I wouldn’t call atheism a religion, but I’d say that it is a sort of faith. Faith in the idea that god doesn’t exist. It’s a belief system, to be sure.
Back when I was working out what I believe personally the most challenging thing was dedicating myself to the idea that God doesn’t exist. Part of me was worried then...what if God does exist and I end up getting the short end of the stick?
But I worked past it. That threat of “If you don’t believe you’ll rot in hell” is probably why so many people who aren’t exactly devoted Christians don’t 100% renounce their faith. They’re just hedging their bets.
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
They’re just hedging their bets.
I once had a “Christian” say to me: “What happens if I am wrong? What happens if you are wrong?”
It was a good question, one that I still battle.
When I call Atheism a religion, I’m really talking more about the fundamentalist or extremist atheists’… but either way, it’s a faith based belief in the absence in God… as you note. 
I once had a “Christian” say to me: “What happens if I am wrong? What happens if you are wrong?”
One can make up any tale that has a horrible fate for non-believers and ask, “What happens if its true?” Pascal’s wager does not move me.
I think atheism and religion are kin insofar as both seek explanation. Both purport something or another to be the case based on belief. Our psychology is such so that it becomes disturbed when brushing against ‘the abyss’. Its much more comfortable to have an explanation for the unexplainable, even if its silly or concerning a subject beyond explanation. Both seek some comfort in imposing certainty upon a chaotic mess.
Ethan Allen (abolitionist, revolutionary, famous Vermonter (but not American contrary to common belief)) has a bizarre quote that I am fond of. A nice little mindfuck for atheists and theists alike:
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason.
Woah. Where to go from there?
I wonder if many who consider themself atheist are actually agnositic. It seems to me many professing atheists simply believe the question—Does God exist—cannot be answered with certainty and therefore leave off any investigation. A true atheist will positively deny any possibility of the existence of God.
FYI: Ethan Allen petitioned for Vermont’s inclusion in the US, but died in 1789, two years before Vermont became the 14th state. He also is credited with the first anti-slavery act on N. America when he left Benedict Arnold on the Vermont side of Lake Champlain (wanting the country of Vermont to have sole credit w/ only US cooperation) and took Fort Ticonderoga in the middle of the night from the Brits, freed their slaves, and stole all their rum. I think his main motivation for leaving Arnold on the other side of the lake during the raid was his overriding desire to lay claim to ALL the Brits rum. He later wrote an apology letter to Britain for taking the rum, but not for freeing the slaves.
If you go and tour Fort Ticonderoga, they frame it as being taken by US forces, but us Vermonters know that’s a bunch of wishful horse pockey.
I am considering a post on the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and ontological proofs of the existence of God. I’ll probably break each one down into a small series of posts, but even then it will take 10-15 posts to cover all four.
HG, I’ve found that a lot of atheists find themselves actually believing in a higher power. It’s just organized religion that they hate. Mostly due to some childhood event that caused them to not like it. Like mommy making them going to Sunday school or something. Which is exactly why most of them are shrill and not worth listening to.
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Sparkie, the idea that Ethan Allen wasn’t an American is pretty naive. He wasn’t a fan of the continental Congress after the war, and he was charged with treason for trying to negotiate with the British for the inclusion of Vermont with Canada, but that’s a bit misleading. It’s pretty clear that Allen’s negotiations with the Brits were to gain leverage with Congress to declare Vermont an independent state.
And you cannot discount his fierce leadership during the revolution. To me, Allen is the quintessential American. Independent to a fault, and unwilling to simply bow down to any authority, American or other.
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
The wonder then turns on the is great process, by which a man could grow to the immense inteligence that can know that there is no God.
...
This intelligence involve sthe very attributes of Divininty, while a God is denied. For unless this man is onmipresent, unless he is at this moment in every place in the universe, he cannot know but there may be in some place manifestations of a Deity, by which even he would be overpowered. If he does not know absolutely every agent in the universe, the one that he does not know may be God. If he is not himself the chief agent in the universe, and does not know what is so, that which is so may be God. If he is not in absolute possesssion of all the proposititions that constitute universal truth, the one which he wants may be that there is a God. If he cannot with certainty assign the cause of all that he perceives to exist, that cause may be a God. If he does not know every thing that has been done in immeasurable ages that are past, some things may have been done by God. Thus, unless he know all things, that is, precludes another Deity by being one himself, he cannot know that the Being whose existence he rejects does not exist. But he must know that he [God] does not exist, else he deserves equal contempt and compassion for the temerity with which he firmly avows his rejection and acts accordingly—John Foster (1770-1843)
Atheism is not a religion, belief system, ideology, or anything similar.
A lack of belief is not the same as a belief — that’s as incoherent as saying that lacking a million dollars is the same as being a millionaire.
