Is atheism a religious belief?

Interesting.  I'ld think a belief has to believe positively in something.
Sort of like a motion in a meeting, it should be a positive statement.

Not believe that something does not exist.


I preter athiests to agnostics, at least they are definite in their thoughts.
Agnostics think God can't be proven or disproven.  How dully theoretical
They are not taking a stance either way.

You can move a motion in a meeting to cease doing something.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 2:36pm:

Is atheism a religious belief?

Silly question. ::)

There are no silly questions. Only silly answers.

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2007 at 11:11am:

There are no silly questions. Only silly answers.

How can Atheism be a religious belief when Atheism is all about not believing in religion.
It was a silly question of yours FD. It contradicts itself.

Athieists believe there is no God. That is a belief.

Quote:

OzPolitic Posts: 1915  Re: Is atheism a religious belief? Reply #1 - Nov 7th, 2007, 3:33pm     I preter athiests to agnostics, at least they are definite in their thoughts.

Hows this for a definite thought- you have ruined this forum with your flaming and bi tching. Yes this is sprints forum. Im pretty definite about that.

Get rid of Reg Livermore I say. ;D

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2007 at 2:11pm:

Athieists believe there is no God. That is a belief.

Farkin Dickhead, go back to your bong.

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2007 at 2:11pm:

Athieists believe there is no God. That is a belief.

It's not a religous belief... is the point trying to be made here.

How is a belief redarding the existence of deities not religious? How else would you categorise it?

monotheism, polytheism, atheism - all broad categories for relgion

Technically, Atheism is a religious belief but more so, it is a reaction to the promulgation of the religious beliefs of others

IQSRLOW wrote on Nov 10^th, 2007 at 12:25pm:

Technically, Atheism is a religious belief but more so, it is a reaction to the promulgation of the religious beliefs of others

Hmmm... although atheists themselves deny that their beliefs are religious due to the very definition of atheism, I note that a judge in the US claimed it was and that a prisioner was therefore denied his religious rights when refused to set up an atheist study group.

I also note that some in the US claim Evolotion to be a religious belief and have moved the ciriculum from science to religous studies.

If that's the way we want to go... I'm fine with it. So long as the religous understand that their faith is now merely a belief of the kind that atheism is merely a belief/ opinion.

Relion looses it's wieght as something more than and becomes something that is merely a part of.  

I note that a judge in the US claimed it was and that a prisioner was therefore denied his religious rights when refused to set up an atheist study group.  

I also note that some in the US claim Evolotion to be a religious belief and have moved the ciriculum from science to religous studies.  

Interesting news. Can you link me to more info please?

Sappho wrote on Nov 11^th, 2007 at 7:03am:

IQSRLOW wrote on Nov 10th, 2007 at 12:25pm: Technically, Atheism is a religious belief but more so, it is a reaction to the promulgation of the religious beliefs of others Hmmm... although atheists themselves deny that their beliefs are religious due to the very definition of atheism, I note that a judge in the US claimed it was and that a prisioner was therefore denied his religious rights when refused to set up an atheist study group. I also note that some in the US claim Evolotion to be a religious belief and have moved the ciriculum from science to religous studies. If that's the way we want to go... I'm fine with it. So long as the religous understand that their faith is now merely a belief of the kind that atheism is merely a belief/ opinion. Relion looses it's wieght as something more than and becomes something that is merely a part of.

religious, social or philosophical studies are the only place where evolution should be taught.

What about History? I think that's where it fits best.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. There is no other prescribed dogma as it is the rejection of a positive claim made by theists.

As for evolution, it is both fact and one of the most well supported theories in science. It has unanimous support barring the few creationists that are scientists who more often than not are involved in an entirely different field to biology. Where should it be taught? In a biology class of course, while creationism and intelligent design(creationism) should be left to religion and philosophy. I suggest you stop listening to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind who try and emotionally appeal the validity of the theory with half truths and non-scientific mumbo jumbo that most of their supporters blindly accept because they are both ignorant about the scientific method and think their brand of religion and scientific reality are mutually exclusive.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. There is no other prescribed dogma as it is the rejection of a positive claim made by theists.

That is agnosticism, not atheism.

As for evolution, it is both fact and one of the most well supported theories in science.

Evolution is not a scientific theory.

Who are Ken Ham and Kent Hovind? I've never ehard of them. What makes you think I am basing my ideas on what they say? From your description it sounds very different.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion  
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

That would include environmentalism  ;)

Depending on it's form of course. Just about any philosophy can be turned into a religion.

I don't see how anybody can be an atheist and live with themselves?
Agnosticism I can unserstand, since there's so much organized religeon in the world. It's hard to trust one faith.
But at least they believe in a life after this one.
If you're putting your beliefs in atheism, you're basically saying "My life has no purpose, I've got one life, then nothing at all. I'm gonna do the best I can and (not) live with it"

If I was an atheist I'd probably try to find a cure for death, or go mad and shoot someone, Because I'd be really scared if I found out that once I die, I'm not going to exist.

Atheism like Christianity is a belief. Pure and simple.

I'm a christian, I believe in God, that he created this earth, and proud to believe in my faith.

But at least they believe in a life after this one.

I don't think they do.

Quote:

I don't see how anybody can be an atheist and live with themselves? Agnosticism I can unserstand, since there's so much organized religeon in the world. It's hard to trust one faith. But at least they believe in a life after this one. If you're putting your beliefs in atheism, you're basically saying "My life has no purpose, I've got one life, then nothing at all. I'm gonna do the best I can and (not) live with it"

Labor_man,

Are you saying then we need a faith to justify our existence, because im not sure we do., at least I dont. Im not aimless, I dont feel life is not worth living..I actualy dont think about the after life much at all...whats the point?

Buddhism would be closer to my belief  system at present but I love the idea of Christianity... this love of Chistianity was supported by Sunday school and Bible studies as a kid insisted upon by my Catholic mother.

I think the reality of God/Jesus is based more on ones own perceptions than actual proof that  God/Jesus ever existed at all.

Evolution gets in the way of this for me. Dinosaurs.!


Atheism or nontheism is practised by many pple.

PPle who believe in atheism call themselves realists.

My father did.

Labor_Man wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 2:34am:

I don't see how anybody can be an atheist and live with themselves? Agnosticism I can unserstand, since there's so much organized religeon in the world. It's hard to trust one faith. But at least they believe in a life after this one. If you're putting your beliefs in atheism, you're basically saying "My life has no purpose, I've got one life, then nothing at all. I'm gonna do the best I can and (not) live with it" If I was an atheist I'd probably try to find a cure for death, or go mad and shoot someone, Because I'd be really scared if I found out that once I die, I'm not going to exist. Atheism like Christianity is a belief. Pure and simple. I'm a christian, I believe in God, that he created this earth, and proud to believe in my faith.

I am an athiest and I have no problem with living my life in a happy fullfilling way. If more people worried about living this life to the full, rather than living some fantasy about an after life and putting so much energy into it, this world would be a much happier place to live for all. Just about every war ever started  throughout history is and was one religion verse the other, organised religion is the downfall of society.

Just about every war ever started  throughout history is and was one religion verse the other, organised religion is the downfall of society.

let's see, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Napoleon? Hmmmm......

Yes very sellective, although it could be argued that Vietnam was about the god botherer's being scared of communism. And I dont suppose you think the war  we are currently in has anything to do with the bible bashers verse the koran bashers? If its not you better let sprintcyclist  know.

it could be argued that Vietnam was about the god botherer's being scared of communism

Yes, that's what it was about. Do you think that was a clash of religions? Do you see economic ideologies as religion? Or do you just blame relgion if some of the people involved also happened to be religious?

Edit: The broader ideology of communism includes atheism (ref: imagine, by John Lennon) and the use of force to impose those beliefs on others. Communists are a classic example of Atheists who want to remove other preople's freedom of choice.

And I dont suppose you think the war  we are currently in has anything to do with the bible bashers verse the koran bashers?

Some people would like it to be about that. However, Saddam was not a religious leader. We are still attempting to help the Iraqis, not convert or destroy them or their religion. Afghanistan you could make a stronger argument because we were reacting to an attack motiviated by religious ideology, but again the motive is to remove the direct threats to ourselves, not the religion that some attribute it to.

Yes very sellective

I don't think picking the largest wars over the last few centuries, including the only two global wars we have had, is selective in any biased way. Remember, you claimed it was "Just about every war ever started  throughout history" not a few minor ones like Arghanistan and Iraq. Given the historical reality, that claim you made is absurd.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 2:36pm:

Is atheism a religious belief?

Here is an interesting article from Time magazine, atheist camps: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html

There are atheists (passive), and there are atheists (proactive). The proactive ones seem religious. From American Atheists:


Quote:

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. (emphasis added)

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

That's crazy. What's the point of being an atheist if you still have to go to church? I wonder if they have songs to sing about being atheist.

To say that atheism is a religious belief is like saying walking around naked in the CBD is ok, because nudity is a just another form of clothing  ;D

- or like saying that a legitimate hobby is NOT fishing  ;D  

- or like saying that gross stupidity is just another form of intelligence  ;D

It's confusing being an atheist, because logically I need to define all the other irrational beliefs that I don't hold. I'm an atheist, and a-horoscopist, an a-gambling mythologyist, and an a-(insert stupid traditional belief system)-ist.

I used to call myself an atheist, but I've lost interest in that now.

I've become a rational thinker instead, and a believer in the natural world.

Come on guys, read the fine print in the last Australian Census. The ABS usually gets these things right:

No Religion: (f) Comprises 'No Religion, nfd', 'Agnosticism', 'Atheism', 'Humanism' and 'Rationalism'.

Nudism is absence of clothing in the sense that agnosticism is the absence of belief. Atheism is not the absence of belief. It is a belief that is no easier to justify rationally than theism.

If faced with a question like that, I always look at the negative hypothesis:

Is atheism a non-religious belief- Yes.

therefore:

Is atheism a religious belief - No.  

Logically it can't be both.

That makes no sense at all. You are arguing that something is true because it isn't false, without giving an extra evidence or explanation for why it isn't false. Nor does your paraphrasing of the question make it any easier to understand. You might as well argue that you are correct because you are not not not not not incorrect.

It depends. To me it's obvious that atheism fits the definition of  a non religious belief rather than a religious belief. It's certainly not associated with any of the major world religions, although it is a major world world viewpoint. Some atheists may be religious, such as some Buddhists, but most atheists would confirm that they do not associate with any religions. If you want the real definition of a belief, you generally ask the people who hold that belief.

I can see some people arguing over semantics in a way. It's like asking "Is right to life" an abortion related belief (or view)? The answer is obviously yes, but you can't go on to say that those who advocate 'right to life' believe in abortion.  

In the same way, there is no doubt that atheism takes a position on religion, although  that position is one of being without  (a prefix) a god (or gods). Generally in a Western context, there can be no doubt that atheists are non religious.  

It's a dishonest tactic to base such an argument on a dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is not logically rigorous, and usually includes many definitions of a word. The way a word is actually used depends on the context in many cases. For example, I could say that I have a tear in my shirt, and you could look up the dictionary and conclude that I must have been crying recently (presumably in frustration) because you know that tears evaporate quickly.

In the same way, I am very reluctant to label myself with the term Atheist, because it's a ready to wear definition originally provided by a society that believed in a Christian God. It's like me calling a religious person superstitious. To me there is no significant difference between religion and superstition, but to a religious person, there most certainly is.  

It's a dishonest tactic to base such an argument on a dictionary definition.

No it isn't, because it is a semantic argument. Otherwise you just base your argument on waving your arms in the air and saying whatever seems right.

If you want to get away from semantics, the key point is that atheism is a belief that is equally lacking in a rational basis. If you agree on that but don't care about the semantics then that is sufficient.

The problem is that arguing about semantics based on dictionary definition doesn't actually get you anywhere.  The result will always be ambiguous. The example of the word 'tear' was probably a poor one.

In the case of atheism, an atheist should know best whether his worldview  is or is not a religion, because that's basically where you're going with this.

For example you could look at a sign and say "That sign is ambiguous". Only the person who said that would know exactly what was meant.  There are at least two possibilities - 1.That it can be read clearly but is open to several possible meanings or interpretations, or 2. That it is indistinct, and that you can't quite make it out.

To jump on one meaning or another and argue about semantics gets us nowhere, because it is the intent of the word that is important.

The English language is too imprecise to simply use the definition of a word without explanation. We see a sign saying "This area is Alcohol Free", another saying "Free Beer" and another saying "Free Beach". The word 'free' has three entirely different meanings in each case.    

- and that's why it's a dishonest tactic to use a dictionary definition unless you want to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

Now if you want to start a separate debate on rationality, that's an entirely different argument, but to start with we need to agree on the definition of an atheist.

In the case of atheism, an atheist should know best whether his worldview  is or is not a religion, because that's basically where you're going with this.

No, because atheists have an emotional reaction to the word religion and aren't going to approach it rationally. It's like some natural historians insisting they are doing science because they attach all their credibility to it.

The way I handle that is to consider the consequences of using one definition over another, which is probably the best approach here. For example, insisting that only certain beliefs regarding the existence of God count as religion leads to all sorts of exclusions that clearly don't make sense. So sticking to that definition just because one particular group doesn't want to be lumped in with the rest is wrong. Furthermore, their motive for not wanting to be lumped is almost always associated with a refusal to acknowledge that their beliefs are equally irrational. So, the insistence on the definition of religion that excludes atheism is based on an attempt to hide an irrational belief and leads to the clasification of other belief systems that clearly are religions as not being religions.

The English language is too imprecise to simply use the definition of a word without explanation.

You are missing part of the point then. The argument is not just about atheism, it is also about religion. The argument is about defining (ie explaining) the term religion, not just atheism. Obviously I am not suggesting we label atheism as a religion in the absence of a definition of religion that justifies it. The definition of religion is part of the argument.

Again it depends on the definition of religion that you use. Unfortunately it's a very vague concept. Here is an online attempt:

YourDictionary.com

Religion:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2a. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3. archaic: scrupulous conformity

Clearly atheism is not consistent with those definitions.

4a. cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The key word is 'faith', but that definition is far too loose to apply rigorously. For example the principle that if a black cat crosses your path, then you'll suffer bad luck. It's a superstition, but is it a religion? What about gambling? Is that a religion? A lot of people have faith in their system of beliefs (however irrational). Clearly the final definition is too vague to be of any use.

I'd argue that some religious people also have an emotional reaction to the word religion and especially atheism, and they aren't going to approach it rationally either.  

Then we have Dictionary.com :

1.      a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.      a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.      the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.      the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.      the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.      something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.      religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.      Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.      get religion, Informal.
a.      to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.      to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Again, definition 6 is extremely vague. It could apply to stamp collecting or weather forecasting, but nobody is going to seriously suggest that either of those is a religion. It's one of these catch-all definitions that is way down the list.  My particular brand of atheism certainly doesn't fall into that category, because it's not something I "believe in and and follow devotedly". (some do) I know many Atheists who haven't even thought about it deeply. They just take it for granted, like the vast majority of Christians.

I thought we had moved past using dictionary definitions to discussing the implications of the definitions?

I think we've done the dictionary definitions to death, but it's still handy to refer to the dictionary to check that we're talking about the same thing. You wrote:

"If you want to get away from semantics, the key point is that atheism is a belief that is equally lacking in a rational basis. If you agree on that but don't care about the semantics then that is sufficient."

I guess we can define rational as :

- consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
-  intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

We again come into the problematic area of semantics. I don't consider that all people who have supernatural beliefs are totally irrational just as I don't consider all atheists as totally irrational. The word irrational has negative connotations in that way. If you accuse a person of acting in an irrational manner or having an irrational belief, then they are obviously going to get emotional about it.

