. In 1963 both the Contemplative branch of the Sisters and the Active branch of the Brothers was founded. In 1979 the Contemplative branch of the Brothers was added, and in 1984 the Priest branch was established.

The Society of Missionaries has spread all over the world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. They provide effective help to the poorest of the poor in a number of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and they undertake relief work in the wake of natural catastrophes such as floods, epidemics, and famine, and for refugees. The order also has houses in North America, Europe and Australia, where they take care of the shut-ins, alcoholics, homeless, and AIDS sufferers.

The Missionaries of Charity throughout the world are aided and assisted by Co-Workers who became an official International Association on March 29, 1969. By the 1990s there were over one million Co-Workers in more than 40 countries. Along with the Co-Workers, the lay Missionaries of Charity try to follow Mother Teresa's spirit and charism in their families.

Mother Teresa's work has been recognised and acclaimed throughout the world and she has received a number of awards and distinctions, including the Pope John XXIII Peace Prize (1971) and the Nehru Prize for her promotion of international peace and understanding (1972). She also received the Balzan Prize (1979) and the Templeton and Magsaysay awards.
​

So it seems that far from a predeliction of suffering, she had a predeliction for stopping suffering. I'm aware that some atheists such as Christopher Hitchens have devoted an extraordinary amount of effort to hating her. To me that says a lot about Mr. Hitchens.

 

[Davian]

Very well. Would you agree that if we apply your logic consistently, it would be impossible to logically prove that any person took any action as a result of any belief, ever?

No, you would not be able to prove such things.

If we think like you think, wouldn't we have to conlude that no matter what the circumstances, the person might have done the same action even if his or her beliefs were entirely different.

It may not be the same action, but similar. But, as I said before, my comments were aimed at your blanket statement.

To most people I've met, it's simple common sense that what a person believes leads him or her to take actions, and a different set of beliefs would obviously lead to different actions. You're free to disagree, but you should realize how bizarre your position looks.

"Common sense" can lead one down many blind alleys.

But I'm not claiming any such thing, am I? My point was simple. In countless posts on this board and elsewhere, atheists say that people's religious beliefs led them to commit the 9/11 attacks and other atrocities. If we use your logic, we'd have to conclude that the 9/11 hijackers and other such people could have done the same thing even if they didn't have religious beliefs. So if we use your logic, countless atheists are making assertions with a wrong premise.

Perhaps that is your logic. I cannot comment without seeing specific examples of these assertions. Why would a lack of religious beliefs preclude one from such actions?

My logic just states that they would not do it because of their atheism.

That's an interesting thing to say. Here are some facts about Mother Teresa's life from this biography.

On October 7, 1950, Mother Teresa received permission from the Holy See to start her own order, "The Missionaries of Charity", whose primary task was to love and care for those persons nobody was prepared to look after. In 1965 the Society became an International Religious Family by a decree of Pope Paul VI.

Today the order comprises Active and Contemplative branches of Sisters and Brothers in many countries. In 1963 both the Contemplative branch of the Sisters and the Active branch of the Brothers was founded. In 1979 the Contemplative branch of the Brothers was added, and in 1984 the Priest branch was established.

The Society of Missionaries has spread all over the world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. They provide effective help to the poorest of the poor in a number of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and they undertake relief work in the wake of natural catastrophes such as floods, epidemics, and famine, and for refugees. The order also has houses in North America, Europe and Australia, where they take care of the shut-ins, alcoholics, homeless, and AIDS sufferers.

The Missionaries of Charity throughout the world are aided and assisted by Co-Workers who became an official International Association on March 29, 1969. By the 1990s there were over one million Co-Workers in more than 40 countries. Along with the Co-Workers, the lay Missionaries of Charity try to follow Mother Teresa's spirit and charism in their families.

Mother Teresa's work has been recognised and acclaimed throughout the world and she has received a number of awards and distinctions, including the Pope John XXIII Peace Prize (1971) and the Nehru Prize for her promotion of international peace and understanding (1972). She also received the Balzan Prize (1979) and the Templeton and Magsaysay awards.
​

So it seems that far from a predeliction of suffering, she had a predeliction for stopping suffering. I'm aware that some atheists such as Christopher Hitchens have devoted an extraordinary amount of effort to hating her. To me that says a lot about Mr. Hitchens.