Atheism is not faith in the nonexistence of any gods.
Atheists have no reason to fear being wrong — it’s a silly question derived from a horrendously flawed argument.
Sorry Joe, atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
Rob, wouldn’t an Atheist that believes in a higher power be an Agnostic?
That was a great quote, HG.
I so love that avatar, Sparkie! Where in Vermont do you live? I went to a little school in Saxtons River.
Rob, wouldn’t an Atheist that believes in a higher power be an Agnostic?
Well, yeah, but don’t tell most atheists that.
Also, methinks Joe is one of those atheist zealots who wants to tell all other atheists what they should believe (or not believe) in order to belong to the one true faith of atheism. You know, the ones I’ve been telling you about.
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Joe,
Can any theist prove the existence of God? They believe in God by faith, correct?
Can an Atheist prove the non-existence of God? They believe that there is no God by faith.
Both groups believe in something that they can not prove. This is the very definition of religion.
Both groups attempt to convert others to their line of thinking.
Extremist atheists will try to convert others to their line of thinking by force if necessary. They use the power of the state to subvert or diminish the religion of others. Just like other religions.
Sorry Joe… It’s it a belief that you can’t prove, you might as well call it a religion…
You know, the ones I’ve been telling you about.
We fit that, as does my wife, a Christian.
Joe is an example of the atheist who thinks he’s smarter than all of us dumb believers. He thinks he knows something we don’t know, because he doesn’t believe in something. Curious.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
And as I keep saying, moderate Christians and Atheists don’t really care about forcing anything on anyone
Actually, I’m a fundamentalist Christian, and do not believe in forcing Christianity on anyone because it is offered to “whosoever will”—not my will forced upon another.
You know, the ones I’ve been telling you about.
Rob,
I think the last sentence of Foster’s quote above fits the “ones” you’re telling us about.
Sparkie, the idea that Ethan Allen wasn’t an American is pretty naive.
No it ain’t. He’s American as in he was a resident of N. America. Citizenship wize, he was never an American. Furthermore he never fought ‘for America’. He fought for his own autonomy from Britain, NH, and NY… as I said.
Sparkies avitar is awesome, my kind of girl. Second so let me get this right, not believing in God is a relgion. I though being an atheist meant you weren’t religious?
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
No, Rob, I’m not telling anyone what to believe. I’m simply informing you about what atheism actually is and that Seth’s post is incorrect. I’ve provided links, then and now, as references. The facts and information are available for anyone who cares..
If anyone has a case to make for their position, then they should make it. If not, then please do continue substituting ad hominems and unsupported assertions for substantive discussion. In the end, it only serves to undermine the credibility of witnesses for religious theism.
Sorry, HG, that’s not the definition of atheism.
No, Seth, atheism is not defined as the belief that there is no God - by faith or otherwise.
No, the definition of religion is most certainly not “belief in something you cannot prove.” A religion is, at a bare minimum, a belief system — so even if atheism were a belief that could not be proven, it wouldn’t be a religion because a single belief cannot also be a belief system. There are atheistic religions, just as there are theistic religions, but neither mere atheism nor mere theism can be religions all by themselves.
No, Robert, I’m not claiming to be smarter than “dumb believers” — it’s just that some believers here are ignorant of what atheism is whereas I am not. I’m sure I am ignorant of things you know very well. That’s simply the way things work. What’s truly curious is the unwillingness of believers here to learn something new and preferring instead to adhere to prior assumptions or prejudices.
Goon: atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not the absence of religion. Some religions are atheistic, in that they reject or at least ignore gods (Religious Humanism, Ethical Culture, Raelians, some forms of Buddhism, a couple of forms of Hinduism, etc.).
Most atheists in the West are also irreligious, but that’s a product of accidental historical factors and not due to anything about atheism itself.
atheism is the absence of belief in gods
Joe, You have a good argument, but the fact is that the absence of belief is STILL a belief… You can’t just “not believe” in something. That disbelief is still, a belief.
For instance, if you ask me if I believe in the moon and I say “no”, then I must believe there is no moon.
If you say “I don’t know” then you are an agnostic… or agmoonstic…
...atheism itself…
Sounds like a religion to me. According to Joe, it has a central authority which defines it. It has a “self”.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Sparkie, Where do you live in VT? Southern /Northern will do…
I attended a small school in Saxtons River. Grew up just south of Keene, NH.
What’s truly curious is the
unwillingness of believers here to learn something new and preferring instead to adhere to prior assumptions or prejudices.
Yes, Joe; I’m sure we ignorant believers can learn a lot from you.
Like I said before…
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Seth: an absence of belief is no more a belief than an absence of car is the same as possessing a car. That mistake is rebutted in one of the first links I gave. The crucial distinction which you seem to be missing is the logical difference between “not believe the truth of some proposition” and “believe that some proposition is not true.”