Yet, even if human beings don't like being called irrational or even illogical, none of us really function in a totally logical or rational way, regardless of our belief system.  We all have our egos (some more that others), we have our emotions that can be triggered quite easily and we have our preconceptions and sentiments. Even the most logical of research scientists can cling on to pet theories.

I would be more comfortable with saying that Supernaturalism (which incorporates religion, superstition etc) is not a scientific belief system, because we can define scientific method much easier than we can define that which is rational.  Do you have a problem with that?

I would also say that both supernaturalism, including Christianity, Voodoo and the rest are probably perfectly valid belief systems for those people who hold them, just as my own belief system (for which atheism is a very poor definition) is perfectly valid for me. If the suit fits, wear it. Sorry, but I'm not one of these militant atheists. It doesn't really concern me. All that I ask is that we respect the rights of others to hold different beliefs. My personal belief does not happen to include supernatural elements, but most of my friends are religious, and quite frankly I find myself defending their rights rather than those of militant atheists.

The things that irritate me most are gambling mythology, these all-pervasive horoscopes that so many people follow without a thought, militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins, racism and fundamentalism such as Islamic Fundamentalism and "In your face" Born-Again Christianity (but not necessarily in that order).

The thing that appeals to me most in people is tolerance.  

wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2008 at 9:58am:

I would also say that both supernaturalism, including Christianity, Voodoo and the rest are probably perfectly valid belief systems for those people who hold them, just as my own belief system (for which atheism is a very poor definition) is perfectly valid for me. If the suit fits, wear it. Sorry, but I'm not one of these militant atheists. It doesn't really concern me. All that I ask is that we respect the rights of others to hold different beliefs. My personal belief does not happen to include supernatural elements, but most of my friends are religious, and quite frankly I find myself defending their rights rather than those of militant atheists. The things that irritate me most are gambling mythology, these all-pervasive horoscopes that so many people follow without a thought, militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins, racism and fundamentalism such as Islamic Fundamentalism and "In your face" Born-Again Christianity (but not necessarily in that order).

I don't think these fanatical "isms" are healthy either. Two books of interest on this subject are Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and Robert Anton Wilson's The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. Neither are anti-science, but an interesting look at the fanatic who wants to remould the world in the image of his god, and who is "on the march everywhere". I don't feel comfortable in religious apologetics (though I once did), any more than I feel comfortable in Rationalist societites who, as one friend put it (himself still a member of the Rationalists), "worship the Holy Trinity of Freud, Marx and Darwin".  

Well you can discount Fraud, I mean Freud, the father of psychoquackery. They tell me that Clearasil is quite good for Marxism, or at least it goes away eventually at the same time as the acne. As for Darwin, well he did give us a pretty good insight into how things evolve, but I don't exactly worship him.

His biggest fault was to name his book "On the Origin of Species". Nowadays we have people who spend a lifetime trying to determine if something is a different species or not, and we have an unwarranted emphasis on the preservation of species, where we should be looking at the preservation of regional populations and ecosystems. It's an incredible waste of resources, and a diversion away from some if the bigger issues in biodiversity.

I don't think I qualify as a rationalist. The closest thing you can get to putting a label on me is "Bright", as in "The Brights". It's a general enough description. I have humanist tendencies, in that I feel compelled to help strangers in need, and I contribute quite a bit to secular charities.  I actually joined the Brights internet forum once, and find that I can't stand them. I seem to get on better with tolerant religious people.

What are the Brights all about?

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2008 at 7:59pm:

What are the Brights all about?

Here is one sample:


Quote:

On this website, you can simply say so and, by doing so, join with other brights from all over the world in an extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights movement.

http://www.the-brights.net/

Dennett originally coined the term. When challenged that it was arrogant, he somewhat conceded by calling those who believe in the supernatural "Supers".

"The movement's three major aims are:

  1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
  2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
  3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals."

The Brights are therefore specifically not anti-religion, and there are a few Deists and Buddhists there. That's one thing that appeals to me. Having said that, I'm not really a 'joiner'. I think as an individual. The people on the Brights forum irritate me, probably because they are as individualistic as I am (strange as it may sound).  Nobody really agrees on much over there. It has been described as trying to 'herd cats'.

I guess they have more of a barrow to push in the US of A, where people have a general suspicion of the non religious. Here in Australia, the general unwashed unreligious is a relatively large part of society, with about the same numbers as the Roman Catholic segment.  You can say that you're an 'atheist' or 'agnostic' here with no big deal.  

I don't think religion, race or sexuality have anything to do with how ethical a life you live. I think that's more to do with your upbringing and your nature. (nature and nurture)

This Dennett interview gives some insight into his motivation:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18772.html

The US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism was a religion in August 2005. That court is not an authority recognised world-wide, of course; but it is one respected for its reputation for actually considering argument and thinking about an issue before delivering judgement. A better authority than the "Go back to your bong" non-thinker, methinks.

Logic tells those of us who can think logically that atheism must be a form of religion. Its proponents claim to have the answer, and are prepared to brook no argument. Just as the theist claims to know categorically that there is a God, the atheists claim to know categorically that there is none. Neither is willing to think about the question.

The deist concludes from evidence that there must be a Creator, or there could be no creation. The pantheist supposes that the sum total of existence must be tantamount to a God. The agnostic recognises that there can, on existing evidence, be no definitive answer to the question. His or hers is the only sensible and open-minded, truly non-religious conclusion.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 2:21pm:

The US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism was a religion in August 2005. That court is not an authority recognised world-wide, of course; but it is one respected for its reputation for actually considering argument and thinking about an issue before delivering judgement.

I've always said, "there are atheists, and there are atheists". The passive atheist (who cares not whether there's a god, nor for religion) is different to the active atheist, who does care, and who pro-actively proselytes against religion or belief in God. They want their beliefs transcendent, because in our speck in the Milky Way Galaxy, they have a corner on "truth".

Thanks for that Cracticus, and welcome to OzPolitic.

Having said that, the US has lost a lot of its credibility in the international arena with the antics of the "Crime Family Bush" and the politicisation of religion.  

The US religious landscape is totally different from that in Australia. At least here we have a lot more tolerance.

I prefer the European Convention on Human Rights stance:

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion1

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

  2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This is actually a serious issue for certain religious sects, including Muslims and extreme Christian sects like the Brethren. Apostates face persecution, which may include total withdrawal of contact from their families, abuse, or even death threats.  

Ray - The passive atheist (who cares not whether there's a god, nor for religion) is different to the active atheist, who does care, and who pro-actively proselytes against religion or belief in God. They want their beliefs transcendent, because in our speck in the Milky Way Galaxy, they have a corner on "truth".  

That about sums it up. I can't see how passive atheism could qualify as a religion. An active atheist as you describe could possibly qualify as being 'religious', but that's just a small sub-set of the total belief system. Most atheists and agnostics couldn't care less about trying to convert people.  In my experience, the most fervent 'froth at the mouth' atheists are ex Baptists :)

As an illustration, I bought my wife (who is Roman Catholic) some rosary beads when we visited the Vatican city. I don't think an active atheist would do that?

Cracticus wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 2:21pm:

Its proponents claim to have the answer, and are prepared to brook no argument. Just as the theist claims to know categorically that there is a God, the atheists claim to know categorically that there is none. Neither is willing to think about the question.

That's a gross mischaracterisation. Only a minority of Atheists might 'know categorically' that there is no God. Just as small a proportion of theists claims to know categorically that there is a God, at least in Australia.

There is a wide range of beliefs that can be described as Atheist. Generally speaking an Atheist is a person who doesn't belief in God (usually the Christian God), but you can get strong atheists, weak atheists, implicit atheists, explicit atheists and the list goes on.  

This Wikipedia Article gives a bit of a rundown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


It's so broad a term that a Southern Baptist could be described as an atheist (with respect to Ganeesh or Krishna for example)

You can see why I abandoned the term a long time ago.

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 11:06am:

Most atheists and agnostics couldn't care less about trying to convert people.  In my experience, the most fervent 'froth at the mouth' atheists are ex Baptists :)

My experience with many ex-Mormons is the same. I think this active atheism is largely a reaction to their former "true blue" theist beliefs. It's almost as if they have to actively oppose what they formerly believed, while the passive atheist hardly even thinks about his/her atheism. It's like asking them "why do you eat chocolate ice-cream?"

I once met a mormon lesbian who attended her own excommunication. She attended in case she ever changed her mind and wanted back in.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 12:38pm:

I once met a mormon lesbian who attended her own excommunication. She attended in case she ever changed her mind and wanted back in.

Could that be Sue-Ann Post? I have her book but haven't read it yet. She injects a lot of humour and retains a liking for Mormon culture. Her website: http://www.sue-annpost.com.au/

Aussie ex-Mormons tend to differ quite a bit from their American counterparts, some of whom take their ex-Mormonism as seriously as they took their initial Mormon beliefs. Aussie ex-Mormons tend to just get on with their lives and seldom think about it again.

I don't think so, but I can't remember her name so it could be. She didn't seem like the sort to write a book.

Dear Muso, a "gross mischaracterisation"? No, it isn't. It is an entirely accurate characterisation.

An atheist is one who believes that God does not exist. That is a simple dictionary definition. Note the word "believes". Go off on tangents all you want, there is no such thing as a "wide range" of disbelief. Either one believes in something, or one disbelieves, or one remains undecided. Those are the three possible options. Atheists are ones who have decided to believe that there is no such thing as a God; therefore atheism is a system of belief, just like any other religion.

There are no "strong" or "weak" atheists. Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a God is not an atheist, but an agnostic. Proselytising and non-proselytising atheists are no different in their beliefs, just as their is no equivalent difference between Christian believers who try to spread their message and ones who do not.

And it is belief in God we are talking about; not belief in any particular religion. It is ridiculous to say that a southern Baptist is an "atheist of" Ganeesh. Theism is belief in the existence of a God; atheism is its opposite: belief in the non-existence of any God, full stop.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

There are no "strong" or "weak" atheists.

I think you should check out Austin Cline, a prominent atheist commentator:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I think you should check out Austin Cline, a prominent atheist commentator:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
[/quote]

I've seen it before. It's nonsense. Anyone can write anything they want on the web. It doesn't give it any validity.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

Dear Muso, a "gross mischaracterisation"? No, it isn't. It is an entirely accurate characterisation. An atheist is one who believes that God does not exist.

That statement is correct, but it wasn't my point. (Did you actually read my post?). Let's see if I can explain:

You used the term "know categorically".  That was the crux of my argument. An Atheist is not a person who "knows categorically" that God doesn't exist, and a Theist or a Christian is not a person who "knows categorically" that God exists.

As I stated in a previous post, you can believe that the cheque is in the mail , but you won't know it until you get some evidence.

To know and to believe are two different things. As somebody else pointed out, it's even a mainstream Christian belief that it is impossible to know if God exists. That's where faith comes in.  To state otherwise is  not strictly scriptural.

In that way, the majority of Christians (and the majority of atheists) are also agnostics.  I think most people have accepted that an atheist agnostic is a possible combination.


Quote:

Atheists are ones who have decided to believe that there is no such thing as a God

Again, not necessarily. You're stating that atheists have decided to believe something.  Can you actually decide to believe something like that? I don't think so. You either believe it or not as the case may be.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

Anyone can write anything they want on the web. It doesn't give it any validity.

That's true too.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

I've seen it before. It's nonsense. Anyone can write anything they want on the web. It doesn't give it any validity.

I'm sure it's all an illusion: http://www.strongatheism.net/

Even when atheists use the term.


Quote:

Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues.

But since it's on the www, we can't take it seriously.

More web crap: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm

What some atheists don't like about the "weak/strong" definition is that they feel "weak atheists" are really agnostics.


Quote:

Atheism - Defining the Terms There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (emphasis added)

Quote:

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism

Quote:

Atheism - Strong Atheism Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

Added question: Which atheist knows for certain, 100%, that God does not exist?

If so, how?

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 2:24pm:

Cracticus wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 1:44pm: Dear Muso, a "gross mischaracterisation"? No, it isn't. It is an entirely accurate characterisation. An atheist is one who believes that God does not exist. That statement is correct, but it wasn't my point. (Did you actually read my post?). Let's see if I can explain: You used the term "know categorically".  That was the crux of my argument. An Atheist is not a person who "knows categorically" that God doesn't exist, and a Theist or a Christian is not a person who "knows categorically" that God exists. As I stated in a previous post, you can believe that the cheque is in the mail , but you won't know it until you get some evidence. To know and to believe are two different things. As somebody else pointed out, it's even a mainstream Christian belief that it is impossible to know if God exists. That's where faith comes in.  To state otherwise is  not strictly scriptural. In that way, the majority of Christians (and the majority of atheists) are also agnostics.  I think most people have accepted that an atheist agnostic is a possible combination. Quote: Atheists are ones who have decided to believe that there is no such thing as a God Again, not necessarily. You're stating that atheists have decided to believe something.  Can you actually decide to believe something like that? I don't think so. You either believe it or not as the case may be.

Agreed: it wasn't your point — it was mine!

"Decides to believe" means exactly what it says. The atheist decides to disbelieve in God in the same way as the theist decides to believe. He or she adopts a position based on lack of empirical evidence and refuses to deviate from it, or to acknowledge that he or she could be wrong. Perhaps "chooses to believe" would make what I mean clearer.

Ask any devout Christian, Muslim or whatever if he or she categorically believes in God and the answer will be "Yes."  Ask followers of Dawkins if they believe that a God exists and the answer will be a categorical "No."

Your cheque in the mail example is a bit of a red herring. Here we are dealing with a different kind of knowledge. Only in the mind of an irrational person could confidence of a cheque's existence be an irrational belief, based on no empirical evidence. The person who knows a cheque is in the mail is either the one who mailed it, or the intended recipient who has total confidence in the word of the sender. Either way, it is evidence based, testable knowledge.

As I have demonstrated before, there is a clear distinction between atheism and agnosticism. If there were not, there would be no need to the two distinct terms. I won't be bothered going over all that again.

Ray_A wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 2:55pm:

More web crap: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm What some atheists don't like about the "weak/strong" definition is that they feel "weak atheists" are really agnostics. Quote: Atheism - Defining the Terms There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (emphasis added) [quote]Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism

Quote:

Atheism - Strong Atheism Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

[/quote]
We already have a word for what that muddle-headed guy intent on demonstrating how erudite he isn't means by weak atheism. It is agnosticism. It has been around for centuries. We have never needed a new and convoluted anti-clarity buzzword to replace it with.

Which atheist knows for certain, 100%, that God does not exist? All of them, who accurately apply that label to themselves. That is what the word means. Those who admit to not knowing for certain either way fall into the category agnostic.

How? That is a question for them to answer.

This kind of reminds of the terms macro and micro evolution which some people prefer to use over natural selection and evolution.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 11:48am:

[quote author=Ray_A link=1194410206/60#62 date=1203915309]More web crap: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm Which atheist knows for certain, 100%, that God does not exist? All of them, who accurately apply that label to themselves. That is what the word means. Those who admit to not knowing for certain either way fall into the category agnostic. How? That is a question for them to answer.

I think I'll give up. My answer would be "none of them". Teach me more about this brand of Atheism that excludes agnostics. It sounds very interesting, but none of my atheist acquaintances fall into that category.

You obviously must be an atheist yourself to be such an expert.

wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 5:19pm:

Cracticus wrote on Feb 26th, 2008 at 11:48am: [quote author=Ray_A link=1194410206/60#62 date=1203915309]More web crap: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm Which atheist knows for certain, 100%, that God does not exist? All of them, who accurately apply that label to themselves. That is what the word means. Those who admit to not knowing for certain either way fall into the category agnostic. How? That is a question for them to answer. I think I'll give up. My answer would be "none of them". Teach me more about this brand of Atheism that excludes agnostics. It sounds very interesting, but none of my atheist acquaintances fall into that category. You obviously must be an atheist yourself to be such an expert.