How would you describe "effective help"?

"The legend of her Homes for the Dying has moved the world to tears. Reality, however, is scandalous: In the overcrowded and primitive little homes, many patients have to share a bed with others. Though there are many suffering from tuberculosis, AIDS and other highly infectious illnesses, hygiene is no concern. The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus that he should stop kissing me!" Do we have to be grateful to be the victims of this very special kind of charity? Do we have to tolerate that ignorant and helpless people are used as extras in the inhumane and cruel religious drama of the beauty of suffering in Christ?"

"India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa"

 

[AlexBP]

How would you describe "effective help"?

Founding schools for children who otherwise wouldn't get education, food banks to feed the starving, providing hospital beds and medicine for those who wouldn't otherwise have them, and other things of that nature.

"The legend of her Homes for the Dying has moved the world to tears. Reality, however, is scandalous: In the overcrowded and primitive little homes, many patients have to share a bed with others. Though there are many suffering from tuberculosis, AIDS and other highly infectious illnesses, hygiene is no concern. The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus that he should stop kissing me!" Do we have to be grateful to be the victims of this very special kind of charity? Do we have to tolerate that ignorant and helpless people are used as extras in the inhumane and cruel religious drama of the beauty of suffering in Christ?"

"India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa"

One thing that you'll have to learn about me is that I don't believe everything I read. This often puts me in conflict with this board's atheists, many of whom seem to think that I'm under an obligation to believe anything that gets posted on the internet. The link that you just provided goes to a personal webpage that has no citations, footnotes, or sources to back up any of its claims. Moreover, a quick trip to the front page will show that the author has an ax to grind with Catholics and a weak connection to reality. For example, he claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, whereas in actuality he died of a heart attack. Trusting a webpage like that to report accurately about Mother Teresa would be like trusting the Klan to report accurately about President Obama.

As for Mother Teresa, her charitable work received strong praise from numerous sources both religious and secular. The governments of India, the United States, and countless other nations praised her for what she did. She won the Nobel Peace Prize and countless other prizes and medals from unbiased organizations. If the things posted on the webpage you listed were true, then it would require that all of these many, worldwide organizations were part of massive conspiracy to cover up the truth about her, which is far-fetched to say the least.

 

[Asvin]

You interjected an opinion that was addressed and discussed. Atheism, without qualifiers, fails every conventional definition of religion. You can only make it a religion by qualifying it, and even then, those qualifiers are subject to refutation.

But since it's a matter of, "I think it, therefore it is so!" I'll say Christianity is a religion. And if atheism is also a religion, then Christians are polytheistic, for they actively deny the existence of other gods. And denying the existence of gods, Christian or otherwise, makes one an atheist.

I just want to point out that Christians are NOT atheists when it comes to other Gods! Atheism is the claim that there is no God! No Christian believes that there is no God! We Christians say that their version of the God is not real. Which, in essence, is saying that their God doesn't exist. But that doesn't make Christians atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, say that there is no God. There is a difference!

 

[Davian]

Founding schools for children who otherwise wouldn't get education, food banks to feed the starving, providing hospital beds and medicine for those who wouldn't otherwise have them, and other things of that nature.

I was specifically referring to the medical aid provided by her organization. I am aware of the other things her orgnization did, as part of its missionary work.

One thing that you'll have to learn about me is that I don't believe everything I read.

Do you believe the bible?

This often puts me in conflict with this board's atheists, many of whom seem to think that I'm under an obligation to believe anything that gets posted on the internet. The link that you just provided goes to a personal webpage that has no citations, footnotes, or sources to back up any of its claims. Moreover, a quick trip to the front page will show that the author has an ax to grind with Catholics and a weak connection to reality. For example, he claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, whereas in actuality he died of a heart attack. Trusting a webpage like that to report accurately about Mother Teresa would be like trusting the Klan to report accurately about President Obama.

Please provide your own opinons of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine, with citations.

As for Mother Teresa, her charitable work received strong praise from numerous sources both religious and secular. The governments of India, the United States, and countless other nations praised her for what she did. She won the Nobel Peace Prize and countless other prizes and medals from unbiased organizations. If the things posted on the webpage you listed were true, then it would require that all of these many, worldwide organizations were part of massive conspiracy to cover up the truth about her, which is far-fetched to say the least.

