Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Religion?

My own take on the bent of religionists to equate the areligious philosophies with a belief system merely opposed to the religionist belief system is that the religionists are incapable of conceptualizing an absence of belief as anything other than a belief. Personally, I find that unsurprising, as it is precisely the same sort of circular logic that seeks to close an argument by calling for acceptance of that argument's premise on the basis of faith; "I know the Bible is true because it says you must believe it is so".

0 Replies

Hear, hear . . .

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

My own take on the bent of religionists to equate the areligious philosophies with a belief system merely opposed to the religionist belief system is that the religionists are incapable of conceptualizing an absence of belief as anything other than a belief. Personally, I find that unsurprising, as it is precisely the same sort of circular logic that seeks to close an argument by calling for acceptance of that argument's premise on the basis of faith; "I know the Bible is true because it says you must believe it is so".

That's probably true in some cases but it also depends on which dictionary definition you use for "Atheist". An Atheist can be a person that doesn't have a belief in God or they can be a person that has a belief that there is no God. Your take only accounts for Atheists in the first category. Atheists in the second category DO have a belief.

0 Replies

Atheism, like theism, is based on a leap of faith. It is a view that is not supported by evidence. To be an atheist, you cite a lack of evidence abouut g-d - but you have no evidence of that nonexistence (or of existence for that matter.) They are two sides of the same assumptional religious coin.

Many people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics and shift the definition of the word to suit their beliefs.

0 Replies

PortalStar,

I don't understand how it can be that you believe it requires a leap of faith to disbelieve a leap of faith.

Please explain.

-Jer-

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Atheism, like theism, is based on a leap of faith. It is a view that is not supported by evidence. To be an atheist, you cite a lack of evidence abouut g-d - but you have no evidence of that nonexistence (or of existence for that matter.) They are two sides of the same assumptional religious coin.

Many people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics and shift the definition of the word to suit their beliefs.

This is a series of patently false statements which are unsupportable. Atheism is not expressing a belief, but denying a belief which the atheist considers to be foisted upon him- or herself by others. The atheist denies the existence of a deity precisely because of a lack of evidence, and is not obliged by any rational debating principle to "prove a negative." To be an atheist, you cite a lack of evidence abouut g-d - but you have no evidence of that nonexistence (or of existence for that matter.)--this is the most ludicrous statment in this string of inanities. Once again, you create the straw man of an equivalent, but polar opposite stance for the theist and the atheist. An atheist is only described as such by the theist or the agnostic in positing this false premise for the purpose of creating a debating point, which debating point is without foundation. Atheist means without god--to the extent that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any such mythological being with supernatural powers, everyone is atheist--without god. Most of you seem, however, to lack either the honesty or the perceptive abilities to realize as much.

The unwillingness of the smug agnostic to accord the same doubt to the proposition of the existence of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny strikes me as good inferential evidence of an unwillingness to abandon theism altogether. I consider most agnostics to be hedging their bets, and likely being dishonest with themselves and with others.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

PortalStar,

I don't understand how it can be that you believe it requires a leap of faith to disbelieve a leap of faith.

Please explain.

-Jer-

To have proof about a view (affirmation or denial), you must have evidence. A lack of evidence is just that - a lack of evidence. You need some kind of evidence to prove or disprove something.

Take science, for example: The first step of the scientific method is observation. Without evidence - how can you have observation? You can't site a lack of observation as the basis of your argument.

you couldn't rationally say: air is non-existant because we cannot collect data on it - therefore air does not exist.

You would need to find evidence that air, as described, did not exist. Not a lack of evidence. If you found evidence confirming that air does not exist - you will have disproven the existance of air.

Because g-d is indefinable, and may be immaterial, we cannot collect data on the existance or non-existance of g-d (not deities, the general concept of g-d.) Without data, there isn't evidence. Without evidence, there cannot be proof.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Atheism, like theism, is based on a leap of faith. It is a view that is not supported by evidence. To be an atheist, you cite a lack of evidence abouut g-d - but you have no evidence of that nonexistence (or of existence for that matter.) They are two sides of the same assumptional religious coin.

Many people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics and shift the definition of the word to suit their beliefs.