Technically and pedantically speaking, you would of course be right. But by that criteria, no one KNOWS anything. (According to some systems of belief, everything may be an illusion.) So any attempt to communicate ideas becomes pointless — we may as well all give up before we even start.

To usefully communicate, we need to accept what our communicant says in the spirit in which it is said, not mount an arcane argument on the technical meaning of some word he or she has used, and divert the discussion to an argument on semantics. Knowledge theory is not what this thread is about. It is about whether or not atheism can be considered to be a religious belief.

Have you ever debated religion with a believer? Try telling a fundamentalist Christian that there may be truth some other religion. It is a pointless and quite frustrating exercise. So it is with telling an atheist that there may be truth in religion. Both are equally locked in to their beliefs. Neither may know he or she is right; but both claim to know, and argue from a position of absolute certainty.

One doesn't need to be an atheist to know what atheism is, any more than one needs to be a carpenter to know what carpentry is. Atheism or carpentry — the nature of each is explicit in the words which name them. Certainly I will claim to have more expertise in the meaning of words than Austin Cline. So, I dare say, do the judges of The US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled Atheism to be a religion.

It's about belief, not knowledge.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

It's about belief, not knowledge.

This argument is in danger of going around in circles.

Strange as it may seem, I can actually see where Cracticus is coming from. As always it's a question of attitude, and interpretation of words - semantics if you like. It hinges on what you mean by 'know'. The English language is notoriously vague, but I'm quite sure if we discussed this in real life we could pinpoint the source of conflict.

You can look up a dictionary and find the word vision for example. You'd find that a synonym is sight. No problem? 20:20 sight is the same as 20:20 vision. However if I tried that small substitution  with my wife, I know what the result would be. "My dear, you are a real vision tonight" - compare with "My dear, you are a real sight tonight"

To call somebody an atheist just means that they don't believe in God, however in some ways it's too broad a term, and in other ways it's too narrow. It's about as useful a word as 'believer' (in what?)

The word 'know' means something different for a scientific thinker than a theist. For me know is pretty close to absolute. So, when I hear a theist saying "I know that God exists", I interpret that to mean (god exists, probability=1). However the word has a certain emotional charge for a theist that an atheist, an agnostic or say a Buddhist would not share. You can see it in the Handel oratorio "I know that my redeemer liveth". The same dichotomy applies to the word 'believe'. A Christian would assign a somewhat different value to the word than an atheist or agnostic.  

For example when I go for my 2km run, I tell myself
"I know I can do it in 8 minutes and 30 seconds"

In that respect, I dont mean know as in 'probability=1', (After all, I could drop dead at any moment) I use it as a method of having faith in myself to achieve that goal.  

I think that's what you mean by 'know' in the case of God. Please feel free to correct me.


Quote:

So it is with telling an atheist that there may be truth in religion. Both are equally locked in to their beliefs. Neither may know he or she is right; but both claim to know, and argue from a position of absolute certainty.

Well I'm not a very good example of an atheist, but I can see truth, virtue and indeed beauty in many world religions. With respect, an atheist just doesn't believe in God. I'm not totally locked on to any belief. All my beliefs are working hypotheses. They can change at any time based on available evidence - and as I've said before, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in trying to convert you to my world view or defending my view, although my current position is one that I've had all my life, and it has been reinforced by a great deal of thinking.  

Unlike your standard militant atheist, I actually see some cultural and moral value in religions. In fact I get on better with religious people than most atheists. I just don't happen to believe in the supernatural myself.

I apologise for my short and slightly sarcastic reply. I think it was probably motivated by the fact that we  have slightly different definitions of words.

- and trust me, I wasn't trying to be technical and pedantic. I just am technical and pedantic.  ;D

I also jumped on your choice of words when you said "decided not to believe in God". You then substuted "chose". Actually I did neither. I have never had a belief in God in my entire life. Within the last ten years or so, I have changed my focus somewhat, in that I only believe in the physical world, so you can remove horoscopes, superstitions and anything else that involves the supernatural from my belief system.  

If I retorted by stating that you "decided to believe in God", I think you'd feel the same way.  

I hope you will start to understand from this that 'there are atheists and there are atheists' as Ray pointed out. I have the greatest respect for those who have a faith, and I have no wish to be disrespectful. I also seek a reciprocal respect for my personal belief system.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

It's about belief, not knowledge.

My 2 cents....

What is belief? Belief is a cognitive thought or content that one holds to be true. If I see the colour red I KNOW the colour to be red. However, if my partner tells me that she has a headache I BELIEVE her to be telling the truth because I have no way of proving that she has a headache (and I KNOW that she wouldn't tell a lie over such a little thing).

Athiests believe that deities do not exist. Deities falls within the realm of religion and the supernatural. Just because the subject of disbelief is religious doesn't automatically make it religious one.

Believing that my partner has a headache does not make me a medical practitioner; nor does believing that deities do not exist does not make me a religious.

Therefore, my conclusion is that atheism is a belief about religion; but is not a religious belief.

But you have reason to believe your wife, be it history, trust or whatever. It's not like 'She has headache, she has spoken.' Believing what someone says does not qualify someone as a doctor, but holding a belief regarding the existence of dieties qualifies someone as having a religious belief. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that you are a believer. The belief alone is what qualifies you.

freediver wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

But you have reason to believe your wife, be it history, trust or whatever. It's not like 'She has headache, she has spoken.' Believing what someone says does not qualify someone as a doctor, but holding a belief regarding the existence of dieties qualifies someone as having a religious belief. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that you are a believer. The belief alone is what qualifies you.

I can't quite put my finger on it but your statement seems contradictory.

My analogy was not an illustration of qualification. It was an attempt to illustrate the nature or the act of the belief itself.

Does believing in intelligent extra-terrestrial life qualify one to be an astronomer?

Belief itself is not a spiritual act. One can believe an incident to be true (ie: headache) without it being a spiritual revelation. Belief and faith goes hand in hand. Faith is a concious decision to believe something that is true without any tangible evidence. Faith is not necessarily a spiritual decision.

Thiests believe in the divine. Their belief is faith based.

They tell me that there are black holes in the universe. I've never been to space. I can't see black holes. The scientists themselves can't see black holes. They can only summise through indirect evidence that there is something there and is therefore a black hole. I believe this to be true based on my concious decision to believe their theories. It is not a religious belief.

An athiest believing (logically and without spiritualism) is not necessarily a religious concious thought.

Oh, and I have another thought.....

Briefly (cos I do prattle on a bit), I've been trying to put my finger on the definition and difference between religious and non-religious belief.

Religion is a combination of faith, belief and worship of the divine. Athiests believe that there are no deities. That belief is not a religious one because there is not spiritualism in their concious thought and they do not worship.

Just found a quote about athiests....

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

What a nice guy.

Briefly (cos I do prattle on a bit), I've been trying to put my finger on the definition and difference between religious and non-religious belief.  

A religious belief is one regarding the existence of dieties. An example of a non-religious belief is a belief in whether your wife is telling the truth.

---

I Don't Believe in Atheists

From the New York Times bestselling author of American Fascists and the NBCC finalist for War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning comes this timely and compelling work about new atheists: those who attack religion to advance the worst of global capitalism, intolerance and imperial projects.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, has long been a courageous voice in a world where there are too few. He observes that there are two radical, polarized and dangerous sides to the debate on faith and religion in America: the fundamentalists who see religious faith as their prerogative, and the new atheists who brand all religious belief as irrational and dangerous. Both sides use faith to promote a radical agenda, while the religious majority, those with a commitment to tolerance and compassion as well as to their faith, are caught in the middle.

The new atheists, led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason.

I Don't Believe in Atheists critiques the radical mindset that rages against religion and faith. Hedges identifies the pillars of the new atheist belief system, revealing that the stringent rules and rigid traditions in place are as strict as those of any religious practice.

Hedges claims that those who have placed blind faith in the morally neutral disciplines of reason and science create idols in their own image — a sin for either side of the spectrum. He makes an impassioned, intelligent case against religious and secular fundamentalism, which seeks to divide the world into those worthy of moral and intellectual consideration and those who should be condemned, silenced and eradicated. Hedges shatters the new atheists' assault against religion in America, and in doing so, makes way for new, moderate voices to join the debate. This is a book that must be read to understand the state of the battle about faith.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781416567950-1

Americans always seem to succeed in gross generalisation, overstatement and stereotype. All I can do personally is to use words to describe what I believe/ don't believe.

There are many stereotypical views attached to the word 'atheist'. The fact is that there are many different types of atheists. The only thing we have in common is that we don't believe in God (or Gods).

For example, the poster atheist states that he doesn't have any spirituality. On the other hand, I do have 'spirituality' of a sort, but I recognise that it's just part of the baggage of having a human brain. I also recognise that my spirituality is not related to anything supernatural. Call it the 'wow factor' or the tingle down the spine when looking at a totally dark starlit night in the outback if you will. You can also include  love and feelings. The only difference is that my spirituality exists inside my nervous system, whereas supernaturalists believe that it comes from outside.

I posted something about Daoism on another thread. As soon as you invent a word or thought, it's like throwing a tiny pebble into the vast pool of reality - You produce semantics or little ripples in the Dao. You can never achieve total accuracy with words.

I agree with atheist's comment that atheism is a belief about religion rather than a religious belief, but then as soon as you attach a label, the label is at best an approximation. Words just give us concepts to express and convey our beliefs, but we cannot always define our beliefs accurately in terms of words.

A Daoist might say that the sage person understands the reality (of Atheism in this case), whereas the fool concentrates on the concept - and please don't anyone take that personally.

Unfortunately, you can only judge another's understanding by their words.

FD, your link didn't work for me, so I'm providing another one to the same article by Chris Hedges:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20070523_chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/

This is excellent stuff.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2008 at 10:29am:

Unfortunately, you can only judge another's understanding by their words.

That's true, however we can understand more about what a person believes by talking at length with them (the reality) rather than heading straight for the dictionary (the concept).

The best definition I have come across for religion is the Barnes & Noble (Cambridge) Encyclopedia (1990):

   "...no single definition will suffice to encompass the varied sets of traditions, practices, and ideas which constitute different religions."

In other words, religion is not definable because it is too diverse. The only hope that we have of describing a tradition or idea as religious or non-religious is by asking the people who subscribe to that particular idea or practice. To do otherwise is dishonest.  

So is atheism a religious belief? No. For one thing, it lacks the organisation that we normally associate with religions.

If you include 'atheism' in the same subset as religion, then you should also include cat lovers.

Are some atheists religious? - Well actually yes, although it depends on your definition of the word. Would you define Confucianism as a religion for example?    

So is atheism a religious belief? No. For one thing, it lacks the organisation that we normally associate with religions.

pfft - semantics. What really matters is reality, not mere words, right Musician?

The whole topic is about semantics. After all if you asked "Do Atheists believe in God?", nobody would have bothered to answer, although even defining God might pose a problem. Our personal definition of God will vary according to one's own worldview, or the nature of our neural pathways as I personally see it.

In reality, I think we all know what Atheists believe.

So you agree there is some value in discussing semantics?

I believe there is some value in discussing semantics in order to clarify rather than deliberately confuse meaning.  

Sappho wrote on Nov 11^th, 2007 at 7:03am:

... Hmmm... although atheists themselves deny that their beliefs are religious due to the very definition of atheism, I note that a judge in the US claimed it was and that a prisioner was therefore denied his religious rights when refused to set up an atheist study group. I also note that some in the US claim Evolotion to be a religious belief and have moved the ciriculum from science to religous studies. If that's the way we want to go... I'm fine with it. So long as the religous understand that their faith is now merely a belief of the kind that atheism is merely a belief/ opinion. Relion looses it's wieght as something more than and becomes something that is merely a part of.

Atheism is religion of denial.

Atheism does not have the prerequisites to be called a religion.  

A lack of belief is not a set of beliefs (it is in fact, the absence of belief).

In the same way not having belief in fish that fire lasers from their fins is not a belief.

Since religions require a "set of beliefs" atheism cannot qualify

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 1:27pm:

Atheism does not have the prerequisites to be called a religion.   A lack of belief is not a set of beliefs (it is in fact, the absence of belief). In the same way not having belief in fish that fire lasers from their fins is not a belief. Since religions require a "set of beliefs" atheism cannot qualify

If you don't believe in non-existence of a god(s) then you are not an atheist?
If you do believe in non-existence of a god(s) then you are an atheist?

Religion is about believing, isn't it?

A lack of belief is not a set of beliefs (it is in fact, the absence of belief).

Absence of belief is agnosticism.

Since religions require a "set of beliefs" atheism cannot qualify

Just because the set of beleifs are harder to identify does not mean they don't exist. Furthermore, religion does not require a 'set' of beliefs.

[quote author=freediver link=1194410206/75#88]
Absence of belief is agnosticism.
[/quote]

Not true,  Agnosticism is a belief, specifically the belief the knowledge of god is not possible, including knowledge of god's existence.

[quote author=freediver link=1194410206/75#88]
Just because the set of beleifs are harder to identify does not mean they don't exist. Furthermore, religion does not require a 'set' of beliefs. [/quote]

That depends on broad a brush stroke you want to make, but usually religions have tenets.  The idea that a lack of belief is a belief  I think is  inaccurate.

You could argue that a belief something does not exist is a belief, though that is getting into weird territory.

Still that is not enough to call something a religion

Not true,  Agnosticism is a belief, specifically the belief the knowledge of god is not possible, including knowledge of god's existence.

If someone doesn't know whether knowledge of God is possible, they are still agnostic. It's just that the default justification for agnosticism somehow made it into the definition.

That depends on broad a brush stroke you want to make, but usually religions have tenets.

Usually, but not always. Hence, it is a religion. Religion is a very broad term.

The idea that a lack of belief is a belief  I think is  inaccurate.

Lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually believe that God doesn't exist.

You could argue that a belief something does not exist is a belief, though that is getting into weird territory.

The whole concept of belief founded in denial it is a bit wierd. But people still believe it.

Let's face it FD, we're dealing with rubbery concepts. Religion is a rubbery concept. God is a very rubbery concept. Atheist and Agnostic are by extrapolation also very rubbery concepts.

For example different dictionaries have different definitions for religion. One of them even gives up and says that you can't even define religion in a way that would be acceptable to all world religions.

With rubbery definitions, anybody can say just about anything about religion, atheism, agnosticism and God with complete impunity.

I thought we'd put this one to bed long ago. Guess what?  - The cows haven't come home since then, and we're still arguing  ;D

God is an in invisible pink rhinocerous that lives in the Fontana di Trevi.
Religion means doing something diligently, like stamp collecting.
Atheism is a disbelief in trains.
Agnosticism is the state of a village idiot standing on an Italian Train platform who doesn't know if any trains are running.

OK, chew it over mentally if you like mental mastication, but it achieves nothing.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 2:40pm:

Atheists actually believe that God doesn't exist.

That's not an rigorous definition. I just don't believe in gods. Some of those gods may exist (eg Prince Philip), but the fact is that gods have no relevance in my life.

The definition most used by atheists is "a person who doesn't believe in god(s)".  

Most atheists and agnostics wouldn't bother distinguishing atheism and agnosticism. Let me draw a parallel with colours. Most women can identify by name far more colours than men. But the fat that men don't bother distinguihsing between royal blue and sky blue does not mean that the two colours don't exist, or that there is no value in distinguishing them.

no

muso - hahahha


Quote:

God is an in invisible pink rhinocerous that lives in the Fontana di Trevi. Religion means doing something diligently, like stamp collecting. Atheism is a disbelief in trains. Agnosticism is the state of a village idiot standing on an Italian Train platform who doesn't know if any trains are running. OK, chew it over mentally if you like mental mastication, but it achieves nothing.