No, Robert, there is no “central authority” defining atheism besides the dictionary and general usage among atheists. Of course, the existence or absence of a “central authority” isn’t a defining characteristic of religion.
There’s no shame in being ignorant about something, Robert - we’re all ignorant about most of the topics in existence. The only shame is pretending that you aren’t ignorant and refusing to take a look at new information which might lead to the realization that one has been mistaken about something.
It’s worth noting, Robert, that thus far you have chosen to do little more than toss out short denials and thinly veiled ad hominems; at no point have you offered anything remotely like an argument for your position or a substantive rebuttal to anything I’ve written (or on any of the links provided). Contrast that with what Seth has written, and you will see a dramatic difference in attitudes — a difference that carries both ethical and intellectual implications. The question which you should be asking yourself is: do you have anything of substance to add or offer? If you do, please post it; if not, what is your motivation for posting?
Of course, the existence or absence of a “central authority” isn’t a defining characteristic of religion.
Are you serious? It’s the main characteristic of a religion.
As far as the rest of your attack on me is concerned, it appears to be just some more of your self-arrogated intellectual superiority, which was my point in the first place. Thanks for the corroboration!
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Joe: A few words of explanation. For me, the existence of God is not debateable. For you, it isn’t debateable either, from the opposite perspective. I have no interest in debating God with you, nor do I wish to spend any of my time going back and forth about it. As far as I’m concerned, you are totally welcome to your opinions on the subject. I notice, however, that you don’t think I’m welcme to my opinions. How sad. God exists, no matter what you or I think. My belief has nothing whatsoever to do with God, nor does your non-belief.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
No, Robert, central authority isn’t the “main characteristic” of a religion. To cite just one example: mystics are undeniably religious yet many eschew any central, organized authorities. A central authority is typically a feature of a religious organization, but not necessarily of religion.
I never attacked you Robert, I pointed out that what you wrote thus far lacks substance — you do not offer any arguments in defense of your position nor do you write any rebuttals to what I have said. That’s a lack of substance (which, contrary to what some may think, it’s the same as having substance). I’ve pointed out your ignorance about this subject, but that isn’t an attack — everyone is ignorant of many things. Contrast that with your accusations about me — and all based on nothing more than having the temerity to disagree with you!
I’m also not debating the existence of any gods with you. Whether you believe in any gods or not is irrelevant to me. I’m simply pointing out that all of your crass assumptions about atheists — myself included — are incorrect. It’s shameful when a person prefers to listen to their own prejudices about others rather than open the minds a little and pay attention to what others are saying about themselves. It signifies that in your interactions with atheists, all you really care about is your stereotypes about them — atheists as genuine human beings play no role. In my experience, this is always the most significant step in the dehumanization of others.
I have not given you my “opinions” about the subject; I have provided many references to dictionaries, usage among atheists, and explanations about why atheism is defined more broadly than you have assumed in the past. These are facts, not opinions. I don’t know if you have read any of this, but if you haven’t then you have no excuse for acting like I’ve merely offered an opinion. If you have, then you have no excuse for not responding more substantively. You are entitled to your opinions on the matter, but unless and until you can support your position with substantive and well-referenced arguments, you will have nothing more than unsupported and empty assertions.
The crucial distinction which you seem to be missing is the logical difference between “not believe the truth of some proposition” and “believe that some proposition is not true.”
Joe,
The “crucial distinction” you see looks like the difference between agnostic and atheist based on the link you provided.
What your link demonstrates is skepticism (varying degrees of doubt).
Atheists positively deny any possible existence of God, while the agnostic will not. Rather, the agnostic will say God cannot be proven to exist any more than God can be proven not to exist.
HG: No, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism rests on the question of knowledge. Atheism and theism deal with what does or does not believe; they do not address what one knows (or claims to know). Agnosticism is about knowledge (specifically: claiming that one does not or cannot know). Agnosticism is not a “third option” between atheism and theism because it’s about a separate subject.
You’ll note that the “crucial distinction” I describe is solely about belief — knowledge isn’t mentioned. An agnostic may believe that a god exists (perhaps based on faith) or they may not bother. The former is an agnostic theist, the latter is an agnostic atheist.
If you followed one link, you should follow the others which demonstrate that neither comprehensive and unabridged dictionaries, nor most specialized reference works, nor general usage among atheists support the claim that atheism is defined as “positively denial of any possible existence of God.” Indeed, what sort of support do you even have for the claim? I see it repeated more than once here, but no one offers a shred of evidence in defense of it.
Please, if you’re going to dispute something which I have said and offered evidence to support, then disagree by offering counter-arguments and counter-evidence. Simply repeating the original claim as if no arguments and evidence had been offered against it doesn’t make sense. You said it once, and I believe that you believe it. There’s no value in merely repeating it, but there is value in being able to support it.
