Is athistiam a Religon?

They worship (to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion) the refusal to worship (to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power).

TheMissus said:

They worship (to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion) the refusal to worship (to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power).

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. It was your use of two separate definitions of the word "worship" that confused me. There are still a few things I don't quite understand about your definition that I would like to clear up:

1)In your opinion, showing "great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion" for something makes that something a religion, correct? Doesn't this make pretty much anything a religion? For example, a professional footballer may have an extraordinary devotion to football. Does this make football a religion?

2)I'm an atheist, and I don't think I fit your definition. Whether or not one worships or refuses to worship a non-existent entity is pretty much meaningless to me. It's certainly not something that I give a lot of respect, honor, and devotion to either way. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's hard to really care about something that doesn't exist. If you don't understand where I'm coming from, try to imagine what you would think if I told you that not believing in santa claus is a religion because you regard with great respect, honor, and devotion the act of refusing to believe he leaves presents underneath your tree every year.

Of couse, I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to say, as it's very late here and I may not be thinking clearly. If so, my apologies.

TheMissus said:

They worship (to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion) the refusal to worship (to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power).

Click to expand...

Personally, I do not do this. I do not regard "refusal" to worship a divine being as especially praiseworthy (it doesn't necessarily make anyone a "better person" than those who do), and it is certainly not due "extravagant respect, honor, or devotion". In fact, I regard my "atheism" (my lack of belief in, and by implication my lack of worship for, divine beings) as a trivial aspect of my worldview and character. It is not something I take pride in at all, really.

If I do not worship divine beings, it isn't because I think it is a virtue or a duty not to worship divine beings -- it is simply that I don't believe in divine beings. My "refusal" to worship stems simply from finding this a pointless activity, much like worshipping unicorns would be pointless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

TheMissus said:

They worship (to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion) the refusal to worship (to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power).

Click to expand...

....what?

TooCurious said:

Yes. Knowing and believing are two different things. This is important with regard to my following statements.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think this is the only point we will ever agree on.

TooCurious said:

No. You can believe something that you do not know with certainty to be true.

Click to expand...

No. You cannot believe something to be true while at the same time knowing that it might not be.

TooCurious said:

Remember, "knowledge" and "belief" are different things.

Click to expand...

Oh I remember.

TooCurious said:

Consider two hypothetical married men. We'll call them Man A and Man B. Both have a long commute to work, and as such are away from their wives for many hours each day

Click to expand...

Ok.

TooCurious said:

Both believe that their wives love the and are faithful to them

Click to expand...

Ok.

TooCurious said:

Neither man can know with certainty that his wife is faithful to him, because both are away from home for long hours

Click to expand...

This is where your example breaks down for me. If you say that both men truly believe thier wife is faithful undoubtedly because they love them and probably because the wives have reciprocated that love then they cannot have any knowledge of doubt or the possibility of unfaithfulness - because their belief would override thier knowledge or the other way around.

So I wouldnt say...

Neither man can know with certainty that his wife is faithful to him, because both are away from home for long hours

Click to expand...

I would say...

No observer seeing objectively from the POV of the men can know with certainty that the mens wives are faithful to them, because both are away from home for long hours

Click to expand...

Forgive me but you still have not demonstrated how a person can have doubt and certainty in thier minds at the same time.

TooCurious said:

Both, however, believe the proposition, "my wife is faithful to me" to be true. Man A's wife is indeed loving and faithful. Man B's wife is having an affair. Belief, therefore, is independent of knowledge, or fact. Belief does not involve the same kind of falsifiable, factual certainty that knowledge does.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

TooCurious said:

No. If I present you with a sealed box and tell you that there is a banana inside it, you may choose to believe or disbelieve my statement. However, without opening the box or performing some other test, you cannot know with certainty what, if anything, the box actually contains.

Click to expand...

Again if I choose to believe then that completely overrides my knowledge about the possibility of the banana existing because then in my mind I would be certain which leaves no room for doubt.

TooCurious said:

I suppose you're entitled to define the word however you like; please realize, however, that most if not all atheists here will disagree with your definition, and meaningful discussion is difficult if all parties are not using compatible definitions of the basic terms.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But dictionaries do list the definitions of Athiesm as "denial" or "rejection" of God and not just "disbelief". So both definitions seem equally valid however these two distinct definitions can lead to a disagreement over the nature of the argument at hand which is quite silly.

Dictionary.com said:

3 results for: Atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html
–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
   2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Click to expand...

TooCurious said:

Because the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" express different ideas.

Click to expand...

According to your definition a "weak atheist" is half an agnostic because he does not profess belief in the existence of God all the while remaining silent about belief in the non-existence of god (am I correct ?)

