Atheism

[durangodawood]

Athiesm is a religion like empty is a color.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. (courtesy of old scratch).
.

 

[Booko]

Is Buddhism a religion?
.

Don't go there. It isn't exactly atheist either. It just finds the question of the existence of gods not worth spending time on.

 

[Booko]

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. (courtesy of old scratch).
.

Thank you! I must add this to my usual list of responses for when this question comes up.

 

[Andreusz]

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.
.

People wanted explanations of how the universe works, and it was easier to make a lot of unfalsifiable assertions than to conduct scientific investigations. It also gave the writer a moral authority and allowed him to make up arbitrary laws in order to keep people in awe of him (the self-proclaimed channeler of the voice of God).

 

[Legion.As.One]

Well as a random bystander and keen observer I'll just off-topically add,
Religions and beliefs of any kind are fascinating. Humans are amazing and unbelievable. Life is indescribable. And Gods could be just figments of imagination, but what an enchanting imagination the human race has.


Age. Fac ut gaudeam...Belua multorum es capitum...?
Bene, cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare!
For those among us who can...

 

[durangodawood]

People wanted explanations of how the universe works, and it was easier to make a lot of unfalsifiable assertions than to conduct scientific investigations. It also gave the writer a moral authority and allowed him to make up arbitrary laws in order to keep people in awe of him (the self-proclaimed channeler of the voice of God).

That explains a portion of religion, the explanatory myths and moral codes. But what about the rest? (and there is a lot more.)
.

 

[Rasta]

That explains a portion of religion, the explanatory myths and moral codes. But what about the rest? (and there is a lot more.)
.

What "rest" are you referring to?

 

[Rasta]

I just cant believe that all the worlds religions, all the scripture, all the experiences of the mystics.... are all about.... nothing.

They were not about "nothing". They served a very "real" purpose. It is good to remember that organized religion has been around for at least 10,000 years, probably longer. I think many atheists make the mistake by proclaiming that all individual faith traditions were invented by a singular person at a singular time, usually with selfish motives. I think there very well could be cases like this, but in general, belief is more complex then that.

If you study the different forms of religion throught known history, you will notice a loose descernable pattern emerge. Oddly, ( or quite expected, depending on you POV) as society has changed, religion too changes to suit the needs of the society. Does this mean that physical reality bends and changes to our will? No, I just think our opinions change.

 

[dewaddict84]

I'd say most people wouldn't call it a religion. Some will. Those people have a fairly broad definition of the word "religion". And remember that we as a collective choose the definitions of our words. Some consider the jedi wannabes in the UK to have their own religion. Some want to cull the church of all those that don't "truly" believe. Personally, I'm more religious about Linux then I am about actual religions. Also remember that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and numbers.

Someone mentioned that it is more of a movement. That sounds much more fitting. Although atheism itself has been around a lot longer then Christianity.

So Christians who only go to church at Christmas are part of a non-religious type of Christianity?

I'd say very much so. While they follow the motions, keep in line, and do all the things that good Christians do, if they don't believe in Christ, then they're not Christians. And there's certainly reason to appear as a good believer. To do otherwise would make them ostracized. I imagine some people hope that faith will come to them in time. I imagine others don't really care.

Let me define what I mean by religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

No faith required, so it's not a religion according to webster.

If you have a philosophy, then you have a religion.

Naw, too broad of a definition.

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

Sorry dude, atheism is the first one. And yeah, I'd say it's unprovable. So what? It's still the most likely answer. And most likely, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Something is going on there, aside from all the fakery.

Teaching people is hardly fakery.

I'm not saying its God. I'm just saying.... well, what is it?

Fiction.

To the people who call it a religion, what is the point?

I asked this one a while back. It's setting the footing for the argument that atheism is the default position. ie, babies and chinamen are atheists. That way atheisms seems more "natural", and this whole god thing is a product of man. That's the real debate. I'm not sure, and I don't think it really matters. I would say that ignorance is the default position, and I don't think that ignorance really fits into any sort of -ism.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If you don't have it, there's the old standby "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color".

Humans are ... and unbelievable. Life is indescribable.

Shenanigans! I certainly believe in humans. I saw one just the other day. And life is squishy. That's not a perfect description, but it's fits.

 

[Rasta]

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
​

Sorry dude, atheism is the first one. And yeah, I'd say it's unprovable. So what? It's still the most likely answer. And most likely, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Actually both of them are atheism. One is called hard atheism. One is called soft atheism.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually both of them are atheism. One is called hard atheism. One is called soft atheism.

Is there an in-between

 

[dewaddict84]

Yes, the first is hard atheism. That is, he has the true belief that there is definitely no god.

The second isn't soft atheism, which is the belief that there is no god, probably. Most people erroneously call that agnosticism, but whatever. Ignorance isn't soft atheism. Soft atheism isn't ignorance.

And yeah, there are plenty places between hard and soft.

 

[franklin]

Is Buddhism a religion?
.

