Is athistiam a Religon?

[Futuwwa]

Well, it's a religious duty for them to prosetylize, and some seem to think that telling people that Jesus loves them is the way to do it.

I've never understood why some atheists are so obsessed about their own rationality. I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves? Yet I hardly ever see even agnosticists get arrogant about their rationality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've never understood why some atheists are so obsessed about their own rationality. I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves? Yet I hardly ever see even agnosticists get arrogant about their rationality.

I've never understood why some theists are so obsessed about love. I mean, don't we all think our way of life is founded on love? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

I think some atheist 'groups' can act like religions, they just lack the obvious god.

 

[CSmrw]

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?

if you really want them to be, you can think whatever. But if atheism is a religion then starvation is a meal.

 

[sparklecat]

I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded?

No, actually. Most of the Christians I respect are quite fine with admitting their beliefs aren't based on anything most would consider rational.



Not to mention those who throw around phrases like 'above logic' and 'beyond logic.'

 

[sparklecat]

According to this description, atheism is an ANTI-religion as it teaches humans not to believe in a supernatural power as a creator. Wont u agree.

Not really. Teaching others to believe as you do isn't necessary to be an atheist. All that's required is not believing in any deities.



I realize it's not a big point, but I don't like the implication that all atheists are wandering around trying to deconvert everyone.

 

[Asimov]

Well, it's a religious duty for them to prosetylize, and some seem to think that telling people that Jesus loves them is the way to do it.

So, maybe some people create a duty to tell others that Atheism is the only rational way to go?

I've never understood why some atheists are so obsessed about their own rationality. I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves? Yet I hardly ever see even agnosticists get arrogant about their rationality.

Yes, we all do, but mine is demonstrable. Yours isn't.

Oh....snap!

 

[ghazirizvi]

Yes, we all do, but mine is demonstrable. Yours isn't.

Oh....snap!

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

 

[Illuminatus]

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

The null state is default. Please demonstrate the existence of God.

 

[Asimov]

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

There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing he doesn't exist.

Any defined God is internally incoherent or undemonstrable. If we cannot tangibly or even theoretically provide a logical argument for God, I am justified in believing God doesn't exist.

1. I believe God does not exist.
2. I justified my disbelief with a rational argument.

C. God does not exist.

 

[ghazirizvi]

The null state is default. Please demonstrate the existence of God.

No, that is your opinion. Dont tell me you too are trying to use Occams Razor (as another atheist did a while back) ?

Asimov claimed he could demonstrate the non-existence of God. So far neither you nor him have given any objective evidence, only your opinions. Which is a rather bleak "demonstration"

And remember I never claimed I could demonstrate to you or any other athiest the existence of God.

 

[Illuminatus]

No, that is your opinion. Dont tell me you too are trying to use Occams Razor (as another atheist did a while back) ?

It's been empirically shown that a parsimonious explanation triumphs over an unneccessarily complex explanation.

Asimov claimed he could demonstrate the non-existence of God. So far neither you nor him have given any objective evidence, only your opinions. Which is a rather bleak "demonstration"

The existence of a deity is not a given. Rather, you must demonstrate that a deity exists.

If you want your god to be a given, you're going to have your hands full disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Dionysus, and every other deity from every pantheon you can conceive of.

 

[ghazirizvi]

There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing he doesn't exist.

Poor argument. I could easily claim the entire universe is evidence for the existence of the Creator.

Any defined God is internally incoherent or undemonstrable. If we cannot tangibly or even theoretically provide a logical argument for God, I am justified in believing God doesn't exist.

Well this is also incorrect. What the heck does internally coherent mean here ? What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God thus constituting a theory (is that tangible enough). Also what about the fact that the one of the most widely believed reasons for our existence has been God throughout human history and still continues to be to this day (what a unique phenomena).

Also as you say, if there isnt any evidence for God, the how the hell does that constitute evidence for the non-existence of God. That is absurd. The fact remains the only "rational" (as many athiest take the word to be) view is agnostic.

1. I believe God does not exist.
2. I justified my disbelief with a rational argument.

C. God does not exist.

Belief in the non-existence of God is just that: a belief. You justified nothing, you only resorted to your belief for justification.

 

[Asimov]

Poor argument. I could easily claim the entire universe is evidence for the existence of the Creator.

So? How does that follow from your claim that mine is a poor argument?

In order to demonstrate that it is poor, you'd have to claim evidence and then provide a reason that this is evidence for God.

Well this is also incorrect. What the heck does internally coherent mean here?

It means the claimed characteristics of God do not mesh rationally.

What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God thus constituting a theory (is that tangible enough). Also what about the fact that the one of the most widely believed reasons for our existence has been God throughout human history and still continues to be to this day (what a unique phenomena).

What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God? What about human history?

Also as you say, if there isnt any evidence for God, the how the hell does that constitute evidence for the non-existence of God. That is absurd. The fact remains the only "rational" (as many athiest take the word to be) view is agnostic.[/QUOTE]

A lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that such a thing does not exist. Unless demonstration of the existence of such a being is provided, the belief remains justified.