This is a series of patently false statements which are unsupportable. Atheism is not expressing a belief, but denying a belief which the atheist considers to be foisted upon him- or herself by others. The atheist denies the existence of a deity precisely because of a lack of evidence, and is not obliged by any rational debating principle to "prove a negative." To be an atheist, you cite a lack of evidence abouut g-d - but you have no evidence of that nonexistence (or of existence for that matter.)--this is the most ludicrous statment in this string of inanities. Once again, you create the straw man of an equivalent, but polar opposite stance for the theist and the atheist. An atheist is only described as such by the theist or the agnostic in positing this false premise for the purpose of creating a debating point, which debating point is without foundation. Atheist means without god--to the extent that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any such mythological being with supernatural powers, everyone is atheist--without god. Most of you seem, however, to lack either the honesty or the perceptive abilities to realize as much.

The unwillingness of the smug agnostic to accord the same doubt to the proposition of the existence of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny strikes me as good inferential evidence of an unwillingness to abandon theism altogether. I consider most agnostics to be hedging their bets, and likely being dishonest with themselves and with others.

Setana - of course you need evidence to prove a negative. You need evidence to prove anything. As I've stated, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are defineable - so we can disprove their existance. For example, we observe the houses on christmas eve and watch who's hiding the easter eggs on Easter. If we have data showing that santa is not delivering packages to the houses - it's the parents, and if we have data showing it is not the easter bunny doing as he is defined - hiding eggs - it is the parents, then we have proven (with evidence) the non-existance of both santa and the easter bunny as defined.

This is why you can also defy the existance (with evidence) of dieties - which are definable and are said to have impacted the earth in ways against which we can collect data. For example, did/does the diety Jesus fulfill his definitions and said impact in time and space?

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

To have proof about a view (affirmation or denial), you must have evidence. A lack of evidence is just that - a lack of evidence. You need some kind of evidence to prove or disprove something.

Specious contention--those who deny an extraordinary claim are not obliged to disprove the claim; those making extraordinary claims are obliged to provide the evidence in order to be believed. Failure to provide evidence of an extraordinary claim certainly is a sound basis to deny the substance and any details of the claim.

Quote:

Take science, for example: The first step of the scientific method is observation. Without evidence - how can you have observation? You can't site a lack of observation as the basis of your argument.

A specious claim, for the same reason that the first statement is specious. No atheist is obliged to prove that there are no invisible, undetectable beings with supernatural powers in order to simply state--you have no evidence for your extraordinary claim, which i therefore refuse to believe. Belief and the refusal to believe are not equivalent positions.

Quote:

you couldn't rationally say: air is non-existant because we cannot collect data on it - therefore air does not exist.

You would need to find evidence that air, as described, did not exist. Not a lack of evidence. If you found evidence confirming that air does not exist - you will have disproven the existance of air.

A specious claim, this is apples to oranges stuff. The existence of an atmosphere was demonstrated thousands of years ago through the observation of pressure effects on water. On can sense movement of the gaseous components of the atmosphere as breezes. To claim that there is an atmosphere is not an extraordinary claim. To claim that some old white dude lives off in the clouds and will blast you to eternity if you don't cough up for the collection plate is in the realm of pernicious fairy tale.

Quote:

Because g-d is indefinable, and may be immaterial, we cannot collect data on the existance or non-existance of g-d (not deities, the general concept of g-d.) Without data, there isn't evidence. Without evidence, there cannot be proof.

Same criticism. This is a very feeble effort, ideed, PS. If you claim, as an agnostic, that the question cannot be resolved, you have no basis for contending that god is indefinable, may be immaterial and that therefore no data can be collected on a putative supernatural being which might still exist--which is the burden of your specious reasoning here.

Once again, as always, those who deny extraordinary claims because of a lack of evidence have no burden of "disproof."

0 Replies

You're being willfully thickheaded, i would suggest, PS. The atheist is under no obligation to prove or disprove anything.

Here ya go:

Those

Making

Extraordinary

Claims

Have

The

Burden

Of

Proof.

Those

Who

Refuse

To

Accept

Such

Claims

Are

Not

Obliged

To

Disprove

Such

Claims.

Is it sinking in yet?

0 Replies

As an atheist, you are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Let me further illustrate:

You take a man to court, because you hired him to fix your car and he did not fix your car.

You do not go up to the judge and say: The evidence that he did not fix my car is that there is no evidence.

You show the judge evidence of what the man did not do. You show pictures of your car, still broken. You show him the contract that was signed and not fulfilled.

When you are the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. Being an atheist is saying that you have proof there is no g-d, when in reality, you are trying to prove the non-existance of something without any evidence. This makes you the same as the theists trying to prove a positive without evidence.