I only quoted the section on her approach to pain management and the level of health care her organization provided, as that was what I was referring to in my earlier comment. Do you dispute that part?

To do some of my own goal post moving, please note that as an ignostic atheist, I watch with amazement as billions of dollars go into an industry that appears to be unable to substantiate its most basic core claims, such as the existence of deities, the afterlife, heaven, etc. How do they get away with that? MT is just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Davian]

I just want to point out that Christians are NOT atheists when it comes to other Gods!

What other deities do they believe to exist?

Atheism is the claim that there is no God!

No, it is not.

No Christian believes that there is no God!

Except for Christian atheists.

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We Christians say that their version of the God is not real. Which, in essence, is saying that their God doesn't exist.

Don't they say the same for your God? You may both be right.

But that doesn't make Christians atheists.

Except for those deities that you don't believe in.

Atheists, on the other hand, say that there is no God.

Not all of them, so you are wrong.

There is a difference!

Demonstrate that such a thing as a deity might actually exist, and then we can look for differences.

Oh, and as you appeared to have missed this earlier, can you speculate on specific things you think would be different if God were evil?

 

[Redac]

I just want to point out that Christians are NOT atheists when it comes to other Gods! Atheism is the claim that there is no God! No Christian believes that there is no God! We Christians say that their version of the God is not real. Which, in essence, is saying that their God doesn't exist. But that doesn't make Christians atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, say that there is no God. There is a difference!

An atheist lacks believe in any god or deity. You lack belief in any god that is not your own. Therefore, you are an atheist with regard to every god except your own.

 

[hollyda]

I just want to point out that Christians are NOT atheists when it comes to other Gods! Atheism is the claim that there is no God! No Christian believes that there is no God! We Christians say that their version of the God is not real. Which, in essence, is saying that their God doesn't exist. But that doesn't make Christians atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, say that there is no God. There is a difference!

Do you believe in Zeus? No? Congrats, you're an atheist. And if you think atheism is a religion, you officially have more than one religion.

If you need an actual definition of atheism, here's one from Dictionary.com.

a·the·ism 
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you "disbelieve" Zeus exists, according to the definition, you're an atheist. Perhaps not where the Christian god is concerned, but certainly where non-Christian gods are concerned.

 

[Asvin]

Do you believe in Zeus? No? Congrats, you're an atheist. And if you think atheism is a religion, you officially have more than one religion.

If you need an actual definition of atheism, here's one from Dictionary.com.

a·the·ism 
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you "disbelieve" Zeus exists, according to the definition, you're an atheist. Perhaps not where the Christian god is concerned, but certainly where non-Christian gods are concerned.

Wrong! Look at number 1. If you are an atheist, you HAVE to believe that there is no God. I don't! Case closed!

 

[Buy Bologna]

Wrong! Look at number 1. If you are an atheist, you HAVE to believe that there is no God. I don't! Case closed!

The only thing closed is your mind.

I believe there is no god. But I don't know for sure. It's something you can't prove. Just like I can't prove unicorns don't exist.



It's called using logic and probability.

Where are you one the probability scale?

 

[hollyda]

Wrong! Look at number 1. If you are an atheist, you HAVE to believe that there is no God. I don't! Case closed!

Sweetie, do you know how definitions work? Sure, SOME atheists state there is no god, case closed. Others don't. That's why #2 is in there. If it were a matter of all atheists vehemently stating gods don't exist, there wouldn't be a need for a second point to the definition.

Sorry. I know this is a lot to take in, but that means you're an atheist, too. At least where non-biblical gods are concerned.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wrong! Look at number 1. If you are an atheist, you HAVE to believe that there is no God. I don't! Case closed!

I'm afraid that the case can't be closed by Webster. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They can't tell you what a word can mean, but only list frequently used meanings.

However, even in this case, number 2 is what atheists themselves tend to mean by the word. Atheists are godless -- devoid of belief in the existence of divine entities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[drjean]

Whoa... ease up a bit folks... we're all here to share but we can disagree without being disagreeable can't we???

atheism holds that there is not even one "god" as a supreme being... none.

agnosticism holds that there might be, but they aren't sure or don't know and thus don't believe in any "god"

 

[SithDoughnut]

Whoa... ease up a bit folks... we're all here to share but we can disagree without being disagreeable can't we???