TooCurious said:

You're entitled to that opinion. You are, however, mistaken, as I've tried to explain.

Click to expand...

Well you are also entitled to your opinion. And for the record your example didnt clarify much.

TooCurious said:

Please don't tell me what I am or what my beliefs are. I would have the courtesy not to do the same to you. I AM an atheist, as I do not believe that any gods exist.

Click to expand...

First lets make this clear. I am not calling you anything. I am telling you what you are calling yourself when you label yourself a "weak atheist" because by your definition of the term its more or less an agnostic.

TooCurious[FONT=Verdana said:

Again... atheism and agnosticism address different topics. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. Do I think it's possible to know whether or not there are any gods? No. This means that I concede the possibility, remote as I may think it is, that I might be wrong. However, I think it's vastly more likely that I'm right, and that there are no gods. Thus, I'm an atheist.[/font]]

Click to expand...

Again knowledge and belief cannot co-exist when they are in opposition. So it is incorrect for you to say "probably no god exists so that means no god exists" (sic)

TooCurious said:

"Agnostic," without an atheist/theist qualifier, just means, "I don't and can't know whether or not there are any gods. There might be, there might not be. I'm really not sure."

"Agnostic atheist" means, "I can't know for certain if there are any gods, but I have no reason to believe that there are, and it seems most likely to me that there aren't, so I don't believe there are any gods."

"Agnostic theist" means, "I can't know for certain if there are any gods, but I think or feel that one or more gods exist, and so I believe, even though I can't be certain."

Click to expand...

Read above. You yourself said that agnosticism addresses knowledge, so how can you put a "belief qualifier" to the term when in this case knowledge and belief are in complete contradiction as one makes an assertion and the other doesnt ?

Asimov said:

So why not just create them as righteous? Make them perfect in the first place.

Click to expand...

That I do not know.

ghazirizvi said:

Excellent. Lets have a little fun here. Please demonstrate the non-existence of God.

Click to expand...

You have not specified which god - so I will presume you meant 'Odin'.


There is no rational evidence to support the idea that Odin is real.

It is therefore reasonable to assume Odin is not real.

I've heard some fundamental groups claim Atheism is a religion, sighting the Supreme Court decision that it is.

Then I remind them, that the courts only did so that prisoners who were atheist, could go to an atheist support group instead of a Christian one; essentially a way to keep prisoners from being "forced" to go to one they didn't want to go to. Is it really a "religion?" No, not in the sense of an organized church as the major religions. Is it a set of beliefs, is it a "philosophy" of sorts? Yes.

Loner said:

I am a Ex-Athist

Click to expand...

'Atheist'

Loner said:

I use to belive that religon was like something like the tooth fairy, but over time I change my views. During my days as a athist I clamed I was apart of no Religon but now that I am thinking back, was I?

I mean it is a set of belifes

Click to expand...

It is not a set of beliefs.

It is a singular unambiguous idea.

Gods are mythical not real.

Nothing else.

Loner said:

...about the world and since most athist belive in Evlotion it alwso a belife in how the world was created

Click to expand...

You are equivocating 'belief'.

Atheists do not have 'faith', defined as belief entirely unsupported by evidence or logic.

Loner said:

like most religons. So do the Athist count as a Religon or not?

Click to expand...

Not it is not.


No temples

No sciprtures

No holy book

No dietry codes

No dress codes

No prayer

No worship

No deities

No faith


Etc etc.



Of course you may wish to pick out certain words like 'faith' or 'worship' and then retort with something along the lines of:

"you say youcarnot worsip nothing but the Athist is worship the evilution/monkeys are become man ideas, this issomething they carn worsip, is yes ??"

But you would be confusing the commonly understood use of the word with the religious use, you would be equivocating 'worship'.

This lack of recognition of the difference between these terms, for instance, the religious understanding of 'belief' and the non-religious understanding, renders the act of 'believing' the ten o'clock news will be on at ten o'clock a religious experience.

It is not.

Nor is athesim a religion.

Tynan said:

You have not specified which god - so I will presume you meant 'Odin'.


There is no rational evidence to support the idea that Odin is real.

It is therefore reasonable to assume Odin is not real.

Click to expand...

Ugh not this again. Well if you wanna be specific you can choose the Abrahamic God or if you perfer to use Odin in the discussion I am perfectly fine with that. I dont want to regurgitate what I have already said so Ill say this....Occams Razor has already been discussed.

Tynan wrote:: You have not specified which god - so I will presume you meant 'Odin'.


There is no rational evidence to support the idea that Odin is real.