That's very good !!!

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 2:40pm:

Usually, but not always. Hence, it is a religion. Religion is a very broad term.

That does not mean it is a religion.  Not every belief is part of a religion.  Disbelief in god does not automatically qualify.


freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 2:40pm:

Lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually believe that God doesn't exist.

I still think being agnostic is a specific attitude.  Not merely a state of not having an opinion.

An Atheist does not require any faith, where as a religious person does.  


freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 2:40pm:

The whole concept of belief founded in denial it is a bit wierd. But people still believe it.

They believe it based on a lack of evidence.  If I see no evidence that the Easter bunny exists, I do not believe he exists.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:27am:

muso - hahahha Quote: God is an in invisible pink rhinocerous that lives in the Fontana di Trevi. Religion means doing something diligently, like stamp collecting. Atheism is a disbelief in trains. Agnosticism is the state of a village idiot standing on an Italian Train platform who doesn't know if any trains are running. OK, chew it over mentally if you like mental mastication, but it achieves nothing. That's very good !!!

They are all idiots in that story but the atheist is a wanker as well.

Kytro wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:40am:

... An Atheist does not require any faith, where as a religious person does.   ...

So if a person who doesn't believe in non-existence of a god(s) is an atheist?

A person lacking faith is agnostic. An atheist believes something in the absence of evidence. If that's not based on faith, what is it based on?

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 2:40pm:

The whole concept of belief founded in denial it is a bit weird. But people still believe it.

I must have missed that. Exactly! That's why I hate using the term Atheist to describe me. It's as if the whole thrust of my belief system is centred around the non existence of a deity or deities.

It's just not a useful term to me. It's like when I was a kid being made to sit at a table at a birthday party with people that were totally different to me. It says "Atheist" here - you gotta sit and talk to little Mozz. "Aw mum,  I prefer to talk to interesting people like Abu Rashid and Sprintcyclist. They're cool. Atheists are boring. I'm not an atheist anyway - I just don't believe in gods"

I'm glad this hasn't degenerated into a typical fundy atheist versus fundy religious slag match with scriptural missiles being lauched one side and Dawkins missiles the other.

We're too laid back in Australia for any of that.

It's like when I was a kid being made to sit at a table at a birthday party with people that were totally different to me. It says "Atheist" here - you gotta sit and talk to little Mozz.

WTF???

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:13am:

It's like when I was a kid being made to sit at a table at a birthday party with people that were totally different to me. It says "Atheist" here - you gotta sit and talk to little Mozz. WTF???

It's my attempt at humour. Ironically, I agree with most of the things you've said. What you said about atheist and agnostic being blurred was right on the money.

When you start talking about faith, I get confused. The only faith I know is faith in myself and in other human beings. I think that's different to faith in God, but not being a Christian, I don't really understand what you mean well enough to know if have faith or don't have faith.

Is having faith in God the same as believing in God?

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:23am:

... Is having faith in God the same as believing in God?

I'd say it is but it isn't the same as believing in god's existence or non-existence.
Actually not having faith in god may imply that god exist but you are having faith in something else, e.g. devil or men or great prophet of atheism mr. D.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:02am:

An atheist believes something in the absence of evidence. If that's not based on faith, what is it based on?

I think I agree. You're walking along the pavement and somebody shouts out "Watch out for the hole!" You look around but see no hole. There is a lack of evidence for a hole, so you believe that it's safe to walk on.

You're basing your belief that it's safe to walk through on the absence of evidence that there is a hole, just as you base your non belief in God on the lack of evidence for God.

- but is that faith or common sense?

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:34am:

I think I agree. You're walking along the pavement and somebody shouts out "Watch out for the hole!" You look around but see no hole. There is a lack of evidence for a hole, so you believe that it's safe to walk on. You're basing your belief that it's safe to walk through on the absence of evidence that there is a hole, just as you base your non belief in God on the lack of evidence for God. - but is that faith or common sense?

It is not really faith, not in the way religious have faith.  You believe it is safe based on your experience, and in addition knowledge gained about holes.

Religion requires belief without said backing.  

Kytro,

I agree. I think a lot of it comes down to definitions. Just exactly what is meant by 'faith'? If I look up a definition of faith as used by a religious person, it's totally different to that used by a non-religious person. For example:

Faith: The knowledge of and active belief in the existence and power of the living God and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Faith is the actual spiritual substance of God's Holy Spirit, which gives the believer the assurance and the confidence that what God has promised, He will perform.


I think it's quite clear from that definition, that non-religious people don't have faith.

I think I agree. You're walking along the pavement and somebody shouts out "Watch out for the hole!" You look around but see no hole. There is a lack of evidence for a hole, so you believe that it's safe to walk on.

In that case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The same is not true in the case of atheism.

A more appropriate example would be the case of the initial response of people in England to reports of a strange creature - the platypus. At this time in history there were plenty of reports of wierd and wonderful creatures in distant parts of the world, some true, some false, some a bit inaccurate. Believing that a platypus did not exist, merely because you hadn't seen one, is based on something similar to faith, because in this case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Similarly today, belief that life does not exist on other planets is not an evidence based belief.

God these are stupid arguments.

If the people define their existence and actions, by accepting an unfounded, unprovable belief, then who cares?
Is it a sensible approach?
Of course not.

We hear the silly pascal's wager argument, which says just in case, we may as well believe in god, which you could extrapolate to "I better not move, because the earth may disappear from under my feet if I do."

Both accept that a course of action may protect you from an imagined peril, without examining the probability of the peril actually existing.

Religious try and diminish atheists credibility by saying you can't prove their is no god, and they are right, we just work on probability.

Now the probability of a supreme, divine, interventionist being, who is only ever claimed to have shown himself to a couple of primitive desert dwellers, actually being anything like they claimed, and yet have a total inability to communicate in any transparent and understandable fashion, is something which I regard with a probability factor approaching zero.

Plenty of more interesting god concepts are available, but religions choose the god which is a better reflection of human capriciousness, I suppose you get more excuses that way.

When we see people brainwashed into cults, who accept some charismatic leader, making messianic claims, we feel sorry for them, and feel they are being conned, and that they are having their human rights violated by the, sometimes sincere, but always delusional, claims of their leader.

If any of you have ever seen anything like that, you will know what I mean.
An atheist just extends the same sense of concern to all people.

Quote:

We hear the silly pascal's wager argument, which says just in case, we may as well believe in god, which you could extrapolate to "I better not move, because the earth may disappear from under my feet if I do." Both accept that a course of action may protect you from an imagined peril, without examining the probability of the peril actually existing.

as an aside...  this is the same sort of argument you and others do to back your climate change beliefs...  just in case...  lets not take the risk...  etc, etc, etc

God these are stupid arguments.

Freediver will do.

Religious try and diminish atheists credibility by saying you can't prove their is no god, and they are right, we just work on probability.

Dawkins tried to do that. He failed.

Now the probability of a supreme, divine, interventionist being, who is only ever claimed to have shown himself to a couple of primitive desert dwellers, actually being anything like they claimed, and yet have a total inability to communicate in any transparent and understandable fashion, is something which I regard with a probability factor approaching zero.

Couching your belief in statistics doesn't make them more objective.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 12:15pm:

A more appropriate example would be the case of the initial response of people in England to reports of a strange creature - the platypus. At this time in history there were plenty of reports of wierd and wonderful creatures in distant parts of the world, some true, some false, some a bit inaccurate. Believing that a platypus did not exist, merely because you hadn't seen one, is based on something similar to faith, because in this case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I do not think it is really that different.  If one believed it did not exist, they would have been wrong, and this was shown in time.  The same thing may true with a god/s.  

The people who did not believe the platypus was real were not doing so because they had faith or anything like faith - but because there was not evidence to indicate it existed at the time.  

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is true, a lack of evidence proves nothing (but then nothing is ever proved) but that does not mean the belief should be regarded as reasonable.


freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 12:15pm:

Similarly today, belief that life does not exist on other planets is not an evidence based belief.

There is however a reason to believe it is possible - it has already occurred and the mechanisms are somewhat understood.

The same thing may true with a god/s.  

How so? God is almost by definition something 'unearthly', so why would you expect to one day find 'earthly' evidence for or against the existence of God?

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 12:15pm:

I think I agree. You're walking along the pavement and somebody shouts out "Watch out for the hole!" You look around but see no hole. There is a lack of evidence for a hole, so you believe that it's safe to walk on. In that case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The same is not true in the case of atheism.

In this case, it's evidence of absence (but not proof of absence) based on experience.  It could be wrong. Somebody could have painted a canvas that looked exactly like the pavement ahead over a hole, but based on our everyday experience, we accept the more likely explanation that there is no hole.

Now let's talk about life, taking the pavement example as an analogy.
Think about life being painted as if there were no God, then with a God. An atheist certainly wouldn't notice any difference.  



Quote:

Similarly today, belief that life does not exist on other planets is not an evidence based belief.

Well it would be similar if somebody had such a belief as opposed to an open mind.

I think it's possible that  microbial life may exist underground on Mars, but there is no way in the world that I would 'believe' that. I would just consider it a possibility.

I guess religious faith is a little like the force that holds up the coyote for a few seconds when he misses catching the roadrunner and is suspended briefly over the edge of a cliff. Then, when he realises his predicament, he plummets to the desert below (but usually lives through the experience). The effect on the cartoon is funny, because we all know that gravity doesn't operate on the basis of faith.  

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:34am:

I think I agree. You're walking along the pavement and somebody shouts out "Watch out for the hole!" You look around but see no hole. There is a lack of evidence for a hole, so you believe that it's safe to walk on. You're basing your belief that it's safe to walk through on the absence of evidence that there is a hole, just as you base your non belief in God on the lack of evidence for God. - but is that faith or common sense?

It was faith in common sense why else would you listen to a shout out of nowhere and bother to check on the information received.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:21pm:

The same thing may true with a god/s.   How so? God is almost by definition something 'unearthly', so why would you expect to one day find 'earthly' evidence for or against the existence of God?

I am not expecting to find it, but it may appear if a god decides to provide it.

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:09pm:

Quote: We hear the silly pascal's wager argument, which says just in case, we may as well believe in god, which you could extrapolate to "I better not move, because the earth may disappear from under my feet if I do." Both accept that a course of action may protect you from an imagined peril, without examining the probability of the peril actually existing. as an aside...  this is the same sort of argument you and others do to back your climate change beliefs...  just in case...  lets not take the risk...  etc, etc, etc

I did say "without examining the probability" grendel.

Now clearly I do not "know" that it is real,(GW) I use my experience of science, and scientific knowledge, which has given me reason to put some trust in it's abilities, to assess the situation, and then choose whether I believe what they say.
I have chosen to believe what they say about GW, because the track record of science is known, and subject to open scrutiny.

So I side with them when they say that the probability of GW being contributed to by man, is quite high.

Now, on the other hand, we have theists, who in my experience, have never postulated an acceptable theory to justify their beliefs.

On a personal level, I find the concept of a being who can control, life, the universe, and everything, that cannot even manage an unambiguous introduction of themselves, as being highly improbable, hence my dismissal of it's probability.
Not impossible, just impossibly improbable.

Now, on the other hand, we have theists, who in my experience, have never postulated an acceptable theory to justify their beliefs.

It is not acceptable to you because you are applying an unreasonable standard. It is not a matter of science. Or even history. The fact alone that you expect some kind of theory is the first indication that you are applying arbitrary standards.

A man was walking down the street when he saw someone across the road behaving very strangely.
He was walking sideways, then rolling on the ground, then jumping up and down, so I said to my friend, "look at that guy, he must be crazy"

"Not, really, that's god, he moves in mysterious ways." ;D

mozzaok wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 5:13pm:

A man was walking down the street when he saw someone across the road behaving very strangely. He was walking sideways, then rolling on the ground, then jumping up and down, so I said to my friend, "look at that guy, he must be crazy" "Not, really, that's god, he moves in mysterious ways." ;D

I've seen that man too. It was mr. Dawkins' "proving" that God doesn't exist. :D

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 12:15pm:

In that case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The same is not true in the case of atheism.

Well ok, but I was just trying to understand your earlier post by giving that example.

It all comes back to the fact that God/gods are not definable to all parties, and as I said before,the definitions are rubbery and depend on  the world view of the poster.

I can accept that some theists experience God.

Maybe it comes back to the 'God organ'. Those with a highly developed God organ can understand God.

If the God organ theory is correct, theists may interpret it as a gift from God, while atheists can interpret it as a false signal or some such thing.

It all comes back to the fact that God/gods are not definable to all parties

I don't think God is defineable to anyone. God is, almost by defintion, beyond definition - permanently unknowable.

I liked Mozz's joke   ;D

I haven't read though all the posts here, but I find Musician 35's comments most the agreeable to me from what I've read.

Personally I wouldn't ever put atheism into the catagory of being a religion, but I could agree with it being called an organization...a non-prophet organization  ;D

Quote:

a non-prophet organization  Grin

Good one Ammad.

I can't help but wonder if the UK humanist's bus campaign has got people concerned?

"There's probably no god"
"now stop worrying, and enjoy your life"

They wanted to raise five and a half thousand quid to fund the campaign, and have already received ten times that amount, which indicates that atheists may be willing to submit to a little organisation.

As atheists are smarter, more independent, and more compassionate people, seeing them get organised as a lobby group could be greatly beneficial for our political leaders to recognise, and to have their decisions scrutinised, and influenced by such decent intelligent people, instead of delusional religious wackos, can only be of benefit to society. :-*

Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT.

Thanks for the object lesson tallo. ;D

mozzaok wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:04am:

Thanks for the object lesson tallo. ;D

be my guest mozz :D


Quote:

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1] State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China, Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea, Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.[2] In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an intrinsic part of communist ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 6:58am:

Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT.

::)

Just because atheists don't believe in god does not mean that they communist.

Kytro wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:30am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 6:58am: Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT. ::) Just because atheists don't believe in god does not mean that they communist.

But communist parties are organisations consisting of atheists and when they are in power they have appalling records of humanitarian abuse.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 6:09am:

Quote: a non-prophet organization  Grin Good one Ammad. I can't help but wonder if the UK humanist's bus campaign has got people concerned? "There's probably no god" "now stop worrying, and enjoy your life" They wanted to raise five and a half thousand quid to fund the campaign, and have already received ten times that amount, which indicates that atheists may be willing to submit to a little organisation. As atheists are smarter, more independent, and more compassionate people, seeing them get organised as a lobby group could be greatly beneficial for our political leaders to recognise, and to have their decisions scrutinised, and influenced by such decent intelligent people, instead of delusional religious wackos, can only be of benefit to society. :-*

Interesting that they use the money to further their ideology rather than do charitable work in the community.

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 6:58am:

Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT.

Tallow,

Do you really believe that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists belong to some kind of global conspiracy?

I've said this before, but the average atheist thinks that religion is generally a good idea. I don't have a problem with religion, and even sent my kids to a Roman Catholic School.

The ones that get stirred up by Dickh--d Dawkins and Christopher Ugly Hitchens are what I call the Evangelical Atheists, or the über atheists. They are in an incredibly small minority.

These guys are newcomers. It's only recently that we've had über atheists being disrespectful to religions in that sort of way, and quite frankly, it's embarrassing.

To tar all atheists with the same brush is like saying that all Christians are like say....Ted Haggart (trying to think of a famous evangelist who hasn't disgraced himself.)  

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:53am:

But communist parties are organisations consisting of atheists and when they are in power they have appalling records of humanitarian abuse.

Your point being? Are you implying it is because they are atheist?

