Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
You know someone who claims to have flown on Concorde.
If I told you the names would it mean anything?
I know three or four people who claim to have been.
Which still doesn't alter the fact that knowing or not knowing someone who claims [X] is no evidence that [X] is supernatural.
You keep missing the point...
No. They really flew on the concorde.[/QUOTE]
At this point: NO.
You should start a thread on that. I would love to read about it and what they base it on.
Of course it is.
And you know this for a fact how?
Why should I start a thread on someone else's beliefs?
Wrong.
Do you know anyone that's made an Egyptian mummy?
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
If not would you claim that mummies are created by supernatural means?
Do you know anyone that's swum the English Channel?
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
If not do you claim that anyone who says they have actually didn't and has a belief in the supernatural?
The point is standard usage of terminology. While you can claim that atheism is a "lack of belief". You can even use abominable terminology such as weak/strong etc. Nonetheless, by standard, atheism is not used to describe a simple lack of belief including those who are on the fence, but to describe those believe there is no God.
And you know this for a fact how?
he was a pilot.
Why should I start a thread on someone else's beliefs?
Its none of my business.
Wrong.
According to you, but you dont believe people flew on the concorde.
Do you know anyone that's made an Egyptian mummy?
Yes
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
Yes
If not would you claim that mummies are created by supernatural means?
No, you would. That is according to your arguments here.
Do you know anyone that's swum the English Channel?
Yes
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
Yes
If not do you claim that anyone who says they have actually didn't and has a belief in the supernatural?
No, you would. That is according to your arguments here.
he was a pilot.
Why should I start a thread on someone else's beliefs?
Its none of my business.
Wrong.
According to you, but you dont believe people flew on the concorde.
Do you know anyone that's made an Egyptian mummy?
Yes
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
Yes
If not would you claim that mummies are created by supernatural means?
No, you would. That is according to your arguments here.
Do you know anyone that's swum the English Channel?
Yes
Do you know anyone that knows anyone that's done it?
Yes
If not do you claim that anyone who says they have actually didn't and has a belief in the supernatural?
No, you would. That is according to your arguments here.
The changes are in probabilities and likely alternatives alone - and quite disparate possibilities are included.quadro said:
They are not nearly, in sum or individually, the information you would get if I named my religion, rather than merely narrowing my range of cultural heritage.
And people never lie or make mistakes?
So why suggest I start a thread?
Wrong.
Ah, so you know people that are a couple of thousand years old?
My apologies. I hadn't realised you were quite so obtuse.
Last edited:
He does have a point, though, if one looks at it from the perspective of absolute scepticism. David Hume and all that.
By definition, most everyone.
Do you demand the same rigor for the term theist? If so, what is your universal definition theism and god that is universal to all theists? Perhaps once that is worked out atheists can conclusively assert a static position.
~Raithere
That theism, just like atheism, isn't a mere lack of belief. If somebody were to try to mix theism in with lack of belief that there is no God, I would see them in the same way as people who try to mix atheim in with the lack of belief that there is a God. I'm not going to deny that theism is a lack of belief that there is no God. Just like I'm not going to deny that atheism a lack of belief that there is a God. But both are more than mere lack of belief of something.
So it's not about being rigorous. I'm seeing a thread FULL of people posting "No! Atheism is not a religion! It's a lack of belief in God!". That's like going around telling people that "Theism is a lack of belief that there is no God." It's not about being "rigorous" per say. That's the same thing as saying somebody posting in a thread to tell others that 'atheism isn't a religion' is being rigorous.
The term itself, no matter how we define it, is going to get associated with Godlessness. The issue regarding the misuse of the term stems from people trying to apply Godlessness to themselves while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that they believe there is no God. They say nonsense like:
"It's not that I believe there is no God. It's that I simply lack the belief that there is a God. Yet I still want to be known as atheist."
So here we have somebody who claims to lack the belief in God. As well as claims to lack the belief that there is no God. A person who is truly undecided or apathetic about the matter is just as much 'with God' as he is 'without God'. Yet the only reason he would want to refer to himself as 'atheist" is because he wants to be considered Godless (associated with Godlesslness). The fact is this person isn't undecided on the matter. He really does believe that there is no God.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Atheism is much more than lack of belief in gods. I'm sure I've posted this before, but this thread has grown out of control so most of you probably either missed it or have forgotten it by now, and it's critically important to the topic.
