PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
There are reasons that some atheists have taken this approach, but it has to do more with separation of church and state issues. Many atheists try to establish churches to get tax-exempt status to make the point to Christians who do the same thing and have a problem with atheists doing it; the point is hypocricy.
No. The reason is that atheism and evolution are not related. Being an atheist does not make you a supporter of evolution any more than being a supporter of evolution makes you an atheist. tehre are atheists who don't accept evolution and many theists who do accept evolution. Schools should teach evolution through natural selection because its a solidly supported theory.
The legal issue I'll defer to lawyers. From a philosophical sense, atheism can't be a religion. It's my opinion that if any religion is taught by publicly-funded institutions, then many (or all, if possible) should be taught.
Agreed, so long as you realize that atheism is not a set of beliefs at all, but a lack of one particular belief; lack of belief in any gods.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Actually, atheism is not the lack of a belief; it is the belief in no gods and all the ramifications that entails. Agnosticism is closer to a lack of belief...although even that is the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to believe one way or the other.
To put it even more simply, you guys would certainly say that you believe there is no god, yes?
Perhaps atheism is the lack of a religeous belief, but it certainly is a belief nonetheless.
Spork, welcome to the forums.
No, you are simply incorrect.
Atheism/theism deals with what one believes or disbelieves. A theist is someone who believes in a god; theism is the belief in god. atheism--from theism with the prefix a-, which denotes the lack of--means lack of theism
Agnosticism, from the Greek a- and gnosis (knowledge), means lack of knowledge. This deals with epistemology--what one knows--and I would argue that everyone is an agnostic (I don't agree with those that say they know a god exists or with anyone who says taht they know that no god exists).
I would say that I believe there is no god. what's important is tha the only criteria necessary to be an atheist is the lack of belief in any gods; any belief in addition to that, including the belief taht there is no god, is strictly in addition to atheism.
You could also read this thread;
Am I agnostic or atheist?
Or the following article which deals with the same questio somewhat;
Is atheism a religion?
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I hope that taking a thread slightly off-topic with this sort of argument is acceptable. Anyway:
Atheism is as much a belief or set of beliefs as theism. If you argue that atheism is not a belief (i.e., I do not believe in god), then theism is not a belief in the same way (I do not believe in no god).
See Wikipedia's article on -ism's here:
I have bolded the two categories that I think fit our definition the best.
I would say that holding to a belief such as atheism also makes one more inclined to behave in certain ways based on that belief; for example, an athiest is more likely to believe that integral knowledge for living a "good" life is not found in the bible or in church. As you say, those beliefs are not necessitated by being an atheist, but in the same way neither are the opposite beliefs necessitated by being a theist. Therefore, if you claim that atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs, neither is theism.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement and you also would say that theism is not a belief either. Clarification?
I concede you've got me on agnosticism. Many people I talk to who claim to be agnostics attempt to seperate themselves from being theistic or atheistic, as some sort of third category, but you're absolutely right with that definition. I also applaud what you say about not being able to actually know anything. I find the idea that something is known with 100% certainty to be rather arrogant. (Perhaps apart from things like "I think, therefore I am," if you really want to get into it...I'd rather not.
)
Again, theism is a belief in some god(s), and atheism is the lack of that belief. When you put the prefix 'a-' on a word, it means the negation of it or simply 'not'; atheism means 'not a theist'.
Example:
Moral; amoral. Amoral means without moral consideration.
The -ism suffix only denotes to the 'theism;' it is that which is the belief. the a- attached to it simply negates the belief system. The word atheism is derived from a- + -theism, not from athe- + -ism.
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
The way this discourse usually goes is that atheism is not a religeon just as theism is also not a religeon. Christianity is an example of a religeon, and there is no simple representative athiestic analogue. You can read about what may be considered some atheistic religeons here, however some of them may fit better under the heading of pantheism.
Theism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism are core beliefs, on a much deeper level than beliefs derived from them (i.e. religeons).
What I usually say regarding theism and atheism is that theism is a positive assertion, and atheism a negative one. The negative assertion makes much more sense in this context because the positive one (religion) wholly lacks veracity. Since nothing can be stated with absolute 100% certianty, it is impossible to be fully certain. However, there is a fundamental distinguishing between
I believe X is not true
I do not beleive X is true
Statement 1 is positive and in the context of God, is not applicable. Statement one is faith-based. Statement 2 on the other hand, is negative, and makes sense in this context because the theist's assertion:
X is true
Is not verifiable or sensible.