A’THEIST, a. Atheistical; disbelieving or denying the being of a Supreme God. (Webster)
Agnosticism is about knowledge (specifically: claiming that one does not or cannot know).
I agree. My statement about agnoticism is the application to the claim of the existence of God.
You seem hung up on the theoretical. Practically applied the atheist will deny the existence of God and the agnostic will be indifferent to the same.
HG: Thanks for posting that definition. Now, if you follow the dictionary link I’ve given two times already (three times, now), you’ll learn why it actually defines atheism more broadly than you realize.
I’m not “hung up on the theoretical.” I’ve given many links here so far to atheists defining atheism more broadly than you treat it. I can give many more, if you wish — that isn’t theory, that reality. The reality is: atheists define atheism as the absence of belief in gods. They will go on to deny the existence of this or that proposed god if warranted, or not if not warranted.
Some atheisst are also agnostics, some aren’t — just as is the case with theists. Agnostics are not necessarily “indifferent” to the existence of gods. Some agnostic theists might be very devout in their faith, even if they deny that they can know for sure. The great medieval Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonedes is regarded by many as agnostic, and no one would accuse him of indifference.
Do note that denying the existence of some gods still fits in the category of “absence of belief in gods” because even if someone denies all gods, they still lack belief in gods. This broad definition simply sets the outer boundaries of the entire category of atheism, it doesn’t define the exact position of every atheist.
It might help to compare this to theism: broadly defined, it’s simply the belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort. This is the outer boundary of theism, a broad definition that covers all possible theistic positions. Some theists may just belief in a god that they cannot and do not define. Others belief in a narrowly defined god. Others believe in many gods. Some say they know for sure their god exists, others do not. There is much variation, but all fits in the broad concept of “theism.”
Joe,
Nice form, Sir.
I have to continue to disagree:
The most vapid forms of Atheists can be seen trying to remove any and all religious symbols from the public view. These I refer to as extremist atheists, party because they refer to themselves as atheist.
The word “Theist” means to believe in a God or Gods. “A” is a prefix that means “not” or “lack of” (but generally, just “not"). ATheist, therefore is someone who does NOT believe in a God or Gods.
atheism
nDefinition: belief there is no god
Antonyms: belief, godliness, piety, religion
an absence of belief is no more a belief than an absence of car is the same as possessing a car.
A lack of ownership is not the same as a lack of belief. If you believe that you have a car, and you don’t then you’re just deluded… Belief is a mental state. You have three options, believe, disbelieve, or have no idea.
I may believe in my chair, but whether or not I do… it still supports me. If you don’t believe that I have a chair, then you have a belief that I do not have a chair. It’s not a lack of belief in the existence of the term or the concept as if you had no knowledge of what a chair is… you would NOT believe in my chair. Had you never known what a chair was, you might have a case for your argument.
I did a Goggle search on ”atheism definition” and found several links that define atheism in the way I describe.
atheism: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
atheism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
We can certainly play paste the links… but in the end we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this.
If all (A)theists were more like Rob (and myself, I’ll add), then I may not have come to the conclusion that I have reached. It’s the vitriol that the extremists spew that led me to think of atheism as a religion… just like global warming… just like Islam, just like Christianity… etc…
Seth
I grew up near Pittsford, VT in the woods. I no longer live their although I still vote and go to town meeting there.
Do note that denying the existence of some gods still fits in the category of “absence of belief in gods” because even if someone denies all gods, they still lack belief in gods.
Fair enough, but it does back up my claim that atheism positively denies any possible existence of God. Atheist claim to have a knowledge of theistic claims and have rejected those claims. So for all intents and purposes atheism claims no God exists or can exist upon known theistic claims. In the real world we live and breathe in, atheists deny the existence of any God.
I can appreciate some of the distinctions you make. Some might take issue with placing polytheism, and pantheism under theism, but for the sake of this discussion it seems fair enough. The belief issue does enter into the fray when we discover why theistic claims are rejected by atheists.
I intend to post on naturalistic theism, I’ll be interested to know if you are familiar with the claims and why you reject said claims.
I was going to say something, but Sparkie’s new avatar distracted me. WOW!
BTW, where did the avatar come from?
To cite just one example: mystics are undeniably religious yet many eschew any central, organized authorities.
Mystics, unless they are mystics attached to a particular religion(Christian mystics, for example), tend to be spiritual, rather than religious.
Like most egotistical intellectuals, you confuse appeal to authority with knowledge. I always speak from personal experience, so your links are meaningless to me. Your opinions are your own, no matter how much you believe that they are somehow superior to mine. On this forum, it is your ideas that count, not how many authorities(in your opinion) you can cite. Sorry, no dice.