There is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, you're muddying the waters.

Belief in the non-existence of God is just that: a belief. You justified nothing, you only resorted to your belief for justification. And lastly what in the world is 1, 2, C.

Of course it's just a belief. And I have justified it. YOU need to do a little better than making naked assertions and "what about's?"

I resorted to the environment and logical argumentation for justification. I did not say "I do not believe in God therefore I am justified".

 

[ghazirizvi]

It's been empirically shown that a parsimonious explanation triumphs over an unneccessarily complex explanation.

LOL. Please dont bring Darwin in here ok. You and I both know what you are saying is incorrect. If I may be allowed to resort to Wikipedia.

While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, unbelief should be preferred.

See your use of this Occam's Razor is incorrect because as I stated before the assumption that God does exist, though it introduces a probability of error it also explains why as I mentioned before throughout Human History people have always tended to believe in a supernatural power. Because that is what Occams Razor essentially tries to do, explain all the evidence in the simplest way possible.

Next....

Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity"

Finally. Occam's Razor is only a philosipical belief of reductionism, it is not a fundamental tenant of logic. So your argument again results in you resorting to your beliefs. I would ask you to bring your "empirical evidence" for Occam's Razor but I dont wanna make the debate diverge.

The existence of a deity is not a given. Rather, you must demonstrate that a deity exists.

If you want your god to be a given, you're going to have your hands full disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Dionysus, and every other deity from every pantheon you can conceive of

Niether is the non-existence of deity is a given hence the fabulous "demonstration" that I wanted Asimov to give. I still dont understand why you are trying to put the onus on me to prove God exists when I made no such claim. I was only asking Asimov to demonstrate God doesnt exist, which he said he could. So all you two end up with is reductionist thinking and call that evidence and then in turn ask me to provide evidence of the existence of God. This is hilarious mates.

As for the second part of your statement, I am sorry but I dont understand it.

 

[Illuminatus]

LOL. Please dont bring Darwin in here ok. You and I both know what you are saying is incorrect. If I may be allowed to resort to Wikipedia.

I'm not sure precisely how I brought Darwin into things. In any case, being told that if I bring up Darwin, (a highly respected and seminal scientist), I will be attacked with Wikipedia (a frequently distorted and unreliable source), puts me in stitches.

See your use of this Occam's Razor is incorrect because as I stated before the assumption that God does exist, though it introduces a probability of error it also explains why as I mentioned before throughout Human History people have always tended to believe in a supernatural power.

Actually, biological and psychological reasons are why humans tend to believe in deities.

Because that is what Occams Razor essentially tries to do, explain all the evidence in the simplest way possible.

Indeed. As there's no substantiative evidence or need for the existence of any deity, it's simplest to assume that there are no deities.

Finally. Occam's Razor is only a philosipical belief of reductionism, it is not a fundamental tenant of logic. So your argument again results in you resorting to your beliefs.

Ockham's Razor has been shown to empirically work.

I would ask you to bring your "empirical evidence" for Occam's Razor but I dont wanna make the debate diverge.

In science, the parsimonious explanation is the preferred. If theory A explains phenomenon X, you don't pick theory A+B. It's just simple logic.

As for the second part of your statement, I am sorry but I dont understand it.

You're arguing that we must disprove the existence of a god. That's fine, but I'll flip that back at you: disprove the existence of all gods but yours.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.

 

[ghazirizvi]

So? How does that follow from your claim that mine is a poor argument?

In order to demonstrate that it is poor, you'd have to claim evidence and then provide a reason that this is evidence for God.

I am calling your argument poor because you are saying that lack of evidence for god comprimises evidence for his non-existence. Which is absurd. And once again I am not trying to argue the existence of God, I am only asking you to demonstrate his non-existence. So why in the world would I claim evidence for the existence of God and try to prove he exist. I was only trying to point out that you claim there is no evidence for the existence of God and I said there is (i.e. this universe) because that is what belief in God tries to rationalize, our very existence. Now I admit to some, there are other "theories" or "beliefs" which also try to justify the very existence of the universe (athiesm is just not one of them). So once again you have to provide evidence for Gods non-existence.

What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God? What about human history?

Indeed. What about it ?

A lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that such a thing does not exist. Unless demonstration of the existence of such a being is provided, the belief remains justified.

There is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, you're muddying the waters.

Let me guess, "a lack of evidence for the existence of an object justifies its non-existence", because you say so ?

And there is a world of difference between athiesm and agnosticism, its not muddying waters as you claim. Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of God whereas you people flat out reject God's existence (without evidence I might add - since you havent really demonstrated anything to me yet). Agnostic's realize that there is no evidence for God's non-existence however they also claim there is no evidence for God's existence (which as far as modern day empirical arguments go, is correct).

Of course it's just a belief. And I have justified it. YOU need to do a little better than making naked assertions and "what about's?"

I resorted to the environment and logical argumentation for justification. I did not say "I do not believe in God therefore I am justified".

