Atheism

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think for a very large number of theists, their own belief in a deity and concomitant rituals, services, practices, is so entirely routine and natural to them, and likely will have been part of their worldview since childhood, that they really cannot conceive of being without religion. So in trying to understand people who are atheists, they use the analogies most familiar to them, as peaceful soul has done, and this is why we have this endless conversation on whether atheism is a religion or not.

Not every philosophy ends in religion or in faith.

If you cannot understand that atheism is not a religion or a faith, then please just accept that the vast majority of atheists are not lieing to you when they tell you it isn't. How would you feel if someone insisted that you were something you know you are not?

Good post B...........

 

[Anon Sequitur]

It appears you understood better than I orignally thought I would like to clear up one thing though.

That *is* the definition of being an atheist, whether I believe in deities or not does not change the definition. As I mentioned, I do believe in deities.

That *can not* be the definition of being an atheist, because one cannot support the assertion that God does not exist.

Incorrect. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion (in other words, the one who believes in deity must prove its existence). It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. For example, prove to me the flying purple unicorn from Uranus does not exist. Just because you can't prove it exists does not mean that it does.

You are correct that the burden of proof lies with the one making the postive assertion; the postive assertion here is that God does not exist. You are absolutely right, except for what you have said about the burden of proof. Here, it correctly lies on the postive assertion God does not exist. Since one cannot prove the nonexistence of something, the defintion of atheism(the belief that God does not exist) is illogical. That is why I said that your defintion of atheism is wrong; Atheism is properly defined as the lack of belief in the existence of God.

Postive Assertion(which is unprovable): the belief that God does not exist
Negative Assertion(correct definition of atheism): the lack of belief in the existence of God

The difference is subtle, but it is there. The former is taken on faith, while the latter is an absence of faith.

Atheism seems pretty logical to me - why believe in something without [convincing] evidence? Do you believe in the flying purple unicorn from Uranus? why or why not?

I agree. I do not beleive there exists a flying purple unicorn from Uranus. However, to assert that the flying purple unicorn from Uranus does not exist is illogical. To support my assertion that this unicorn does not exist, I would need evidence of it's non-existence, as the burden of proof lies with the postive assertion(which I am making when I say it does not exist!).

 

[awitch]

That *can not* be the definition of being an atheist, because one cannot support the assertion that God does not exist.

"It is very easy to assert that position. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any deity, therefore there is no reason to believe in one."
Very simple support.

ou are correct that the burden of proof lies with the one making the postive assertion; the postive assertion here is that God does not exist.

Since one cannot prove the nonexistence of something, the defintion of atheism(the belief that God does not exist) is illogical. That is why I said that your defintion of atheism is wrong; Atheism is properly defined as the lack of belief in the existence of God.

Postive Assertion(which is unprovable): the belief that God does not exist
Negative Assertion(correct definition of atheism): the lack of belief in the existence of God

You have it backwards.
The positive assertion is the claim that something is true. In our scenario, the claim that deity exists is true is the positive assertion - that is why it up to us to support that claim.

I do not beleive there exists a flying purple unicorn from Uranus. However, to assert that the flying purple unicorn from Uranus does not exist is illogical. To support my assertion that this unicorn does not exist, I would need evidence of it's non-existence, as the burden of proof lies with the postive assertion(which I am making when I say it does not exist!).

No.
Like you said, you deny the unicorn for lack of evidence. The atheist feels the same about deity. Do you see it is illogical to think that the unicorn exists? How about the spotted green Griffin from Pluto? Or the Angry shaggy sloth from Mercury. There is no reason to believe in any of these creatures because there is no evidence. If I wanted to convince you that any of them did exist, it is up to ME to provide that evidence.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "evidence for non-existence". That is the same as trying to prove a negative.

 

[humblemuslim]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

I am going to base my answer upon the definitions of the word:

Religion - beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life


Religion - system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine




Religion - personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

The first definition includes worship of deity or deities, of which atheists do not partake in.

The second definition relates to practices relating to the divine, which of course atheists are not going to alter their behavior and practices based on something they do not believe in.

The third definition has a broad meaning that could include what we call atheists. But it would also include lots of other things one would not immediately think of as a religion. Using this definition I could call science a religion, as the definition does not mention anything supernatural.

So is atheism a religion? It depends on what one means when they use the word 'religion'. If they mean the third definition, then yes it is. But so is science and many other things. If they mean the first two, then no.

 

[Chaplain David]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

Atheism is whatever the atheist makes it out to be. However it is definitely the absence of belief in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord. And it is very sad to see atheists reject and in some cases, try to vilify the One who could save them.

Praise God for all He has done for us!

 

[Andreusz]

You are correct that the burden of proof lies with the one making the postive assertion; the postive assertion here is that God does not exist. You are absolutely right, except for what you have said about the burden of proof. Here, it correctly lies on the postive assertion God does not exist.

Please note the word 'not' in that statement. In my humble, and no doubt misinformed, opinion as a person with a Ph.D. in linguistics, the word 'not' makes that a negative statement; in which case, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Andreusz]

Atheism is whatever the atheist makes it out to be. However it is definitely the absence of belief in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord. And it is very sad to see atheists reject and in some cases, try to vilify the One who could save them.

My problem is that I am incapable of believing things without evidence. There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, and that the Gospels are anything more than novels. There is no evidence that God exists, or if he does, that he inspired a single word of the Bible. There is no evidence that Paul of Tarsus wrote any of the letters ascribed to him. Etc., etc.