All “linkers” simply choose the links that reinforce their point or points, which renders that sort of dialogue meaningless. I have no doubt that you are passionate in your belief, as I am in mine. In reality, we are two equal human beings. I know that’s hard for you to accept, but it’s true.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Please cite examples of atheists trying to remove “any an all religious symbols from public view.” I’ve seen atheists arguing for removing religious symbols from government property, but I’ve seen theists joining those arguments — and that isn’t the same as removing all religious symbols from public view. What you need to support this claim are examples of atheists arguing for the removal of religious symbols that are in public view, but located on private property (front lawns, churches, etc.). I’m sure you can find one or two (even though I’ve never heard of them) — but those couple of rare birds doesn’t justify what you said.
You are correct that a-theism is one who does not believe in any gods. The prefix “a” means “not” in the sense of “absence, privation.” Compare with: a-moral, a-political, a-synchronous, a-tonal. The phrase “not believe X” is not equivalent to “believe not-X”. This means that if I do not believe that you have a chair, it’s not the same as believing you do not have a chair. Not agreeing that some claim is true doesn’t mean that I therefore assert that the claim is false — logically or linguistically.
Since you surely do have a chair, change the subject to something else: a red car. You ask me if I accept the truth of the proposition “Seth owns a red care” My answer: no, I do not. I do not believe “Seth owns a red car.” I lack enough information about you to accept the truth of that proposition. I also do not have enough information to deny the truth of that proposition. When I say “I do not believe Seth owns a red car,” you cannot deduce that I believe “Seth does not own a red car.” I am an “agnostic atheist” with regards to that proposition: I don’t know if it’s true or not and I don’t believe it.
It is not true that we have three options, “believe, disbelieve, or have no idea.” The latter, “have no idea,” is another way of saying “don’t know” and therein lies the reason why those are not three interchangeable options: belief and knowledge are separate issues. They are related, yes, but still separate. “I don’t know if it is true or not” is not answer to the question “do you believe it is true or not?” You may indeed not know if it is true or not, but both the presence and absence of belief are compatible with not knowing. Indeed, I’d argue that since we cannot know most things for sure, most of our beliefs exist in the context of an absence of knowledge.
If I ask if you believe something is true or not, you may legitimately offer that you don’t know what you *should* believe (because the evidence is so conflicting, for example), but despite that a belief is either present or it is not. I’ll even allow that you keep waffling back and forth: in the morning you believe it, but by evening you’ve reconsidered and don’t believe again. Still, there’s a belief or there’s not.
There are only two options: either a belief is present, or it is not. If you are a competent adult, you should be able to determine if a belief is present in your mind or not. You may not be sure if you *should* believe or not, but you should know if the belief is *present* or not.
I’m sure you’ll find many Christian sites defining atheism narrowly, but which do you think is more credible: independent dictionaries and atheists themselves, or people who deny that atheists have any reason to be rational and moral? Besides, the definition you cite is much broader than you realize, but you would realize it if you followed the dictionary link I’ve given three times already (four times, now).
If you wish to “agree to disagree,” fine — but you must face a couple of facts: nearly all comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries define atheism broadly and have done so for more than a century; most atheists define atheism broadly have done so since at least the 18th century. If you wish to insist that atheism be defined narrowly, then it’s in the face of and against all evidence.
Finally, I must object quite strongly to saying “It’s the vitriol that the extremists spew that led me to think of atheism as a religion…” It may sound strange to hear from an irreligious atheist, but “religion” is not “spewing vitriol.” I can be very critical of religion, but religion can be devoid of “vitriol” while non-religious ideologies can be filled with it. Treating something “as a religion” because you see someone spewing “vitriol” implies that this is somehow part of the definition of religion. I strongly disagree with that.
I’ve seen atheists arguing for removing religious symbols from government property, but I’ve seen theists joining those arguments — and that isn’t the same as removing all religious symbols from public view.
I’ve read of atheist groups going after companies like Target for allowing Christian charity fundraising on their property. Let’s not pretend like it doesn’t happen.
But, as an atheist, I wonder why all reference to religion must be removed from public property? As I’ve said before, this country’s history and many of its traditions are indelibly tied to religion. There’s just no getting around that.
Personally, I think local government should handle all challenges to religious displays on public property with a public vote. If the public wants the display, so be it. IF they don’t, so be it.
The problem is that many of these atheist groups aren’t interested in that kind of common sense solution. They file lawsuits hoping that judges will declare whatever display it is unconstitutional. Which they clearly aren’t. The 1st amendment doesn’t restrict religious displays on public property, it simply prevents government from establishing a religion. Meaning that as long as any specific government body doesn’t favor one religion over another things are fine.