Let's have a look at communism:

From Wiki:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] According to Marxism, communism is the final stage in human society and is both classless and stateless. Leninists have attempted to produce communist societies by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced the "pure" communist societies envisoned by Marx, and have led to totalitarian states.

So basically communists in practice are not really communists at all.  never the less there is no evidence to support that atheism causes corruption, there are in fact plenty of religious state both present and past that have been corrupted.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:10am:

Interesting that they use the money to further their ideology rather than do charitable work in the community.

The thing I find intriguing is in an atheist organisation, what would you actually talk about?

"There is no God"
"Hallelujah Brother!"
"I say to you there is no God"
"Praise the ... say what exactly do we praise?"

OK, we're agreed on that, now can we just go home?

I've never been a member of an Atheist organisation, but I am an active member of many charitable organisations.

More lame arguments.
FD, you could use the same argument to all humans, just wear hessian bags, and eat beans and rice, and give the rest to charity.
You do not need to be religious to be charitable.
Promoting life, and doing charity are not mutually exclusive.

And muso, that thing you couldn't work out what the atheists were promoting, is in the slogan, it is LIFE.

Sure it is a little reactionary, and a little cutesy, but I think it may help atheists to find a voice, to counter those of all the religious lobbyists, who try to see their individual faith based agendas favoured by governments, as people who classify themselves as having 'no religion' makes up a significant proportion of the community, and have no self promoting agenda to push, other than that things be done for rational, and humane reasons, then I don't see it as a problem.

It was interesting because you made them out to be more compassionate blah blah blah, but when they donate money it's to further their ideology, not do charitable work like other organisations do. There are even 'unaligned' charities that they could donate to instead.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 10:00am:

It was interesting because you made them out to be more compassionate blah blah blah, but when they donate money it's to further their ideology, not do charitable work like other organisations do. There are even 'unaligned' charities that they could donate to instead.

Religious beliefs or lack of them is probably not the defining factor defining charitable donation.   Plenty of religious people donate to religious organisations that are not charity based.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

- That's my favourite charity, because they don't waste money as much as the bigger organisations like the Salvation Army and World Vision, who might do a good job, but waste a lot of funds.

I've seen some of the big parties thrown by charities in Africa. I've also witnessed how MSF operates. That's why it's my charity of choice.

Kytro wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:44am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 7:53am: But communist parties are organisations consisting of atheists and when they are in power they have appalling records of humanitarian abuse. Your point being? Are you implying it is because they are atheist? Let's have a look at communism: From Wiki: Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] According to Marxism, communism is the final stage in human society and is both classless and stateless. Leninists have attempted to produce communist societies by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced the "pure" communist societies envisoned by Marx, and have led to totalitarian states. So basically communists in practice are not really communists at all.  never the less there is no evidence to support that atheism causes corruption, there are in fact plenty of religious state both present and past that have been corrupted.

Same can be said about any religion including atheism. So if religious states can be corrupted due to religion so could and can  atheist states. Otherwise everything is just a fantasy and nothing is real in practice. Q.E.D.

As for my point, I have expanded on it in couple of other threads. ;)

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:42am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 6:58am: Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT. Tallow, Do you really believe that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists belong to some kind of global conspiracy? ...

I don't believe, I know that communists are atheists.
I also already have mentioned that atheism follows the same pass of schisms as other religions do.

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 11:44am:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 8:42am: tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 6:58am: Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT. Tallow, Do you really believe that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists belong to some kind of global conspiracy? ...   I don't believe, I know that communists are atheists. I also already have mentioned that atheism follows the same pass of schisms as other religions do.

That's the old "trees are green therefore grass is a tree" argument.
Oh dear.

Haven't you ever heard of Camilo Torres? Maybe he was before your time. There were a lot of catholic commies in South America. There still are. South America has a long history of communism and RC going hand in hand.

There are a lot in Italy too - and many commies in Russia were orthodox, including Boris Yeltsin, and he was head of the politburo in 1976, so you can't say he wasn't a commie. The fact that he drank so much is testament to his religiosity  :P

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 11:38am:

Same can be said about any religion including atheism. So if religious states can be corrupted due to religion so could and can  atheist states. Otherwise everything is just a fantasy and nothing is real in practice. Q.E.D. As for my point, I have expanded on it in couple of other threads. ;)

Any concentration of power can be corrupted.  This has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 2:42pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 11:44am: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 8:42am: tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 6:58am: Atheists already have organisation. It's called communist party. In fact there are few of them because they don't see eye to eye on all doctrines just like all other religions. They do have prophets often called chairmen and we know from history hoe smart, independent and humane they are NOT. Tallow, Do you really believe that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists belong to some kind of global conspiracy? ...   I don't believe, I know that communists are atheists. I also already have mentioned that atheism follows the same pass of schisms as other religions do. That's the old "trees are green therefore grass is a tree" argument. Oh dear. Haven't you ever heard of Camilo Torres? Maybe he was before your time. There were a lot of catholic commies in South America. There still are. South America has a long history of communism and RC going hand in hand. There are a lot in Italy too - and many commies in Russia were orthodox, including Boris Yeltsin, and he was head of the politburo in 1976, so you can't say he wasn't a commie. The fact that he drank so much is testament to his religiosity  :P

So if an atheist is green he or she is a tree?

"Iron Felix" the founder of kgb was Catholic too and a Jesuit at that before he become communist and atheist. With Yeltsin it was other way around though, he become Christian after he split from communists.
Them and examples that you have provided reinforce my assertion that atheists are naturally religious people and they change denominations as easy and often as other religious people do. I'm sure that you know about Anglican becoming Catholic and vice verse.

Kytro wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 2:47pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 11:38am: Same can be said about any religion including atheism. So if religious states can be corrupted due to religion so could and can  atheist states. Otherwise everything is just a fantasy and nothing is real in practice. Q.E.D. As for my point, I have expanded on it in couple of other threads. ;) Any concentration of power can be corrupted.  This has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Agree with correction this has nothing to do with religion including atheism.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 10:00am:

It was interesting because you made them out to be more compassionate blah blah blah, but when they donate money it's to further their ideology, not do charitable work like other organisations do. There are even 'unaligned' charities that they could donate to instead.

Well of course I don't think being religious, and compassionate, is mutually exclusive either FD.

I do think people who are decent and compassionate because of purely  humane reasons, rather than because of the carrot of eternal bliss, or the stick of eternal torture, that so many religious folk adhere to, are decent , charitable, and empathic humans, which we could use more of.

Unfortunately we are all trapped in the prism of our own consciousness; there are some things that are beyond the understanding of others.
Religious people choose to believe that they have a higher level of understanding and athiests choose to believe that they have a higher level of understanding (on the particular subject of course).

IMO, we are all evolving towards athiesm and realistic thinking, and it cannot be stopped.

Thanks God!

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 4:14pm:

Agree with correction this has nothing to do with religion including atheism.

I am still not convinced it is a religion, not in it's own right in any case.

There are various religions and spiritual beliefs that incorporate atheism.

[quote author=tallowood link=1194410206/135#141]

So if an atheist is green he or she is a tree?

"Iron Felix" the founder of kgb was Catholic too and a Jesuit at that before he become communist and atheist. With Yeltsin it was other way around though, he become Christian after he split from communists.
Them and examples that you have provided reinforce my assertion that atheists are naturally religious people and they change denominations as easy and often as other religious people do. I'm sure that you know about Anglican becoming Catholic and vice verse.

[/quote]

Boris Yeltsin was always an orthodox, and you're ignoring the fact that virtually all South American communist regimes embraced Roman Catholicism.

I'm not sure if you're trying to sya that all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists or maybe some communists are atheists. I'll agree with the latter. I'm certainly not a communist - anything but, and I don't think I know a communist, although I know plenty of atheists / non religious people.

There are plenty of examples of Christians who had feral political beliefs for that matter. Adolf Hitler is one.

So whatever argument you were trying to make, it just disintegrated into particles.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:27am:

Boris Yeltsin was always an orthodox, and you're ignoring the fact that virtually all South American communist regimes embraced Roman Catholicism. I'm not sure if you're trying to sya that all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists or maybe some communists are atheists. I'll agree with the latter. I'm certainly not a communists - anything but, and I don't think I know a communist, although I know plenty of atheists / non religious people. There are plenty of examples of Christians who had feral political beliefs for that matter. Adolf Hitler is one. So whatever argument you were trying to make, it just disintegrated into particles.

Boris always was a liar because to join CPSU he would have to lie that he was not Christian. The same goes for some of your SA examples while others were mentally demented like in the atheistic story about a sick person in asylum called himself  Jesus or Karl Marx for that matter. Yes they can call themselves that but it does not make them so. So what your were saying in that regard is but argumentum ad populum.

I never said that all atheists are communists. Why do you keep coming with this false pretence?

What I said is atheism is a religion or more particular the religion of denial. So the more you deny it the more proof you provide.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:23am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 4:14pm: Agree with correction this has nothing to do with religion including atheism. I am still not convinced it is a religion, not in it's own right in any case. There are various religions and spiritual beliefs that incorporate atheism.

I am not trying to convince you that atheism is a religion because it would be a waste of  my time the same way as if I was trying to convince abu that there are plenty of other gods beside Allah or that Allah doesn’t exist. Abu is most definitely a religious person so  to summarize: if there is a person who walks like a religionist, talks like a religionist, looks like a religionist and argues according to his or her set of believes like a religionist  then that person could be a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an Atheist or any other religious person. "quod erat demonstrandum"

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:28am:

What I said is atheism is a religion or more particular the religion of denial. So the more you deny it the more proof you provide.

How is denying god exists a religion though?

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 9:28am: What I said is atheism is a religion or more particular the religion of denial. So the more you deny it the more proof you provide. How is denying god exists a religion though?

How petitio principii can help you?

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

How petitio principii can help you?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - I am making a questionable assumption? or using circular logic?

What about denying the existence of god is religious?  

The logic is pretty simple.  There is no evidence of god, so I do not believe that he exists.

There are various religions and spiritual beliefs that incorporate atheism.

Just as there are many that incorporate monotheism, and many people who don't incorporate their monotheism into a broader set of beliefs. That doesn't mean monotheism is only a religious belief when it is part of something more specific.

There are plenty of examples of Christians who had feral political beliefs for that matter. Adolf Hitler is one.

What makes you think Hitler was a Christian?

How is denying god exists a religion though?

It is the belief that is totally lacking in 'earthly' justification that makes it religious.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 9:37am: How petitio principii can help you? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - I am making a questionable assumption? or using circular logic? What about denying the existence of god is religious?   The logic is pretty simple.  There is no evidence of god, so I do not believe that he exists.

You do.
1 Your ritorical question is part of your religious system.
2 You are atheist.

1+2=3 (or would you deny it?)

3 Therefore atheism is religion.

I don't 'deny' the existence of God. Deny is the wrong word. It has a connotation of rejecting that which is correct.

Let's leave it as "I don't believe in god(s)"

If you want to claim the term atheist as a religion, then feel free to give the word whatever personal definition turns your crank.

In my own personal definition, an atheist is not religious, and (surprise surprise) the Australian Bureau of Statistics even agrees with me in terms of their classification.

I'll just call myself non-religious.  Who started this nonsense anyway?

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:56am:

I don't 'deny' the existence of God. Deny is the wrong word. It has a connotation of rejecting that which is correct. Let's leave it as "I don't believe in god(s)" If you want to claim the term atheist as a religion, then feel free to give the word whatever personal definition turns your crank. In my own personal definition, an atheist is not religious, and (surprise surprise) the Australian Bureau of Statistics even agrees with me in terms of their classification. I'll just call myself non-religious.  Who started this nonsense anyway?

I prefer to leave it at "I know that atheism is religion".

Big Bang God started all this  :D

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Tallowood,

I posted this on another thread. Now maybe your experience of atheists has been mainly with vocal über atheists on line, but my experience is that the majority of atheists couldn't care less about arguing their point.  The thing that gives me the sh**s is that the majority of atheists are being lumped in with the vocal ones - that's all.

For example, I know somebody who has played the church organ for years. He's an atheist, but he still enjoys attending church services and he doesn't see the harm in it. Tell him he has a religious belief and he'll probably think about it for a while, then smile.

As far as I am concerned, I don't believe in God, but I have prayed with somebody on one occasion because I thought it was a supportive thing to do. I have said grace at formal functions because I don't particularly want to make a scene. I can also see the benefits of religion to people.

"We've had this discussion before, but I don't think atheism per se is a religion by any definition of the term. Some atheists (über atheists) are probably religious fundamentalists of the second degree, but they are only a small but vocal subset, and do nothing except to proselytise their own brand of atheism, pontificate in a smug self righteous manner, generally reinforce the views of similar smug pontificating fundamentalist theists and in the process annoy the hell out of the silent majority of atheists who want no part of any of it. "

In summary, I have thought out my particular belief system in great depth, and I know perfectly well you can't prove anything.  I don't believe what I can prove to be right. I believe what seems to me to be right, and I don't think I'm much different from anyone else in that respect. We're not logical computers, we're biological organisms.  

(Final Final post)  ;D ;D ;D

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:13am:

Tallowood, I posted this on another thread. Now maybe your experience of atheists has been mainly with vocal über atheists on line, but my experience is that the majority of atheists couldn't care less about arguing their point.  The thing that gives me the sh**s is that the majority of atheists are being lumped in with the vocal ones - that's all. For example, I know somebody who has played the church organ for years. He's an atheist, but he still enjoys attending church services and he doesn't see the harm in it. Tell him he has a religious belief and he'll probably think about it for a while, then smile. As far as I am concerned, I don't believe in God, but I have prayed with somebody on one occasion because I thought it was a supportive thing to do. I have said grace at formal functions because I don't particularly want to make a scene. I can also see the benefits of religion to people. "We've had this discussion before, but I don't think atheism per se is a religion by any definition of the term. Some atheists (über atheists) are probably religious fundamentalists of the second degree, but they are only a small but vocal subset, and do nothing except to proselytise their own brand of atheism, pontificate in a smug self righteous manner, generally reinforce the views of similar smug pontificating fundamentalist theists and in the process annoy the hell out of the silent majority of atheists who want no part of any of it. " In summary, I have thought out my particular belief system in great depth, and I know perfectly well you can't prove anything.  I don't believe what I can prove to be right. I believe what seems to me to be right, and I don't think I'm much different from anyone else in that respect. We're not logical computers, we're biological organisms.   (Final Final post)  ;D ;D ;D

Yes, it is just like other religions. They all have vocal übers and ccl(dgf)s
 :-X :-X :-X

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:55am:

You do. 1 Your ritorical question is part of your religious system. 2 You are atheist. 1+2=3 (or would you deny it?) 3 Therefore atheism is religion.

Rhetorical question?  I'm afraid you lost me.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:37am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 9:55am: You do. 1 Your ritorical question is part of your religious system. 2 You are atheist. 1+2=3 (or would you deny it?) 3 Therefore atheism is religion. Rhetorical question?  I'm afraid you lost me.

Was I too fast for you?

The question "How is denying god exists a religion though?" was asked and answered numerous times already, which makes it rhetorical question.

Now
1+2=3 is fairly self explanatory I hope.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 12:21pm:

Was I too fast for you? The question "How is denying god exists a religion though?" was asked and answered numerous times already, which makes it rhetorical question. Now 1+2=3 is fairly self explanatory I hope.

I have reviewed the thread and see a few arguments in favour of classifying atheism as a religion but nothing terribly convincing.

Not that it matters greatly, it is the religious beliefs themselves, not what they are called that matter.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 1:02pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 12:21pm: Was I too fast for you? The question "How is denying god exists a religion though?" was asked and answered numerous times already, which makes it rhetorical question. Now 1+2=3 is fairly self explanatory I hope. I have reviewed the thread and see a few arguments in favour of classifying atheism as a religion but nothing terribly convincing. Not that it matters greatly, it is the religious beliefs themselves, not what they are called that matter.