Seems like it doesn't it? But on the other hand I always hear that it doesn't really worship a God as fundamentalist religions do. I also heard that Buddha was born speaking adult language. Do you think that is true? Imagine that eh? A little baby is born speaking grown up language. Of course Christians won't believe such a story but will turn around a swear the things that happened in Christianity is fact. Like virgins giving birth, food falling from the sky and dead bodies coming back to life. But a baby being born speaking adult language? That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Yup, that is very difficult to believe.

Wow !

 

[Booko]

People wanted explanations of how the universe works, and it was easier to make a lot of unfalsifiable assertions than to conduct scientific investigations. It also gave the writer a moral authority and allowed him to make up arbitrary laws in order to keep people in awe of him (the self-proclaimed channeler of the voice of God).

Um, firstly, how do I use scientific investigations to understand how to love my family?

Secondly, you speak as if all religions sprang from the mists of some primitive time, and that is factually incorrect.

Thirdly, some religions don't make overt claims about chanelling the voice of God and even find the entire question of the existence of gods moot. (cf. The Buddha).

Lastly, laws are not always quite so arbitrary as one imagines when examined in their historical and social context. Some of them are more designed to keep us out of trouble. Should any God exist, I doubt It worries about Its own well being much.

 

[Booko]

If you study the different forms of religion throught known history, you will notice a loose descernable pattern emerge. Oddly, ( or quite expected, depending on you POV) as society has changed, religion too changes to suit the needs of the society. Does this mean that physical reality bends and changes to our will? No, I just think our opinions change.

I would argue that there's also a possibility that the Founders of said religions inspire the change, not the other way around.

But I can think of a better place to talk about that, as it's something of a main theme of my own religion. But I wouldn't want to be mistaken for proselytizing here (well or anywhere else), so if you want to talk about it a more interfaith area might be better suited.

 

[franklin]

Actually both of them are atheism. One is called hard atheism. One is called soft atheism.

And what is this suppose to mean?

Let me take a wild guess ...

A soft atheist really isn't an atheist or just can't make up his/her mind if there is a god or not or just doesn't want to make any outspoken verbal commitments by saying: there is no God ... or he could just care less about the entire God argument whatsoever.

The hard atheist is the one who has no problems whatsoever saying there is no God period.

Can the first atheist on this list be called an agnostic? It's possible however, I wouldn't even give him that much credit. I would just consider him an apathetic agnostic or not even one at all. Just a confused theist.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And what is this suppose to mean?

Let me take a wild guess ...

A soft atheist really isn't an atheist or just can't make up his/her mind if there is a god or not or just doesn't want to make any outspoken verbal commitments by saying: there is no God ... or he could just care less about the entire God argument whatsoever.

The hard atheist is the one who has no problems whatsoever saying there is no God period.

Can the first atheist on this list be called an agnostic? It's possible however, I wouldn't even give him that much credit. I would just consider him an apathetic agnostic or not even one at all. Just a confused theist.

I would say it isn't tough to find confused "theists" around these parts

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you! I must add this to my usual list of responses for when this question comes up.

Add "... like bald is a hair color". (I like the stamp one better, though.)

 

[Rasta]

And what is this suppose to mean?

Let me take a wild guess ...

A soft atheist really isn't an atheist or just can't make up his/her mind if there is a god or not or just doesn't want to make any outspoken verbal commitments by saying: there is no God ... or he could just care less about the entire God argument whatsoever.

The hard atheist is the one who has no problems whatsoever saying there is no God period.

It's a matter of personal prefrence and honesty by acknowledging the limits of KNOWLEDGE.

If you claim you can KNOW that there is no god, you have no right to critisize people who claim to KNOW there is a god.

Can the first atheist on this list be called an agnostic?

You can call them a frog if you wish. Which of course doesn't mean your assement is accurate.

It's possible however, I wouldn't even give him that much credit. I would just consider him an apathetic agnostic or not even one at all. Just a confused theist.

I personally label myself an agnostic atheist. Am I really a confused theist? No I am not. I don't believe in god. I'm just honest enough to ackowledge the limits of knowledge.

 

[franklin]

It's a matter of personal prefrence and honesty by acknowledging the limits of KNOWLEDGE.

If you claim you can KNOW that there is no god, you have no right to critisize people who claim to KNOW there is a god.

No I'm afraid you're not correct friend. It's the theists who are making a positive claim there is a God therefore, it's their burden to prove it. The law of logic doesn't require me to prove a negative. The nonexistence of something. I mean what do you need to come to the realization there is no God in control of anything. I think if you use your brain a little you can see there is no such thing that exists.

You can call them a frog if you wish. Which of course doesn't mean your assement is accurate.

Huh?

I personally label myself an agnostic atheist. Am I really a confused theist? No I am not. I don't believe in god. I'm just honest enough to ackowledge the limits of knowledge.

I've always had a problem with this descriptionn for disbelief in God. Agnostic/atheist. It carries too much unnecessary baggage. It's like someone trying to hide what they really believe or disbelieve. Like trying to have things both ways. Well, I don't really believe there is a God but on the other hand I don't really want to conclude there is not God and sound like a hard *** atheist too much. I'll just play it safe for now and kind of blend into our society without making any waves with the god soaked society we live in.