Which means that getting upset over the local nativity scene and thinking that it’s unconstitutional is just plain dumb and naive.
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Joe. Click here. I can not believe that you are so ignorant of what atheists have done in the past.
Communism is evil
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment; emphasis mine.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
HG: the fact that some atheists can and do go on to deny some or all gods does not support your claim that atheism as a whole is defined as the positive denial of any gods. It certainly isn’t compatible with the claim that all atheists deny the existence of any gods — on the contrary, the two are direct contradictions of each other. In the real world we live in, some atheists deny some gods, some atheists deny all gods, and some just don’t bother. I’ve linked to the correct dictionary definitions four times now and I won’t do it again. If you can’t be bothered to follow any of those links and/or address the reality of how atheism is actually defined and used in the real world by real people — atheists and theists — then nothing I say will matter. So long as you define atheism narrowly, any statement you make about atheism won’t be about atheism and atheists in the real world — it will only apply to a caricature of atheism and stereotype of atheists that exists solely in your mind.
I intend to post on naturalistic theism, I’ll be interested to know if you are familiar with the claims and why you reject said claims.
Funny… first you say that atheists have knowledge of theistic claims and have rejected them; here, though, you implicitly acknowledge that this atheist might not have knowledge of particular theistic claims.
Robert: The concepts of “spiritual” and “religious” are not completely separate categories — the former is commonly used to simply described religion that isn’t organized religion, and by people who have a beef with traditional religious institutions. A devoutly religious person needn’t be unspiritual, and a spiritual person needn’t be irreligious. Do feel free to continue substituting aggression and ad hominems for informed, substantive discussion though. I especially appreciate your admission that you don’t care how dictionaries or atheists define atheism, and that you’ll use the word however you see fit — I rarely see such a resolute and firm insistence on Humpty Dumptyism (I won’t bother providing a link - you don’t care how “authorities” define it and are free to substitute your own definition for the term).
Chief: Yes, atheists (note the lowercase a — atheism is not a proper noun, so should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence) have done bad things. So have theists. So have males. So have men with black hair and mustaches. I fail to see the relevance of any of that, though, because atheism, maleness, black hair, and mustaches are all simple data points which have no bearing on behavior — good or bad.
Rob: Target chose on their own to not privilege the Salvation Army for fund raising, because if they opened up to them they would have to open to anyone. No atheists forced them to do it, though some atheists said that it made sense to not privilege just a single group. Let’s not pretend that something happened which really didn’t.
So, do you have any examples of atheists trying to remove all religious symbols from public view or not?
What both atheists and theists argue for is the removal of “references” to religion which communicate endorsement, encouragement, or privileging of any religion or religious beliefs. This means that private individuals can communicate religious messages while on public property, because there is no implied endorsement of the message. A privately sponsored nativity display is fine. The government, however, cannot officially sponsor such a message — so official government nativity displays are not fine. The government doesn’t have the authority to do this, and it doesn’t have the authority to let people vote on which religions can be endorsed, encouraged, or privileged.
Don’t blame “atheist groups” when these lawsuits are just as often filed or supported by theists and theist groups.
Robert: the emphasis is indeed yours, because the Establishment Clause which you chose not to emphasize is just as important.
In the real world we live in, some atheists deny some gods, some atheists deny all gods, and some just don’t bother.
I have read 3 of your links and quite honestly do no see the diffence you are attempting to make. I’ve never known or heard of an atheist that denies some gods but not all. If you wish, give it another try.
Funny… first you say that atheists have knowledge of theistic claims and have rejected them; here, though, you implicitly acknowledge that this atheist might not have knowledge of particular theistic claims.
Then I guess you missed the implication that you probably profess to have complete knowledge of theistic claims but actually do not.
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
Target chose on their own to not privilege the Salvation Army for fund raising, because if they opened up to them they would have to open to anyone.
Not really, they could just say no to the other organizations.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Robert: the emphasis is indeed yours, because the Establishment Clause which you chose not to emphasize is just as important.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, as Rob has already pointed out, simply displaying religious symbols is not equivalent to “establishing a religion”. The First does not prohibit favoring a religion, just establishing a State religion.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Joe: Your continuance of the use of snide superiority isn’t convincing. We are equal human beings, whether you are able to accept that or not.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Atheism originally applied to a group in Rome that did not believe in Mithros. That group was the Christians.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams
Whistler: that would have violated their non-discrimination policy. They are committed to treating all customers and organizations equal, regardless of religion. I happen to think that that is a good policy.
Robert: It’s true that merely displaying religious symbols is not establishing a religion — when done by individuals. When it comes to state action, however, “establishment” encompasses more than merely the creation of a State Church or State Religion. It’s not “snide superiority,” by the way, to conclude that it’s impossible to have anything remotely approaching a serious, productive conversation with a person who subscribes to Humpty Dumptyism. So long as words only mean whatever you want them to mean at any given time, and not what is explained by dictionaries and understood by the people whom the words describe, then you aren’t communicating about the real world.