As was said before atheism is a religion of denial and that was proved countless times by atheists themselves. This was just another one.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

As was said before atheism is a religion of denial and that was proved countless times by atheists themselves. This was just another one.

Yes, you keep mentioning "religion of denial" without clarifying just what you mean.

It's vague.  Atheists deny what? A god? everything?  Religion of denial is hardly an explanation.

Those who don't believe in the Easter bunny, are they part of some religion of denial too?

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:24pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 1:12pm: As was said before atheism is a religion of denial and that was proved countless times by atheists themselves. This was just another one. Yes, you keep mentioning "religion of denial" without clarifying just what you mean. It's vague.  Atheists deny what? A god? everything?  Religion of denial is hardly an explanation. Those who don't believe in the Easter bunny, are they part of some religion of denial too?

You are an atheist so tell me what you deny.

Do you believe in non-existance of a god(s)? Yes or No?
Do you deny that atheism is a religion? Yes or No?

Don't be vague. Just Yes or No will do.

I'm not interested in atheist bunnies so you may leave them out of it.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:24pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 1:12pm: As was said before atheism is a religion of denial and that was proved countless times by atheists themselves. This was just another one. Yes, you keep mentioning "religion of denial" without clarifying just what you mean. It's vague.  Atheists deny what? A god? everything?  Religion of denial is hardly an explanation. Those who don't believe in the Easter bunny, are they part of some religion of denial too?

Egyptian Islam is a religion of de Nile.

Atheism is a belief based on the rejection of another belief. Without theism, there would be no atheism. That's what the religion of denial bit means.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:42pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 2:24pm: tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 1:12pm: As was said before atheism is a religion of denial and that was proved countless times by atheists themselves. This was just another one. Yes, you keep mentioning "religion of denial" without clarifying just what you mean. It's vague.  Atheists deny what? A god? everything?  Religion of denial is hardly an explanation. Those who don't believe in the Easter bunny, are they part of some religion of denial too? Egyptian Islam is a religion of de Nile.

I'm so glad that I've saved you from atheistic religious clutches, muso.
:-X :-X :-X

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:

Atheism is a belief based on the rejection of another belief. Without theism, there would be no atheism. That's what the religion of denial bit means.

FD - You're confusing atheism with Antitheism.

What about the accidental atheist? Buddhism is not a belief based on the rejection of Christianity, yet many Buddhists happen to be atheist.

Let the ABS have the final word:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

"Precise definition of the concept of religion, or of what generally constitutes 'a religion', is difficult, if not impossible, because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense."

That sounds fair to me. I think it should come down to a vote.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 2:48pm: Atheism is a belief based on the rejection of another belief. Without theism, there would be no atheism. That's what the religion of denial bit means. FD - You're confusing atheism with Antitheism. What about the accidental atheist? Buddhism is not a belief based on the rejection of Christianity, yet many Buddhists happen to be atheist.

Many meat eaters happen to be cats and atheism happen to be a religion of denial. Keep denying it though with religious vigour if it makes you happy. Happiness is good.

:-X :-X :-X

FD - You're confusing atheism with Antitheism.

No I'm not.

What about the accidental atheist?

How would they know what not to believe in?

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:

Let the ABS have the final word: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument "Precise definition of the concept of religion, or of what generally constitutes 'a religion', is difficult, if not impossible, because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense." That sounds fair to me. I think it should come down to a vote.

"Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices"

So atheism is a religion. :D

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:03pm: Let the ABS have the final word: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument "Precise definition of the concept of religion, or of what generally constitutes 'a religion', is difficult, if not impossible, because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense." That sounds fair to me. I think it should come down to a vote. "Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices" So atheism is a religion. :D

So is playing roulette.  What is the 'set' of beliefs associated with an 'Atheism' ? What are the Practices associated with Atheism?

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:10pm:

How would they know what not to believe in?

Exactly my point.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:38pm:

You are an atheist so tell me what you deny. Do you believe in non-existance of a god(s)? Yes or No? Do you deny that atheism is a religion? Yes or No? Don't be vague. Just Yes or No will do. I'm not interested in atheist bunnies so you may leave them out of it.

While I feel these questions are loaded, in particular a belief in a negative, I will answer but keep in mind by restricting my answer to yes or no it cannot be completely accurate.

1. Yes
2. Yes

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:27pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:13pm: muso wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:03pm: Let the ABS have the final word: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument "Precise definition of the concept of religion, or of what generally constitutes 'a religion', is difficult, if not impossible, because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense." That sounds fair to me. I think it should come down to a vote. "Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices" So atheism is a religion. :D So is playing roulette.  What is the 'set' of beliefs associated with an 'Atheism' ? What are the Practices associated with Atheism?

If they are gamblers as you claimed then it is reasonable to expect them having gambling practices. We will need to wait for an atheist to get in here and ask him or her because though all religions somewhat similar they are not quiet the same like birds.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:43pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 2:38pm: You are an atheist so tell me what you deny. Do you believe in non-existance of a god(s)? Yes or No? Do you deny that atheism is a religion? Yes or No? Don't be vague. Just Yes or No will do. I'm not interested in atheist bunnies so you may leave them out of it. While I feel these questions are loaded, in particular a belief in a negative, I will answer but keep in mind by restricting my answer to yes or no it cannot be completely accurate. 1. Yes 2. Yes

So here is believe, which makes it a religion and a denial of that fact, which makes it religion of denial. Excellent result. Thank you very much.

BTW, muso wants to know what are your practices.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:55pm:

So here is believe, which makes it a religion and a denial of that fact, which makes it religion of denial. Excellent result. Thank you very much. BTW, muso wants to know what are your practices.

I may not believe in god, and deny said god's existence without facts to contrary but that is hardly a religion in and of itself.  

I deny it is a religion because it is just a single belief.

As for my practices - I don't have any specific practices to do with not believing in god, why would I?

Unless you mean not praying before a meal or bedtime  ;D

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:04pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:55pm: So here is believe, which makes it a religion and a denial of that fact, which makes it religion of denial. Excellent result. Thank you very much. BTW, muso wants to know what are your practices. I may not believe in god, and deny said god's existence without facts to contrary but that is hardly a religion in and of itself.   I deny it is a religion because it is just a single belief. As for my practices - I don't have any specific practices to do with not believing in god, why would I? Unless you mean not praying before a meal or bedtime  ;D

I've noticed that you were quiet active in the tread about dinosaurs.
That indicated your other believes, which together make a religious system and also practice of advancing your religion against other religions, which of course is what most of religions do.

That's pretty arbitrary Kytro. How many beliefs do you need before it becomes a religion?

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 2:40pm: The whole concept of belief founded in denial it is a bit weird. But people still believe it. muso wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:12am: I must have missed that. Exactly! That's why I hate using the term Atheist to describe me. It's as if the whole thrust of my belief system is centred around the non existence of a deity or deities. Actually that is a good point muso. I agree that I chose a path to follow. The fact that I could not find a religious match was not influenced by the fact that I do not believe in god/s. muso wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 11:12am: It's just not a useful term to me. It's like when I was a kid being made to sit at a table at a birthday party with people that were totally different to me. It says "Atheist" here - you gotta sit and talk to little Mozz. "Aw mum,  I prefer to talk to interesting people like Abu Rashid and Sprintcyclist. They're cool. Atheists are boring. I'm not an atheist anyway - I just don't believe in gods" OK, this was a bit strange. I usually find people that are well read and can discuss ideas politely interesting. Someone with a particular belief system will only be a short term distraction unless they are able to reflect their belief against a real world mirror, and back it up as a considered position. For instance someone who is a nonbeliever who converts to Islam is of interest to me because it seems such an unbelievable thing to do. After talking to them for I while I may find out that they are just someone who desparately wants to belong, be controversial or are an apologist. They aren't likely to be too interesting to me after that. Now Wittgenstein, there's someone to have a discussion about pink rhinos under the table. Although I'm sure to not understand most of what he is trying to say. [quote author=muso link=1194410206/90#100 date=1224637934] I'm glad this hasn't degenerated into a typical fundy atheist versus fundy religious slag match with scriptural missiles being lauched one side and Dawkins missiles the other. We're too laid back in Australia for any of that.

For want of a better word (maybe we can come up with one) I am an atheist. If I one day aquire a faith, I am sure I would be an agnostic. I still think that Dawkins should learn better manners. Fine to be rude if someone insists on trying to convert you. He presents himself better through the written word.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:21pm:

That's pretty arbitrary Kytro. How many beliefs do you need before it becomes a religion?

I don't think there is an exact number, but it has to something cohesive and describe an entire world view, at least in my opinion.

Each religion is a way to approach life, and even belief in god wouldn't qualify as religion.  It's what you believe about god or lack of a god that makes a religion.

My religious views, for lack of a better word, would be acquiring knowledge - the point of existence to learn to grow and to understand.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:17pm:

I've noticed that you were quiet active in the tread about dinosaurs. That indicated your other believes, which together make a religious system and also practice of advancing your religion against other religions, which of course is what most of religions do.

If you want to start including belief other than not believing in god, then you may get closer to something you could call religion - though not one based faith, one based on reason.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:17pm: I've noticed that you were quiet active in the tread about dinosaurs. That indicated your other believes, which together make a religious system and also practice of advancing your religion against other religions, which of course is what most of religions do. If you want to start including belief other than not believing in god, then you may get closer to something you could call religion - though not one based faith, one based on reason.

That's what I did and after examining atheism I found it to be a religion as other religions are.

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:27pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:21pm: That's pretty arbitrary Kytro. How many beliefs do you need before it becomes a religion? I don't think there is an exact number, but it has to something cohesive and describe an entire world view, at least in my opinion. Each religion is a way to approach life, and even belief in god wouldn't qualify as religion.  It's what you believe about god or lack of a god that makes a religion. My religious views, for lack of a better word, would be acquiring knowledge - the point of existence to learn to grow and to understand.

Do you have an entire world view?

What religions do you consider cohesive?

Well seeing the poppycock has been flowing, and some of the fifteen watters are blinded by their own luminescence, no matter how dim, I provide you with a good old cut and paste from another site;http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html

"Atheism is a religion", for some strange reason, is often used by theists to criticise non-believers. A couple of examples from my email and guestbook:

"Do you have a belief that atheism is true? If no, then you're lying, if yes, then you are acting on faith. If you don't believe in God, you must believe in something or someone else. An atheist doesn't simply lack positive belief in God. The atheist has positive belief in the non-existence of God."

"The Religion of Atheism is for the totally unrational person, which is why Atheists account for less that 10% of the population. There are Ulterior Motives to Atheism, namely : Admitting the obvious of an INtelligent Creator introduces accountability and someone who is bigger and more important than oneself ...and, it impedes on the present less than desirable and/or immoral (incl. sexually, in most cases) lifestyle that the Atheist has chosen for himself. Both of these can be summarized by Pride."

It seems odd for a follower of a faith to try to attack atheism by saying it is also a faith. I think the reasoning is that if atheism is a faith or religion, then atheists have no cause to criticise other faiths or religions. One flaw in this argument is that if atheism were indeed a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticise atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education, or even the setting up of atheist-run schools alongside Baptist, Catholic and Muslim schools.

Somehow, I think voices may be raised in protest should that happen. =)

Alternatively, the idea is that atheists are hypocrites for attacking the faithful when atheism itself is a result of faith.

However, the big problem is this :

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

As mentioned in the Introduction page, there is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.

If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.

Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?

If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?

If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!

Do you see where this is going? [ Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but it's excellent for getting a point across. 8-) ]

If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?

If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.

How does atheism differ from religion and faith? Let me count the ways...
     
Religion
     
Atheism
Belief in God(s)
     
     
Prayer
     
     
Churches / temples
     
     
Holy Book / Scripture
     
     
Priests / religious leaders
     
     
Belief in supernatural (including angels / devils)
     
     
Miracles
     
     
Afterlife
     
     
Holy wars
     
     
Heaven / Hell
     
     
Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.)
     
     
Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue)
     
     
Belief despite conflicting evidence
     
     
Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans
     
     
Murderous fundamentalist extremists
     
     
Annoying street / doorstep preachers
     
     
The soul
     
     
Regular ceremonies / acts of worship
     
     
Sin
     
     
Blasphemy
     
     
We are God's chosen people
     
     



Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so.

You appear to be arguing that because it is a 'better' belief, it isn't a belief at all.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 5:18pm:

... "Atheism is a religion" ...

Yes, that's what it boils to.

Keep it coming Tallo, you're a nice boy, but about as sharp as a bowling ball.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

Keep it coming Tallo, you're a nice boy, but about as sharp as a bowling ball.

some people said:
"It seems that most atheists are past needing to make absurd claims to justify their faith, but not all. Looks like religion must protect itself from other ideas if it is to spread successfully."

so mozzik, show how sharp you are. Can you cut through your own fat?

OMG. Isn't it absurd that some would attempt to put atheism in the catagory of "religions" just to have yet another rival religion?

People are waking up, religion is a dying concept....adapt.

believe whatever absurd crap you want to tallo, no skin off my nose, just don't try and sell it to me, 'cause I aint buyin.
also, why put quotation marks around a composite of what I wrote, what ammad wrote, and which you changed?

Who is it supposed to be quoting, me, ammad, or you?

I suppose it doesn't matter, you have effectively made yourself wrong no matter who you meant.

Nice boy, but about as sharp as a pound of wet leather.

Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

OMG. Isn't it absurd that some would attempt to put atheism in the catagory of "religions" just to have yet another rival religion? People are waking up, religion is a dying concept....adapt.

Of course it is absurd that some atheists full of religious zeal are trying to prove that they have nothing to do with a religion so they can rival a religion.

When people wake up there will be no religions including atheism. May be but when?

Leave out the insults mozz.

Really?
Just a bit of fun, not too confrontational, more your banter type of thing, which is pretty tame, and not really offensive, besides, he was asking for it.

Yes really. It's all fun and games until someone losses and eye.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:31pm:

believe whatever absurd crap you want to tallo, no skin off my nose, just don't try and sell it to me, 'cause I aint buyin. also, why put quotation marks around a composite of what I wrote, what ammad wrote, and which you changed? Who is it supposed to be quoting, me, ammad, or you? I suppose it doesn't matter, you have effectively made yourself wrong no matter who you meant. Nice boy, but about as sharp as a pound of wet leather.

mozzik, you don't have any skin on your nose so it can't be off, and you know the reason. ;D

Now, do you deny that you are religious atheist?

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:46pm:

Do you have an entire world view? What religions do you consider cohesive?

Everyone has a world-view of some description, religious people tend to incorporate aspects of religion into this.

All religions are cohesive (and most have protection against outside ideas), but not all ideas are.  

Kytro wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:06pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:46pm: Do you have an entire world view? What religions do you consider cohesive? Everyone has a world-view of some description, religious people tend to incorporate aspects of religion into this. All religions are cohesive (and most have protection against outside ideas), but not all ideas are.

Atheists tend to incorporate aspects of their religion namely denial of god(s) existence in their world-view.

Is atheism cohesive?
As for religious protectionism this very topic testifies that atheist are very protective against outside ideas.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:03pm:

Yes really. It's all fun and games until someone losses and eye.

May be we should have a Friday Arvo Special otherwise some people like Mozz would never have a chance to do their worth of argumentation.
Besides he don't have an eye or he would see The Reason.

Quote:

Leave out the insults mozz.

Quote:

Really? Just a bit of fun, not too confrontational, more your banter type of thing, which is pretty tame, and not really offensive, besides, he was asking for it.

Quote:

Yes really. It's all fun and games until someone losses and eye.

;D Has that ever happened without the use of sticks and stones?

