Atheism is/is not a religion

Once again Prof. You are bantering with extremes. Either everything has to be 100% in agreement to have standards, or its 100% individual, and that is a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

That is called the false dilemma fallacy.

The simple fact of the matter is that major religions of the world have overlapping and PUBLIC set of standards.

Atheists have none. The arguement from extremes misses the point entirely - which is that atheists have no standards, and because of this, they regularly contradict themselves.

Hence, atheism is NOT a faith, but neither does it have a burden of proof - both claims have been shot down by academics and even laymen ... yet they persist in the propoganda and regularly thrown out by adherents of atheism.

Tell me that is not a religious belief, but one born of ... science? I don't think so Prof. And the more atheists is jump onto this forum and simply get angry because someone calls their faith a religion?

Well, the more I see a group of would be bullies. Not all atheists are like this, but perhaps it is time for real atheists to reign in those who drank the cool aid.

 

This is simple ignorance.
The agnostic states that the truth of god is something beyond the reach of human knowledge. The gnostic believes god can be known.
The atheist does not believe in god. The theist does.
One can be an agnostic theist.
Nice to meet you.
Neutral has assigned meanings to these words that they simply don't have. His is an emotional response based on the superior argument skills some of his adversaries have had, and it has made him feel attacked and so he lashes out at these people, rather than argue rationally. It always becomes personal for him. Can anyone imagine finding his chosen definitions of these words in a credible reference source? Of course not. These are uneducated attacks by an agenda driven zealot.
It is ironic that he talks about the lack of exposure to other religions in atheists, as he has repeatedly stated that he won't study anything that doesn't support the faith that he has already chosen.
Another irony imbedded in his post is that he calls the evidential record for god "inconclusive". He acknowledges that god can not be known. He is betraying himself as an agnostic, but his self disgust would be overwhelming if he acknowledged this truth, so he has to reinvent the definition of the word.

 

Let's just keep this statement in mind for a moment.

Looking at inconclusive evidence and admitting "I don't know" isn't cowardness, it's bravery. Not knowing is scary. If anything, holding faith in a conclusion despite a lack of evidence because it's comforting is more cowardly.

So now you're saying atheism doesn't deal with evidence but ignores it (in complete contrast with two sentences back)? Maybe you need to reassess your view of atheism because it seems to be getting quite mixed up.

You weren't responding to someone confusing the two terms, you were responding to someone clearly distinguishing them.

 

But why should such a decision be taken, particularly when it is impossible to know for sure whether any deity of any description might exist or not? It would seem to be foolhardy to ''decide'' that any deity does or does not exist, when there is no evidence to support such a ''decision'' either way.

People who are believers have faith that a deity exists. People who are not believers do not have faith that a deity exists.

I reached the conclusion a long time ago, that it's illogical to think that any deity does exist, and it's even more unlikely that any deity associated with any religion in particular, exists. I think it's more likely that the moon landings were staged in a Hollywood studio, than the likelyhood of any deity existing, but I have no reason to believe that men didn't really go to the moon.

But I consider myself to be an atheist, even though I am not foolhardy enough to ''decide'' that any deity of any description could not possibly exist. I am an atheist simply because I lack faith that any deity does exist.

Dusty

 

Then talk about the standards of "major religions", not "theism" as a totality.

 

No disagreement there.

Entirely speculation on your part as to the thought process of someone who doesn't know either way, and therefore doesn't have a belief in one or the other.

An incomplete fossil record has nothing to do with believing in God, because evolution does not prevent a God from existing. The exact same leap of faith is necessary for you to believe in God. There is no difference here, because you as a religious person have no more concrete evidence that you've got it right than the atheist.

Also, an incomplete fossil record has many valid causes, such as the fact the world is a gigantic place, and there's absolutely no way of knowing where fossils might be located. It's why half the time these things are found completely on accident during a construction project or a demolition. It's much harder finding the fossil record of earlier species that did not create cities, art, and other identifiable markers that might clue someone in to look in that area.

Fossils will continue to be found across the world, and they will continue to fill in the blanks, even if slowly. When's the last time there was a religious discovery that furthers evidence for God? Are religions even searching for things like that and do they think that it is ever truly knowable for a living human being to know for sure the existence of God?