HG: Most atheists deny some gods but not all — because no atheist has heard about every god that human cultures have ever proposed. I know I haven’t. Have you? A rational person tries to approach claims on a case-by-case basis — or a god-by-god basis, in this context. If it’s appropriate to deny the truth of some particular theistic claim (for example, because it’s self-contradictory or contradicts established facts), I’ll do so. If a some claim is incoherent or incomprehensible, then won’t bother asserting it’s false (it’s hard to establish that an incoherent claim is false). If I haven’t heard about some particular god, I’m not going to bother denying it. If the theist is working on providing evidence, I’ll do them the courtesy of not going further than simply not believing their claims for the time being. In all of these cases, I continue to lack belief in the existence of any gods.
I don’t have any more of a complete knowledge of every theistic claim ever made than you do. This doesn’t mean I’m not an atheist, however, because it’s not required to know every theistic claim ever made in order to not actively believe in the existence of any gods.
Once again, you don’t actually trouble yourself to provide an argument for your position, nor do you trouble yourself to offer any rebuttals to how dictionaries and atheists in the real world define and use the term atheism. Since the real world of how atheism is defined isn’t as important to you as the caricature you’ve created in your own mind, any further posts by me would be a waste of time. I have better things to do than keep pointing out that no one is raising any new objections, arguments, or evidence.
My apologies to Seth, the author of the original blog post and the only one thus far to evince any comprehension of what it means to support or defend a position through evidence and reasoned discourse. I may disagree with him, but I can respect the fact that he understands that he has intellectual obligation to support his claims. This is a quality sorely lacking these days — especially in insular communities where people are unaccustomed to being challenged or questioned. If anyone else wants to construct a logical argument on behalf of their position, they can email me. If someone is content with merely repeating their original assertion over and over in the mistaken assumption that credibility can be established through repetition, they should not hesitate to post here — fortunately, I’m not saving this link.
Most atheists deny some gods but not all — because no atheist has heard about every god that human cultures have ever proposed. I know I haven’t. Have you? A rational person tries to approach claims on a case-by-case basis — or a god-by-god basis, in this context.
So Joe, you admit there may exist a god, its just you haven’t heard convincing evidence of one yet?
And that is consistent with being atheist?
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
Whistler: that would have violated their non-discrimination policy.
So they wouldn’t have had to. That was their decision.
They’ve chosen to believe that no group is better than another. That the Salvation Army is no better than the Hells Angels.
Personally I was offended by their refusal to allow the Army to continue to be there. But now I’m even more upset with them.
I don’t like Walmart but I for sure am not shopping Target anymore if I can help it.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
The Christians in Rome said that Jesus is God (just like today), and that the Roman gods were no gods at all (just like today). In that the Christians regarded a man to be God and did not recognize the gods of the Romans, they were considered without a god—atheist.
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
I don’t like Walmart but I for sure am not shopping Target anymore if I can help it.
Me Neither, I got a second hand typewriter and I am retreating to a log cabin in MT.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams
Thanks HG, you said it better than me.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams
...Humpty Dumptyism.
More snide superiority from you, Joe. BTW, an atheist is one who believes there is no Supreme Being(Theos), and so it doesn’t matter how many gods that person either knows or doesn’t know about. I know you think this is all about you, but you just come off as ignorant and opinionated to me. You cite only references that reinforce your stated position. According to you, there is no argument to your ideas, so you take a superior stand. The reality is, most of us simply don’t care what you think. For us, you are like a rawhide chew toy to a big dog.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Gents,
I would imagine that Christianity in the Western world has long since quit forcing anyone to believe in the Almighty.
I have not heard it being forced upon anyone in recent memory. Islam, on the other hand, will stone, burn or hack any heretics to pieces.
I would further imagine that anyone is free NOT to believe in Christianity here in the USA. Whether you call that Atheistic or Agnostic, Gaia- or Devil- worship ... whatever—I don’t think it matters all that much.
One thing is certain—there are those among us for whom the squelching of any mention of Christianity has become their mission.
If those people are called Atheists I submit that theirs is not a religion, but an Anti-Religion.
It’s not enough for those particular types to simply not believe in a higher power, a greater and beneficent intelligence—they want to destroy OUR right to express anything along those lines.
It’s because of this attack on religion that I take issue with such folk, because it’s not simply exercising their right not to believe, but the suppression of our right to believe.
...for great justice
Atheism is not a faith, because it does not require the abnegation of purely rational principles. Atheism is a reason-based response to increasingly persuasive evidence that science is capable of answering our oldest and greatest mysteries. Perhaps the conclusion that science will eventually solve ALL these mysteries is faith, but even if science does not achieve this, atheism is simply the more rational conclusion to draw from the evidence around us.