Thus an atheist who makes a negative assertion requires no more faith than the average person who dismisses the idea of goats made of cheese living on the moon. Not because they can be 100% certian that it does not occur, but they can be so sure that they can dismiss it out of hand, and because, well, it is, after all, ridiculous.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Atheism is not strictly a negative assertment, though. It is both a no to gods and a yes to no gods. It is true that we cannot know something with absolute certainty, but just as theists cannot know there is a god, atheists cannot know there is not a god (as ShaunPhilly has already pointed out).
For example, what if the meaning of the words were reversed? For lack of better terms, I will use the word naturalism to mean belief that the world is bound only by natural forces and anaturalism to mean disbelief that the world is bound only by natural forces (or, as is logical, the belief that the world is not bound only by natural forces). The naturalists with their positive assertion cannot be 100% certain, but neither can the anaturalists, even should they decide to dismiss it out of hand.
Atheism is unavoidably the belief in no god. You cannot rationally state that it is not. If the definition and use of a word can render the sort of immunity you describe, then we could easily adapt all words to be an absence of belief rather than a negation.
Once again, I'll state: atheism is not a religion. Theism is not a religion. If you disagree with either of these statements, please say so directly so I can address you properly.
Atheism is not strictly a negative assertment, though. It is both a no to gods and a yes to no gods. It is true that we cannot know something with absolute certainty, but just as theists cannot know there is a god, atheists cannot know there is not a god (as ShaunPhilly has already pointed out).
I personally hold true to: I believe X is not true. I have never stated in a flat-out positive assertion: God does not exist.
Once again, I'll state: atheism is not a religion. Theism is not a religion. If you disagree with either of these statements, please say so directly so I can address you properly.
I think here it is important to define the concept of God, and what some atheists mean when they explicity state there is no God. When atheists say this, they are referring to the Gods of religion. Yahweh, Jesus and Allah etc. The Gods of religion are clearly mythology and we can be extremely sure of this. However, the philosophical pantheist concept of God as correctly applied merely refers vaguely to some spiritual force of the universe. This concept cannot be dismissed out of hand. I think atheists are very troubled by the way "god" "religion" "theism" are inherently interchangeable in today's society.
I think you will find a lot that on this site religious theism is ridiculed alot, because it is ridiculous. To deny religious theism does not require faith for reasons which I outlined in the previous post. However, explicit denial of pantheism does require faith. Therefore, I do not explicitly deny pantheism.
Not all religion is theism (Buddhism)
And not all theism is religion (pantheism)
BUt when the two concepts are meshed together, they become an inherently ridiculous dogma that it takes no faith to dismiss it out of hand.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm in agreement with what you wrote, however, I am focusing on the legal nuances of claiming that atheism is a religion. This sets up a contradiction because atheism is not a religion. I think the legal consequences presents a problem despite gaining tax exemption or pointing out hypocrisy.
You're correct, evolution is not exclusive to atheism (just like gravity), however, theories built upon the supernatural aren't exclusive to a particular brand of religion and certainly some moral or spiritual theories do cross-over to atheists. The problem is that religious fundamentalist could claim that scientific tenets are a belief system that treads upon the domain of religion. Atheism (a lack of belief, or a skeptic’s belief, in god) could translate into everything being considered as "religious" in nature.
The problem is claiming that atheism is a religion puts skepticism and empiricism on equal footing with the supernatural. They are simply not equal.
According to you, atheism states that "I do not believe in a god, but god may still exist," and theism states that "I believe in a god, and he definitely exists." But where in the word theism is the automatically assumed certainty? Just as a word like atheism doesn't imply any set of religeous beliefs that go along with it, neither does the word theism imply that god definitely exists. You may get the impression that it does because so many theists are stubbornly adamant about it, but words themselves carry no such emphatic insistence, especially words as vague as these.
It would be like saying, "I own a pet cat," and your response is "I don't believe that, and since your statement implies 100% certainty then I can automatically dismiss your claim as nonsense."
The fact is, people do not speak on those terms. It is understood that any truth claim at all is a personal belief that it is true, not that the stated claim must be true.
As another example, if you were to say that you are an atheist (a positive assertion), by your logic one could retort that you cannot be 100% certain of that so naturally we can dismiss your claim.