Well, someone can be atheist for the same reason they are agnostic, it's just the point of reaching a decision on what you believe. The way I see it, if someone is asked the question "Do you believe that God exists" and they answer "I don't know either way. Maybe." they are an agnostic, and if they answer "No", they are an atheist. The way I see it, if you're either a theist or an atheist, it means you've taken a position on the subject in either the yes or no camp, and you're agnostic if you don't want to commit because you're not convinced that either side is more right than the other, or that either side has more evidence than the other to make it more feasible. That's the way I've always thought of it, but this is really just debating labels and not ideas.

 

Again your belief system leads you to the false belief that "atheism" is a system of faith in non-belief. Individuals may make the accusations you claim, but they speak for themselves, and not the mythical organisation you seek to call into being. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it. No more, no less. Someatheists might share a feeling of oppression by supernatural believers, and kick against it, but there is no unifying system, bar one thing. Why are you so desperate that others comply with your curious desire that they all think like you?

 

edited for flame bait
Once again:
An agnostic asserts that KNOWING that god exists is impossible, beyond the capabilities of human knowledge.
A gnostic believes the existence of god can be known. There was a sect built around this idea in biblical times, called the Gnostics.
An atheist doesn't believe that a god exists.
A theist does believe a god exists.
So although one may feel that knowing god to be true is impossible, they still may believe in god. They must rely on faith. This person would be an agnostic theist.
One concept concerns itself with what can be known.
The other concerns itself with what one believes.

I don't see this as that difficult a concept, but people have the hardest time with it.
Why do you think that is?

 

Wrong, in short it does everything but provide an ideology which is where all the negative aspects of religion come from as you yourself have even stated.

You cannot provide guidance to people from an ideology without preaching the ideology.

The only way it would be considered a positive that religion provides guidance is if they did it without referencing said religion which would negate it being a positive specific to religion.

Also the entirety of your sentence is a generalization that is false on its face and actually contradicted by many of the things you have said and argued against in this thread.

 

And has quit. There are quite few 'agnostics' on this forum, and generally, what you get is a strong atheist who calls himself an agnostioc to avoid the burden of proof. In extrem cases, we get the silliness that is agnostic atheism - abandoning even the pretense of logic or understanding to continue highly nihilistic behavior.

Fossils are not evidence of God, they are evidence of Evolution. And within evolution, we have things liek Mitochondrial Eve, we have the birth of humanity is geogrpahic areas wher ethe neo-lithic revolution gives them a heads start over hunter-gatherers ... etc. The only thing evolution disproves is a strict literal interpretation of genesis ... it has almost nothing to do with our religion.

No, you cannot be bith agnostic and atheist.

And atheist has concluded, either by preponderance or with certainty that there is no God. It is the very definition of atheism, and the ONE sentence that atheism constantly remind everyin that it is. Agnosticism is uncertainty, or unwillingness to hazard an opinion. You cannot have no opinion but also a negative opinion. That makes no sense.

Again, the lack of standards in atheism is my biggest criticism. On one hand, we are reminded that atheism is ONLY one sentence, dibelief in God or gods, but on the other hand its also agnosticism which is an entirely different logical conclusion.

In one fell blow, atheism has usurped two thirds of the religious spectrum while simultaneously claiming they are not a religion?

 

Atheism most certainly provides an ideology kiddo. Not the least is the ideological stance that atheism is no religion, that Crusading atheists are going to ride the world of illogic of religion, etc. etc. Once again, you are allowing your biases to cloud your judgement and apply standards equally.

That is why the lack of a doctrine is so terrible.

 

Te organizations of atheism are not mythical CK, they are quite real. Easily found in fact.

Why else would something as rediculous and utterly meritless as the Jesus Myth be so widespread within the atheist community if it were not funded, published, desseminated, and finally indoctrinated?

For a merely mythical organziation that is quite an organizational achievement. The question is why this mythical organziation is wasting its time desseminating slanderous BS about others people's faith rather than attempting to explain its own - to do something productive?