God has become a “God of the gaps” as we gradually discover processes for which the Hand of God is not required. For example, now we know that angels do not push the planets around space. They are no longer required for this job. So theists concede ground and concede ground, and simply push God back and back into the gaps that science has not filled - the Big Bang, for example.
The brain has been demonstrated to function on explicable materialist bases - even the soul has as a theory has lost the status of being the best explanation for why we have thoughts and feelings. It has been superseded as a rational theory.
To avoid being a “theist of the gaps” many take the crazy path, and begin to deny the evidence around them. Despite having had almost 150 years to get over it, many, particularly in the States for some strange reason, will not accept that the Bible cannot feasibly be taken literally. It is a compendium of history, poetry, morality, ritual and tales, a rattle bag which records a particular culture at a particular time. It has chapters which could have been in and are not, and vice versa. It is, furthermore, full of brutality and self-contradiction. (Chief, you accused someone of being ignorant of the terrible things done by atheists - but the Spanish Inquisition or the burning of witches and heretics were all carried out under a Christian banner. In the Bible it says “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. How on earth are we to interpret this?)
The Genesis story was in all likelihood not EVEN THEN regarded as literal truth; rather it appears to be a coming-of-age tale in which the cruel change from carefree dreamlike unashamed childhood to lustful, self-doubting toiling adulthood is described, and neatly intertwined with the origin of Humankind - the message is that this is what everyone goes through, this is the Human Condition.
To regard this story as literally true is bizarre in the extreme, particularly in the developed world (except the US) but embattled Christians, understandably, do not want their God to “die the death of a thousand qualifications”. Hence this fortress mentality, the denial of extremely persuasive and plausible scientific theories.
I submit that religion is a useful tool which helps keep people fighting for you - we see that in the massively Christian US army, and in the Islamicist suicide bombers and jihadist terrorists. I include Communism as a religion - the cult of America may also be one, with its saints, myths, faith, litanies and indoctrination. Maybe even Coulter is right about Liberalism.
Atheism is not a faith, because it does not require the abnegation of purely rational principles.
Huh? Faith doesn’t have that requirement.
...atheism is simply the more rational conclusion to draw from the evidence around us.
Atheism doesn’t even attempt to explain why we are here. Faith is the rational attempt at explaining something that science doesn’t even try to explain.
There was a big bang and billions of years later, life formed. This is rational?
Atheism is the faith that science alone can explain all. Atheism is also the belief that there is no higher power (God, gods, afterlife, etc.).
See, cd, the rambling comment above is the exact thing that shows you to be the mental midget pathetic failure I was speaking of. Thanks for the affirmation.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
CD
So theists concede ground and concede ground, and simply push God back and back into the gaps that science has not filled - the Big Bang, for example.
I don’t normally say such things, but that’s moronic!
The Big Bang is a theory which has not been proven, and thanks to the problems with “string theory” may never be.
Please cite examples of atheists trying to remove “any an all religious symbols from public view.”
Pledge of allegiance
“In God we trust”
Prayer in State of the Union
Municipal Church Bells
Ten Commandments
Atheism is a reason-based response to increasingly persuasive evidence that science is capable of answering our oldest and greatest mysteries. Perhaps the conclusion that science will eventually solve ALL these mysteries is faith, but even if science does not achieve this, atheism is simply the more rational conclusion to draw from the evidence around us.
No doubt atheism attempts to reason God does not exist. But, and I apologize for having to beat this drum, Science does not, nor cannot answer the questions of origins. Such an investigation is outside the imposed boundaries of modern science. Modern science cannot investigate anything without first assuming a philosophical proposition is true. Hence, methodological naturalism is the modern scientific method of investigation. To argue that science proves that which it must first assume to be true is circular.
Modern science cannot honestly answer the questions you ask without a change in its method of investigation.
Joe. In my sentence, Atheists were Communists. They in fact buldozed, killed and tortured millions of people. I wonder why you did not mention: women, red-headed women, homesexuals and gang members. All these people have killed millions of people. Do not trivialize Atheists and Communists. I would be glad to take you to hear first hand, the “experiences” of those who have survived the torture of the Atheists. Talk to me. I dare you.
Communism is evil
Chief RZ
Shut up. There is no correlation between atheism and communism. There are plenty of commie jews, shintus, christians, and every other religion. Bhuddists? There seems to be a lot of buddhist commies too…
Next your going to tell us that the swift boat people were telling the truth and that John McCain has a crackbaby. For an educator, you are full of lies.
Furthermore, plenty of other people kill and torture… your little exercises in propaganda would have much more efficacy if more people were simple jakes like you.