Well I have already fully explained my personal faith, NOYFBISM, and my personal god, FUKAL.
I will proudly have faith in FUKAL till my dying day.
So I will always give FUKAL respect to whoever warrants it.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:41pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm: tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:17pm: I've noticed that you were quiet active in the tread about dinosaurs. That indicated your other believes, which together make a religious system and also practice of advancing your religion against other religions, which of course is what most of religions do. If you want to start including belief other than not believing in god, then you may get closer to something you could call religion - though not one based faith, one based on reason. That's what I did and after examining atheism I found it to be a religion as other religions are.

Cool -

Does this mean that if I say I'm an Atheist, I get a tax break? As long as I don't have to kiss Dawkins on the posterior, that's cool with me.

OK - So now that I'm a fellow religionite, can we be friends?

This discussion was coming to a civilised conclusion when I left it.

Chill out guys. Why don't we come to an agreement. Atheist is a religion to some Christians. To others, it just means that you don't believe in God.  End of story.

300 years ago in Japan, there were atheists who didn't even know they were atheists. They just practiced Shintu. How on earth you can come up with this wacky idea that they deny God (I give up - just choose a god - any god)

My dog is an atheist. I know a nice eel who is an atheist. For that matter, I have a nice Colocasia plant in the garden - but oh no - that was Synod Lutheran the last time I asked it.  

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:11pm:

Does this mean that if I say I'm an Atheist, I get a tax break? As long as I don't have to kiss Dawkins on the posterior, that's cool with me. OK - So now that I'm a fellow religionite, can we be friends? This discussion was coming to a civilised conclusion when I left it. Chill out guys. Why don't we come to an agreement. Atheist is a religion to some Christians. To others, it just means that you don't believe in God.  End of story. 300 years ago in Japan, there were atheists who didn't even know they were atheists. They just practiced Shintu. How on earth you can come up with this wacky idea that they deny God (I give up - just choose a god - any god) My dog is an atheist. I know a nice eel who is an atheist. For that matter, I have a nice Colocasia plant in the garden - but oh no - that was Synod Lutheran the last time I asked it.

friends with a tax break atheist?....Why not.

Shinto is a good example of not self consciousness religionists but a happy little single cell is even better. It doesn't argue either way it just does what a happy little single cell has to do.  :)

mozzaok wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 8:54pm:

Well I have already fully explained my personal faith, NOYFBISM, and my personal god, FUKAL. I will proudly have faith in FUKAL till my dying day. So I will always give FUKAL respect to whoever warrants it.

You do warrant it mozz, you really do. Self sufficiency is good.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:22pm:

friends with a tax break atheist?....Why not.

Getting back from your surreal world of imagination, we unfortunately find that most government departments have a firm and non distorted grasp of reality. That includes not just the ATO (bless their cotton socks) but the ABS as well.  

We are all entitled to believe what we want, and live our lives as we want without self righteous hypocrites trying to tell us what we are or what we should or can do.

We live in a post Christian era here in Australia. We have many different faiths and worldviews in this country, and that variety is worth celebrating and worth defending. I have defended Christians and Muslims alike, and will continue to do so.

If I'm defending anything at all, it would be that freedom and variety.

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:07am:

...We are all entitled to believe what we want, and live our lives as we want without self righteous hypocrites trying to tell us what we are or what we should or can do. We live in a post Christian era here in Australia. We have many different faiths and worldviews in this country, and that variety is worth celebrating and worth defending. I have defended Christians and Muslims alike, and will continue to do so. If I'm defending anything at all, it would be that freedom and variety.

Exactly and we don't want to replace dominance of one religion for dominance of another namely atheism. We don't want horrors of atheist states repeated here.

¡No pasarán!

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:17pm:

Atheists tend to incorporate aspects of their religion namely denial of god(s) existence in their world-view. Is atheism cohesive?

Some do, others do not.  To some peopel being atheist is an important part of their identity, to others they don't give it a second thought.


tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:17pm:

As for religious protectionism this very topic testifies that atheist are very protective against outside ideas.

Some may be.  I certainly am not, so long as those ideas have a basis in reality.

tallowood wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:24am:

Exactly and we don't want to replace dominance of one religion for dominance of another namely atheism. We don't want horrors of atheist states repeated here. ¡No pasarán!

The state should not be telling people what they can or cannot believe about any subject.

Kytro wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 7:17pm: Atheists tend to incorporate aspects of their religion namely denial of god(s) existence in their world-view. Is atheism cohesive? Some do, others do not.  To some peopel being atheist is an important part of their identity, to others they don't give it a second thought. tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 7:17pm: As for religious protectionism this very topic testifies that atheist are very protective against outside ideas. Some may be.  I certainly am not, so long as those ideas have a basis in reality.

Sounds no different from most of other religions.

Kytro wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:24am: Exactly and we don't want to replace dominance of one religion for dominance of another namely atheism. We don't want horrors of atheist states repeated here. ¡No pasarán! The state should not be telling people what they can or cannot believe about any subject.

That's why religions including atheism should be kept separated from state.

tallowood wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:24am:

Exactly and we don't want to replace dominance of one religion for dominance of another namely atheism. We don't want horrors of atheist states repeated here. ¡No pasarán!

We're almost in agreement. I don't think a government should take an exclusively atheist position, but if you look at Communism with or without Atheism, it was just as 'evil' in South America which had a hybrid Communist/ Roman Catholic flavour, as it was in Russia.

Russia is a good example of how you can't really suppress what people believe (Die Gedanken sind frei).  Nowadays, approximately 63% of the population is Russian Orthodox.

I think that religions generally have an overall moderating influence. They provide a point of focus and an interest for people. There are exceptions of course.

If it gets to the stage where people are obsessed with the idea that religion is the root of all evil, and pontificate about it, like CH and RD, then that just becomes another religion. Personally I think that's destructive. Some people are just not suited to being atheists, and the high suicide rate reflects that. People get obsessed with being anti-religious and turn their backs on their spiritual self entirely.

I've always said that feeding your spiritual side is as important as correct nutrition. Australia has a reasonably good balance right now, although the diminishing number of people who call themselves religious (3% less each census) is a real worry to me.

Maybe I should become a missionary  ;)

Atheism is not a religious belief, and repeating the absurdity ad infinitum, will not make it any more valid.

Atheists do not wish to see religious beliefs denied to any adult who freely chooses them.

Atheists do not agree that people who hold religious beliefs, have any greater rights than other citizens, and any demands to have society accept moral, or ethical choices, that are defined and limited by another persons religious dogma, should not be tolerated.

Atheists believe in a clear separation between secular, and non secular responsibilities, and seeing religions demanding, as their right, the opportunity to promote dogmatic beliefs as education, or religiously defined ethical standards be enshrined as legislation, is where they cross the line, and is where atheists say that this separation needs to have better boundaries defined.

Unfortunately, religious folk are all too often puffed up with zealous passion to promote their "cause", when Atheists just want them to be able to limit their "cause" to a personal spiritual doctrine, we are accused of limiting their religious freedom.

The paradox is that it is the religious themselves, who are the ones guilty of not allowing religious freedom, not that they would ever recognise or accept that fact, too many have too tenuous a relationship with reality to ever admit that.

Very good posting mozzaok.

Reaffirms you as one of the better posters here

mozzaok wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 11:04am:

a)Atheists do not wish to see religious beliefs denied to any adult who freely chooses them. b)Atheists do not agree that people who hold religious beliefs, have any greater rights than other citizens, and any demands to have society accept moral, or ethical choices, that are defined and limited by another persons religious dogma, should not be tolerated. c)Atheists believe in a clear separation between secular, and non secular responsibilities, and seeing religions demanding, as their right, the opportunity to promote dogmatic beliefs as education, or religiously defined ethical standards be enshrined as legislation, is where they cross the line, and is where atheists say that this separation needs to have better boundaries defined.

Are you talking on behalf of all atheists there, Mozz or just for yourself? The word atheist simply means a person who doesn't believe in god(s). To get atheists to agree to anything other than that is a bit like herding cats. (It's not as if it's a religion with a set of principles.)

I daresay there are many people who have some strong views against Islam, and some of them are Atheists.

Let me ask you a test question. let's say there is a person who is an atheist and doesn't agree with the atheist creed according to Mozz (a through c), does that disqualify him from being an atheist?  

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 11:18am:

Very good posting mozzaok. Reaffirms you as one of the better posters here

Yea, good example of religious atheist Credo.

Reaffirms that atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religious belief, and repeating the absurdity ad infinitum, will not make it any more valid.

Repeating the absurd claim that it is not a religious belief does not make you right.

Atheists do not wish to see religious beliefs denied to any adult who freely chooses them.

That's right, they want to get their hands on the children and 'protect' them from the dangerous ideas of their parents, hey Mozz?

Atheists do not agree that people who hold religious beliefs, have any greater rights than other citizens

Some, such as yourself, think that being an atheist grants you the right to take children away from their parents to indoctrinate them into your world view.

Unfortunately, religious folk are all too often puffed up with zealous passion to promote their "cause", when Atheists just want them to be able to limit their "cause" to a personal spiritual doctrine, we are accused of limiting their religious freedom.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who thinks their belief justifies taking other people's children away from them.

The paradox is that it is the religious themselves, who are the ones guilty of not allowing religious freedom, not that they would ever recognise or accept that fact, too many have too tenuous a relationship with reality to ever admit that.

That's right everyone. Mozz thinks that taking people's chidlren away from them because they are religious is not a denial of religious freedom - he is merely 'enforcing' the right of the child to be taken away from the dangerous ideas of their parents.

Be very wary of Mozz's message. He is very careful to promote freedom of choice, but for adults only, except when it comes to their children, whose only choice is Mozz's choice. To Mozz, atheism is the one true religion and the state is obligued to step between parents and children to undermine other religions.

This idea of ascribing RELIGIOUS faith to the atheist, is I think mozza, little more than a shitstir. It weird and tricky ground.

To hold faith is not religious by necessity. Otherwise we are all religious and faithful, 100% of the time. Is this the argument that the ' Atheism is a faith and therefore a religion' taking.

Because sitting here I have faith that the glass in front of me will hold water when I go over to the tap, that this reply will appear as long as everything is working as it should, that my boss will pay me for the work I do for him. Yes these are all acts of faith. But not a loose unverifiable faith separated from evidence.

For example, for all I know the moon landings are a fantastic and elaborate hoax. It is a matter of faith that they actually took place. Why do I believe if I was not there to see it. Because firstly I doubt if such a hoax could be kepy secret but MOST importantly, I see around me everyday since I was old enough to take notice and appreciate technology for what it is consistant levels and progressions in tech and science that make this event completely believable.

So while I am going to have a little bit more of a think about this topic, right here I am prepared to concede that me saying 'there is no god' is an act of faith. To say that it is my religion is BS.

I don't deny the existence of faith, just the rationality of certain faith.

Like I said it is a slippery one. Some definitions will need to be agreed upon I think, to avoid constantly bogging down in some of the subilties of this argument.

A favoutite quote

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.[Friedrich Nietzsche]

locutius wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 10:06pm:

To hold faith is not religious by necessity. Otherwise we are all religious and faithful, 100% of the time. Is this the argument that the ' Atheism is a faith and therefore a religion' taking. Because sitting here I have faith that the glass in front of me will hold water when I go over to the tap, that this reply will appear as long as everything is working as it should, that my boss will pay me for the work I do for him. Yes these are all acts of faith. But not a loose unverifiable faith separated from evidence.

Good post, Loc. We all have faith that the laws of physics will continue to hold. We live in a world governed by probability. Those people who seek proof in natural events have no grasp of this fact.

Our 'faith' is based on observation of our universe, or our environment. Newton, based on a great deal of previous work, came up with a system of mechanics that holds quite well as long as you don't get into objects that are too small, or speeds that are too high. It's the same as everything else. Science basically provides us with a useful 'tool set' based on observation. We can use the scientific method to refine our mathematical model of reality further, but we never quite get there. Things are not as 'concrete' as many take for granted. Knowledge always has a probability attached to it, although that probability may be extremely high.

Maxwell's Demon is a good example of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwells_demon

You could use this to say that everything we perceive, do or believe is a matter of faith. I agree with Freediver when he says that, however to say that Atheism is a religion is a bit over the top. It's preposterous to think that a person can have a religion by default. Kids playing on the shore in an isolated community that has never heard of religion would be atheist by default. A fish is atheist by default. Anyone who believes in a traditional religion that doesn't believe in gods is an atheist by default.

Then they introduce the words 'deny' (and sometimes reject). It has a connotation of 'actively' rejecting that which is (to them) factual. Based on their religious standpoint, they believe that anyone who doesn't hold their own specific belief is somehow 'denying god'.

I have every respect for religions, but when it comes down to deliberate deception by semantics, the alarm bells start sounding. It's a dishonest and 'sinful' debating technique guys.

Be true to yourselves.

muso wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 6:37am:

Then they introduce the words 'deny' (and sometimes reject). It has a connotation of 'actively' rejecting that which is (to them) factual. Based on their religious standpoint, they believe that anyone who doesn't hold their own specific belief is somehow 'denying god'.

I must say, I don't consider myself religious, and I suspect the vast majority of people wouldn't think of my beliefs as a religious beliefs.

It is possible with enough twisting and stretching some of my beliefs could be considered religious, but there remains a major difference between my beliefs and traditional religion and that is I do not believe in the supernatural.

To give an analogy:

I like to try to accept the fact that people come in all different shapes and sizes.
Metaphorically speaking, some people may be circular, some may be square, and some even triangular.
The point is that they are all, nonetheless, shapes.
A circular shape will not fit inside a square shape, and a square shape will not fit inside a circular shape.
That's unless of course the shape is small enough to fit inside the other. In this case, the triangle could also fit.

It matters little about the colour of the shape, the important thing is that one shape fits with the other.

Some different shapes may be forced to fit if you jump up and down on them really really hard, but with others, your efforts would be fruitless even if you jumped off a 10 storey building.
Now you may be able to plane off the edges of a square or even a triangle to make it fit inside the circle depending on the substance that the shape is made from, but if it is too tough, you will just ruin your plane and you'll have to go out and buy another one.
Unfortunately, there is little hope for the circle. You risk turning it into a square just to make it fit.
I'm a bit hexaganol myself, so it's hard to find a hole that fits my shape. :D

Did that make sense at all?  :-/ ....Well I hope not!
But that's about the impression I get with the idea of trying to call a non-religious person religious.

Because sitting here I have faith that the glass in front of me will hold water when I go over to the tap

The difference is that your faith in the tap is evidence based. Believing that God does not exist has zero basis in evidence. It is even more faith based than most religions, as most religions claim some sort of earthly revelation or demonstration. Most atheists will openly admit that their beliefs are based in a total lack of evidence. How many other beliefs can people get away with saying 'I believe what I believe because there is no evidence at all'? It's not even 'despite' the lack of evidence, but because of it.

Kids playing on the shore in an isolated community that has never heard of religion would be atheist by default.

Yet most of them have some kind of religion of their own.

A fish is atheist by default.

A fish is agnostic by default. It has no opinion either way.

but there remains a major difference between my beliefs and traditional religion

'Traditional' religion is not the totality of religion.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 2:50pm:

A fish is agnostic by default. It has no opinion either way.

You're contradicting what you said earlier. Virtually all atheists are agnostic too.  Let's test the fish.

Does the fish have any belief in God or gods?

No, therefore it's atheist as opposed to theist. It is almost certainly agnostic too. A fish by default is Agnostic and atheist.

'Agnostic' is not  incompatible with 'atheist'. It's certainly not incompatible with Christian or even Muslim.

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence..

Isolated primitive tribes tend towards animism rather than theism. An animist believes that everything (including rocks) has a spirit or soul. Judaism evolved from Polytheism, which in turn evolved from animism.