 

Because it deals with fundamental principles on which everyone whether they are aware of it or not base their overall view of their existence. When the definition doesn't jive with their perspective they naturally change the definition. I wouldn't suggest it’s a conscious choice but rather a mechanism designed to maintain the justifications for the way they choose to live their lives.

I suppose it could be considered a survival mechanism but one that serves to cause more damage than good which will still make it valid to the individual as long as the damage isn't caused consciously to ones-self.

 

So it is indeed a religion, a belief in some higher yet utterly intangible understanding without any proof and indeed actual awareness. Sounds a lot like a God does it not?

But yiou have faith that there is some fundamental understanding, but belief in a God who has sent prophets, performed miracles, given us Apostles, answers prayers, etc. Well, its only the later that is silly?

Nice.

 

Interesting response, you argue that Atheism is an ideology which is why it’s negative and then argue that its negativity comes from a lack of ideology which is all a doctrine is.

The truth is it’s the defense of your ideology that has created this fallacy that Atheism is a religion which in turn has caused the reaction from Atheists to have to explain one of the most simplistic concepts known to man.

Atheism begins and ends at the non belief in God or Gods. Where people take it from there is their own choice and not exclusive to Atheism. Religion is based on a foundation of ideological ideas that are not only exclusive but unavoidable without rejecting said religion outright.

By your definition every organization, group or label on the planet is both a religion and an ideology.

We better keep an eye on the Home Owners Association, you never know when they might decide to commit Genocide on renters.

 

Sorry kiddo but you misunderstanding what I post will not give validity to your argument.

What my post actually points to is the subconscious knowledge we have of the world we live in based on our life experiences and the fact that we tend to ignore or reject the things we can’t make fit on a conscious level.

We can want things to be something they’re not with every ounce of our being but truth doesn’t concern itself with our wants.

You are actually a good definition of what I’m talking about.

 

No, I argue that atheism has an ideology, one routinely expressed on this forum, but that atheists have no standards, which is why their statements are so riddled with contradictions ... Often written down in very contradictory doctrine no less.

But, I suppose a straw an is easier to rebut than the reality of displayed behavior.

In short, what you are doing, effectively, is the equivalent of saying, "Jesus both is and is not the Son of God, the Bible is merely a teaching too, as we have no doctrine, and Christianity is solely what people choose to believe."

Now, I wonder if any atheist would accept that statement for any other reason than sheer piqué? Why is the reverse acceptable?

 

The subconscious knowledge that w are all born with, no I understand completely what you say, I just don't think you bothered to look at the term faith and apply it such a BELIEF that has absolutely no evidence.

 

double post

 

The reverse is always acceptable when dealing with opposites.

Whether or not you personally regard them as opposites is irrelevant.

 

And that makes absolutely no sense to reapplication of standards, save to say that hypocrisy is AOK.

Again, just as I say, objective public standards on one side, an appeal to personally caring/also known as rationalization on the other.

 

No the subconscious knowledge we gain based on our life experiences. The only knowledge we are born with if you can even call it that is purely instinctual and has nothing to do with how we perceive our existance because we are simply incapable of doing so at that early stage.

You seem to want to imply that faith in God is derived from within and maybe even that people are born with it but this is absurd. You believe what you know because you were taught to through an ideology.

Atheists believe what they know through science.

Faith is only necessary in the absence of evidence. There may be no proof that God doesn't exist but there's proof that he does either. Atheists use that same logic when considering leprichauns and unicorns and so do you but for some reason you suspend your reason and logic when it comes to God, we do not.

 

Our life experiences are not all the same, so there is no way we can all share an underlying premise at the subconscious level.

BTW - I am implying that faith from God arises from looking at the available evidence, seeing preponderance in a scientific sense, looking at God's Plan of Salvation, the atonement, a doctrine of service, compassion, perfectly answered prayers, having seen miracles, and thinking that for thousands of years people seeking out this God character just might be onto something.

And when I asked for proof and the Holy Spirit delivered it, fulfilling the role it was assigned prophetically 2,000 years ago? Well, I am sure random sepculation, mainly aimed at denying God, is a better alteranative.