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

Jer wrote:

PortalStar,

What is your "atheist" friend trying to accomplish? What is his goal?

To destroy all religion. He's a bit out there.

0 Replies

ok bye

0 Replies

Maybe the fact that there are many more religious people in this country is the reason that more religious people do good works such as volunteering for nonprofit organizations. It certainly isn't because religion makes a person better or more responsible.

For me, a life lived in peace with a strong belief in leaving the world a better place than it was when I arrived on the scene is based on a set of values that do not stem from laws. I don't fear being thrown into hell if I rob a bank or do something else illegal, not that I would.

Those who don't have a religion--whether they are athieists, agnostics or skeptics, have a basic ideal to reach for--not a set of rules that promise punishment if they stray from the straight and narrow. To me, that makes their behavior much more responsible and individual than the behavior of those with the ever-present possiblility of punishment as incentive to behave.

It would be interesting to know how old foxfyre, deveron and portal star happen to be. Taking a class on any subject doesn't mean you will have a better understanding. That takes life and experience.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a witless response, PS. Try to bend your mind around the concept that because someone else defines me as an atheist does not mean that i have anything to do with an ideological concept described as atheism. I am defined as an atheist by others, a posteriori. You're so dull-witted, or so it appears from what you write, that you make the simple-minded assumption that as communists believe in and support communism, therefore, atheists "believe in" and "support" atheism.

It is not so. I am only an atheist by the definition of others, and i only refer to myself that way because of the necessity of providing a descriptive term which will be comprehensible to the dim bulbs who can only approach the subject in a dichotomous manner.

It is not axiomatic that someone defined as an atheist a posteriori by theists, or evangelizing agnostics such as you, is automatically an adherent to, a supporter of, a proponent of an ideology which can be described as atheism. Someone purports to me that supernatural beings exists. I reply: "Get outta here--prove it." "You have to believe, you have to take it on faith." "No i don't, and i won't. There are no such supernatural beings, and if you can't prove it, you have no right to expect others to take it on faith." "Oh well, you're an atheist, then."

Get it?--atheist by a posteriori definition. If you weren't so dedicated to your conceit (which is all that it is) that you hold a superior point of view, you might be able to understand why it does not necessarily follow that those defined by others as atheist are not automatically adherents of atheism.

As a side note, it is really pathetic to refer to the course you took, or your putative conversations with a lawyer. Do you think that lends some authority to the tripe you're spewing?

I am heartily sick and tired of your arrogant attempts to shove your point of view down my throat. Have the courtesy never to address any remarks to me again, and i promise to reciprocate. I long ago lost any respect for what you may allege to be your intellect.

As I pointed out, I know that you do not consider yourself the textbook definition of atheist. I am using the textbook definition of atheist in order to argue - which is standard in philosophy and debate. I think you should be aware of what your labeling espouses and means to other people, especially when you are arguing for that label.

I don't believe in supernatural beings that influence the earth. I don't believe in the existance of Zeus, or Jesus, Inanna, or other dieties said to physically impact the earth which don't fulfill their definition. But I am not going to pretend like I have any basis on which to know whether there is a g-d, and anyone who assumes they have this evidence is either wrong or in access to information that I am not.

0 Replies

I see you lack courtesy. This does not surprise me.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

Maybe the fact that there are many more religious people in this country is the reason that more religious people do good works such as volunteering for nonprofit organizations. It certainly isn't because religion makes a person better or more responsible.

For me, a life lived in peace with a strong belief in leaving the world a better place than it was when I arrived on the scene is based on a set of values that do not stem from laws. I don't fear being thrown into hell if I rob a bank or do something else illegal, not that I would.

Those who don't have a religion--whether they are athieists, agnostics or skeptics, have a basic ideal to reach for--not a set of rules that promise punishment if they stray from the straight and narrow. To me, that makes their behavior much more responsible and individual than the behavior of those with the ever-present possiblility of punishment as incentive to behave.

It would be interesting to know how old foxfyre, deveron and portal star happen to be. Taking a class on any subject doesn't mean you will have a better understanding. That takes life and experience.

I'm 24. I agree with you about fear; it's definitely not the way to go. True religion should be based on love of God and the neighbour, and not on fear of eternal damnation or the like.