 

[durangodawood]

My problem is that I am incapable of believing things without evidence. There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, and that the Gospels are anything more than novels. There is no evidence that God exists, or if he does, that he inspired a single word of the Bible. There is no evidence that Paul of Tarsus wrote any of the letters ascribed to him. Etc., etc.

Well, you sure have to wonder WHY all that stuff was written.
.
I just cant believe that all the worlds religions, all the scripture, all the experiences of the mystics.... are all about.... nothing.
.

 

[awitch]

Well, you sure have to wonder WHY all that stuff was written.
.
I just cant believe that all the worlds religions, all the scripture, all the experiences of the mystics.... are all about.... nothing.
.

I wouldn't say it was done for 'nothing'...Possible reasons include:

Entertainment.

Provides comfort to those who are in situations in which there is no control.

A medium for teaching morals or justifying behavior.

Claiming to have god on your side is great way to gain power,wealth, and fame. Makes it easy to vilify your enemies.

Easy to scam people by pumping up and then exploiting spiritual beliefs.

An attempt to explain observations of the natural world with limited scientific knowledge.

Just a few examples....

 

[durangodawood]

I wouldn't say it was done for 'nothing'...Possible reasons include:

Entertainment.

Provides comfort to those who are in situations in which there is no control.

A medium for teaching morals or justifying behavior.

Claiming to have god on your side is great way to gain power,wealth, and fame. Makes it easy to vilify your enemies.

Easy to scam people by pumping up and then exploiting spiritual beliefs.

An attempt to explain observations of the natural world with limited scientific knowledge.

Just a few examples....

I think all those are real uses of religion. But you are ignoring very real and powerful experiences. Something is going on there, aside from all the fakery.
.

 

[awitch]

I think all those are real uses of religion. But you are ignoring very real and powerful experiences. Something is going on there, aside from all the fakery.
.

It's a possibility, but so is the possibility the human brain is just "wired" that way.

My personal experiences are annectdotal at best for everyone else, and everyone elses's experiences are anecdotal to me. Even our own experiences and senses are prone to errors: Optical illusions, extreme physical stresses, groupthink, and pareidolia (the phenomenon of seeing distinct images in vague stimulus...like seeing "the Virgin" Mary on a piece of toast, or Jesus's face in the grain pattern on a wooden door).



Altering a quote from the X-Files:

"Why are those like yourself who believe in the existence of [god] not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?"

""Because all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive."

 

[franklin]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

No it's not a religion. There is no god for us to worship. Therefore, it is not a religion. There is only one commandment for us to follow though:

Thou shalt think.

 

[durangodawood]

It's a possibility, but so is the possibility the human brain is just "wired" that way.

My personal experiences are annectdotal at best for everyone else, and everyone elses's experiences are anecdotal to me. Even our own experiences and senses are prone to errors: Optical illusions, extreme physical stresses, groupthink, and pareidolia (the phenomenon of seeing distinct images in vague stimulus...like seeing "the Virgin" Mary on a piece of toast, or Jesus's face in the grain pattern on a wooden door).



Altering a quote from the X-Files:

"Why are those like yourself who believe in the existence of [god] not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?"

""Because all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive."

The phenomena you mention seem shabby and weak compared to the experiences I've read about. And you really do need to read certain of the mystics and absorb, in the authors own words, to even make a judgement upon them. I'm not saying its God. I'm just saying.... well, what is it?
.

 

[awitch]

The phenomena you mention seem shabby and weak compared to the experiences I've read about. And you really do need to read certain of the mystics and absorb, in the authors own words, to even make a judgement upon them. I'm not saying its God. I'm just saying.... well, what is it?
.

Those phenomena are sufficient to dismiss the supernatural for a lot of people - which is why I answered the OP specifying the need for empirical evidence. I believe in the supernatural, but would say that 99.9% of claimed experiences are hoaxes or can be explained by natural phenomena.

The rest of us have been trying to answer "What is it?" for a very long time.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Please note the word 'not' in that statement. In my humble, and no doubt misinformed, opinion as a person with a Ph.D. in linguistics, the word 'not' makes that a negative statement; in which case, the burden of proof lies with you.

I could learn a lot from a linquist expert

 

[durangodawood]

No it's not a religion. There is no god for us to worship. Therefore, it is not a religion. There is only one commandment for us to follow though:

Thou shalt think.

Is Buddhism a religion?
.

 

[Apodictic]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

I am not sure. But I ask a question in response, does it really matter if atheism is called a religion or not?

Granted there is stigma surrounding the word. I could even see people proclaiming belief in no religion getting upset or annoyed when people tell them their thoughts and beliefs amount to the very thing they are denouncing.

To the people who call it a religion, what is the point? Is this label somehow going to win a debate? I have yet to see a simple label do this. Unless of course the entire debate is about labels.

To those who deny it, what does it matter? They are pointing out irrelevent, possibly false, labels. Let them enjoy their hollow victory if they believe they can win a debate simply through labeling.

 

[durangodawood]

Labelling atheism a "religion" brings athiests into the camp of the irrational. Thats a crucial talking point for religious apologists.
.

 

[Apodictic]

Labelling atheism a "religion" brings athiests into the camp of the irrational. Thats a crucial talking point for religious apologists.
.

Which is the hollow victory I speak of

If this tactic was logically sound, then all we have to do to support our view point is label the other person, regardless of the truthfulness of the label.

Atheists, at least the ones I have spoken with, are very clear they do not assert the non-existence of God(s). They simply do not believe in the supernatural. Assertion of non-existence would be illogical, if they did that. Except they do not, by their own testimony. They do not assert either way.

Anyone who goes ahead and says "Yes you do" is being disrespectful by not listening to what they are saying.

 

[Booko]

Athiesm is a religion like empty is a color.