It is therefore reasonable to assume Odin is not real.

ghazirizvi said:

Ugh not this again. Well if you wanna be specific you can choose the Abrahamic God or if you perfer to use Odin in the discussion I am perfectly fine with that.

Click to expand...

Fine, let us stick with Odin then.

ghazirizvi said:

I dont want to regurgitate what I have already said so Ill say this....Occams Razor has already been discussed.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure I understand your point ?

I will simplify mine.

Do you believe in Odin ?

Loner said:

I am a Ex-Athist, I use to belive that religon was like something like the tooth fairy, but over time I change my views. During my days as a athist I clamed I was apart of no Religon but now that I am thinking back, was I? I mean it is a set of belifes about the world and since most athist belive in Evlotion it alwso a belife in how the world was created, like most religons. So do the Athist count as a Religon or not?

Click to expand...

I think atheism is a religion. To me, a religion includes beliefs for which there is no conclusive proof. Getting proof that god(s) don't exist is impossible, making atheism a belief. I think Agnosticism is just about the only non-religious system of thought, because they believe that any view of ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable.

Tynan said:

Fine, let us stick with Odin then.

Click to expand...

Well before we continue, I would really appreciate what qualities are attributed to Odin (e.g. Is he omnipotent ?)

Tynan said:

Do you believe in Odin ?

Click to expand...

I believe Odin to be a representation of the Abrahamic God to certain people as parts of thier beliefs.

ghazirizvi said:

Well before we continue, I would really appreciate what qualities are attributed to Odin (e.g. Is he omnipotent ?)

I believe Odin to be a representation of the Abrahamic God to certain people as parts of thier beliefs.

Click to expand...

My point was to use a character that was widely accepted as fiction, nobody warned me that you would trip me up by believing in Odin !!

Damn !

Ok, let me try and illustrate my point with something a little more thought out.

Are there any fictional entities or mythical characters that you do not believe exist ?

Select from anything you wish, be it fairies, goblins, Mercury, Molloch, Shiva, have a rumage through the African mountain gods or perhaps a dragon, griffin, centaur or minotaur - is there one you would feel safe to say 'that does not exist' ?

Or do you think that nothing can be ruled out conclusively ?

Perhaps to the extent that a child siding up to you in a supermarket and telling you he has a magic goat that flys and speaks english - that it would be entered into your maybe/maybe not column ?

If the child then tells you some seconds later that he made it up as a joke - would this fictional goat of his be moved to your 'fiction' column ?

If so why would you move it there ? On what grounds ?


Sorry for so many questions !!!

Bump for ghazirizvi

relaxeus said:

I think atheism is a religion. To me, a religion includes beliefs for which there is no conclusive proof. Getting proof that god(s) don't exist is impossible, making atheism a belief. I think Agnosticism is just about the only non-religious system of thought, because they believe that any view of ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable.

Click to expand...

Considering what a rarity conclusive proof happens to be, this is an awfully broad definition. It would also, btw, render many forms of hard agnosticism into a religion as well.

...pardon me, Hard Agnosticism.

So if atheism is a religion, does that mean we can have a system set up where people in jail can be taught about atheism in return for lessening their term?

Tynan said:

Bump for ghazirizvi

Click to expand...

My apologies for not replying earlier.

Tynan said:

My point was to use a character that was widely accepted as fiction, nobody warned me that you would trip me up by believing in Odin !!

Damn !

Click to expand...

Well I dont believe in Odin. But I do understand that there might be some people who do.

Tynan said:

Ok, let me try and illustrate my point with something a little more thought out.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Tynan said:

Are there any fictional entities or mythical characters that you do not believe exist ?

Select from anything you wish, be it fairies, goblins, Mercury, Molloch, Shiva, have a rumage through the African mountain gods or perhaps a dragon, griffin, centaur or minotaur - is there one you would feel safe to say 'that does not exist' ?

Click to expand...

If I told you I did, then I would be lying except for the circumstances in which belief in those creatures goes against Islam (e.g. African Mountain Gods). I do acknowledge however the possibilities of those creatures existing is minute. And the concept of God is also different from fictional characters because many different cultures have independently formulated the concept of a supreme being or creator and I'm sure this has been going on as long as humans have been around. So your analogy is a bit skewed in its perception IMHO.

Tynan said:

Or do you think that nothing can be ruled out conclusively ?

Click to expand...

Yes. Except for the case where it goes against my already established believe. Though as much as I would dearly love to not believe many of the things you mention dont exist then all I would really be doing to myself is lying if I understand there is a possibility for anything to exist. This is what I was trying to explain throughout this thread that one cannot "prove" or even rationally "justify" the non-existence of god just because to them it seems absurd.