True, but it would be nice if people stopped insisting that we fit their in little boxes and believe exactly what they think we should. It's a bit like if I came along and demanded that every Christian follow the Pope, and continuously insisted that I am right regardless of how much you explained otherwise. It's not a direct attack, but it is arrogant and patronising.

atheism holds that there is not even one "god" as a supreme being... none.

agnosticism holds that there might be, but they aren't sure or don't know and thus don't believe in any "god"

Not quite. Atheism/Theism is concerned with the existence of God. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is concerned with whether we can know if God exists at all. It is possible to be an agnostic about anything, because it is purely concerned with knowledge, not the actual truths themselves.

You can have agnostic theists and gnostic atheists, or vice versa. Everyone is some combination of the two.

 

[Mling]

Wrong! Look at number 1. If you are an atheist, you HAVE to believe that there is no God. I don't! Case closed!

Definitions of beliefs can only be descriptive, never prescriptive. Why? Because there is no force that compels people to believe certain things. Nobody has to believe that there are gods, or not, or that there are dogs, or that chocolate is good, or anything else. Since nobody can be forced into belief, no label can declare what a person must believe--it can only describe the beliefs a person already holds. Some people who believe that there are no gods would choose the #1 label to identify themselves. Other people, who lack a belief in gods, would choose the #2 label. And as it happens, both of those words are "atheist."

 

[AlexBP]

I was specifically referring to the medical aid provided by her organization. I am aware of the other things her orgnization did, as part of its missionary work.
...
Please provide your own opinons of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine, with citations.

I only quoted the section on her approach to pain management and the level of health care her organization provided, as that was what I was referring to in my earlier comment. Do you dispute that part?

Yes, I dispute that part. I think the stuff you posted in the big paragraph in #104 is completely false and fictitious. If you want me to believe otherwise, provide reliable evidence to back up your claims.

(An intelligent person such as yourself certainly understands the concept of burden of proof: that since you're the one accusing Mother Teresa of horrible crimes, you have to provide the reliable evidence that it's true. Similarly, if someone on the internet were to accuse you of eating babies, you wouldn't feel any need to provide evidence that the claim was false, but would just point out the lack of evidence that it's true. However, if one wanted evidence that Mother Teresa and her network of hospitals and hospices gave good care, such evidence is plentiful and easy to find. First of all there are the numerous prizes she was awarded by numerous sources including the Nobel Peace Prize. Those who award such prizes, such as the Nobel Committee, would not have given them to a person who treated the poor in the way that you claim Mother Teresa did. Second, there are ample works written by people who actually witnessed Mother Teresa's mission in Calcutta, such as Mother Teresa by Leo Maasburg, Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Autobiography by Kathryn Spink, and In Mother Teresa's House: A Hospice Nurse in the Slums of Calcutta, by Rosemary Dew.)

This thread was started to give Christians to opportunity to ask questions of an atheist--though the thread's starter seems to have scuttled off--so I do wonder why, when a woman devotes herself to helping the poorest people on earth, some atheists respond by slandering her with the most horrible lies that they can imagine. It seems a rather strange thing to do.

 

[drjean]

True, but it would be nice if people stopped insisting that we fit their in little boxes and believe exactly what they think we should. It's a bit like if I came along and demanded that every Christian follow the Pope, and continuously insisted that I am right regardless of how much you explained otherwise. It's not a direct attack, but it is arrogant and patronising.



Not quite. Atheism/Theism is concerned with the existence of God. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is concerned with whether we can know if God exists at all. It is possible to be an agnostic about anything, because it is purely concerned with knowledge, not the actual truths themselves.

You can have agnostic theists and gnostic atheists, or vice versa. Everyone is some combination of the two.

Ok. So to keep you from being offended, we have to say to you that we don't know if you believe in anything, would that be a fair assumption? (Whereas, so many atheists do insist that they don't believe in any supreme being (outside of themselves).

 

[Gadarene]

Ok. So to keep you from being offended, we have to say to you that we don't know if you believe in anything, would that be a fair assumption? (Whereas, so many atheists do insist that they don't believe in any supreme being (outside of themselves).

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you like, the difference between "I believe there is no..." and "I do not believe there is....".

Both are atheists - there's more than one kind, as per the definition above.