You're contradicting what you said earlier.

How so?

No, therefore it's atheist as opposed to theist.

Wrong. It is only a theist if it denies the existence of God. This is like arguing that someone who didn't believe the first reports about the platypus automatically believed the opposite - that they didn't exist.

Amadd wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

... A circular shape will not fit inside a square shape, and a square shape will not fit inside a circular shape. ... But that's about the impression I get with the idea of trying to call a non-religious person religious.

What non-religious person? There were fair calls about atheists.

http://mathforum.org/~sarah/shapiro/circle.in.square.gif

;D Well I hoped you would realise that my analogy was just an exercise in the ridiculous.
But even so, you cut out the next line which states,

Quote:

That's unless of course the shape is small enough to fit inside the other

The shapes that you have pictured are all smaller in area than the next.

But yes my analogy was an analogy with ridiculous analogies like those "agnostic fish" ....wff?  :-?
I suppose the next time I go scuba diving, I'll really need to keep an eye out for those suckers...they could turn nasty!

Amadd wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 9:56pm:

;D Well I hoped you would realise that my analogy was just an exercise in the ridiculous. But even so, you cut out the next line which states, Quote: That's unless of course the shape is small enough to fit inside the other The shapes that you have pictured are all smaller in area than the next. But yes my analogy was an analogy with ridiculous analogies like those "agnostic fish" ....wff?  :-? I suppose the next time I go scuba diving, I'll really need to keep an eye out for those suckers...they could turn nasty!

Of course it is ridiculous to deny that atheism is a religion. That is if denier is not an atheist, if denier is an atheist then it is quiet normal because atheism is religion of denial.

You may be have noticed that the circles that fit in squares have diameters EQUAL or less then the side of those squares while squares that fit in circles have diagonals EQUAL or less then diameters of those circles. EQUAL or less not just less.

Good point Tallo. If the diagonals can equal the diameters then atheism is a religious belief.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 5:03pm:

You're contradicting what you said earlier. How so? No, therefore it's atheist as opposed to theist. Wrong. It is only a theist if it denies the existence of God. This is like arguing that someone who didn't believe the first reports about the platypus automatically believed the opposite - that they didn't exist.

I'm sorry, FD, but outside the Judeo Christian tradtion, you're not making a lot of sense.

When you use the word Atheist, you just mean one who actively denies the existence of the God that you know exists and that you believe in.

That is totally different to how an atheist sees it (or at least my view). Basically, atheist is the default point of view, and if you want to be religious, you select from the Pick and Mix box which includes Allah, Jehovah, Cthulthu, Krishna, Ganeesh and friends.

The way I personally see it is that we all start off by assigning anthropomorphic values to just about everything. It's natural to do so. A child plays with anthropomorphic toys.

"Henry pulled trucks in the forest. He loved the peace and quiet but he didn't see many people. Sometimes working in the forest could be very lonely. " (Henry is an anthropomorphic train.)

Even as adults, we often think in terms of anthropomorphic idioms, for example we assign the word 'want' to inanimate objets. "This door doesn't want to budge"

This is paralleled by the development of society. Primitive religions tend to be animist in character. It's similar to pantheism in a way although individual animist religions vary considerably. They believe that everything has a soul or spirit, or at least key objects that influence their lives, such as the sun, forests, rivers, mountains (particularly volcanoes).

Religious positions seem to start off with Animism, progress to polytheism, then monotheism, then atheism. It's a kind of cultural evolution.

Now depending on where you stand on that scale, you would define each of the other religious positions differently.

Your definition of atheist is relative to your own position as a monotheist, and specifically a Christian monotheist. In the same way, an atheist might look at a theist totally differently, as a result of 'his' own viewpoint from the religious grid.  

In the same way, an animist might say  that you deny the fact that a rock has an evil spirit, where it is obvious that it fell on his great aunt, killing her instantly.

In that situation, you probably wouldn't use the word 'deny' either.

For right or for wrong, we all hold different views of the world. As long as we're comfortable with our own world views and religions,  let's move on and realise that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that situation, as long as we don't harm people.

Variety is a good thing.  

We've heard stories about 19th century missionaries who have gone to Africa and administered medicines to sick natives. If the native died, the accusation would ring out that the missionary had killed the patient with his magic.

A story about one of my long dead relatives: In the 16th century in Scotland, a woman was gravely ill. Another woman tied a single grey thread around her according to folk customs and recited a 'lucky spell'. People will do just about anything when someone is dying. The woman died (nobody could really help her). The village priest (whatever the correct term is) heard of this, and after a  series of events, the hapless woman was hanged.

The two stories serve to show that no matter how much better you think your own religious system is, in the end it comes down to people - and people are pretty similar creatures the world over.

We are all capable of both incredibly good acts and incredibly evil acts. Christianity, takes this good part of human nature and personifies it. It acts to put a focal point on the good aspects of our nature. As long as we apply good common sense and moderation, religion can be a very beneficial thing for society.

My personal view is that religion is more good than bad. I'll support it. I'll even donate money to it, but I don't believe in gods myself.

When you use the word Atheist, you just mean one who actively denies the existence of the God that you know exists and that you believe in.

Speak for yourself OK muso. I mean someone who denies the existence of any sort of god.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:32am:

When you use the word Atheist, you just mean one who actively denies the existence of the God that you know exists and that you believe in. Speak for yourself OK muso. I mean someone who denies the existence of any sort of god.

Perhaps 'mean' is the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is that is what you understand. You're coming from a position of Christianity.

- any sort of god?
So do you deny the existence of Ganeesh?

Who is that?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 11:04am:

Who is that?

Ganeesh/ Ganesh/ Ganesha or Lord Ganesh is a Hindu God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha

This wiki link seems accurate enough.

Who is Jehovah?

Muso I obviously didn't mean that someone who denies any specific god is an atheist. Is that what you are getting at?

You really are silly trying to play semantics over this FD, trying to classify people as agnostic, rather than atheist is quite pointless.

Most sentient beings appreciate that they have no totality of knowledge, so accept the possibility that things beyond their comprehension are inevitable.

So because I choose to say that I have never heard a concept for god, from any religion, that I do not find preposterous, and personally consider the probability of their being a god figure that would resemble any human concept offered by these religions, as approaching zero, but also accept that I cannot prove the non-existence of imaginary beings, then I should be regarded as agnostic.

Sure, call me agnostic if you like, but as I hold no belief in any god concept I know of, I will stick with atheist as my own self description, if that is alright with you?

You really are silly trying to play semantics over this FD, trying to classify people as agnostic, rather than atheist is quite pointless

No it's not. If we don't have different words to distinguish different meanings, then you cannot communicate effectively.

So because I choose to say that I have never heard a concept for god, from any religion, that I do not find preposterous, and personally consider the probability of their being a god figure that would resemble any human concept offered by these religions, as approaching zero

It sounds to me like you are an atheist who is trying to legitimise their beliefs by mixing in some statistics, because you are under the impression that makes them more objective. On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of the existence of some kind of god, but just reject established religion, that makes you an agnostic.

but also accept that I cannot prove the non-existence of imaginary beings, then I should be regarded as agnostic.

It has nothing to do with what you can prove. It's about what you believe.

You see by my working definition, many animists are atheist. They might believe that objects, animals and people have spirits, but they don't believe in a supreme being that created the world/ universe. Some of them have creation stories (such as many Aboriginal beliefs) that involve mythical creatures involved in specific tasks, like the rainbow serpent creating landscapes.

The definition I've used all along is : One who lacks belief in gods

You might say that the spirits qualify for the definition of god. It depends on your definition.

Your definition is one that I don't buy into. The word deny is the sticking block.

Unless we use common definitions, and probably common perspectives, there is no way we could agree on this.

1. Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. (I define it in the broad sense)  

2. Someone who believes that there is no God.

3.A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism. Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]. "Strong" Atheists claim God does not exist. "Weak" Atheists do not deny the possibility of God[s], or that proof might eventually be discovered.  (That one's a humdinger!)  

4. Someone who denies the existence of god

5. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods

Take your pick, but I'd get a move on because the cows are about to come home  ;D

Freediver - sorry, but you didn't answer my question - yes or no will suffice.

Do you deny the existence of Ganesh?

Muso, you are just coming up with alternative definitions - strong, weak or medium atheism, to avoid using words that are already in common use, like agnosticism.

Yawn -

I'm quite a strong atheist myself. I do quite a lot of weight training. There seems to be a lot of NATFQ-itis on this thread, and I have a feeling it might be contagious.

So please forgive me if I depart this animated discussion as a somewhat capriciously planned act of impassioned apathy.

Tallowood said:

Quote:

Of course it is ridiculous to deny that atheism is a religion. That is if denier is not an atheist, if denier is an atheist then it is quiet normal because atheism is religion of denial. You may be have noticed that the circles that fit in squares have diameters EQUAL or less then the side of those squares while squares that fit in circles have diagonals EQUAL or less then diameters of those circles. EQUAL or less not just less.

You see? That's how you can keep believing that atheism is a religion. All that you need to do is suspend logic.

For one, if the diameter of the circle is the same as the width of the square, it's not actually sitting inside the square, it's sitting on top of or under the square.

Also I think yuo've forgotten your geometry, because the area of the circle is smaller than the square.
If the square is 20cm x 20cm, then it's area would be 400cm2.
The area of the circle = pi x radius squared.
3.14 x (10cm)2 = 314cm2.

And this was my statement:

Quote:

That's unless of course the shape is small enough to fit inside the other

The circle is still not small enough to fit inside the square - therefore, atheism is not a religion.  :)

You can fit one object inside another even if it is 'just touching' the edges. That is the case here. The square with the diagonal equal to the diameter is only just touching the circle, and only at four points of infinitesimal size. Therefor it is inside the circle and atheism is a religion.  :P

Well I suppose you'll have to go down to your local mechanic and ask if a 50mm piston will fit inside a 50mm bore.
The reply you will get is... "atheism is not a religion". :D

There is no tolerance on mathematical constructs, therefor atheism is a religion.

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 7:14pm:

Well I suppose you'll have to go down to your local mechanic and ask if a 50mm piston will fit inside a 50mm bore. The reply you will get is... "atheism is not a religion". :D

Ask the same mechanic if 50mm piston will fit in 50mm piston.  ;D

The way you put it squares aint squares as they won't fit inside of each other unless they smaller. The same way religions aint religions and all of them are unique.
Religion of atheism is like that too. 8-)

Quote:

Ask the same mechanic if 50mm piston will fit in 50mm piston.

He'd probably then ask me what religion I follow or what drugs I am on.


Quote:

The way you put it squares aint squares as they won't fit inside of each other unless they smaller.

Ummm..... :-X


Quote:

There is no tolerance on mathematical constructs, therefor atheism is a religion.

Nomatter how infinitely thin you would like to make the line, it still does not fit inside it.

Ahh but I see you've been to the Grendel school of debate and you keep fishing for just one tiny point to make your entire argument true.

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:

Quote: Ask the same mechanic if 50mm piston will fit in 50mm piston. He'd probably then ask me what religion I follow or what drugs I am on. [quote]The way you put it squares aint squares as they won't fit inside of each other unless they smaller.

Ummm..... :-X


Quote:

There is no tolerance on mathematical constructs, therefor atheism is a religion.

Nomatter how infinitely thin you would like to make the line, it still does not fit inside it.

Ahh but I see you've been to the Grendel school of debate and you keep fishing for just one tiny point to make your entire argument true.
[/quote]

Square dose not fit in square according to your definition of fit in therefore squares aint squares.
Mechanic would know from the question that your religion is atheism.

Atheists make the fatal error of thinking that religion is about god, about something 'out of this world'. Of course it isn't. Who can know anything 'out of this world'?
Religion is about what is sacred. Atheism is a religion only if it can speak of anything that is sacred. If it cannot then it isn't.

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 7:14pm:

Well I suppose you'll have to go down to your local mechanic and ask if a 50mm piston will fit inside a 50mm bore. The reply you will get is... "atheism is not a religion". :D

You just don't have faith, brother. With faith, you can fit a 200mm piston inside a 50mm bore.

But what any of this has to do with Atheism being a religion escapes me totally. Maybe it's like the Delphi Oracle.  

You basically get a crazy woman to sit inside a volcanic vent in Delphi and breath the gases, and she says in a haunting voice "A square can fit inside a circle"  The interpreter then says "What she means is that Atheism is a religion"

Hallelujah ! the gods have spoken.

Yes muso, I think you've stumbled across a meaning to my initial nonsensical analogy.

If you just have faith, you can even warp the rules of mathematics.

Wow! If only I could possess such powers!

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:19pm:

Yes muso, I think you've stumbled across a meaning to my initial nonsensical analogy. If you just have faith, you can even warp the rules of mathematics. Wow! If only I could possess such powers!

Math is easy. You just postulate your own set of axioms and then prove theorems according to them. However final philosophical stone is a prediction that empirically comes true. Nothing short of real magic.

Quote:

Math is easy. You just postulate your own set of axioms and then prove theorems according to them.

If it's so easy, why can't you use it?

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

Quote: Math is easy. You just postulate your own set of axioms and then prove theorems according to them. If it's so easy, why can't you use it?

I do.

You didn't.

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 10:54pm:

You didn't.

I've proved your incompetence easily.

You proved your own ignorance..that's all.

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 11:01pm:

You proved your own ignorance..that's all.

No, I've proved your ineptitude and now you are proving that you are a sore looser. ;D ;D ;D

Well I suppose you'd even debate that your spelling of loser is correct.
Or is "looser" correct on faith also?

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 11:25pm:

Well I suppose you'd even debate that your spelling of loser is correct. Or is "looser" correct on faith also?

No, I won't debate that because I like to give my opponents a straw to hold onto.

I brought this over from the other thread. Tallowood, your comment about the drunken orgies - were they directed at cargo cults, and would you agree that cargo cults are theistic cults?  


tallowood wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

Amadd wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 7:57pm: I believe that almost anything imaginable can be possible. Now put me back in time 2000 years with one of those giant metal "God birds" and let me show them "actual" images of God and let them hear the voice of God, and let me tell you, nobody would know anything about Christianity or Islam because the world would be Amaddian....Hoo hoo hah ha! Have you heard about cargo cult? That's where atheist religion is at it's best. No need to go back 2k years.

Most Cargo cults are not atheist. The Prince Phillip and John Frum cults worship human beings as gods, similar to Christianity. Those are theist cults.

By the way, I have never disputed that some atheists follow a religion. Not all religions involve a god or gods. I use the broad definition of atheist as 'one who lacks a belief in gods'.

As you have no doubt gathered, that particular definition is not fully compatible with the one that involves denial of the existence of God.

As Freediver pointed out, you need to know about the concept of gods in order to deny them. Such a person would be agnostic according to FD. To me, anyone who doesn't believe in gods is atheist.

I tried to ask this question before, but it was ignored:

Is any theist here prepared to say that they deny the existence of Ganesh?

A more recent thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227225058

Essay:Atheism is a religion:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Atheism_is_a_religion

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 3:33pm:

Interesting.  I'ld think a belief has to believe positively in something. Sort of like a motion in a meeting, it should be a positive statement. Not believe that something does not exist. I preter athiests to agnostics, at least they are definite in their thoughts. Agnostics think God can't be proven or disproven.  How dully theoretical They are not taking a stance either way.

Most atheist are agnostics.  The cynic in me would have me believe that the misnoma, that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, is only so widespread so that the religious can fight straw men instead of atheists.

Quote:

Is atheism a religious belief?

No.
Atheists don't believe in supernatural occurences. eg
Virgin Births, ressurrections, walking on water, turning water
into wine, miracle cures.
They don't believe in: goblins, witches, vampires or werewolfs.
They don't believe in heaven & hell or the devil.