Atheism is a textbook-perfect application of the scientific method to the issue of gods. The Rule of Laplace, one of the cornerstones of the method because it helps us allocate the scarce resources of science, admonishes us that an extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. There is no assertion more extraordinary than the existence of a supernatural universe full of creatures and forces that perturb the behavior of the natural universe, because it claims to falisify the fundamental principle of science that has been exhaustively tested for five centuries. (That the natural universe is a closed system--in laymen's language--whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.) Therefore, since there is no remotely respectable evidence for this assertion, it MUST be consigned to the realm of crackpottery and pseudoscience, and we are free (but not required) to tell the people who propose it to go fuck themselves.
At least here, one of the few places where the rules of political correctness do not require being polite to religion!
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *
Now I know for sure that this note is already on this thread, in bold red letters! Atheism is not a religion because it does not satisfy the definition of the word. The primary definition of "religion" includes belief in a god or gods. Period! So will everybody please put this sophistic argument to rest. It's bogus! Making an entire thread out of it is STOOPID!
Yes, there are secondary definitions of the word that don't include that requirement, but those are vernacular or portmanteau use of the word as a metaphor or an exaggeration. To tell a sports fan or a music fan that baseball or rap music is his religion is merely a friendly jibe that will evoke laughter. But to tell an atheist that atheism is his religion is an affront that only a militant religionist would make, in order to start a fiery argument.
This is just playing around with words. Sophomoric, not scholarly. Enough with this crap already!
Please close this thread, it has been going nowhere for days!
Let's try this ...
I am non-theist. I have ZERO beliefs. A belief is an irrational concept/construct with absolutely no supporting evidence other than hearsay.
It is irrelevant if ONE human believes it to be true, or a BILLION. Would you say that because I don't 'believe' in elves, I belong to a religion? This is utter nonsense.
The reality is ... the only difference between believing in elves, or gods, is somebody threw in some historical 'facts'.
Most every work of fiction ( excluding science fiction, and fantasy ) uses real places as the backdrop for their FICTICIOUS story. Many use real ( living or dead ) people, too.
I am over 50 years old. I was raised in a Christian family on a very devout Christian island. Yet I understood at age 4 that 'God' was nothing more than an extension of Man's ego, and arrogance. I have never ... not once ... 'believed' that such an entity existed.
Show me one IOTA of bonafide evidence that your god ( or for that matter elves ) exists, and I will reconsider my position.
It is so amusing that 'believers' find such illogical comfort in the numbers of people who share their beliefs. Even more amusing that the followers of ANY religion are certain that THEY have been selected for special treatment to the exclusion of all others.
Have any of you believers ever really contemplated what it would be like to exist FOREVER? I can not imagine a worse fate. Especially if I was forced to bow and worship some ( seriously psychopathic ) entity that never broke a sweat 'creating' me.
It further amuses me that you can ignore the REALITY that EVERYTHING in the universe is born, enjoys existence for some time ... then DIES. But you are excluded from this. You ... to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else in the universe. Could you be more arrogant?
Please don't tell me I BELIEVE there is no god. The onus of proof is on YOU to prove there IS a god.
To think you can make up any silly old 'belief' you want ... then tell me I must disprove it is insanity. Absolute total insanity.
And please don't tell me it's POSSIBLE. Or I will tell you it's POSSIBLE that Shakira will run out of gas at my driveway, be unable to use her cell phone ... ask to use mine ... fall in love with me ... and never leave.
At least I have a 'driveway'. And a door for her to knock on. And there is no cell service here as no tower is close enough. And I am reasonably good-looking, intelligent, and funny. AND SHAKIRA EXISTS. Lol.
I think MY possibility is WAY more likely than yours ....
I am non-theist. I have ZERO beliefs. A belief is an irrational concept/construct with absolutely no supporting evidence other than hearsay.
It is irrelevant if ONE human believes it to be true, or a BILLION. Would you say that because I don't 'believe' in elves, I belong to a religion? This is utter nonsense.
The reality is ... the only difference between believing in elves, or gods, is somebody threw in some historical 'facts'.
Most every work of fiction ( excluding science fiction, and fantasy ) uses real places as the backdrop for their FICTICIOUS story. Many use real ( living or dead ) people, too.