0 Replies

This thread has progressed a long way since I last checked in. I am not going to read every post that I missed. I see there is a lively debate over the definition of "atheist" and whether or not we have the grounds to disbelieve there's a God, god or gods.
It is my position that humankind invented the notion of any sort of god. God is therefore a figment of the imagination. I don't need anybody's permission to state categorically there is no deity. I would be remiss to state otherwise.

0 Replies

Ah, well. Many posters here already know what I think, but I'll say it again.

Atheism, to me, means absense of theism. Consider this by breaking the word down into two parts, a, followed by, theism.

An atheist, to me, means one who is void of theism.

I am generally amused that anyone would care to instruct me on what I am or believe.

0 Replies

The atheist is only defined by the presence of the theist. To eliminate the existence of the latter is to eliminate the concept of the former.

(To paraphrase set.)

But now I've read osso's post, and methinks she's right. The word is a-theist, not anti-theist.

0 Replies

Now, if I knew, from preponderance of past evidence of sufficient quality and quantity to give me significant confidence in both the fisherman's piscatorial competence and his conversational veracity, and I had reason to believe the catching of such a fish was not highly improbable, I likely would believe the fellow's claim, or at the very least have no valid cause to disbelieve it. On the other hand, if it was my neighbor Les from down the road, I would doubt the claim unless I saw him land the sucker. Les is a devoted churchman, a devout Lutheran well schooled in his faith, and known to be an honest and honorable sort. Les, however, can't get bait to stay on the hook, let alone a remarkable fish.

I do not happen to believe there is no diety, nor that there cannot be, I simply have found no logical basis for the assumption that there are gods, nor any reason to conclude there must be a diety. In the theistic context, I don't believe one way or the other. Rather, I call upon those who hold and promote either belief to validate their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt ... something I never have found either able to do.

0 Replies

PortalStar,

Well I enjoy a good debate - particularly in the afternoon when I should be billing clients - this one has come to a close for me.

I understand the argument you are trying to make, hell I commend you for being so dogged in trying to make it, but it is critically flawed and you're not willing to accept that.

Without proof that something is, there is no need for proof that something isn't.

Without a fish in hand, you didn't catch one.

There have been centuries for someone to show us a fish and no one has ever shown us a fish - except for the little metal one that goes on the back of some people's cars. And that one is man-made.

I believe in Good some believe in God - spelling isn't really that important anyway - the point remains that we've all got similar intentions and that's probably what's really important.

Osso & Edgar: I agree with your last posts.

0 Replies

Jer
Hello. Belated welcome to a2k.
I truly don't enjoy the controversy between atheists, agnostics and deists. I guess it's just human nature to thrash it out like this.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

PortalStar,

Well I enjoy a good debate - particularly in the afternoon when I should be billing clients - this one has come to a close for me.

I understand the argument you are trying to make, hell I commend you for being so dogged in trying to make it, but it is critically flawed and you're not willing to accept that.

Without proof that something is, there is no need for proof that something isn't.

Without a fish in hand, you didn't catch one.

There have been centuries for someone to show us a fish and no one has ever shown us a fish - except for the little metal one that goes on the back of some people's cars. And that one is man-made.

I believe in Good some believe in God - spelling isn't really that important anyway - the point remains that we've all got similar intentions and that's probably what's really important.

Osso & Edgar: I agree with your last posts.

Thanks, Jer. I like debating too.

What you described is true. In the case of g-d it is also true.

But I am talking about immaterialism and g-d. In which case, by definition, the fish would never have to show up, and possibly never could. It would always be and have always been an immaterial (unseeable unsmellable unfeelable untasteable silent fish that could never be detected by machines and would not take up any matter - or make any difference in the physical universe - an aphysical thing.) I think you're thinking of g-d in the sense of individual dieties, when the concept of g-d doesn't necessarily have to be physical at all. Like you said, g-d can even be percieved as a concept: good. G-d has no stable definition.

---
To everyone who is concerned with my useage of the word atheist: this is standard useage of the word. I'm not telling you what to believe or what you believe, I'm using the word the way it is traditionally used in philosophy and debate.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I am talking about immaterialism and g-d

and herein lies the disconnect
atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. as opposed to "immaterialsm," for with me and I assume some other atheists-what is-is and what isn't-isn't.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
But I am talking about immaterialism and g-d

and herein lies the disconnect
atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. as opposed to "immaterialsm," for with me and I assume some other atheists-what is-is and what isn't-isn't.