If someone is a religious theist, you can be sure that they are sure that God exists.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It seems we have gone off topic. I will repeat the premise
When we distill God down to the philosophical concept, atheism and theism do not require more faith then the other. In this context we refer to theism as pantheism.
religious theism is packaged in idiotic mythology, dogma and rituals that are based on holy books and ridiculous concepts like the afterlife. God is reduced to some kind of thing created in the image of man, an anthropomorphic lawlayer, a vindictive judge coated in supernatural babble and nonsensical concepts. You can be damn sure that this does require a lot of faith.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
To quote dictionary.com:
Wait, religious belief? Apparently pantheism is also an instance of this "religious theism" which is inherently to be reviled.
You can level your arguments against monotheism if you like, but theism as a whole is not inherently dogmatic or faith-requiring. It is on the same broad footing as atheism.
Off-base yet again. "Philosophical theism" is not pantheism. Pantheism is a subset of theism, along with monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, and more. You can see it classified as such in the taxonomy
Precisely why I needed to ensure that when stating theism, such distinguishings need to be made.
You can level your arguments against monotheism if you like, but theism as a whole is not inherently dogmatic or faith-requiring. It is on the same broad footing as atheism.
OK, I'll be more clear. Supernaturalism, dogmatism, monotheism, polytheism, any theism which is based on an institutional medium (the church or the mosque) etc. is ridiculous and babble-based.
Clear?
Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions and mythology,
as well as personal faith and mystic experience.
The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth.
In Bold=Stupid
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thanks for the definition of religion, but that isn't what we were discussing in the first place. The words were "theism" and "atheism," and you tried to claim that "theism" asserts much more than "atheism..." which it does not. "Religion" and "atheism" assert different things, but at that point there's no sense in comparing the words. Apples to oranges.
I find this a bit humorous, as you were the one who said earlier in this thread:
And then you went ahead and used religion and theism interchangably.
I think you are referring to this old post of mine?:
What I usually say regarding theism and atheism is that theism is a positive assertion, and atheism a negative one. The negative assertion makes much more sense in this context because the positive one (religion) wholly lacks veracity.
Theism (of any kind) is indeed a positive assertion. This per se does not make it false. However, when I said the assertion lacked veracity, you notice I put brackets around religion not theism.
Seems to me we are splitting definition hairs
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Splitting hairs or no, it doesn't hurt to be perfectly clear on the meaning of words. It is especially important in discussions of this type. I'm sure you're also sick and tired of people saying atheism = evolution = abiogenesis.
One more thing: are you still equating theism with religion?
I see that and can't conceive how it could be interpreted differently.
I should then retract it, but it is too late to edit it. Rereading it, you are obviously right. I shouldn't equate religion with theism. I appreciate this definition discussion because a great many people think of "God" as some bearded white guy and they think of "theism" as going to church.
Yes, I am damned sick and tired of atheism=evolution. Nearly every theist in the world accepts evolution and it does not diminish belief in God in the slightest. In the United States (and Islamic countries), the situation, obviously, is wholly different.
And I am even more sick of evolution=abiogenesis.
And I have to leave. I'm going to Ho Chi Minh city in half an hour.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thank you for the discussion, too. I apologize if I was too insistent on pushing the point or if I misread/misinterpreted anything you said.
Carry on!
Personally, I pray three times a day to No-God, making sure to face Darwin's grave every time. I have made a pilgrammige to Darwin's grave, as well as three to Sam Harris' house (after the third, the restraining order was served). I read the atheist bible (which is every book that isn't an actual holy book) every day. I also hand out cartoons by an atheist cartoonist (Charles Schulz). I don't know about you guys, but when No-God finally comes back to earth, I'll be ready.
Seriously, atheism as a religion is a silly notion.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Just to add one more level of confusion... Many atheists differentiate between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" where "weak atheism" says, "I don't have any god beliefs, but I don't know if any gods exist". And "strong atheism" states that "no gods exist".
I agree with Dan Barker who says he's a "weak atheist" in terms of any possible god, but a "strong atheist" in terms of the alleged gods he knows of, Jesus, Zeus, Allah, etc. I can't say there is no "god" of any sort, depending on what a "god" might be defined as. But, I'm pretty dang certain that Jesus and the other Abrahamic religions are myth.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
Of course, as an atheist, I agree with you. Nor is atheism a "wordview". Yet, I do think that atheism is a part of some "worldviews" such as "secular humanism". I know that I look at the world differently now than I did when I was a theist, and my atheism is part of my current "worldview". So when a theist says that "atheism is a religion", though I know it isn't correct, I usually just interperet it to mean "atheism is a part of most atheists worldview" and figure that the theist can't tell the distinction.
www.caseagainstfaith.com