Tynan said:

Perhaps to the extent that a child siding up to you in a supermarket and telling you he has a magic goat that flys and speaks english - that it would be entered into your maybe/maybe not column ?

Click to expand...

Sure why not.

Tynan said:

If the child then tells you some seconds later that he made it up as a joke - would this fictional goat of his be moved to your 'fiction' column ?

Click to expand...

If he has already imagined the concept then it does have a possibility of existing. Infact even unimagined or not understood concepts have a possibility of existing. So it wasnt at the behest of the child I would believe but simply because I cannot exclude the possibility though how remote it could be.

Tynan said:

If so why would you move it there ? On what grounds ?

Click to expand...

See above.

Tynan said:

Sorry for so many questions !!!

Click to expand...

No problem.

ghazirizvi said:

My apologies for not replying earlier.

Click to expand...

No problem

Tynan wrote: Are there any fictional entities or mythical characters that you do not believe exist ?

Select from anything you wish, be it fairies, goblins, Mercury, Molloch, Shiva, have a rumage through the African mountain gods or perhaps a dragon, griffin, centaur or minotaur - is there one you would feel safe to say 'that does not exist' ?

ghazirizvi said:

If I told you I did, then I would be lying except for the circumstances in which belief in those creatures goes against Islam (e.g. African Mountain Gods). I do acknowledge however the possibilities of those creatures existing is minute. And the concept of God is also different from fictional characters because many different cultures have independently formulated the concept of a supreme being or creator and I'm sure this has been going on as long as humans have been around. So your analogy is a bit skewed in its perception IMHO.

Click to expand...

I make no analogy, I am asking a singular unambiguous question, namely: "is there anything you think is merely fiction".

So if I were to say to you there is a giant television exactly the size of Jupiter inside the sun showing repeats of 1970s television series but the sound have been converted to colours that radiate outwards creating billions of tiny little magical ponies that speak random and profound languages, then explode giving birth to sunlight, your view would be to say "yes, maybe, not likey, but lets not rule it out" ?

I understand the "anything may be posible" angle, but for me Zues, Allah and Odin are firmly in the tiny magical exploding pony camp, that is, of course I cannot prove they do not exist, but I feel no more need to prove their non-existence than I do feel the need to prove the ponies do not exist.

For me it is an entirely reasoned route to truth to look for evidence for the validity of phenomenon, not to presume everything exists as a default position and to let those who insist, Paris is full of blue flying goblins at night, show me how they have arrived at this notion.

Except for the case where it goes against my already established believe

Click to expand...

Why ?

Tynan said:

I make no analogy, I am asking a singular unambiguous question, namely: "is there anything you think is merely fiction".

Click to expand...

Would the word "comparison" be more apt ?

Tynan said:

So if I were to say to you there is a giant television exactly the size of Jupiter inside the sun showing repeats of 1970s television series but the sound have been converted to colours that radiate outwards creating billions of tiny little magical ponies that speak random and profound languages, then explode giving birth to sunlight, your view would be to say "yes, maybe, not likey, but lets not rule it out" ?

Click to expand...

No, because I know that the sun is the foci of billions of nuclear reactions which produce this energy and colour we recieve.

Tynan said:

I understand the "anything may be posible" angle, but for me Zues, Allah and Odin are firmly in the tiny magical exploding pony camp, that is, of course I cannot prove they do not exist, but I feel no more need to prove their non-existence than I do feel the need to prove the ponies do not exist.

Click to expand...

Thats what I was earlier trying to say. It is an unfair comparison to compare human understanding of God to other characters which are widely understood to be fiction.

Next, I totally understand your need to not give relevance to observed natural phenomena. However my discussion started with the purpose of stating that one cannot argue the non-existence of God rationally which several athiest were trying to do. All I am saying is that athiesm as a belief for people may be pragmatic but is by no means relatively more rational than theism.

Tynan said:

For me it is an entirely reasoned route to truth to look for evidence for the validity of phenomenon, not to presume everything exists as a default position and to let those who insist, Paris is full of blue flying goblins at night, show me how they have arrived at this notion.

Click to expand...

Why is it reasonable to presume stuff doesnt exist ? Occams Razor, correct ? But this Razor cannot be used when arguing about God, because the case for God is different from flying blue goblins. And I would never state that "Paris is full of blue flying goblins", I might however state "Paris may be full of blue flying goblins" - whether you choose to believe me or not is another matter.

Tynan said:

ghazirizvi said:

Except for the case where it goes against my already established believe

Click to expand...

Why ?

Click to expand...

Why not ? Because beliefs in my mind are what I hold to be true. Hence any new proposition contradicting my version of the truth is false for me.