I am a materialist - but maybe in a different way. I don't like to rule anything out or include anything until it can be observed - because that is the limit of the scope of our knowledge. It might be and probably is all that there is - material things - but I am not willing to rule that out without evidence (and in philosophy evidence can be theoretical.) I approach philosophy like science, that in debate nothing officially exists or does not exist, or is proven or unproven, until it goes through formal methodology (like the scientific method.) So I will not try to assume I know what is and what isn't beyond the scope of my abiility to percieve. That is why I chose agnosticism - because I know the concept of g-d is something beyond the scope of available evidence. Heck, it's beyond the scope of formally adressing - you can't even define it - and what you can't define, you can't systematically disprove.

So yes, my orientation of the g-d issue is a purely scholarly one. It makes no real difference in the orientation of daily life, and nothing changes based on this view. It stems from the need to have orderly processes in science, philosophy, and debate which cannot apply to the g-d problem.

0 Replies

Atheist
(n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
(n.) A godless person.

Source: http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/at/atheist133233.html

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god:
cf. F. ath['e]iste.]
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.

2. A godless person. [Obs.]

Definition: Atheism is

a) the disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity, or
b) the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity. (1)
The word comes from two Greek word roots: a , which means "not," and theos , which means "god."

Source: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html

I've spent a lot of time just getting these, largely because i specifically avoided either sites which praise or promote "atheism," as well as sites which praise or promote theism. That means i had to look at seven pages of hits to find three sites which were not either atheist or theist sites. The second definition comes from a site which promotes so much advertising that everytime i tried to copy the url, i got the url of the latest ad pop-up, which is why i did not list a source.

Note the use of the crucial word "or." It is not axiomatic that an atheist denies the existence of god, and certainly not a priori. As i have pointed out, i am only an atheist by a posteriori definition. The contention of our resident agnostic evangelizer, PS, that she is using some sort of standard and universal definition is self-serving crap. She is using a definition which conveniently supports her argument, and has consistently at this site, over a period of months, willfully confused the atheist, someone who does not believe in god (and absent more information, that is all which can be stated with certainty) and atheism, which is an ideological stance which denies the existence of god. Note also, that the denial of the existence of god is the alternative in each of these definitions, to the initial definition of disbelief in god. Refusing to believe someone else's fairy tale about supernatural beings is simply that--disbelief. It is not the making of a claim which requires proof. PS is either stupendously naive, or is being willfully disingenuous by trying to claim that there is a standard definition of atheist which only entails a statement that there are no gods, and therefore obliges the atheist to prove a claim. Even were that the case, a claim that supernatural beings exist is an extraordinary claim, obliging the claimant to provide proof. A denial of such a claim entails no such obligation.

The specific topic of this thread is why some (and by no means all) atheists act as though atheism were a religion. For some, perhaps, it is a belief system which is equivalent to religion. This by no means authorizes the specious and self-serving contention that all atheists are adherents of a belief system equivalent to religion. PS is either playing fast and loose with the truth, because she can't handle the idea that her evangelizing agnosticism might be wrong; or, she is so naive as to actually believe that atheists can be so narrowly described as her simple-minded definitions would imply.

0 Replies

Thanks, set. That clears a bit of the air around here.

0 Replies

For what it's worth, here is what Encyclopedia Britannica says. Their introduction to the entry on "Atheism" reads like this:

Quote:

in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

In plain English, they are saying that nobody really knows what an atheist is.

0 Replies

Unbelief, there is a cozy word, rather close to the sense I have of the word atheism.

I had a friend who wrote for Brittanica, but n'er mind. Wasn't me, as is obvious from my posts, and is of no import to this discussion, but I mention it in memory of him.

On a2k, a couple of agnosticism proponents are multiply more aggressive about their viewpoints than their atheistic discussion colleagues.

0 Replies

Obviously, it depends on the person being quizzed what the definition of atheist is. I will never concede that somebody else has the right to define my thoughts for me in this area. That would just open another door to bigotry and opression.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know