In a discussion, if someone brings up that they believe in g-d you can say prove it. But you wouldn't say: I can prove that it is untrue because you have no proof. By asserting that you know/are going to prove something, you shift the burden of that proof onto yourself.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Being an atheist is saying that you have proof there is no g-d, when in reality, you are trying to prove the non-existance of something without any evidence"

bizarre

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
"Being an atheist is saying that you have proof there is no g-d, when in reality, you are trying to prove the non-existance of something without any evidence"

bizarre

What do you find bizzare, Dyslexia?

0 Replies

I have yet to meet any atheist trying to prove the non-existance of something without any evidence, if fact, proving the non-existence of anything, is an excercise in futility. Nor have i encountered anyone attmpting to prove the non-existence of unicorns on the dark side of the moon (however I don't personally believe there are unicorns on the dark side of the moon) The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I have yet to meet any atheist trying to prove the non-existance of something without any evidence, if fact, proving the non-existence of anything, is an excercise in futility. Nor have i encountered anyone attmpting to prove the non-existence of unicorns on the dark side of the moon (however I don't personally believe there are unicorns on the dark side of the moon) The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god

The defnition of atheism is someone who does not believe in the existance of a g-d or g-ds.

a·the·ism ( P ) (th-zm)
n.

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

This is why I am agnostic, because agnostics admit that they do not know. I can deny the existence of dieties - with evidence to support their non-existance. But I cannot have evidence about the non-existance of g-d.

You are wrong that we wouldn't know if there were unicorns on the dark side of the moon. We could theoretically go see the dark side of moon and look for evidence of those unicorns. If the unicorns were not on the dark side of the moon, and you collected evidence proving this, you would have proved the non-existence of unicorns on the dark side of the moon.

However, if you said there were completely immaterial (unsensable/undedectable in any way - in theory, by senses or by machines) then we would not be able to prove or disprove their existance, because no data could be gathered.

"God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god"

The problem with g-d is that there is no static definition. You cannot prove or disprove something that you cannot define - what qualities would you be looking for? G-d's definition changes throughout time and place. G-d could be a number of different things, including representation of the entire known world. In the case of individual dieties, g-d is defined and given a name, and that is why, like the unicorns on the dark side of the moon, they can have evidence (even if only theoretical) collected on them and decisions made.
But what about g-d as the name for whatever kickstarted the universe, if that happened? What about g-d as the name of something larger we are a part of? What about g-d as something immaterial that always stays immateral and has no impact with the physical world whatsoever?
There would be no way to prove or disprove these g-ds, even in theory.

0 Replies

"-ism" implies doctrine. One can be accurately described as an atheist -- that is, they do not believe in a god or gods -- without that person subsribing to "atheism." In fact, given the second definition you cite, I find it hard to imagine that the word can really be used in any but a pejorative sense.

Q: can one be called a "theist" without their holding some beliefs about the nature and intentions of the god they believe exists?

0 Replies

Wow - more respones than I'd expected. Maybe to rephrase my question. Why do atheists question others about their religious views? They may seem absurd, and quite often their "explanations" are absurd, but religion cannot be explained. If someone believes in God and believes that they should do what is right, shouldn't one just leave them be? I understand that their views may seem absurd from a rational point of view, but is there a point in trying to attack (not violently... not obnoxiously, just at all) something which is not rational, cannot be thought about rationally, and is naturally good for people? Those who believe in God find their reason to "convert" others because of their faith... they believe that God exists and that He will make others better people. But what advantage is their to trying to undo religion, despite the absurdity that one might see in it. If you do not believe in God, defend your view if someone asks you why. But I don't see a reason to voice that when religion should make those who believe in it better people (not saying that those who do not believe in a religion are not good people.) Even if the idea is absurd, isn't it worth people believing anyway?

0 Replies

self-defense

0 Replies

I suspect that many of us take issue with your assumption that religion is "naturally good for people." I know I do.

Does practicing religion provide some people with companionship, aid, and solace? Sure. Does that make religion inherently "good"? I'd answer in the negative on that one, though out of respect for decent religious folks like that Husker feller I try not to get into it too much here, where the impersonal nature of communication makes it difficult to communicate my lack of ill intentions. Not that I always succeed in exercising this restraint.

0 Replies

Aside from some wrathful scenes in the Old Testament, and the scandal in the Catholic Church (I'm actually Presbyterian, which may affect some of my views on religion here....) the entire New Testament speaks of doing only good. Forgiving all, loving all as yourself. How could one criticize these teachings??

0 Replies

Can someone explain why many act like Atheism is a Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know