Well I know its a belief, I was asking you to demonstrate its correctness rationally which you have yet to do instead of resulting to reductionism (which btw is also a belief). I am not making naked assertions as you say, I am only trying to point out the flaw in your reasoning when you try to claim you can prove gods non-existence.

You did not resort to empirical evidence, only lack of it (which is not even a logical thought - its the philosiphy of reductionism). So essentially all you have claimed so far is that "I do not believe in God so therefore I am justified".

 

[ghazirizvi]

I'm not sure precisely how I brought Darwin into things. In any case, being told that if I bring up Darwin, (a highly respected and seminal scientist), I will be attacked with Wikipedia (a frequently distorted and unreliable source), puts me in stitches.

I didnt say you brought Darwin in, I asked you not to. In anycase Wikipedia is reliable enough for a healthy internet forum debate IMO. And no I could care less about Darwin right now, I dont feel like attacking anybody.

Actually, biological and psychological reasons are why humans tend to believe in deities.

Let me guess you will prop up hundreds of theories about the above mentioned sentence but not a single fact. When you get factual information to explain belief in dieties, in biological and phsycological terms then will you have brought something truly enlightning to the table. However if you can only bring theories and postulates then it is best not to bring them at all as it will only ruin the discussion at hand.

Indeed. As there's no substantiative evidence or need for the existence of any deity, it's simplest to assume that there are no deities.

Ockham's Razor has been shown to empirically work.

In science, the parsimonious explanation is the preferred. If theory A explains phenomenon X, you don't pick theory A+B. It's just simple logic.

Oh no. Not again. Here we go round and round. In science the simplest explanation maybe perferred - granted - however it is by no means the correct one. I gave my reason why the "theory of God" should be used (i.e. History of human belief), no doubt you would counter with your theories of "biological and physiological dependances". So all we have done is thrown our theories back and forth. You refuse to accept my theory because you are adamant yours is the correct one and vice versa. In the end the non-existence of God has not been demonstrated, let alone proved because....

You are also making your argument just as complicated as the God argument by adding the assumption that "biological and physiological traits are the cause of human belief in a higher power" unless you can provide stone cold evidence to the contrary. Thus both are equal in terms of assumptions thus rendering your entire argument invalid (since you relied on Occams Razor to begin with).

You're arguing that we must disprove the existence of a god. That's fine, but I'll flip that back at you: disprove the existence of all gods but yours.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.

LOL. I did not make a claim that I could demonstrate what you have said. Your fellow athiest however did make such a claim which we are now currently discussing. And if according to you I am an "athiest" again I have never stated that I am going to prove to you that my god is the one true god.

 

[Asimov]

I am calling your argument poor because you are saying that lack of evidence for god comprimises evidence for his non-existence. Which is absurd. And once again I am not trying to argue the existence of God, I am only asking you to demonstrate his non-existence.

How is it absurd?

So why in the world would I claim evidence for the existence of God and try to prove he exist. I was only trying to point out that you claim there is no evidence for the existence of God and I said there is (i.e. this universe) because that is what belief in God tries to rationalize, our very existence. Now I admit to some, there are other "theories" or "beliefs" which also try to justify the very existence of the universe (athiesm is just not one of them). So once again you have to provide evidence for Gods non-existence.

It tries to, but that doesn't mean they succeed....IOW, huh?

Let me guess, "a lack of evidence for the existence of an object justifies its non-existence", because you say so ?

Let me guess, you didn't mean to misquote me so I'll let you try again.

And there is a world of difference between athiesm and agnosticism, its not muddying waters as you claim.

Atheism and Agnosticism are two completely different issues. Agnosticism doesn't even cover belief in a deity, but whether or not we can KNOW if such a deity exists. They aren't mutually exclusive, is what I meant to say.

Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of God whereas you people flat out reject God's existence (without evidence I might add - since you havent really demonstrated anything to me yet). Agnostic's realize that there is no evidence for God's non-existence however they also claim there is no evidence for God's existence (which as far as modern day empirical arguments go, is correct).

I acknowledge the possibility of God and flat-out reject God's existence. Where's your world of difference now?

Well I know its a belief, I was asking you to demonstrate its correctness rationally which you have yet to do instead of resulting to reductionism (which btw is also a belief). I am not making naked assertions as you say, I am only trying to point out the flaw in your reasoning when you try to claim you can prove gods non-existence.

I didn't claim I could prove it. You asked me to demonstrate it, not prove it. I did. I'm perfectly justified in believing that something does not exist due to a lack of evidence.

Do you believe that pink bunnies exist on Mars?

You did not resort to empirical evidence, only lack of it (which is not even a logical thought - its the philosiphy of reductionism). So essentially all you have claimed so far is that "I do not believe in God so therefore I am justified".

You didn't request empirical demonstration. It's not reductionism, and I essentially have claimed:

"There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing God does not exist".

 

[AV1611VET]

So do the Athist count as a Religon or not?

Yes --- and they worship even more fervently than we do:

• They go to church 7 days a week.
  The pastor is the head of the house.
  The deacons are the members of their household.
  They tithe 100%.
  They baptize every day.
  They partake of the "lord's table" every day.
  They pray without ceasing.
  etc.