I am over 50 years old. I was raised in a Christian family on a very devout Christian island. Yet I understood at age 4 that 'God' was nothing more than an extension of Man's ego, and arrogance. I have never ... not once ... 'believed' that such an entity existed.
Show me one IOTA of bonafide evidence that your god ( or for that matter elves ) exists, and I will reconsider my position.
It is so amusing that 'believers' find such illogical comfort in the numbers of people who share their beliefs. Even more amusing that the followers of ANY religion are certain that THEY have been selected for special treatment to the exclusion of all others.
Have any of you believers ever really contemplated what it would be like to exist FOREVER? I can not imagine a worse fate. Especially if I was forced to bow and worship some ( seriously psychopathic ) entity that never broke a sweat 'creating' me.
It further amuses me that you can ignore the REALITY that EVERYTHING in the universe is born, enjoys existence for some time ... then DIES. But you are excluded from this. You ... to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else in the universe. Could you be more arrogant?
Please don't tell me I BELIEVE there is no god. The onus of proof is on YOU to prove there IS a god.
To think you can make up any silly old 'belief' you want ... then tell me I must disprove it is insanity. Absolute total insanity.
And please don't tell me it's POSSIBLE. Or I will tell you it's POSSIBLE that Shakira will run out of gas at my driveway, be unable to use her cell phone ... ask to use mine ... fall in love with me ... and never leave.
At least I have a 'driveway'. And a door for her to knock on. And there is no cell service here as no tower is close enough. And I am reasonably good-looking, intelligent, and funny. AND SHAKIRA EXISTS. Lol.
I think MY possibility is WAY more likely than yours ....
Beliefs can be rational, such as my belief in gravity. And yours.
No. Incorrect. The existence of gravity can be empirically tested. Measured. Observed. PROVEN. It is not a belief.
Good grief.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're misconstruing the meaning of the word "belief." There's nothing linguistically, logically, or scientifically wrong with saying that you believe in the law of gravity.
Scientific assertions can never be "proven true." They are only proven "true beyond a reasonable doubt." We don't know that some piece of new evidence won't arise in the future that will falsify any canonical theory, or at least force a major modification. This happens with enough regularity to keep us humble about the definition of "truth." Newton's Laws in the face of relativity, for example.
Only mathematical theories can be proven "completely true" because they deal only with abstractions and do not rely on evidence drawn from the physical universe. Scientific theories can only be proven false.
I think what you're trying to say is that belief can be rational or not. To believe in gravity is rational because five hundred years of modern science has found only supporting evidence for it and no contradictory evidence.
It's also rational for me to believe that my wife is trustworthy, since in 32 years she has always been so despite being provided with ample good reasons not to be; but still it's not as rational as my belief in the law of gravity. Therefore it seems that there must be degrees of rationality.
The detective who believes that the butler did it is being rational because he sees plenty of evidence to accuse the butler, plus a certain je-ne-sais-quoi that the other detectives don't see. Nonetheless this belief falls lower on the rationality scale than gravity or my wife's reliability.
Everyone has hunches and many of them are based on a little evidence. Again, rational, and again, a little further still down the scale.
It's when people believe in things with no evidence at all, or only with evidence that professional scientists can easily discredit, that they are irrational. They become even more irrational if their belief is extraordinary, invoking the Rule of Laplace and requiring extraordinary evidence before anyone else is obliged to treat it with respect. This is where religion falls. All the evidence is inherited from the prescientific era, and often even earlier than that, back in the Neolithic Era.
Religion is the most extraordinary of all assertions since it contradicts science itself. Yet it not only completely lacks extraordinary evidence, it lacks any respectable evidence at all.
Wrong. A belief is nothing more than a conclusion about a proposition. It doesn't matter if you used the scientific method, visual perception, or the toothfairy told you. If you affirm that X is true, you believe that X is true.
The statement "I believe" is not the same thing as the state of belief. The statement "I believe" simply means that you may have not passed the threshold of certainty. Thereby, you consider the matter inconclusive.
For example:
"I believe that X is true." might mean that you are inconclusive, and that you don't necessarily possess the belief that X is definitely true.
Meanwhile, the statement "I know for a fact that X is true." is a statement of conclusion signifying that you possess the belief that X is true.
Please review the breakdown of how knowledge/belief works: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2457042&postcount=1.
LOL
That's the funniest thing you've ever posted 'luke.
Correction: "Please review the breakdown of how I think knowledge/belief works:"